Citation: Jafari, Mostafa and Akhavan, Peyman, Developing a Conceptual Model of

BPR by Considering the Employee's Resistance (2006), Journal of Applied Computing and Informatics, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 26-42, 2006. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2154122

Developing a Conceptual Model of BPR by Considering the Employee's Resistance

Mostafa Jafari and Peyman Akhavan Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract
Business process reengineering (BPR) is a phenomenon in which through radical process redesign, some companies have achieved large scale improvements. However according to surveys more than 70 percent of firms face failure in BPR movements, due to high degree of risk and lack of coordination among involved peoples including actors, beneficiaries, and victims. One of the main reasons for that is high degree of resistance among the people those who face the real shock. Most BPR projects follow a top-down approach encouraging the human being across the firm to raise themselves against the project which makes BPR a tough challenge. The aim of this research is to develop a new methodology for BPR using MBO (management by objective) to help BPR overcome the cultural difficulties and resistance among the employees, in accepting the changes. To bring success to BPR projects, the employee must be thoroughly informed about the mission, objectives and goals of the movement .Organizational goal as well as individual goal must be announced, set and aligned in one direction. BPR by MBO approach would facilitate employee involvement in change programs and help the BPR methodologies to overcome the weaknesses they face in terms of goal setting programs. In this research with considering BPR and MBO methodologies , a goal-oriented BPR model will be introduced which mixes both the methodologies to achieve the goals and objectives through BPR in organization using BPR & MBO interface to reduce the degree of resistance among employee and reach the mutual understanding between the top management and employees. This model is named REMBO(reengineering by MBO approach).

Keywords: business process reengineering, management by objective, resistance,

, REMBO.

1. Introduction
Business process reengineering (BPR) is a popular term since the 1990s, especially after Hammer, Champy, and Davenport published books to elaborate BPR related issues and cases (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Davenport, 1993). Several companies and organizations report their successful experiences by applying revolutionary approaches to obtain dramatic, radical, and fundamental changes as Hammer and Champy (1993) suggested and to gain dramatic improvements in performance measures such as cost, quality, service, and speed (Alavi and Yoo,1995). BPR by definition radically departs from other popular business practices like total

quality management, lean production, downsizing, or continuous improvement (Motwani, Kumar and Jiang, 1998). However, people rethought the myths of BPR after recognizing that 70 percent of BPRs efforts failed (Davenport and Stoddard, 1994). One of these myths is that business process redesign does not come from a clean slate to make employees take part in change movements(Lin, Yang and Pai, 2002). Recently, Davenport commented on the state of BPR in the USA (Davenport,1995): "To most business people in the United States, re-engineering has become a word that stands for restructuring, layoffs, and too-often failed change programs. At a recent Boston forum, in fact, Michael Hammer gathered a group of business journalists to explore why reengineering had become such a tainted term . The rock that re-engineering has foundered on is simple: people. Re-engineering treated the people inside companies as if they were just so many bits and bytes, interchangeable parts to be re-engineered. But no one wants to be reengineered." These comments gave rise to an intensive debate, within at least one major BPR discussion group on the Internet, into whether BPR is dead as a concept and whether, indeed, a lack of attention to people issues was the reason for its demise? (Deakins and Makgill, 1997). Hammer, one of the implied targets of Davenport's criticism, himself acknowledged in his later book (Hammer and Stanton, 1994) that "ignoring the concerns of your people'' is one of the top ten ways of failing at BPR. On the other hand some of the main difficulties of BPR efforts are related to understanding the companys goals, personnel retraining, and understanding business processes. However, studies conducted by industries show the importance of goal consideration in a BPR exercise (Raja, 1998). Hence, we can imply that one of the important elements of BPR is goal understanding. Through goal understanding, it is easier to determine where and how to reengineer a process. According to researchers (Paolucci et al., 1998), understanding goals and objectives by employees, can improve the customer focus of the process, assist in eliminating the non-value added activities and reduce the process complexity. Goal understanding from the side of employees as a technique, used to detail business goals by focusing on the important elements that influence processes and in turn the organization. Nowadays companies have to radically alter their strategic and process goals to keep up with this volatile market. In this turbulent environment, business process reengineering has evolved as the most promising approach for designing organizations. It is extremely important for reengineers to understand the driving forces in this environment and one of the most important and fundamental drivers is understanding the goals of the organization(Fernandes, Raja and Antony, 2001)
On the one hand, the success and failure of organizational change is said to basically depend on the unique contribution of HR to organizational change processes and the challenge to manage unruly and uncontrollable HR in organizational change processes places high demands on HRM(Doorewaard and Benschop, 2002)

2. BPR failure factors and human resources

The following analyses the BPR failure factors by reviewing the relevant literature on both soft and hard factors that cause failure of BPR efforts (Mashari and Zairi, 1999). These factors are distilled from various articles and empirical research on BPR implementation. They were then categorized into a number of subgroups representing

various dimensions of change related to BPR implementation. These dimensions are (Mashari and Zairi, 1999): (1) change management; (2) management competency and support; (3) organizational structure; (4) project planning and management; (5) IT infrastructure. v Here we focus on factors that related to change management and culture. For the rest, you can refer to main reference. Factors related to change of management systems and culture (1) Problems in communication: . Inadequate communication of need to change . Hiding uncertainties in communication . Poor communication between BPR teams and other personnel . Lack of motivation and reward (2) Organizational resistance: . Resistance to change . Fear, lack of optimism, and skepticism about BPR results . Worries about job security . Fear of job loss . Fear of loss of control and position . Middle management impermeability . Lack of adequate planning for resistance to change (3) Lack of organizational readiness for change: . Need for change management is not realized . Lack of determination/courage/skills of management for radical changes . Demand for change exceeds the capacity to absorb . Lack of cross-functional co-operation . Line managers are not receptive for change (4) Problems related to creating a culture for change: . Underestimating the human side; . Not considering existing management systems and organizational culture; . Values ignorance; . A lack of trust between management and employees . The tendency to copy others . Underestimating the role of politics in BPR . Animosity toward and by IS and human resources specialists (5) Lack of training and education: . The absence of theory . Lack of understanding of BPR . Lack of appropriate training for those affected by BPR

As explained one of the main reasons presented for the difficulty in successfully implementing BPR projects is an apparent lack of consideration towards the human issues and their resistance against the change. In the words of Aghassi (1994), BPR has too often been seen as a tool to rationalize organizational processes, with the employees considered as an "add on feature''. Davenport himself (1995) describes BPR as "the fad that forgot people'', although he also points out that "reengineering didn't start as a code word for mindless bloodshed'' (Zucchi and Edwards, 1999). It has been widely recognized that organizational and human, not technical barriers present the major challenges in BPR (Marjanovic, 2000).However, reengineering managers and in particular information systems professionals continue to be notoriously bad at recognizing those aspects of reengineering (Hammer, 1994). In most reengineering cases people are expected to adapt quickly to new ways of doing business, regardless of the changes it requires in their behaviors or work practices. By taking people out, it is easier and less expensive to model business processes in an organization. As a result of that tendency, people are often the first casualty of process reengineering. To fully understand the human side of BPR and to reduce resistance to change, the following strategies should be implemented (Marjanovic, 2000): 1. Employees, attitudes towards the reengineering should be identifies and reasons for resistance should be assessed. At the beginning and during a reengineering project, it is necessary to identify and evaluate employees, attitude towards the reengineering (e.g. favorable, neutral, unfavorable). When a group of change-resistant employees is identified, the next step for managers is to understand the reasons for their resistance. For example, the reason could be old habits that are very difficult to change. Also, if people feel they have no control over change or if they do not adequately participate in the reengineering process, they are likely to resist the change. Additionally, some people may be tired of constant changes and they may feel "too tired" to learn new skills and change once again. Furthermore, changes usually create the feeling of insecurity. That may include fear of failure, looking stupid or misunderstanding. Assessment and understanding of the individual reasons for resistance is the first step in designing strategies to manage individual fears and to build broad-based support for process change. 2. The threatening nature of BPR should be recognized Individuals find reengineering and related notions associated with the "horizontal organization" stressful, intimidating, threatening or scary (Hammer, 1990). This comes as no surprise, because very often it results in termination of employment. To reduce the level of anxiety and overall feeling of insecurity, managers should encourage employees to openly discuss their fears and problems. Open communication is the critical factor, though not easily achievable. 3. Employees should understand the need for change It is important that employees understand the need for change and expected benefits of BPR. If employees receive the full facts and have any misunderstanding clarified, they are more likely to support the change. Hence, imposing formal changes too soon without understanding will increase resistance. 4. Employee participation in the reengineering process is crucial

Business processes being reengineered are performed by employees. They are the people who best understand the problems of the existing processes and may have some suggestions for their improvement. Therefore, employees' participation in the reengineering process is very important. Furthermore, their involvement is likely to reduce their resistance to change.

5. Communications should be improved at all organizational levels Communication and commitment building must occur at all levels because changes incurred by process innovation are not only broad, but deep, extending from the vision of managers to the attitudes and behaviors of the lowest-level workers (Davenport, 1993). Regular communication must be established between executives and those who will be affected by the reengineering process. Communication, to the organization as a whole, should start well before reengineering and its implementation start. All sensitive issues must be addressed honestly and openly. In summary, it is clear that managers should resolve any point of conflict and distrust with employees who are affected by BPR. Managers should not proceed with reengineering until all potential problems are resolved. Open communication must be encouraged, as it is the critical success factor. However, the resolution of conflict and distrust is not so simple. A number of questions have to be answered: How to address sensitive issues honestly and openly when people are reluctant or even scared to talk about the reengineering of their jobs. How to empower people to participate and openly communicate their problems. It is a real challenge to find these answers. This paper will further discuss these problems and propose some possible solutions.

3. Management by objective
Human action is primarily driven by goals (Scherer and Zlch, 1995). In other words, humans have targets, wishes, desires and purposes, and try to achieve them by doing some things and by avoiding (i.e. not doing) other things. Following Scherer and Zlch (1995), we may say we need goals because human action is driven by goals. But can we be more specific? Or to put a rather different emphasis on it: what are the difficulties and problems if we do not declare the goals in BPR efforts? Several difficulties seem to arise (Kueng, 1997): We need to be able to state what we want to achieve so that we are then able to define the necessary activities which a business process should encompass. A clear understanding of goals is essential in the management of selecting the best design alternative. A clear understanding of goals is essential for it to be possible to evaluate the operating quality of a business process (i.e. goals are used to evaluate the operating process). A clear expression of goals makes it easier to comprehend the organizational changes that must accompany a business process redesign. For example, it may include transformations concerning organizational power and controls, reporting relationships, management practices, incentives, job description, job changes, skill requirements and training. According to Loucopoulos and Karakostas (1995), goals express intentions and capture the reasons of the system to be built. The creation or definition of goals initiates the questions: what are we trying to achieve? and what are we trying to

avoid? The answers are goals. In our context, goals are statements which declare what has to be achieved or avoided by a business process. But how can we integrate and align personal and corporate goals? MBO system can answer this question. Management by objectives(MBO) is today considered a classic issue in management training. It is one of the important prerequisites for developing business strategies and also a basis for staff participation and joint development of future-oriented perspectives. MBO today is practiced in many companies, although in various forms and with different results. But whatever the approach, its success or failure depends on the quality of communication between employees and their superiors, and just as importantly, on the continued observation and development of the processes involved (Skerath, 2002). Management by Objectives (MBO) was introduced for over 40 years ago by Peter Drucker . While management science was hitherto emphasizing the right way of doing things, Peter Drucker gave a new slogan or philosophy (Drucker, 1954). It is important to do things in the right way, but it is more important to do the right things. But unfortunately Drucker never wrote a how-to-do-it book. Consequently, those who have been interested in the idea have seen what they wanted to see and used whatever parts seemed useful to them. This has led to a rather checkered history of acceptance and utilization of MBO; it has been praised, criticized, offered as the magic solution to management problems. MBO, which was introduced as a Management Philosophy during 1954, soon became popular and considered by some as a Panacea for Business Management up to the sixties. It came to be applied narrowly and got entangled with Bureaucracy and reached its low point in reputation during the seventies. In the second phase of this program after 1970, better understanding of the concept started again. Its heavily technique orientation was recognized. It came to be accepted that good programs under MBO could bring benefits. Basic principles came to be again widely used. It is now recognized and referred as a Management System. The focus of MBO is now changed; from one based on individual manager, to one on the operations of the total organization. It came to be used to improve the major steps in the process that carry out the work (Kannan, 2003). According to Drucker each number of enterprises contributes something different, but they must all contribute towards a common goal. Their efforts must all pull in the same direction, and their contribution must fit together to produce a whole without gaps, without friction, without unnecessary duplication of effort (Drucker,1995). Commensurate with the increasing need to absorb an ever-greater degree of complexity and uncertainty in business organizations, the traditional approach of Management by Instructions (MBI) of the beginning of the 20th Century, gave way to Management by Objectives (MBO) from the 1960's up to the present time; now, a new approach is beginning to take shape that may be termed Management by Values (MBV) (Dolan, Shimon and Salvador Garcia, 2002). Figure 1 presents a schematic view of the evolution from MBI to MBV, via MBO. It is proposed that this evolution is the consequence of the appearance during recent decades of four organizational trends that forces organizations to adapt in order to

remain competitive in markets that are increasingly more demanding and unpredictable (Dolan, Shimon and Salvador Garcia, 2002).

Figure 1: Evolution of three ways of managing companies:

by instructions, by objectives and by values.

As shown in table 1, objectives transform values into operative conduct in order to be able to exert influence over reality. In this example, the principle or value "quality" will only be realized in the concrete form of an official quality certification if an objective of specific action can be articulated, within a firm and realistic time frame. It must also be remembered that the more important a purpose or goal, the more difficult it is to quantify. For example, we all know that friendship is an important goal in life, but it would strikes us as rather ridiculous to propose an objective like "Make three good friends during the next 10 years". In such cases, the trick may lie in finding suitable proxies for "non-quantifiable" but highly desirable ends. (Dolan, Shimon and Garcia Salvador, 2002).

Table 1: Relationship between values, objectives and reality

To speak of values in no way means that objectives should be forgotten. Both are mutually necessary. Hence, MBV does not replace MBO but rather complements it and facilitates putting it into practice, by making it more meaningful. In fact, all intelligent MBO applications do show signs of incorporating values in some way; what the proposition of MBV really signifies is making this systematic. The essential shared values become critical success elements which revolve around the structuring of objectives as instrumental intermediates. (Dolan, Shimon and Garcia Salvador, 2002). Table 2 summarizes the basic differences between the three management philosophies discussed here: MBI, MBO and MBV and also shows MBO as an interface between MBI and MBV( Diegoli S., Auerbach A., Dolan S.L., Garcia S.,2002).
PREFERABLE SITUATION FOR APPLICATION AVERAGE LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM OF MEMBERS OF THE ORGANISATION TYPE OF LEADERSHIP IMAGE OF CUSTOMER TYPE OF PRODUCT MARKET TYPE OF ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE NEED FOR TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY NEED FOR AUTONOMY AND RESPONSIBILITY STABILITY OF ENVIRONMENT SOCIAL ORGANISATION PHILOSOPHY OF CONTROL performance PURPOSE OF THE ORGANISATION REACH OF STRATEGIC VISION MBI Routine or emergencies MBO Moderate complexity. relatively "standard" production Moderate average professionalism (management of employees) Allocator of resources User customer Segmented Pyramidal with few levels Medium Medium Moderately changeable environment Capitalist postindustrial Control and stimulus of professional Optimization of results Medium term Rationalization. Motivation. Efficiency. Measurement of results. MBV Need for creativity in the solution of complex problems High level of average professionalism (management of professionals) Transformational (value shaper) Customer with judgment and freedom of choice Highly diversified and dynamic Networks, functional alliances, project team structures High High Very dynamic, changeable environment Post-capitalist Encouragement of self-control by each individual Continuous improvement of processes Long term Developing Participation; Continuous learning. Creativity. Mutual trust. Commitment. Enjoy work.

Basic level of instruction (management of operatives) Traditional User-buyer Monopolist. Standardized Pyramidal with many levels Low Low Stable environment

Capitalist-industrial "Top down" control and supervision Maintenance of production Short term Quantitative production. Loyalty, conformity and discipline

BASIC CULTURAL VALUES

Table 2: Differences between MBI, MBO and MBV

MBO is essentially based on a very simple fact: wherever people work in an organization together there will be a wide variety of objectives. Each individual has his or her own personal goals (e.g. better working conditions, better training, better pay); each department has its own business targets (higher output, better equipment,

more funding), and last but not least, top management, too, has its own strategic aims (organizational success, corporate identity, corporate image). MBO is the art of getting all these varied interests to correspond to one common goal. But how exactly does that work? The answer is communication, communication between management and staff to establish common objectives. Usually these talks take place repeatedly and are mostly conducted in the form of individual performance appraisals. The aim, as the name suggests, is to appraise and evaluate personal goals, strengths and weaknesses and reconcile these with the overall objectives of the company. But talks can also be conducted collectively with the departmental teams. In each case, the challenge remains the same: how to make individual goals voluntarily coincide with the goals of the organization? Obviously, the way not to do it is by decree. MBO only works when management and staff agree to support mutual goals in an atmosphere of confidence and trust. Commitment and motivation, instead of instructions and orders is how management trainers describe the art of MBO. The concept is based on the supposition that employees are, by nature, willing to perform. After all, they applied for the task or position in the first place. What they do need, however, is more information, communication and participation. Here, a dialogue on objectives can be an effective management instrument provided it is founded on fairness and clarity. Transparency and clarity, in particular, for the formulation of objectives. For anything that is not measurable, anything that is unclear, nebulous or contradictory, cannot be implemented. Books on management techniques provide a useful catch phrase - SMART - which stands for what the formulation of objectives should be: Specific , Measurable, Assignable, Realistic, Time-related.(Alex and Carol,2002) Goal setting and it's analysis can be seen as a process that has a number of logical stages, as shown in figure 2 (Alex and Carol,2002). Objectives Action plan Implementation Review

Fig 2:The goal setting process The issue here, however, is not only whether a certain objective can be achieved and when. Just as important is clarification of the question what expertise and conditions are available and relevant for achieving the objective or whether these first need to be created by management. Unrealistic expectations are doomed to fail from the outset, if the necessary organizational conditions are lacking. Here, the same is true for both sides: clarity and transparency. Not easy because agreeing on clear, quantifiable objectives implies a genuine inbuilt commitment to result-oriented controls. And most people feel uneasy about controls. But feedback and controls are certainly a necessary component of management by objectives. At what intervals progress evaluations should be conducted depends on the potential risks inherent in the task at hand. In any case, at the very latest, a joint

appraisal should be conducted after one year to examine what objectives have been reached and why others have not. Was the root cause perhaps a mistaken assumption or were their some unforeseen difficulties on the way? Was there a lack of information, materials, funding or expertise? Only a sober and objective analysis of the causes and the continued motivation from both sides can ensure that with better planning next time the ultimate goals are achieved. MBO is an instrument that requires constant refining and development. But it is exactly this process which generates a dialogue that is useful to all sides, assuming, of course, that it is based on mutual respect and the desire to jointly form a corporate philosophy. Management by objectives is a learning process. The critical confrontation with tasks, objectives and priorities enables both sides - management and staff - to better assess their development potential, their strengths and their weaknesses in order to establish clearly defined perspectives for the future. When management and employees view each other as partners in this process, then MBO can be a watershed on the road to organizational growth. Building a new and comprehensive MBO definition The comprehensive new working definition for MBO based on the above analysis of the philosophy, as above stated, is built by Eugune J.Syna, Director of International Management Consulting Services, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, New York. Figure 2 shows the key subjects of MBO as Syna said.The working definition given Mr. Syna for MBO system is as follows: 1. The organization defines its mission and purpose 2. Priorities are chosen 3. The total environment is analyzed 4. Integrated plans are produced 5. Information is communicated throughout the organization. 6. Needed skills and understanding are developed 7. Individual objectives are prepared 8. All participants are motivated 9. Action is taken to achieve results 10. Progress of plans is continuously reviewed 11. Appropriate rewards are made for performance Mission Priorities Analyzing environment Integrated plan

Motivation

Individual objectives

Developing skills & understanding

Communication

Action

Progress review
Fig 3: key subjects of MBO as Syna

Reward for performance

10

4. Business process reengineerg by MBO approach

There are many methods for BPR but all of them have a common problem/weakness. They could not provide a model to overcome the high degree of failure in implementing the BPR project. The failure of BPR projects is highly related to human resistance against the changes. This paper presents a new model for BPR called REMBO. REMBO with help of MBO tries not only to increase the involvement of employee and motivate them to take part in BPR project, but also decrease their resistance against changes towards the success of BPR project in the organization. REMBO consist of following steps called "MOSTAFA PIMAN": 1. Mission: To spread the mission of organization from top to bottom of organization. 2. Objectives: Break down the mission into different long range objectives and prioritizing them rationally. 3. Strategies: Extracting the organizational strategies to achieve the different objectives. 4. Top-down, Bottom- up communication: Develop the vertical and horizontal communication regarding the mission, objectives and strategies to achieve the common view in human resources and collect their viewpoints and suggestions. 5. Arranging the objectives: In this step all objectives including functional objectives, departmental objectives and individual objectives are defined. 6. Formulating the goals/Facilitating the BPR project through goals: In the journey of reaching the mission, the goals must be formulated and the project must be communicated again and integrating between individual goals and corporation goals should be done. 7. Action plans: The functional planning for BPR project must take place accordingly and again the employee must be aware of the benefits brought to them and their organization through changes. 8. Process: Moving towards process orientation should be considered. The process identification, employee participation, cultural changes and so on should be taken into consideration and carefully defined. 9. Implementation: In this step the integration of steps 7 and 8 all together must provide the total roadmap for implementing the BPR project inside the organization and implementing phases start. 10. Measurement: Measurement and evaluation of changes must take place for monitoring the BPR project and its offset in the organization. 11. Analysis of gap/s and feedback should be done for amendment actions. 12. Normalization and continuous process improvement.

The first step in this methodology is to set a mission for organization. Mission shows the philosophy of organization's existence, and joins social duties to specific objectives of organizations. After that, we should study long range objectives. It is clear that long range objectives should be aligned and harmonized by mission. Because of limitation of time and resources, it is necessary to prioritize this objective. Now, with understanding the objectives and analysis of internal and external environment, the strategies will be extracted. Strategies show how we can reach objectives. 11

After these steps, implementing phases of MBO (Management by objective) philosophy starts. The objectives should deeply be understood by every one specially knowledge based workers. This subject can be done through top-down bottom-up communications, transparent informing, dialogue, negotiations and work groups. Now, the employees have understood the objectives of organization and know the gap up to reaching these objectives, so the necessity of changes is clear to everybody. Employees know that with old and usual methods cannot have successful organizations and they should have radical changes for reaching those objectives and in this step, by understanding necessity of change, the resistance of organization factor decreases. All programs for changing in organization are proposed and the objectives are arranged including functional programs, time management, budgeting, operational schemes and so on. The next step is formulating the BPR project through goals and again another phase of MBO (management by objective) helps it, and it is the phase of integrating individual goals and corporation goals. This phase is one of the most important phases of both MBO and now REMBO approach. During this phase a common mutual agreement between employees and managers for their goal is taken place and individual and departmental objectives become clear. This phase and planning phase have a tight connection and can complement each other. Also there may by some feedbacks to main strategies and long range objectives of organization for improving them through managers and employees. Now, goal setting process has changed from fully top-down approach towards a bottomup. Employees take part in operational phase of BPR more actively and resistance against the change decreases again and again. Employees understand objectives of organization and see tight links between them and their individual objectives, so they align themselves in direction of change and move towards a process-oriented organization by action plans. The next step is process. It means that company moves toward process orientation by identifying main processes of business. Process modeling and process mapping is begun by technical identification. Value added and non-value added activities are identified After all above mentioned, it is the turn of implementation phase. In this step by employee participation in the form of teamwork, they are taking part in objective development. All people cooperate for reaching the goals set for them because now they know that the way to reach individual goals is to help the organization win. There should be a strong cultural support for succeeding in this phase. Important role of cultural change .Attention to the values of organizations, training and development of employees shouldn't be forgotten. Motivation system is another challenge of reengineering efforts but as REMBO uses participation of people in the development of objectives in organization and movement towards self control through MBO approach, a strong motivation system forms through job enrichment of employees by self control. Now, every thing is ready for change, processes have been identified and non-value added processes are known, necessity of change is clear to every body and culture of organization has moved towards a new value system.

12

So, departments deforms from functional to process-oriented, non-value added processes are eliminated, teamwork develops, jobs invert to multidimensional state and control misses its traditional concept and people move towards self-control. Payment system changes into pay for result, so people run after the objectives for getting result. Of course transparency is an important factor in this stage and a very useful method for that is visual management. Visual management can also cause motivation between employees because they see that every progress or shortage is announced to them honestly through some tools such as tracts, tables, bulletins and publications and feel honest towards organization. After implementation phase, measurement and evaluation of change program is begun. Performance measurement, control and rechecking the operations and new standards are studied in evaluation phase of REMBO. Gap analysis is done after performance measurement and by inspecting and identification the root cause of problems, programs are reviewed and feedbacks for programs and objectives are supplied and finally normalization and continuous process improvement will go on and on. REMBO is depicted in three levels in figure 4, figure 5 and figure 6:

13

Business Process Reengineering

Management by objectives methodology

Understanding the necessity of change

Integrating individual goals & corporation goals

Decreasing the resistance against the change

Figure 4:first level of REMBO

Start

Mission definition

Objectives

Communication

Arranging the objectives

Performance measurement & gap analysis

Implementation

Planning

Integrating individual goals & corporation goals

Figure 5 :second level of REMBO

14

15

Conclusion
One of the most important failure factors of BPR efforts is lack of employee's understanding and resistance against the changes. REMBO model increases human resource's participation in change programs towards reaching the objectives and substitute the resistance factor with help towards the changes. REMBO model covers the lacks of existing BPR methodologies by improving the atmosphere for necessary changes and decreases risk factors of BPR efforts. REMBO model mixes both BPR and MBO methodologies for involving every body in reengineering programs and cooperation of them all over the organization. The roadmap of this model is depicted in figure 7.

Mission

Continuous improvement

Objectives

Gap analysis

Strategies

Performance measurement

Communication

Implementation Planning

Integrating individual goals & corporate goals

Figure 7 : REMBO roadmap

References
Aghassi, H. (1994), "Organizational structures, people and technology'', in CoulsonThomas, C.(Ed.), Business Process Re-engineering Myth and Reality, Kogan Page, London, pp. 192-200. Alavi, M. and Yoo, Y. (1995), Productivity gains on BPR: achieving success where others have failed, Information Systems Management, Vol. 12 No. 4. pp. 43-7. Alex ,Murdock and Scutt, Carol,(2002) , "Personal Effectiveness", Butterworth Heinmann. Al-Mashari ,Majed and Mohamed Zairi,(1999) BPR implementation process: an analysis of key success and failure factors, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 87-112.

16

Cakar ,Figen, Bititci, Umit S. and MacBryde Jillian,(2003), A business process approach to human resource management, Business Process Management Journal Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 190-207 Davenport, T. (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Davenport, T. and Stoddard, D. (1994), ``Reengineering: business change of mythic proportions?'', MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, June, pp. 121-7. Davenport, T.H. (1995), "The fad that forgot people'', Fast Company, November, No. 1, pp. 70-4. Deakins ,Eric and Hugh H. Makgill,(1997), What killed BPR? Some evidence from the literature, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1. Diegoli S., Auerbach A., Dolan S.L., Garcia S.,(2002), Organizational Values as "Attractors of Chaos: An Emerging Cultural Change to Manage Organizational Complexity, Internet:[www.ecom.upf.es/deehome/what/wpapers/postscripts/485.pdf]. Dolan, Shimon and Garcia Salvador,( 2002), Managing by values in the next millennium, Cultural Redesign for Strategic Organizational Change, Internet:[www.ecom.upf.es/deehome/what/wpapers/postscripts/486.pdf]. Doorewaard, Hans and Yvonne Benschop, (2002),HRM and organizational change: an emotional endeavor,Journal of Organizational Change Management Vol. 16 No. 3, 2003,pp. 272-286 Drucker, Peter, (1995), "The practice of management", Butterworth Heinmann. Fernandes ,Kiran Jude, Vinesh Raja and Jiju Antony,(2001), Optimum level of goal mapping in a reengineering environment, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No.1, pp. 24-32. Hammer M. and Stanton S.A. (1994), The Reengineering Revolution - The Handbook, HarperCollins, London. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), ``Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution'', Harper Business, New York, NY. Kannan, R, (2003),"Management by objectives (MBO)", Personal Website of R.Kannan, How to Conduct/Defend Departmental Inquiry Profile of the Disciplinary Authority , Intenet:[ http://in.geocities.com/kstability/projects/inquiry/dainto.html ] Kueng ,Peter and Peter Kawalek,(1997), Goal-based business process models: creation and evaluation, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 17-38. Lin ,Fu-Ren, Meng-Chyn Yang and Yu-Hua Pai,(2002), A generic structure for business process modeling ,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 19-41. Loucopoulos, P. and Karakostas, V. (1995), System Requirements Engineering, McGraw-Hill, London. Marjanovic, Olivera, (2000),"Supporting the soft side of business process reengineering", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp.43-53 Motwani, Jaideep, Ashok Kumar and James Jiang and Mohamed Youssef,(1998), Business process reengineering A theoretical framework and an integrated model, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 9/10, pp. 964-977

17

Paolucci, E., Bonci, F. and Russi, V. (1998), "Combining business process reengineering concepts and object-technology for effective organizational design, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 195-216. Raja, V. (1998), Business Process Reengineering at Marconi Marine, Company Report. Scherer, E. and Zlch, M., (1995), Design of activities in shop floor management: a holistic approach to organization at operational business levels in BPR projects, in Browne, J. and OSullivan, D. (Eds), Re-engineering the Enterprise, Proceedings of the IFIP TC5/WG5.7Working Conference, Galway, Ireland, 2021 April 1995, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 261-72. Skerath, Barbara,(2002), "Management by objectives, How exactly does it work?", Internet: [http://www.dwelle.de./rtc/dialog/dialog2002e/02-22.htm] Zucchi ,Fabio and John S. Edwards,(2000), How similar are human resource management practices in re-engineered organizations ?Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3 Zucchi ,Fabio and John S. Edwards,(1999), Human resource management aspects of business process reengineering: a survey, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4

18