Analyzing Business Processes 1

Analyzing Business Processes: Proposing and Testing a Model of Employee and Organizational
Performance
 Analyzing Business Processes 2

Abstract

This study is focused on analyzing business processes in public and private sector organizations

with respect to key performance variables i.e. Business process orientation, business process

innovativeness and business process efficiency. On the basis of theoretical background, a model

is proposed to examine the impact of business processes on employee and organizational

performance. The model will be tested using structural equation modeling technique. Structured

questionnaire will be used to collect the data. Extensive literature is available signifying the

importance of business process management but there is lack of empirical research in this field

as admitted by researchers in recent years. This study will worthily contribute to the existing

knowledge of the topic. The proposed study is of immense significance especially in Pakistan

where good people are filled in bad systems and obsolete business processes hinder the employee

and organizational performance.

 Analyzing Business Processes 3

Analyzing Business Processes: Proposing and Testing a Model of Employee and Organizational
Performance

Research background

The 21st century is in full swing with all its opportunities and problems, all the

progressive organizations are determined for optimal productivity at minimum cost by

challenging the status quo and replacing old work practices with new ideas of doing work in this

era of change and competition.

Gore (1993) envision the need of revolutionizing the government operations to be free of

futile bureaucracy, red tape and absurd rules in a comprehensive study report presented to formal

US President Clinton and conducted by management experts, advisors, experienced state

officers, and business leaders. The committee of intellectuals scrutinizes unnecessary layers of

management, complex internal organizational departments and multiple control systems piling

up in the name of minimizing risk of failure which increase inefficiency. The ritual procedures

add no value to the organization or the customer, yet continue to exist and grow due to a range of

seemingly unstoppable factors. The author argued:

The federal government is filled with good people trapped in bad systems: budget
systems, personnel systems, procurement systems, financial management systems,
information systems. When we blame the people and impose more controls, we make the
systems worse.

In Pakistan, most of the organizations especially state owned enterprises facing the

similar situation today, still tend to adopt age old management practices. Large centralized

bureaucracies cause wastage of billions, inordinate delays and resulting in dissatisfaction among

users/masses and low efficiency. Long winded procedures involve checking, authorizing,

countersigning, duplication (at times), extra cautiousness and excessive paperwork. In general,
 Analyzing Business Processes 4

business processes are vastly complex, suffocating, expensive and tend to stifle

creativity/modern techniques application.

Bilal (2005) expressed her views in a speech on the occasion of ‘launching Special

Pakistan Edition of Economic Freedom of the World: 2004 Annual Report’ as:

Excessive governance is hampering the development of society as well as individuals as a

whole. Should the Bill Gate of Microsoft has been in Pakistan, his all abilities and talent
had gone to the drain while fighting the existing system of governance especially the
bureaucracy and red tapeism.

Rahi (2005) reported that over 0.2 million professional doctors, engineers, scientists,

auditors, bankers, architects and commercial pilots have left Pakistan in only one year for better

reward and security. The columnist explored:

A survey conducted by the Gallop Pakistan suggested that more than two-third of
Pakistanis adult population preferred to go abroad. This is a brain drain with a pain.
There is another brain drain with shame. In this situation the brains leaving the country
do not want to go abroad out of their own will. Instead, they are forced to leave the
country that not only drains Pakistan of valuable minds but also attracts criticism for the
government because of its policies.

Solution of such a growing crisis lies not with traditional medicine. Rather it lies in

reengineering the business processes (Gore, 1993).

Broad area of study

Business Process Reengineering (BPR) and Business Process Redesign are no more alien

concepts in modern world. These alternative terms are used extensively in literature to improve

performance dramatically (Rock, 2003).

Davenport & Short (1990) define Business Process Redesign as “the analysis and design

of workflows and processes within and between organizations”. Teng et al. (1994) define BPR as

"the critical analysis and radical redesign of existing business processes to achieve breakthrough

improvements in performance measures". Reengineering examines the way a company does its
 Analyzing Business Processes 5

business by closely analyzing the core processes involved in producing its product or delivering

its service to the customer. Roy (2005) clarifies that majority of the systems fail due to

incompetence of the systems itself rather than the people who run the systems. Hence it is

absolutely essential to set the ‘systems’ right and BPR is an effective tool in achieving it. BPR

benefits are radical and enormous. It guarantees increased revenue, better coordination, quality

improvement and interdepartmental efficiencies by streamlining the business processes, reducing

cost and time of doing business. Success of any organization depends on how well the business

processes function.

BPR is the fundamental examination and redesign of business processes (Evans, 1993).

The author proposes that four stages of BPR are: (1) To Be (2) As Is (3) The Plan (4) Crossing.

‘To Be’ stage of BPR envisions the organization defining the performance level and objectives

of business processes which organizations desire to achieve. ‘As Is’ Stage defines the current

business processes. It identifies the bottlenecks which are discovered during the thorough

analysis and examination of business processes. ‘The Plan’ helps to develop a plan to fill the gap

between ‘As Is’ and ‘To Be’ stages. It intends to achieve the desired results for improving the

performance of business processes. ‘The Crossing’ is focused on execution and implementation

of the plan. Essential corrective actions are implemented to achieve desired standards (Evans,

1993).

All above definitions of BPR emphasize on examining the current business processes as

an important step. The scope of this study therefore delimits and focuses on only one aspect of

BPR i.e. Analyzing current business processes (‘As Is’ stage of BPR).

Specific area of study

 Analyzing Business Processes 6

Business Process comprises a number of interrelated activities that cut across functional

boundaries in the delivery of an output (product or service) for the customers. e.g. Opening

account in a bank, admission in a university, procurement process in any organization etc.

The study is focused on analyzing current business processes i.e. ‘As Is’ stage of BPR. A

thorough analysis and understanding of “As Is” current business processes is essential for

Successful BPR efforts which minimize the risk of failure (Muthu, Whitman & Cheraghi, 1999).

Most of the researchers and analysts emphasize the need of analyzing the current

business processes prevailing within the organizations as an important phase of BPR exercise

(Davenport & Short, 1990; Teng et al., 1994; Evans 1993; Bevilacqua & Thornhill, 1992).

Business processes may assessed and analyzed for improvement with respect to many

parameters such as established networks, office work processing times (speed), electronic/paper

ratios, staff/employee ratio, IT usage, standardization, overhead rate, customer satisfaction,

output quality, and office productivity, procedures and standards and cultures for administration

(Cook, 1996).

The study will focus on only one aspect of BPR i.e. Analyzing current business processes

in public and private sector organizations and their impact on performance. The study will

identify the bottlenecks in the overall business processes and identify areas in which

reengineering is needed.

Problem Statement

“This study focuses to analyze existing business processes in public and private sector

organizations and, to propose and test a model of employee and organizational performance

through business processes”.

 Analyzing Business Processes 7

Research objectives

• To analyze and assess overall business processes in public and private sector

organizations on the basis of three key business process management characteristics i.e.

business process orientation, business process innovativeness and business process

efficiency, and to propose a framework to improve employee and organizational

performance by streamlining work processes.

• To scrutinize how much the businesses are process oriented and what is the level of

business process performance in private and state owned enterprises.

• To examine the impact of business processes on individual and organizational

performance.

Rationale of the study

• The Individual and organizational performance remains the catalyst for all the

improvement strategies by the business owners. In recent studies, the researchers acclaim

emphasizing business processes to improve performance (Skrinjar, Stemberger &

Hernaus, 2007; Garvin, 1995).

• This study will help the practitioners and policy makers to identify bottlenecks in overall

work processes and to appraise the role of business processes in achieving the vital

objectives of businesses. It will also determine the extent to which business process

reengineering efforts are needed.

Justification of topic with relevance to national needs. “85 percent of the opportunities

for improvement come from changing the system, reengineering work processes and modifying

or replacing equipment” Dr. Deming.

 Analyzing Business Processes 8

In Pakistan most of the enterprises in general and public sector organizations in particular

are not able to compete the continuously changing global markets mainly due to obsolete

business processes and management styles where employees are unable to deliver and resultantly

there is huge collective loss to the industries. This is a heavy drain of national resources of which

most of the managers are ignorant. This requires immediate attention (Leghari, 2003). A similar

situation is predicted by Gore (1993) with a logical argument that the root cause of such a poor

performance prevails in ‘bad systems’ and not ‘bad people’..

The logic to work on this topic is to enhance the awareness of management/government

about the importance of reforming the business processes towards individual and organizational

performance and thus an attempt to minimize the losses to the national exchequer. This study

therefore has a great application in public industry as well as in private enterprises.

Literature review and theoretical background of proposed model

This section explains brief literature review including definition of key constructs and variables

of study. The later part of this section describes the theoretical support of the proposed model.

Literature review

Government agencies should focus on business processes to identify areas for

improvement. Efficiency of routine work practices enhances the overall performance of the

enterprise. Process efficiency depends on cost incurred during the execution of business

processes in terms of money and time. Extensive use of paper work, policies and procedures

hinders the efficiency of processes. Dynamic organizations analyze outdated business processes

for improvement, reengineer and then add information technology to leverage productivity

(Arveson, 1999).
 Analyzing Business Processes 9

Business process orientation. In this arena of robustly increased competition and

customer demands, the organizations are advised to lessen the prominence on functional

hierarchies and structures. Instead, businesses must augment concentration on customers,

competition and processes (Susan & Johnson, 2003; Reijers, 2006).

Business process orientation is a process oriented management approach that emphasizes

outcomes and customers rather than focusing on hierarchies (McCormack & Johnson, 2001;

McCormack, 2001; McCormack 1999).

There is no substantial empirical research on business process orientation (Susan &

Johnson, 2003; McCormack, 2001; Skrinjar, Stemberger & Hernaus, 2007).

Susan and Johnson (2003) described five important components of business process

orientation in a conceptual framework suggested by the authors. The components comprised

process view, process structures, Process Jobs, Process Management and Measurement systems

and, process values and beliefs.

Process view. McCormack (2001) defined process view as “a thorough documentation

and understanding from top to bottom and beginning to end of a process”.

The basis of competition in the today organizations is not people, production or

companies. Processes are the key to compete. The process view of businesses helps identifying

inefficient processes and not inefficient people (Tenner & Detoro, 2000).

McCormack (2001) defined process view as “The cross-functional horizontal picture of a

business involving elements of structure, focus, measurement, ownership and customers”.

Process values and beliefs. Business process orientation focuses on a culture which is

customer oriented. Business processes are based on empowerment and continuous improvement

concepts (McCormack, 1999).

 Analyzing Business Processes 10

Process jobs. Business process orientation focuses on organizational jobs which are

based on business processes and not on traditional functions (Skrinjar, Stemberger & Hernaus,

2007).

McCormack (2001) defined process jobs as “jobs that focus on process, not functions,

and are cross functional in responsibility (e.g., product development process owner rather than

research manager)”.

Process management and measurement systems. “The components of this area are

process measurement systems, rewards for process improvement, outcome measurements,

customer driven measures, and team and customer based measures and rewards” (McCormack,

1999).

McCormack (2001) defined process management and measurement as the measures that

comprise process characteristics such as output quality, cycle time, process cost and variability.

Process management and measurement systems emphasized on the process culture and process

way of thinking in the organizations (Skrinjar, Stemberger & Hernaus, 2007).

. Business process innovativeness. Innovation is the process of creating something new and

it is also viewed as the actual outcome of that process (Das & Joshi, 2007).

Lumpkin and Dess (1996) define innovativeness as “a firm’s tendency to engage in and

support new ideas, novelty, experimentation, and creative processes that may result in new

products, services, or technological processes”.

Business process efficiency. Business process efficiency is an important determinant to

measure how well a process performs. It depicts the performance of a business process. Process

efficiency can be improved by minimizing cost, reduced variability and reduced cycle time. Cost
 Analyzing Business Processes 11

indicator is referred to minimizing resources in terms of money, time, material and human

resources (Tenner & Detoro, 2000).

Arveson (1999) recommends actions to imrove efficiency for process trends generally

prevailed in the organizations. If organizaitons are crammed with outmoded processes with large

amount of paper work, it is vital to reengineer work processes with a significant role of

information technology. If such organizations are deprived of good leaders and experts, process

redesigning task should prefrably be outsourced to consultants ensuring full organizational

participation and cooperation. In case the work patterns of the firms are most suitable and

efficient, management still need to be watchful sustaining efficiency of the processes in future.

Cycle time is the time required to complete a business process. It is the actual time taken to

convert inputs into desired outputs (Tenner & Detoro, 2000; Harrington, 1991). Cycle time is

composed of processing time and non processing time. Processing time comprised activities that

add value to the process by converting input to output and contribute meeting customer

expectations. These activities include product development, design, finishing, delivery, after-

sales service etc. Non processing time consists of non value added activities such as redundant

inspections, filling in forms, waiting, storage, rework, excessive transit etc. These activities add

no worth to customer satisfaction and business processes, and just increase the cycle time. Cycle

time also depends on business value added activities such as controlling, monitoring, filing,

invoicing, record keeping, recruiting, selling etc. These activities add little value to customers

but considered necessary for business processes. The author guideline improving the cycle time

by eliminating non processing time, streamlining the processing time and minimize the time of

business value added activities (Tenner & Detoro, 2000).

 Analyzing Business Processes 12

This study measures the business process efficiency construct through the following

variables.

Cost. It refers the cost incurred by various activities for the completion of business

processes. Business processes which take longer time for completion are considered inefficient.

Time. It refers to the time taken by the business processes till the delivery of output to

the internal as well as external customers. Business processes are said to be inefficient if they

take long time to complete

Paperwork. It refers to the extent to which paper work is involved during the execution

of the business processes. Higher level of paperwork involved in the business processes effect

the process performance.

People. It refers to the degree of involvement of the individuals during the process. If

large amount of people are involved in the business process especially at various locations, the

process efficiency is adversely effected.

Approvals. It involves the authentication required at different levels of the organizations

before further preceding the process activities. Business processes are inefficient if more

approvals are required at various points.

Interdepartmental connectedness. Jaworski and Kohli (1993) defined interdepartmental

connectedness as “the degree of formal and informal direct contact among employees across

departments”.

Interdepartmental conflict. The Interdepartmental Conflict refers to the degree to which

stress and tension is created between the various departments of the organization and their

departmental goals contradict with each other (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993).
 Analyzing Business Processes 13

Customer orientation. Mueller, Walter and Gemuenden (2001) explain customer

orientation as a continuous process of finding customer wants and demands and then creating

value for customers. Customer focus and customer satisfaction are the keys to be emphasized by

the customer oriented businesses.

Organizational performance. Organizational performance is extensively used in

literature as a dependent variable by the researchers. Organizational performance can be

measured using the two approaches-judgmental and objective. These measures are widely used

in literature to measure organizational performance (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993).

Judgmental measures. Judgmental approach of organizational performance measures the

overall performance of the organizations as assessed by the organizational members and

customers (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993).

Objective measures. Objective approach uses financial performance parameters such as

return on assets, market share, profitability etc. This study uses both judgmental and objective

measures to assess the organizational performance (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993).

Employee performance. In most organizational behavior, employee work performance is

usually defined as a dependent variable for discussion on the worker behavior and output.

Campell (1990) defined job performance as “Kind of individual behavior for fulfilling the

expectations, regulations of organizations and the needs of his or her formal roles when he or she

is the member of the organization”. For this study the employee performance means

organizational commitment and esprit de corps.

Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment refers to the degree to which

the organizational employees are loyal and committed to their organizations and are ready to

make personal sacrifices for the business enterprise (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993).
 Analyzing Business Processes 14

Esprit de corps. The esprit de corps relates to the extent of working as a team in the

organization (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993).

Theoretical background of proposed model

This section includes the literature for supporting the relationships between the constructs

of study. It comprises theoretical as well as empirical studies in support of proposed model.

Business Process Orientation and Organizational Performance. It is evident from

sufficient theoretical support in literature that Business process orientation has a positive impact

on business performance (McCormack, 1999; McCormack, 2001; Susan & Johnson, 2003;

Skrinjar, Stemberger & Hernaus, 2007).

Skrinjar, Stemberger and Hernaus (2007) empirically investigated the impact of business

process orientation on financial and non-financial performance in 1267 Slovenian companies

using structural equation modeling. The research revealed that business process orientation leads

to financial and non-financial organizational performance.

Business process orientation and interdepartmental connectedness. McCormack (1999)

examined the relationship between Business Process Orientation and interdepartmental

connectedness. Results revealed a positive correlation between the constructs. The study further

depicts that higher the business process orientation, the greater the interdepartmental

connectedness in the organization.

Interdepartmental connectedness and organizational performance. McCormack (1999)

developed and tested the model for business process orientation. The study indicated positive

relationship between interdepartmental connectedness and business performance. The author

concluded that interdepartmental connectedness leads to the better organizational performance.

 Analyzing Business Processes 15

Jaworski and Kohli (1993) examined the impact of interdepartmental connectedness on

organizational performance. The research revealed that better interdepartmental connectedness

impact the organizational performance positively through market orientation.

Business process orientation and interdepartmental conflict. McCormack (1999)

analyzed the relationship between interdepartmental conflict and business process orientation. A

significant inverse relationship is depicted between the two constructs. The greater the business

process orientation lessens the interdepartmental conflict in the organizations.

Interdepartmental conflict and business performance. McCormack (1999) and Jaworski

(1993) tested the relationship between interdepartmental conflict and business performance. The

authors concluded that reduction in the interdepartmental conflict leads to better organizational

performance directly or indirectly.

Business process orientation and customer orientation. Martenette, Johnson and

Obenchain (2003) suggest positive link between business process orientation and perceived

customer value for achieving the organizational performance. Customer oriented organizations

focus on enhancing the value to the customers by identifying and satisfying their needs.

Achievement of organizational goals through enhancing customer satisfaction, efficiency and

effectiveness of customer services is vital during the process analysis (Jacka & Keller, 2002).

Customer orientation and organizational performance. Mueller (2001) examined the

impact of customer orientation and competitor orientation on organizational performance in

information technology business enterprises. The results of the study revealed a significant

influence of customer orientation on organizational performance.

Business process orientation and employee performance. Business Process Orientation

has positive impact on the various dimensions of employee performance such as organizational
 Analyzing Business Processes 16

commitment and esprit de corps (McCormack, 1999; McCormack, 2001; Susan & ohnson, 2003;

Skrinjar, Stemberger & Hernaus, 2007).

Skrinjar, Stemberger and Hernaus (2007) examined the impact of business process

orientation on financial and non-financial organizational performance. The construct of non-

financial performance comprise employee commitment, absenteeism, satisfaction with working

condition, learning ability and adoptability along with some other measures. The result of the

study depicts positive relationship between business process orientation and non financial

performance measures.

Interdepartmental connectedness and employee performance. Literature depicts the

positive relationship between the interdepartmental connectedness and employee performance.

The interdepartmental connectedness leads to better employee performance (McCormack, 1999;

Jaworski & Kohli, 1993).

Interdepartmental conflict and employee performance. Interdepartmental conflict

significantly impacts the employee performance (McCormack, 1999). Interdepartmental conflict

inversely impact market orientation efforts of the organization and therefore has a negative effect

on employee performance (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993).

Process innovativeness and organizational performance. Lin and Chen (2007)

investigated the relationship between different types of innovation and organizational

performance. The study exposed that successful innovation may not involve radical change. The

authors concluded that Radical Administrative innovation is more powerful in predicting

company performance.

Han, Kim and Srivastava (1998) empirically tested the impact of market orientation on

performance with a moderating role of innovation in banking industry. The study revealed a
 Analyzing Business Processes 17

positive direct impact of administrative and technological innovation on organizational

performance.

Business process efficiency and employee performance. Organizational processes are

amongst other macro level organizaitional stressors affecting the today’s employees. Tight

controls, only downward communication, little performance feedback, centralized decision

making, lack of participation in decisions and punitive appraisal systems in the organizational

processes may cause job stress which effect the employee performance (Luthans, 1997).

Certo (2001) argues that organizations should evolve organizational climate that is

supportive of individuals. Most of the organizations tend to adopt bureaucratic styles, formal and

rigid structures with little flexibility. Such an environment creates considerable job stress which

impedes the performance level of employees and the organization. Businesses ought to craft a

friendly working ambience which is more performance based and less rule based giving

maximum autonomy for their employees.

Proposed model and hypothesis

The following conceptual model is proposed on the basis of literature review and

theoretical background:
 Analyzing Business Processes 18

Business Process
Innovativeness


Interdepartmental
Connectedness 


Organizational
Performance
 Judgemental
 Objective
Business Process
Orientation
 Process View
 Process Values and 
Interdepartmental 


Beliefs Conflict
 Process Management and 
Measurement
Employee Performance
 Organizational
Commitment
 Esprit de corps

Customer Orientation


 Customer Focus
 Customer Satisfaction

Business Process
Efficiency
 Time
 Cost


 Paperwork
 People
 Approvals


Conceptual Model and Path Diagram

Hypothesis

The following hypotheses are developed from literature review:

H1: Business process orientation has direct positive influence on organizational

performance.

H2: Business process orientation has direct positive influence on employee performance.

H3: Business process orientation has positive influence on interdepartmental

connectedness.

H4: Business process orientation has negative influence on interdepartmental conflict.

H5: Interdepartmental connectedness has positive influence on organizational

performance.
 Analyzing Business Processes 19

H6: Interdepartmental connectedness has positive influence on employee performance.

H7: Interdepartmental conflict has negative influence on organizational performance.

H8: Interdepartmental conflict has negative influence on employee performance.

H9: Business process orientation has positive influence on customer orientation.

H10: Customer orientation has positive influence on organizational performance.

H11: Business process innovativeness has direct positive influence on organizational

performance.

H12: Business process efficiency has direct has positive influence on employee

performance.

H13: There is significant difference between public and private sector organizations with

respect to:

 Business process orientation

 Business process efficiency

 Business process innovativeness

Contribution to the existing literature

• Extensive literature is available signifying the concept and importance of business

process management. There is lack of empirical research focusing on business process

performance variables and examining their consequences on organizational and employee

performance (McCormack, 1999; Skringer, Stemberger & Hernaus, 2007). This study

will worthily contribute to the existing knowledge of the topic.

 Analyzing Business Processes 20

• The impact of constructs such as business process orientation and business process

efficiency on customer orientation is rarely investigated in past. This study will

empirically test influence of these process characteristics on customer orientation.

• There is hardly any comprehensive and empirical research focusing on business

processes and their influence on performance in developing country like Pakistan. The

study will assist in mounting construct validity of results with the past literature.

• The proposed study will also examine the impact of business process efficiency and

business process innovativeness on employee and organizational performance

respectively. There is rare evidence of empirical study examining such relationships.

• The impact of business process orientation on organizational performance is

recommended to be investigated in different business sectors especially banking, IT and

health care etc. and in different countries (McCormack, 1999; Skringer, Stemberger &

Hernaus, 2007). This study will be conducted in different sectors including banking

sector in Pakistan. Public sector organizations will also be included in the study to have a

better comparison of the business process concepts between public and private sector

enterprises which is hardly reported in literature.

• The research models developed and tested by McCormack (1999) and Skringer,

Stemberger and Hernaus (2007) focused only one particular aspect of business processes

i.e. business process orientation. The model proposed by the researcher comprises two

additional constructs of business processes which are business process innovativeness

and business process efficiency. These additional process performance variables along

with business process orientation better predict the organizational and employee

performance in a comprehensive manner.

 Analyzing Business Processes 21

Methodology

Instrument and Measures

Most of the constructs and variables of researcher’s interest are operationalized and

measured in recent studies which will be helpful in developing the instrument to test the

proposed hypothesis.

McCormack (1999) operationalized the concept of business process orientation using the

individual dimensions of process view, process structures, process jobs, process management and

measurement systems and, process values and beliefs. The author developed and validated the

survey instrument. Skrinjar, Stemberger and Hernaus (2007) used the similar survey instrument

for measuring the BPO construct..

McCormack (1999) operationally defined process view as “the documentation detailed by

Melan, the High Level Map referenced by Hammer, the Relationship Map of Rummler- Brache

and the process vocabulary described often in the literature”. The author developed and validated

the questions to measure the process view of the organization.

McCormack (1999) defined and operationalized process jobs as “Empowered, multi-

dimensional, process team oriented jobs are the descriptors of these components”. Author

developed the questionnaires to measure the concept.

McCormack (1999) developed and validated the questionnaires to measure the ‘business

management and measurement systems’.

Das and Joshi (2007) developed three questionnaire items to measure process

innovativeness on the basis of past studies.

Jaworski and Kohli (1993) operationalized ‘interdepartmental connectedness’ and

‘interdepartmental conflict’. The authors developed 7-item scale to measure the extent to which
 Analyzing Business Processes 22

different organizational employees were interconnected to the different hierarchal level of the

other departments. A 5-item scale was developed to measure the interdepartmental conflict.

McCormack (1999) used the same scales for examining the impact of business process

orientation on interdepartmental connectedness and interdepartmental conflict.

Mueller, Walter, and Gemuenden (2001) developed the 4-item scale to measure the

customer orientation to examine the impact of customer orientation on performance.

Cook (1996) developed a diagnostic checklist and developed 20-item questionnaire using

nominal scale. The items in checklist are helpful in measuring the various aspects of business

process efficiency.

Procedural design

Data will be gathered from participants through structured questionnaire. Stratified

sampling technique will be used to collect data. Sample will comprise employees of public and

private sector organizations in diversified sectors.

Descriptive statistics will be used to analyze and assess the performance of business

processes.

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique will be used to test the model and

interrelationships between the constructs as proposed in hypotheses. Gaffin, Straub and

Boudreau (2000) identifies three tools which can be used in SEM. These techniques are:

• Linear Regression

• LISREL

• Partial Least Squares (PLS)

Linear regression is considered first generation data analysis technique which cannot test

all the relationships of the model in single statistical test. It is therefore required to devise
 Analyzing Business Processes 23

separate regression equations for the different relationships to test the model. LISREL and PLS

are called second generation SEM techniques which can test the model in a single test. AMOS

module is also available with SPSS software to use SME (Gaffin, Straub & Boudreau (2000).

The researcher will use any of above tools subject to further exploration and availability

of software packages in Pakistan.

 Analyzing Business Processes 24

References
Aiken, M. & Hage, J. (1968). Organizational Independence and Intra-Organizational

Structure. American Sociological Review, 33, 912-930.

Aiken, M. & Hage, J. (1966). Organizational Alienation. American Sociological Review, 31,

497-507.

Acka, M. J. & Keller, J. P. (2002). Business Process Mapping: Improving Customer

Satisfaction. John Willey & Sons Inc., New York.

Bilal G. (2005). FreePakistan Newsletter # 55. Alternate Solutions Institute.

http://asinstitute.org/page.php?instructions=page&page_id=537&nav_id=93

Bevilacqua, R. & Thornhill, D. (1992). Process modeling. American Programmer, 5, 5, 2-9.

Certo C. S. (2001). Modern management. International Edition: Prentice Hall.

Campell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the prediction problem in industrial and organizational

psychology. Handbook of Industrial and organizational psychology, palo alto, CA.:

Consulting psychology press.

Das, R. S. & Joshi, P. M. (2007).Process innovativeness in technology services

organizations: Role of differentiation strategy, operational autonomy and risk taking

propensity. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 3, 643-660.

Davenport, H. T. & Short, E. J. (1990).The New Industrial Engineering: Information

Technology and Business Process Redesign. Sloan Management Review, 34, 4, 11-

27.

Evans, K. (1993). Reengineering and Cybernetics. American Programmer, 6, 11, 10-16.

Luthans, F. (1997). Organizational Behavior. McGraw-Hill International Editions,

Management and Organization series, 298-307.

 Analyzing Business Processes 25

Gore, A. 1993. From red tape to results: creating a government that works better and costs

less", Report of the National Performance Review, Sept. 7. (html) [Online —

Referenced November 3, 2002] http://www.ibiblio.org/npr/nptoc.html

Greengard S. (1993). Reengineering: Out of the Rubbl. Personal Journal, 48B-480

Garvin, A. D. (1995). Leveraging Processes for Strategic advantage. Harvard Business

Review Sep-Oct Issue.

Internet centre for Management and Business Administration, Inc.

http://www.netmba.com/operations/process/analysis/ [Accessed on 10-08-2007]

Harrington H. J. (1991). Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for

Total Quality, Productivity and Competitiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Han, K. J., Kim, N. & Srivastava, K. R. (1998). Market Orientation and Organizational

Performance: Is Innovation a Missing Link? Journal of Marketing, 62, 4, 30-45.

Jaworski, J. B. & Kohli, K. A. (1993). Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences.

Journal of Marketing, 57, 53-70.

Jeff Fields. Conducting a Business Process Analysis.

www.achievingthedream.org/_pdfs/_strategyinstitute07/Business_Process_Analysis_

Overview%5B1%5D.pdf [Accessed on 10-08-2007]

Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and

linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135-172.

Leghari, K. A. A. (2003). IT a must to increase efficiency, quality of public services. Speech

to seminar on Business Process Management by Ultimus Pakistan.

http://www.pakistanlink.com/headlines/Dec03/23/16.html [Accessed on 01-09-2007]

 Analyzing Business Processes 26

Lin, Y. C. & Chen, Y. M. (2007). Does innovation lead to performance? An empirical study

of SMEs in Taiwan. Management Research News, 30, 2, 115-132.

McCormack, K. (2001). Business process orientation: do you have it? Quality Progress, 34,

1, 51-58.

McCormack, K. (2001). Business process orientation, supply chain management, and the e-

corporation. IIE Solutions, 33, 10, 33-35.

McCormack, K. (1999). The Development of a Measure of Business Process Orientation and

the Relationship to Organizational Performance. BPR online learning centre

sponsored by ProSci. http://www.prosci.com/mccormack.htm [Accessed on 11-5-

2007]

Mueller, A. T., Walter, A. & Gemuenden, G. H. (2001). The Impact of Customer Orientation

and Competitor Orientation on Organizational Performance. IMP 2001 Competitive.

Martenette, A. L., Johnson, C. W. & Obenchain, M. A. (2003). Market Orientation and

Business Process Orientation: How They Relate to Perceived Customer Value and

Perceived Shareholder Value. Hawaii International Conference on Business 2003.

Malhotra, Y. (1998). Business Process Redesign: An Overview., IEEE Engineering

Management Review, 26, 3. [http://www.brint.com/papers/bpr.htm]

Muthu S., Whitman L. & Cheraghi H. S. (1999).Business Process Reengineering: A

consoidated Methodology. Proceedings of The 4th Annual International Conference

on Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practices. San Antonie, Texas

USA.

Pierce, L. J. & Delbecq, L. A. (1977). Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and

Innovation. The Academy of Management Review, 2, 1, 27-37

 Analyzing Business Processes 27

Paul Arveson (1999). Designing Metrics for Government Agency Performance. The

Balanced Scorecard Institute USA.

http://www.balancedscorecard.org/metrics/triage.html [Accessed on 10-05-2007]

Robbins P. S. (2002).Organizational Behavior (pp-434, 425, 445).

Reijers, A. H. (2006). Implementing BPM systems: The role of process orientation. Business

Process Management Journal, 12,. 4, 389-409.

Roy, Tirthankar (2005). Business Process Re-Engineering - An Effective Management Tool.

ICFAI business school Kolkata. [http://ssrn.com/abstract=717343]

Rahi Abid M. (2005), Brain drain a big challenge ahead.

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?128874

Rock, L. N. (2003). Examining the relationship between Business Process Reengineering and

Information Technology. A graduate research report submitted for INSS 690 in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, Bowie

State University, Maryland in Europe.

[http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~meinkej/inss690/larock.pdf]

Susan, P. A. & Johnson, C. W. (2003). Strategic capabilities of business process: Looking for

competitive advantage. Competitiveness Review, 13, 2.

Skringer, R., Stemberger, I. M. & Hernaus, T. (2007). The impact of Business Process

Orientation on Organizational Performance. Proceedings of the 2007 Informing

Science and IT Education Joint Conference.

Sarah Cook (1996). Process Improvement: A handbook for managers. Aldershot, Hampshire,

England.
 Analyzing Business Processes 28

Tenner R. A. & Detoro J. I. (2000). Process Redesign: The implementation guide for

managers. Prentice Hall.

Teng, J.T.C., Grover, V., Jeong, S.R. & Kettinger, W.J. (1995). The Implementation of

Business Process Reengineering. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12, 1,

109-144.

USDA Strategic Plan for FY 2002-2007. United States Department of Agriculture.

http://www.ocfo.usda.gov/usdasp/pdf/sp2002.pdf [Accessed on 13-05-2007]

Wang, L. C, & Ahmed, K. P. (2003). Structure and Structural dimensions for knowledge-

based organizations. Measuring Business Excellence, 7, 1, 51-62.