Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 198285 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
Introduction
Since the late 1980s businesses have been making radical operational changes,
referred to as business process reengineering (BPR). BPR is the fundamental
rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic
improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost,
quality, service and speed (Hammer and Champy, 1993). There have been only
a limited number of empirical studies investigating the application of BPR
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
among businesses.
Commentary on the subject commenced in Australia around 1990 mostly in
the professional journals and magazines and had almost ceased by the end of
1994. This could lead one to believe that BPR in Australia no longer has any
business performance relevance, or alternatively that it has become so
entrenched in business practice that it is second nature. Except for a study of
BPR in the Australian banking industry conducted by KPMG (Zucco, 1996), to
date no other empirical study has been conducted in Australia which has
investigated the extent of Australian thinking and experience with BPR. To fill
this gap a questionnaire survey was conducted in late 1996 and the results of
this survey are presented below. The aim of the survey was not only to quantify
the use and success of business process reengineering within Australian
organisations, but also to establish if there are lessons to be learned from the
experiences. In presenting the results of the Australian survey, the paper also
compares the findings with earlier studies on BPR conducted in the USA and
the UK. These include:
• The Guimaraes and Bond (1996) survey conducted in 1996 in which they
surveyed 586 randomly selected manufacturing organisations in the
USA, obtaining a response rate of 22 percent (135 questionnaires). For
their survey “BPR was defined as dramatic changes (paradigm shifts) to
business processes, in contrast with incremental improvements.”
• The Carr and Johansson (1995) study of 47 US and European firms
conducted in 1995. Their 90-minute telephone survey consisted of 81
questions grouped into broad sections covering; consultants, teams,
roles, change readiness, information technology (IT), implementation,
education, benefits, and success factors.
International Journal of Operations
& Production Management,
Vol. 18 No. 9/10, 1998, pp. 832-864,
• The Zairi and Sinclair (1995) survey of 500 managers in manufacturing,
© MCB University Press, 0144-3577 services, public sector organisations (including local and national
governmental bodies), and National Health Service Trusts (hospitals) BPR: application
which resulted in 65 responses, giving an overall response rate of 13 and success – an
percent. The aim of this survey was to identify the use of business Australian study
process reengineering within different industries in the UK, and to
attempt to ascertain the level of integration between business process
reengineering and total quality management.
833
• The KPMG (Zucco, 1996) study of Australia’s 28 major banks and
finance houses. Following screening interviews to ensure a common
understanding among all survey participants, ten institutions were
deemed not to be undertaking BPR. Surveys were then mailed to 18
institutions, with 17 responding.
Further this paper also tests the hypotheses that expectant business process
change is not significantly related to business improvement along the
dimensions of benefits and corporate impact. Lastly the paper aims to provide
recommendations for managers. These cover those factors seen as important
for successfully implementing BPR projects. With this information managers
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
should be able to minimise risk, and thus focus attention and resources on those
factors important to success.
Percentage of Returns
834 20
18
15
13
10 11
10 10
9
7
5
5 5
4
3 3
0
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
Ba M Tr Ch Fo Co Co O Re In Pa M
nk in a ns em od ns m th ta su pe ed
in in ,B tru m er ile ra r, ica
g g, po ica un M rs nc
& O rt ev ct an e Prin l&
il & Se ls er io ica He
Fi & ag n tio uf tin
na G rv Ru ac g al
nc as ice es n tu & th
e s bb & re Pu Ca
Figure 1. er &
To In rs
fo bl re
Respondents by b ac rm ish
primary business co at in
Primary Business io g
n
Percentage of Returns
30
26
26
20
19
19
18
18
13
13
10
8
7
6
2
0
Figure 2. Missing 101-250 501-1000 2501-5000
Respondents grouped 1-100 251-500 1001-2500 5000+
by number of employees
No of employees
Survey results BPR: application
Extent of BPR activity and success – an
The first question in the questionnaire asked whether or not the company had Australian study
undertaken BPR. Nearly 60 percent (58 percent) of the sample have undertaken
BPR, which if applied across the population of companies represents a
significant amount of BPR activity. Only 9 percent of respondents indicated that
they would be undertaking a project in the near future. The data confirm 835
anecdotal evidence that Australian companies have been much slower to
reengineer than their counterparts in the USA and Europe with BPR take-up
rates of 69 percent and 75 percent, respectively. What this result indicates is
that although 67 percent of companies in Australia will have experience with
reengineering within the next 12 months, 33 percent see no reason to reengineer
at all. This implies a cautious Australian business attitude to radical change –
despite the potential benefits – and may simply be a case of the benefits do not
yet outweigh the pain and disruption.
The results show that banking, insurance, chemicals, food, mining, paper,
and medical were more likely to have undertaken BPR, than the sectors of
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
836
10 11 11
9 9
5 5 5 5 5
2 2 2 2
0
91 or Earlier Q1-93 Q3-93 Q1-94 Q4-94 Q2-95 Q4-95 Q2-96
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
Figure 3.
BPR project start date Q3-92 Q2-93 Q4-93 Q3-94 Q1-95 Q3-95 Q1-96 Q4-96
BPR Project Start Date
Percentage of Returns
50
47
40
30
28
20
17
10
3 3
Figure 4. 0
Company’s BPR project Planning Start-up Implementation Monitoring Improvement Abandoned
stage
Company’s BPR Project Stage
almost one-third were already into the improvement phase. The improvement
phase is somewhat swollen by companies who believe that the project will never
really be over (see Figure 5), instead believing that their initiative will be
Percentage of Returns BPR: application
35 and success – an
34
Australian study
30
25
837
22
20
17
15
10
10
5
3 3
2 2 2 2 2
0
Q4-92 Q4-95 Q2-96 1997 1999 Abandoned Figure 5.
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
18,9/10 20 100%
18 18
18 90%
16 80%
Histogram
14 13 70%
838 Mean 11.0
12 Median 11.0 60%
Mode 11.0
10 Std. Dev. 6.2 50%
8 40%
6 30%
4 3 20%
2 2
2 1 10%
0
0 0%
3 7 12 16 21 25 30 More
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
The present result of 16 quarters thus agrees broadly with the above data. This
suggests that there is a wide array of factors that will influence an
organisation’s reengineering effort, and thus the time-scale of the project. Such
factors as the following are typical:
• magnitude and extent of the business process changes;
• inexperience in BPR implementation; or
• unexpected problems faced during the BPR project.
3.00 2.79
2.57
2.72
2.40
839
2.50
2.02
1.91
2.00 1.71
1.48
1.50 1.14
1.22 1.29
1.11 1.19 1.18 1.24
1.17
1.00
0.50
0.00
Intense
Need to Cut
Costs
Merger/
Acquisition
Benchmarking
Exercise
Management
Changes
Poor
Customer
Satisfaction
Competitive
Pressures
Significant
Mkt.
Opportunity
Regulatory
Changes
Dramatic
Loss of Mkt.
Share
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
Events Figure 7.
Statistics of event
Key triggers
Mean Std Dev
3.02 3.05
2.95
3.00 2.84
2.50 2.21
2.00
1.56
1.43 1.44 1.46 1.42
1.39 1.37
1.50 1.34
1.26
1.12
1.00
0.50
0.00
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
Sales &
Order Entry
Advertising
& Promotion
Product
Design &
Development
Invoicing &
Billing
Business
Planning
Purchasing
Distribution
Production
Scheduling
Inventory
Management
Personnel
Management
Figure 8.
Statistics of expectant Business Processes
change in business
Key
processes
Mean Std Dev
The difference and the larger standard deviation can be attributed to the
homogeneity of the Guimaraes and Bond population. However, the difference in
business planning is significant and suggests that, in general, Australian
organisations are not as adept as their US counterparts in linking strategic
direction and business objectives to business plans. This finding would also
help explain why the cost structures in Australian organisations have been
allowed to fall behind those of international best practice.
2.00
0.50
0.00
Competitiveness
via
Quality
Shortened
Product
Emphasise
Value-Added
Element
Focus on
Results and
Objectives
Development
Apply Right
Innovative
Technology
Time as
Competitive
Weapon
Competitiveness
via
Cost Reduction
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
suggesting that Australian organisations are expecting much more from their
BPR effort than US companies. Given that costs feature in goals ranked two and
three, it is plausible to suggest that the response overall is a catch-up plan,
rather than a proactive plan for innovation.
18,9/10 4.50
2.50
2.00
1.50 1.33
1.11 1.17 1.07 1.15 1.18
1.03
1.00
0.50
0.00
Redesign End –
End
Processes
Consensus on
Making
Changes
Process
Improvements
Based on IT
Operate
Across
Organisational
Units
Aggressive
Business
Process Goals
Check Quality
at Source
Reduce Costs
& Production
Times
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
Figure 9b.
Statistics of goals and Goals and Objectives
objectives included in Key
BPR (continued) Mean Std Dev
Effectiveness of consultants
Respondents were asked to quantify the effectiveness of consultants in their
BPR programs along six role dimensions. As can be seen from Figure 10,
consultants had moderate impact on project and change management, IT
implementation and to a lesser extent the formulation of management strategy.
It would thus seem that Australian organisations have found consultants less
effective in the formulation of management strategy, and yet more effective in
the management of change, than companies in the Carr and Johansson (1995)
study. Consultants could thus add more value (hence be more effective) to
Australian BPR programs by improving the clients’ conceptual linkage
between change management and strategic direction – including IT strategy. Of
particular concern is that consultants have had a minor to moderate impact on
the provision of training in both studies. This may imply that:
• internal resources and expertise are available;
• consultants do not have the expertise; or
Means / Std. Dev.
Effectiveness of Consultants BPR: application
3.5 and success – an
3.09
3 2.84
3.02 Australian study
2.72 2.67
2.5 2.33
2
843
1.5 1.28 1.2 1.21 1.24 1.25
1.11
1
0.5
0
Management Project IT Change Provision of IT Strategy
Strategy Management Implementation Management Training
Figure 10.
Consultant’s Roles Statistics for
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
effectiveness of
Key
consultant’s roles
Mean Std Dev
844
Table I.
members
IJOPM
18,9/10
Division
heads 8 10 3 24 35 7 6 20.2 89.7
Staffers
general 11 16 13 11 1 24 6 17.6 89.7
Experts
internal 29 26 16 5 2 8 7 20.0 87.9
Consultant
external 28 14 23 1 1 9 15.5 84.5
IT
staff 20 12 10 11 1 5 10 13.7 82.8
other qualities. Noteworthy are those of project management and team skills,
which although identified as valuable qualities, are not rated highly, further
indicating that the emphasis is on selecting and redesigning the right processes,
rather than on implementation skills.
18,9/10 40
33
30 31
846
20
14
10 12
10
Figure 11.
Time devoted to BPR by 0
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
Functional Manager
5.2% Director
34.5%
Great Resistance
5.2% Non Resistant
13.8%
Major Resistance
22.4%
Minor Resistance
22.4%
Figure 13.
Moderate Resistance
36.2% Organisational attitude
to change prior to BPR
IJOPM Communications used to Create BPR Buy-In
Mean / Std. Dev.
18,9/10 4
3.59
3.43
3.5 3.16
3
2.5
2.5 2.34
848 2 1.78
1.55
1.5 1.36
1.14 1.23 1.19 1.08
0.88 0.96
1
0.5
0
Company Kick-Off Q&A Conducted Individual Letters to Showed
Newsletter Meetings Sessions Workshops Comms to Customers Relevant
with Employees Video
Managers
Figure 14.
Statistics of Company Communications
organisational attitude
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
Key
to change prior to BPR
Mean Std Dev
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
2.54
Difficult to Match 2.39
Change Too Much
Key
Key
Technology to
Too Quickly 1.09 1.06
New Process
New Tech Focus
Mean
2.12
Mean
2.23
Std Dev
Std Dev
Understanding of
Implementation Problems
Implementation Problems
Resignation of 1.81 1.23
Implementation
Best Personnel 1.03
BPR Much Larger 3.42
Employee Anxiety 2.72 than Anticipated 1.16
+ Resistance to
1.11
Change IS Infrastructure 2.96
Unable to Support
Too Many 1.31
2.21 BPR
Unpleasant
1.05
Surprises Management 2.07
Reluctance to
1.19
Company Enviro 2.42
Commit Funds
Not Conducive to
1.28 Not Enough
BPR 2.63
Training to
1.05
Sub-Unit Implement BPR
2.35
Communication Outsiders
1.06 2.51
Barriers Oversold Benefits
1.35
Undersold Probs
Lack of Mgmt 2.05
Enthusiasm 1.25 Time Consuming 2.89
Learning Curve 1.08
Implementation Problems Experienced within BPR
problems experienced
problems experienced
Australian study
IJOPM (1) In general the BPR project was larger than originally expected, and
18,9/10 respondents felt they lacked an understanding of the implementation
requirements, suggesting that the planning phase of the project was
perhaps poorly understood or very superficial.
(2) In a planning and operational sense “the information systems
infrastructure was unable to support the BPR project”, confirms the
850 above and further suggests that technology change (leverage) was not
anticipated, despite some respondents commenting that processes were
designed to meet the requirements of a new software package.
(3) Operationally respondents found that the implementation learning
curve was very time consuming, suggesting that BPR projects as whole
are perhaps being under-resourced.
When comparing these findings with the Guimaraes and Bond (1996) study one
finds that only the unanticipated size of the project (item 1 above) is in
agreement, and confirms two elements of the KPMG (Zucco, 1996) study, in that
skills shortfall and predetermined technology solutions, were factors that gave
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
851
20
10 11
Figure 16.
Std. Dev = .83 Histogram for success
Mean = 2.9 of training versus
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
2 2 N = 52.00
0 objective
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
27
22
20
10
Figure 17.
Histogram for training
4 Std. Dev = .72 required during
Mean = 3.5 implementation versus
0 N = 54.00
plan
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
one assumes that leadership overlaps with strategic focus and vision. As one
typical respondent commented, top management provided “total commitment
to ensuring satisfactory outcomes including leadership, capital funds and
resources necessary”.
IJOPM Adequacy of Training & Education for New Job
Percentage of Returns
18,9/10 40
36
30
852
20
14
10
Figure 18.
Histogram for adequacy Std. Dev = .58
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
Focus
6.9% Nothing at All
12.1%
Leadership
20.7%
Commitment
Resources 46.6%
Figure 19. 10.3%
Top management
contribution to BPR Communication
3.4%
However, the data show that 12 percent of respondents did not list any
contribution by their senior managers. This is an unusual finding and could be
correlated with problems, benefits and outcomes to confirm its significance. It
may indeed be as one respondent suggested, once “top management initiate and
establish a small group of dedicated resources, that includes all stakeholders,
their role is reduced to monitoring.”
Objectives accomplished with BPR BPR: application
Respondents were asked to rate the same list of goals and objectives that were and success – an
included in the plan, as they relate to accomplishments. Figure 20 shows that Australian study
companies which have implemented BPR projects have accomplished, at least
to a moderate extent the following objectives:
(1) remained focused on end results and objectives;
853
(2) built consensus on changes made;
(3) increased own competitiveness by reducing costs; and
(4) redesigned end-to-end processes important to the company’s success.
Items 1, 2 and 4 are in agreement with the Guimaraes and Bond (1996) study,
while items 1, 3 and 4 were rated highly as goals that were included in the BPR
program. Despite the company-to-company variance, on average companies are
accomplishing their enumerated goals to at least a moderate extent. This
demonstrates the business value of carrying out a BPR project.
One can see from the data that reducing costs again features, this time as
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
4.00
3.25
3.25
3.23
3.50
3.06
2.98
2.91
2.87
2.83
2.72
2.68
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.29
1.23
1.20
1.18
1.16
1.14
1.12
1.10
1.50
1.10
1.15
1.09
1.00
0.50
0.00
Competitiveness
via Cost
Time as a
Reduction
Emphasis
on Value
Adding
Competitive
Weapon
Focus on
End
Results
Right
Innovative
Technology
Consensus
on Making
Changes
Aggressive
Bus
Process
Goals
Redesigned
End-to-End
Processes
Improvements
Based
on IT
Organisational
Units Operate
Horizontally
Competitiveness
via Q
Improve
3.50 3.30
3.09 3.06
2.98
3.00 2.85
2.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
Machine Customer Productivity Profitability Quality Labour Sales Team Sales &
Resources Satisfaction Resources Marketing Pro
Figure 21.
Statistics of Organisational Benefits
organisational benefits Key
from BPR
Mean Std Dev
Satisfaction with Results of BPR Program BPR: application
and success – an
Dissatisfied Australian study
3.5%
Highly Satisfied
17.5%
Somewhat Satisfied
15.8% 855
Totally Satisfied
15.8%
Very Realistic
45.6%
Moderately Realistic
33.3%
Figure 23.
Realism of target goals
IJOPM communications and planning are being used to set aggressive stretch target
18,9/10 goals and create stakeholder buy-in.
2.50 2.22
1.94 2.02 2.02
2.00
1.50 1.21 1.21 1.13 1.19
1.03 1.10 1.03
0.99 1.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
Market
Share
Cost
Reduction
Programme
Cashflow
from
Operations
Operating
Profits
Sales
Growth Rate
Return on
Investment
Affairs
New Product
Development
Personnel
Development
Political or
Public
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Schedule Motivated
Key
3.84
Key
meetings via
3.73
customers
1.23
throughout
1.17
project
Mean / Std. Dev.
Mean
Re-educate
3.38
Communicate on what
3.77
BPR is
1.33
mission &
Success Factors
1.36
Success Factors
vision
Empower
doers as
3.63
Charter for
decision
1.18
BPR
3.57
makers
Std Dev
Std Dev
programme
1.31
& support Use
4.05
resources
Surveys to effectively
1.13
2.91
determine
Develop a
1.27
direction
defined
3.95
Focus on project
1.17
organisation
market viz
2.82
internal Target few
1.19
critical
3.50
demands
business
1.19
Focus on processes
Success Factors for BPR
3.75
Success Factors for BPR
the outcome Reduce
cost/response
3.16
1.18
viz tasks
times –
1.25
automation
BPR initiated
4.23
and led from Continuous
4.04
performance
1.13
the top
1.25
improvement
Continuous Integrated
3.75
approach to
3.48
Monitoring
IT &
1.19
of goals
1.22
planning
Culture built Share &
exchange
3.96
on Total
3.36
Quality information
1.08
1.26
Programs willingly
(continued)
Statistics of success
Figure 25b.
Statistics of success
Figure 25a.
Australian study
IJOPM • developing a defined project organisation and using resources effectively
18,9/10 was considered very important;
• continuous performance improvement was considered more important,
and distinct from TQM programs;
• sharing and exchanging information willingly is very important;
858 • communication of mission, vision, and project charter was seen to be
only moderately important;
• focus on outcomes (versus tasks) was preferable to market focus;
• leadership from the top, as one would expect, is considered very
important.
When compared with the previous studies two major surprises emerge. First,
while respondents considered continuous performance improvement a very
important success factor, they seemed only moderately inclined towards a
TQM culture. This supports the Carr and Johansson (1995) finding but as
suggested by Zairi and Sinclair (1995) may mean that Australian organisations
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
have yet to appreciate, that a total quality culture by its very nature can reduce
implementation risk and costs – an all important factor to Australian
organisations.
Second, it would seem that Australian BPR success is gauged distinctively
on business outcomes and competitive pressures, and to a far lesser extent on a
market or customer orientation. The data would seem to confirm the findings of
the KPMG (Zucco, 1996) study, and again question the long-term success of
BPR in Australia.
one would expect, is that organisational outcomes are inversely related to BPR
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
problems. From the sample data it is thus possible to reject the null hypothesis
and accept the alternative hypothesis that BPR within Australian companies
has been successfully applied.
The finding that question E19 – Implementation phase problems – could be
uncorrelated with any other variable implies that the Australian experience with
BPR has been very positive. This deviates markedly from the literature and could
better be explained by either poorly defined problem alternative, or a sample size
that is too small to gain any in-depth understanding of the problems experienced.
When benchmarked with Guimaraes and Bond’s (1996) study it is noted that
organisational outcomes are not as strongly correlated with organisational
benefits and accomplished objectives as those for the current Australian study.
This result would seem to confirm the fundamental difference in the usage or
aims of BPR within the two data sets. As stated previously the Australian data
suggest a narrow, short-term, financial or cost focus to BPR, whereas the
international data have a broader, long-term focus that includes financial
objectives, but not at the expense of market, product, and personnel gains. It
would thus seem that a broader perspective implies more pronounced
implementation problems, weaker positive correlations between each project
stage and organisational outcomes, and as such a lower success rate.
It might thus be said that Australian organisations have learned from the
experiences of their international counterparts and adopted a more focused,
strategically oriented BPR program. From the data in question A8 – Focus of
corporate strategy – one would believe that the BPR program would be linked
to a corporate strategy of customer service, and only as a secondary outcome,
to cost reduction. However, the common theme throughout the survey data is
that the reverse is true, and that an apparent conflict exists. Despite this
conclusion, one can see that the strategy has been used to assure BPR success
via:
IJOPM • business vision featuring highly as a success factor;
18,9/10 • a strong positive correlation between included objectives and
accomplished objectives; and
• a very conscious effort made on skills development and education.
The cost reduction strategy of Australian business process reengineering is
860 somewhat narrow and sterile. It implies that BPR in Australia has been reduced
to another version of Neo-Taylorism, due in large part to the international
pressure on costs, and competition (Hammer and Champy, 1993). However, the
future looks a little brighter, with 17 percent of respondents realising that one-
off BPR catch up programs do not work, and instead adopting a continuous
process redesign mode to forestall trouble, or take the opportunity to develop a
lead.
Conclusion
The above survey findings confirm that, as well as confusion existing in the
literature as to what exactly constitutes BPR, different organisations and
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
industrial sectors place differing emphasis on the many outcomes possible with
BPR. Definitive outcomes of BPR are described by Davenport and Short (1990)
as the analysis and design of work flows and processes within and between
organisations, and by Hammer and Champy (1993) as the fundamental
rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic
improvements in critical measures of performance, such as cost, quality,
service, and speed. The confusion over what reengineering actually is, was
highlighted by respondents who commented that:
• we are targeting all business processes, not just a few cross-functional
processes; or
• a major BPR goal is doing more in-house.
This confusion may have had a major impact on the 20 percent of organisations
which reported that they were at best partially satisfied with their BPR
program. However, there is an overwhelming 80 percent of organisations which
reported that they were at least modestly satisfied with the results of their BPR
program, and further the hypothesis that BPR has been successfully applied to
Australian businesses was proven true. In summary the success of business
process reengineering in Australia can thus be narrowed down to the following:
• Strategic alignment. In general organisations which adopt strong
internal use of strategic planning and process management techniques
place themselves in an ideal position to make maximum use of
reengineering in their businesses for the longer term. Australian
organisations have learned from the experiences of their international
counterparts and adopted a strategically oriented BPR program that is
focused on cost reduction. Although somewhat narrow, and short-term,
the data suggest that approximately 20 percent of respondents are
adopting a continuous process redesign mode, in an effort to forestall BPR: application
future trouble, or create an opportunity to develop a lead. One can only and success – an
hope that this trend will spread throughout the business community. Australian study
• Senior management commitment. Almost 50 percent of respondents
noted commitment as the major contribution made by senior managers
to the BPR project. This commitment is needed to reshape the culture, 861
through such actions as proposing a challenging vision of the future or
setting a major performance improvement target, like cutting costs in
half. Leadership also needs to be exercised through the strategy
development process, to ensure broad participation, understanding, and
acceptance of the chosen direction. This can only be achieved via face-to-
face communication, and a committed approach to training and
education. A strategic review of the company’s sustainable competitive
advantage at each BPR stage will also ensure that the redesign process is
ongoing.
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
• Bottom-up redesign. The redesign effort requires forming teams that are
responsible for the process outcome and appointing a process sponsor –
typically the divisional general manager – and a process owner –
typically the customer. At the same time the team is given more
accountability, top managers must loosen their control by eliminating
tight specifications of procedures and allow for clean slate redesign. This
action makes it clear that the team is responsible for innovation while
satisfying external and internal clients. These changes must be
supported with investments in distributed information systems, and
training so that members of the team know one another’s role and can
understand and use the information that is available. These bottom-up
initiatives will not succeed on their own, because there still must be links
between processes, and boundaries placed on behaviour so that energy is
not diffused.
• The enabling role of information technology. A process perspective on
management problems, leading to the decentralisation of decisions, is the
potential of information technology. It can enable organisations to do
things they could not do before and thus develop new core competencies
and skills. An integrated IT approach has many elements: shared
databases, high-speed communication networks, decision-support
systems, automatic product identification and tracking, and large-scale
computing. However, almost 75 percent of respondents believe that IT
was an enabler for fundamental change rather than a driver of the
process. It was also discovered that companies in Australia have been
extremely slow or resistant to undergo radical change, suggesting that
they are well behind world’s best practice of linking the customer to
suppliers via value added business processes.
IJOPM • BPR versus TQM. It would appear from the literature that the TQM
18,9/10 improvement model and the BPR innovation model have appropriate
places in the fundamental change of business processes. However, while
respondents considered continuous performance improvement a very
important success factor, they seemed only moderately inclined towards
a TQM culture. This suggests that Australian organisations have yet to
862 appreciate the potential of a total quality culture. It can produce a very
efficient system encompassing competencies in change, teamwork and
flexibility, which can mean the switch to a new business process via new
technology (possibly IT), can be made with manageable risk and lower
costs – an all important factor to Australian organisations.
Recommendations
Based on the results, one is led to the conclusion that organisations are not
emphasising some of the most important activities and tasks recommended in
the literature as basic underpinnings for BPR, such as using time as a
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
• team building;
• shortening communication channels;
• empowering doers with the authority and responsibility for decision
making; and
• reducing bureaucracy.
References
Carr, D. and Johansson, H. (1995), Best Practices in Reengineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Champy, J. (1995), Reengineering Management, HarperCollins, London.
Coulson-Thomas, C. (Ed.) (1994), Business Process Re-engineering: Myth and Reality, Kogan Page,
London.
IJOPM Davenport, T.H. (1993), “Need radical innovation and continuous improvement? Integrate process
reengineering and TQM”, Planning Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, May/June, pp. 6-12.
18,9/10 Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E (1990), “The new industrial engineering: information technology
and business process redesign”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, Summer, pp. 11-27.
Dunn and Bradstreet (1996), Australia’s Top 500 Companies 1996-97, 10th ed., Dunn &
Bradstreet (Australia) Pty Ltd, Sydney.
Gadd, K. and Oakland, J. (1996), “Chimera or culture? Business process ee-engineering for total
864 quality management”, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Guimaraes, T. and Bond, W. (1996), “Empirically assessing the impact of BPR on manufacturing
firms”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 5-28.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Revolution, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Kennedy, C. (1994), “Re-engineering: the human costs and benefits”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 27
No. 5, pp. 64-72.
Talwar, R. (1993), “Business re-engineering – a strategy-driven approach”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 22-40.
Zairi, M. and Sinclair, D. (1995), “Business process re-engineering and process management: a
survey of current practice and future trends in integrated management”, Business Process Re-
engineering & Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 8-30.
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
Zempetakis, H. (1994), “Survey re-engineering and rightsizing – magic bullet often misses target”,
Financial Review, 14 February, p. 38.
Zucco, N. (Ed.)(1996), “Re-engineering Australian banks – achieving a quantum leap in
performance”, an Internal Study Paper, KPMG, Sydney.
This article has been cited by:
1. Juozas Ruževičius, Darius Klimas, Rasa Veleckaitė. 2012. Influence of organizational culture on the success of business process
management in Lithuanian public sector organizations. Verslo ir teisės aktualijos / Current Issues of Business and Law 7, 1-16.
[CrossRef]
2. Richard Yu Yuan Hung, Bella Ya-Hui Lien, Baiyin Yang, Chi-Min Wu, Yu-Ming Kuo. 2011. Impact of TQM and organizational
learning on innovation performance in the high-tech industry. International Business Review 20, 213-225. [CrossRef]
3. Diana Heckl, Jürgen Moormann, Michael Rosemann. 2010. Uptake and success factors of Six Sigma in the financial services
industry. Business Process Management Journal 16:3, 436-472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. WARREN H. HAUSMAN, HAU L. LEE, GRAHAM R. F. NAPIER, ALEX THOMPSON, YANCHONG ZHENG. 2010.
A PROCESS ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL TRADE MANAGEMENT: AN INDUCTIVE APPROACH. Journal of Supply Chain
Management 46:10.1111/jscm.2010.46.issue-2, 5-29. [CrossRef]
5. Rok Škrinjar, Vesna Vukšić, Mojca Štemberger. 2010. Adoption of Business Process Orientation Practices: Slovenian and Croatian
Survey. Business Systems Research 1. . [CrossRef]
6. Natasa Vujica Herzog, Stefano Tonchia, Andrej Polajnar. 2009. Linkages between manufacturing strategy, benchmarking,
performance measurement and business process reengineering. Computers & Industrial Engineering 57, 963-975. [CrossRef]
7. Ricardo Santa, Mario Ferrer, Phil Bretherton, Paul Hyland. 2009. The necessary alignment between technology innovation
effectiveness and operational effectiveness. Journal of Management & Organization 15, 155-169. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by New York University At 08:48 24 April 2015 (PT)
8. Emad M. Kamhawi. 2008. Determinants of Bahraini managers' acceptance of business process reengineering. Business Process
Management Journal 14:2, 166-187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Natasa Vujica Herzog, Andrej Polajnar, Stefano Tonchia. 2007. Development and validation of business process reengineering
(BPR) variables: a survey research in Slovenian companies. International Journal of Production Research 45, 5811-5834. [CrossRef]
10. S. Limam Mansar, H.A. Reijers. 2007. Best practices in business process redesign: use and impact. Business Process Management
Journal 13:2, 193-213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Selma Limam Mansar, Hajo A. Reijers. 2005. Best practices in business process redesign: validation of a redesign framework.
Computers in Industry 56, 457-471. [CrossRef]
12. Shams‐ur Rahman. 2002. Leadership and HR focus in TQM research in Australia: an assessment and agenda. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 9:5, 485-505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. A. Gunasekaran, B. Kobu. 2002. Modelling and analysis of business process reengineering. International Journal of Production
Research 40, 2521-2546. [CrossRef]
14. Peter O'Neill, Amrik S. Sohal. 1999. Business Process Reengineering A review of recent literature. Technovation 19, 571-581.
[CrossRef]