Ina manner similar to Avoiding Supply Chain Management Failure: Lessons from Business Process Re-engineering Rachel Burgess University of Warwick Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) appears to have had its 15 minutes of fame and is now viewed by many managers as an unqualified failure. It is important that managers realize that every concept has some merit and that lessons can be learned even from a failure. This paper reviews the similarities that exist between BPR and ‘Supply Chain Management (SCM). These similarities allow supply chain practitioners to obtain valuable lessons from the mistakes associated with BPR implementation. “These lessons are reviewed and their application to SCM is explained. The popularity of management concepts, like any other fashion, rise and fall. One year a technique can be hailed as a panacea, able to provide any company with a competitive advantage. This is invariably followed by a backlash, with reports of expensive failures, supported by management fatigue and disillusionment. Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) is one of many management concepts that has followed this boom-bust trend. Launched in ‘the early 1990s, it was quickly accepted as the answer to many companies’ need to increase efficiency, aided by the statement from Peter Drucker that “re-engineering is new and it has to be done” [1]. However, few BPR efforts appear to have delivered the dramatic results that it promised, and by December, 1995 Tom Davenport, one of the creators of BPR, Supply Chain Management Although it has not yet seen the level of, evangelism that BPR did at its height, Supply Chain Management (SCM) is growing in popularity as a source of competitive advantage. The benefits associated with the twin approach of SCM - which consists of integrating the supply chain and the application of lean manufacturing techniques - and its significant scope, including technological, organizational, and attitudinal factors, have been well documented. These benefits include: a reduction in feadetimes; improved customer service; supply chain synergy; minimum total supply chain costs, (e.g. less inventory); and, improved quality 13,4. In a manner similar to BPR, the SCM BPR, the SCM concept : coe concept appeals to three powerful groups aimed that “in late 1995, re- ting isn’t appeals to three powerful (oot effectively over” QI. Within the business arena - senior managers groups within the : ah seeking to reduce costs; consultants; and, business arena - senior However it is important that managers hardware and software vendors looking to ‘i realize that every concept has some merit, and ‘managers seeking to increase their businesses {5]. These three ° that lessons can be learned even from the reduce costs consultants; Oo Graaticfllures, As Davenport noted: BTOUPS took up the message of BPR and and, hardware and Contributed fo its rapid acceptance. Likewise, software vendors looking As is always the case with any fad, SCM has become a popular buzz acronym, to increase their _there was a kernel of truth to fe- with many companies engaged in its ‘businesses. engineering. Over time that truth got application, consultants include it among their lost, But that doesn’t make it any less true, The most profound lesson of BPR.... (was) business processes and warned when the Next Big Thing in ‘management hits, try to remember the lessons of re-engineering. portfolios, and a multitude of IT packages available to ease supply chain integration. For SCM to avoid becoming just another ‘management fad, it must be approached with caution, Managers must truly understand the Concept and its implications if the “kernel of Volume.9, Number 1 1998 Page 15truth” is not to be lost among the hype. The similarities between SCM and BPR, which are discussed below, allow some important lessons to be leamed from the chequered past of BPR. Similarities Between SCM and BPR ‘A number of striking similarities exist between the fundamentals of BPR and those of SCM. This would appear to legitimize at least some of the BPR message, the fact that it has been reiterated and continued, although under a different banner. ‘A Fundamental Rethinking BPR, according to its originators, is concemned with “the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance” [6]. Re-engineering questions the assumptions of the past, and practitioners are encouraged to begin redesigning with a clean sheet of paper This is probably one of the most problematic facets of BPR, as it requires practitioners to think outside of the box; to move beyond their current perception of the world and question the very foundations upon which they do business. Minor modifications to what already ‘exists cannot be classed as re-engineering, as they only preserve the current assumptions in a slightly different format ‘The current working practices of most ‘organizations are based upon traditions and assumptions, which are no longer valid. The traditional Scientific Management approach to work organization provided the underlying assumption that industrial work should be broken down into its simplest and most basic tasks. As large industrial enterprises began to appear, hierarchical, command and control structures were employed to manage these sub-divided tasks. This has resulted in functionally based structures becoming the accepted norm. These hierarchical and functionally based organizational architectures were adequate for the period in which they were originally developed. information could not easily be transferred without repeated, manual reprocessing and the layers of management served to relay and communicate information across and through the enterprise. Efficiency and reliability in the performance of standard tasks was the key performance requirement. However, the changes which have occurred in terms of market requirements and new technological capabilities have made these original assumptions null and void. in many industries it is becoming more important to develop new products effectively than to produce old products efficiently. The traditional sellers market, where demand ‘outstripped supply, has been replaced by fast moving, sophisticated, customer-ted competition. Companies within industries burdened with excess capacity, such as the automotive industry, must fight for their survival. Being efficient is no longer enough, ‘customers also demand greater choice, better service and faster results, It is this recognition of the unsuitability of traditional structures and practices for this new level of competition, which underpins the need to question assumptions and to fundamentally rethink the way in which business is cartied out. Similarly, SCM takes an alternative view to the traditional assumption that companies compete one-on- one, instead it is based upon the idea that supply chains compete against each other. The integration of supply chain operations, both within and between organizations, is inconsistent with the traditional approach of many companies to their suppliers and customers, which is characterized by “leveraging, hammering, and negotiating” [7]. Such an approach was founded upon the assumption that each firm in the supply chain could improve its own profitability at the expense of others. However, the realization that there is only one teal source of income for the whole chain (the ‘end consumer) and that the sub-optimization of individual chain members will only transier, not remove, costs is making the confrontational bargaining approach ‘outdated. For example, attempting to reduce inventory costs by demanding JIT deliveries in small quantities from suppliers may initially appear to be a good idea. However, if inventory is simply being pushed upstream the costs have only been transferred, not removed, and in the long-term these costs are likely to be redeployed in terms of higher prices or the inflexibility of the chain. Furthermore, this confrontational approach has directly led to mistrust and hostility, which in turn has produced the withholding of information and, in turn, contributed to the problems associated with demand Being efficient is no longer enough, customers also demand greater ‘choice, better service and faster results. Page 16 The international journal of Logistics ManagementIt is the optimization of the total supply chain in serving the end customer (the source of income), rather than the various pacts of it, that is the goal of SCM, amplification and the Forrester Effect (8) Companies, such as Wal-Mart, w! ignored these assumptions, shocked existing organizations with the level of periormance they were able to achieve and quickly becarne dominant within their markets Having undermined one assumption, others will also be questioned and, because assumptions tend to linked together, they begin to fall like dominoes. For example, the assumption that you cannot trust other members of the chain leads to a host of other assumptions about the need to closely monitor them, such as the need for 100% quality inspections, invoicing procedures, and legally binding contracts. Both BPR and SCM require managers to challenge these assumptions and look at their business operations from a new perspective. Once this has been achieved, new approaches to doing business become available. ‘A Process Based Approach From the quotation in the introduction, it can be seen that Davenport clearly believes in the importance of processes as the basis for change. BPR has been credited with providing the shift in emphasis, from seeking organizational improvement at a functional level, to seeking improvement from processes, which cross the functional boundaries [9]. The creation of functionally based organizations ‘was founded upon the assumptions associated with Scientific Management. These boundaries are artificial barriers, which have been created, fragmenting processes and acting as obstacles to efforts to reduce lead times and increase flexibility. The concept of re-engineering argues that the only way to achieve dramatic performance improvements is to look beyond these artificial barriers, and address the end-to-end processes. For 8PR, processes are “at the very heart of every enterprise. They are the means by which companies create value for their customers fo.” SCM is itself a concept dependent upon a process view; it can be seen as the “integration of business processes from end user through original suppliers that provides products, services and information that add value for customers” [11]. There is agreement that the final stage of SCM implementation is a process as opposed to a functional focus 112] It is the optimization of the total supply chain in serving the end customer the source of income), rather than the various parts of it, that is the goal of SCM. This can only be achieved if the whole supply chain is considered in terms of processes, and planned holistically. This differs from the traditional functional approach, where the focus has not always been the customer due to the silo mentality, which encourages a functional focus and optimization, rather than business optimization [13]. ‘A Strategic Consideration ‘One of the key components of BPR is a rethinking of the organization's strategy [14]. Organizations cannot continue to rely upon their existing strategy if the world in which they are operating has changed. The radical changes associated with BPR require a fundamental review of the adopted strategy, as they will cut across the entire organization. The strategy should itself lead the BPR efforts, providing the goals for the changes being made. SCM has seen companies reformulating their strategies to take into account the competitive advantages that can be gained from improvements to the supply chain, The supply chain concept provides a new focus for strategic decision-making. Companies, which demonstrate world-class supply chain management characteristics, manage logistics as a major value-adding process and they exhibit an overriding commitment to end customers. A 1993 study of nearly 1,700 companies world-wide noted that the logistically excellent companies were those which had long range, strategic plans for their logistics processes, which considered the whole supply chain as a single entity [15}. The recognition of SCM as a competitive weapon to secure and maintain customer loyalty is an important step. Not only can SCM help firms to achieve their company goals, but it can also offer a greater insight into the opportunities and threats that their supply chain offers, thus allowing company strategies to be made in a more informed manner. Time As A Measure Time is an important measure both for [BPR and for SCM. AS an element of BPR, time is an important way of measuring performance Volume 9, Number 1 1998 Page 17in quality, variety and information. The ability to reduce the time that business processes take, by eliminating the non-value adding time (typically 95% of the total time) [16], is now recognized as a major source of competitive advantage. Reducing the time required to develop, manufacture and distribute products not only reduces costs, it also increases productivity, allows premium prices to be charged, reduces risks and increases flexibility (17). For those organizations implementing SCM, reduced lead-times are often among the main objectives. The concept of SCM offers considerable scope for attacking non-value added time, because so much of this occurs due to the changes of ownership and queuing involved in a traditional supply chain. By focusing upon the whole chain as a process it is possible to identify unnecessary transiers and methods for reducing queues - many of which are due to attempts to optimize functions, rather than the whole chain Greater cooperation w ‘opens up new opportunities to eliminate non value added activities, such as the holding of safety stock, because of the increased level of communication that occurs. Information Technology As A Catalyst Both concepts have been enabled by the advances in technology, which has opened up new possibilities for increasing value through better communication and information. tt is this new technology which allows both concepts to break free of the traditional assumptions about the way that companies ‘operate. Information technology has made a wider variety of information available to more individuals than could have ever been predicted. This has revolutionized individuals ability to share, collate, analyze, and store information, which opens up new possibilities for performing and organizing work, ‘undermining the assumptions of the pas. ‘Two main flows can be identified within a supply chain, the flow of goods and materials forward towards the customer and the flow of information back to the suppliers ‘When companies enter into partnerships with other members of the supply chain, it is important to integrate both flows in order to provide a flexible yet efficient chain “Information has always been central to the efficient management of logistics but now, enabled by technology, it is providing the Page 18 driving force for competitive logistics strategy 18.” It can improve customer service and tower costs by providing integration between the members of the supply chain. Technologies such as Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) allow information to be exchanged much faster and more accurately. In the retail industry EDI, bar coding and Electronic Point of Sale (EPOS) systems have led to the rise of Quick Response Logistics. Demand can be captured by monitoring check-out sales and the information can be sent directly to suppliers who can plan production and schedule delivery on a replenishment basis. Lessons from Business Process Re-engineering In a relatively short period of time, BPR has been through the boor-bust trend. While many writers are now discrediting BPR, itis important that we do not simply disregard the lessons that have been learned. A number of factors have been identified for achieving success with BPR. These are important lessons, not only for those that wish to embark on a re-engineering exercise, but also for those involved in SCM. Identification of Competitive Advantage ‘An important first step for any change program is a good diagnosis of the needs and problems. Management must identify what will add valve in the eyes of the customers. Too many managers assume they know what their customers want, believing it to be sel- evident. This can lead to self-imposed and misleading targets, which do not reflect the true customer demands. ‘Matthews {19] argues that even the belief that the food industry knows the consumer is a ‘myth. He claims that all the industry knows is “a top-line of shopper behavior when it occurs in the stores, but not the real critical information”. The industy needs to move from using scan data as a means of generating revenue to a tool leading to anticipatory selling. Supermarkets are now beginning to collect far more detailed data, through the use Of store loyalty cards, in order to gain a true understanding of buyer behavior. Such knowledge is particularly important for a major change such as BPR, which is in effect the process of re-inventing ‘The concept of SCM offers considerable scope for attacking non-value added time, because so much of this occurs due to the changes of ‘ownership and queuing involved in a traditional supply chain. ‘The International Journal of Logistics ManagementThe most successful re-engineering projects were those which tackled processes, which comprised most of the critical activities (those affecting the key outputs) in the business unit. The insight inherent in SCM is that the consumer is the only source of income for the whole chain of enterprises. Hence SCM is really BPR of this chain, whose final ‘output is the reason for the contribution of ever participant. the business, It not only allows the opportunity to challenge these assumptions, but provides a solid basis for the subsequent changes because it focuses on outputs. By understanding what the customer really wants {in terms of product, information and service, and how competitive advantage can be achieved; organizations can begin to identify what processes should be changed and what targets should be set to achieve the optimal results ‘Although many SCM efforts concentrate upon improving the current supply chain and. the removal of waste (as opposed to a concept redesign), these changes too should be focused on markel/customer-driven targets. This should ensure that the customers - current and potential - detect the changes and the benefit from them. There is a danger that changes will become inwardly focused; BPR and SCM should be seen as enabling techniques within the overall context of the strategic direction of the company, they should not be seen as an end in themselves. Change Must Be Broad ‘An examination of over 100 companies involved in BPR concluded that many BPR projects failed to produce the major results expected because they were too narrowly defined and had little impact upon overall performance [20]. The most successful re-engineering projects were those which tackled processes, which comprised most of the critical activities (those affecting the key outputs) in the business unit. This is illustrated in Figure 1. It can be seen that the greater the breadth of change, the more activities that are tackled, the greater the benefit to the business unit This is because the dramatic improvements expected from re-engineering can only be achieved by radical redesign. Any limits placed upon the activities that can be tackled will pose limits upon the scope of the changes that can be made. Limiting change to an organizational unit, or part of a process, constrains the change because it will be restricted by the demands of the people who precede and follow the activities. Radical change can only be achieved when the sole constraint is the customer's needs. This is also true of SCM, with the underlying principle that tackling the chain as a whole will produce exponentially greater benefits than improving individual echelons. The insight inherent in SCM is that the consumer is the only source of income for the whole chain of enterprises. Hence SCM is, really BPR of this chain, whose final output is the reason for the contribution of ever participant. Change Must Be Deep In addition to breadth, the same study Cost Reduction as % of Business Unit os Figure Breadth Reduces Overall Business Unit Coste [91] Incafunctional ‘All Business Activities tha Drive Comp. A. Volume 9, Number 1 1998 Page 19judged that successful redesigns were those which completely restructured the key drivers of behavior. This ensured that the actual results measured up to those planned. Figure 2 demonstrates the relationship that exists between the depth of the change, how many of the elements that constitute the company ‘are changed, and the reduction in process costs, Each of these depth elements support the status quo, encouraging the organization to fall back into its old habits. The more elements that are addressed and altered, the more sustainable the change, Hewitt [21] stated that true process redesign is only likely to be successful if it is recognized as a multidimensional activity, simultaneously and explicitly addressing all SCM components For most companies, SCM represents a significant change in the way that they operate = both in terms of behavior and attitudes. The move to SCM must be supported by changes in all six depth elements if it is to be reinforced and thus sustained. As Hammer, et al. have argued, “people working in new ways must be managed in new ways” [22]. For example, the introduction of new technology alone is unlikely to produce any real change in employee performance. However, if it is supported by training in new skills, the implementation of new measures of performance, and new responsibilities then the change should be more pronounced. Thus, the scale of change associated with successful BPR and SCM, being both broad and deep, makes them appear relatively risky investments, They may be all or nothing ventures, which can be frightening to invariably conservative organizations. However, as with most investments, the greater the risk involved, the higher the possible return, The offset is the risk of doing, nothing, or making minor changes, and losing oul to someone else. ‘The danger comes in assuming that the industry's future is predictable and will look like its past projected forward through time, minor changes to the existing systems will allow the company to continue to compete as before. The hard fact is that if this were the case, Wal-Mart would not be selling food, no ‘one would own a personal stereo or would have heard of Microsoft. Progress tends to be defined by a series of leapfrog manoeuvres ‘occurring when an innovator enters a market {or brings a new idea or concept to an existing market) and the rest of the market struggles to play catch-up. BPR and SCM both offer the ‘opportunity to make this sort of step change. Do Not Ignore Resistance (One of the main reasons cited for the aidimensional Figure 2 Deptt Reduces Specific Process Costs [32] Cost Reduction as a Percentage of the Process “Dep s mozsve by ow many ad yaw WUE own S's ver were ang ecpnsoune, easements en cere, Onaztora Site, ema Teeuelgy, Shred Vas Sd Sle Users ‘hang potes cage mene le stve iva wa ulosonal ce Poke Pe cet nes, The ts cok ec inode ops Wutidensonal 8 ag ol eengsareg: Pos nd Progress tends to be defined by a series of leapfrog manoeuvres occurring when an innovator enters a market (or brings a new idea or concept to an existing market) and the rest of the market struggles to play catch-up. BPR and SCM both offer the ‘opportunity to make this sort of step change. Page 20 The Intemational Journal of Logistics Managementfailure of BPR is the lack of attention given to the human element of such a significant change [23]. Resistance to change is a normal, human reaction to the unknown. A fundamental reorganization of the way in Which people work will inevitably produce significant levels of resistance among the employees. This resistance should not be feared or viewed as a wali to be broken down. Resistance shows the strength of feeling that employees possess about the organization and their jobs, and is infinitely preferable to apathy. The fact that employees Care means that, if they can be persuaded of the need for the change, they can become truly committed to it If the change is to be implemented successfully, then the personal concerns of all those involved need to be addressed. A recent UK study has shown that successful BPR users are explicitly dealing with the human issues of change, attempting to frame and analyze their cultures (24) SCM requires most companies to change both the behavior and the attitudes of all employees to some extent. However, practitioners appear to be falling into the same trap as users of BPR, in that they place excessive emphasis upon the use of information technology, and not enough upon the real problems of SCM implementation, people-telated barriers [25] All employees are potential saboteurs and need to buy-in to the change. Employee ‘commitment to the change will be increased i they are included in the development and implementation stages, giving them a personal investment in the success of the new processes and ideals. Participation in the change creates a sense of control. It also provides an outlet for negative feelings; they can be directed towards improving the new design, rather than ritcizing it. The employees’ knowledge and skills are a vital constituent of the foundations of the change. Along with participation, communication is a key factor in gaining commitment to the change and sustaining it. Everyone in the organization (not just those on the project teams),needs to understand why the change is necessary, what is being done and the impact that the change will have on the business. However, communication is as much about listening to the concems of employees, as itis about explaining and selling the change. Communication should be planned as an integral part of the change process. Executive Leadership With any major change, the commitment of senior executives is vital. It is particularly important to both BPR and SCM because of the scale of the change they represent (.e. the breadth and depth required). This scale of change needs to be part of the ‘organization’s strategy, and needs the support ‘of those who formulate and implement that strategy. Senior management commitment is important in demonstrating that the changes are not a passing fad, and to guide the ‘commitment of other employees. Senior management commitment has also been identified as an important factor in gelting the resources required for SCM changes {26]. This is linked to the problem of identifying direct financial benefits from Supply Chain Management and the long-term nature of the concept. In effect, the continued investment in SCM is an act of faith on the part of executives.. tt has been suggested that the Chief Executive should commit 20%-50% of his time to the project [271 The move towards a process-based ‘organization is also likely to alter the roles and responsibilities of top management. Some senior managers will be unable to accept these changes, and they can become very effective saboteurs. It is important that the change is jointly owned by alll the senior executive, thus reducing the effect of one or two dissenters amongst the group. Although it may be possible, through dialogue, to conver. these objectors; companies should be prepared for the loss of senior managers, Use Consultants With Care BPR has been a popular concept among consultants and the daunting nature of such a large scale change has led many companies to hire consultants to help them, The improper ‘use of consultants can have an adverse effect ‘upon the sustainability of the change. In 1996 the UK Social Affairs Unit report A Balloon Waiting to be Burst noted “an alarming tendency in British organizations to accept uncrtically @ mishmash of quack managerial remedies" Consultants can provide a useful role in major change, both by bringing a fresh perspective on the problems and by passing on their own knowledge and skills to Volume 9, Number 1 1998 Page 21the team. However, managers should not believe that consultants have all the answers or delegate the development of the company to them, Accountability and responsibility are primary determinants of successful consulting engagements [28]. Where management cedes control of critical projects to outside consultants, it is usually because the clients themselves do not know what to do or how to do it. To quote Machiavelli: “A prince who is not himself wise cannot be wisely advised” (29). ‘As noted above, employee participation is an important factor in achieving employee commitment and sustaining the changes. Over-dependency upon consultants can lead to the loss of this commitment, as well as the loss of employee knowledge. If employees perceive the changes are being imposed upon them by outsiders who have little understanding of the true situation, resistance will be significant and participation minimal. Be Prepared For The Unexpected With any project there is a level of uncertainty involved, and with a project on the scale of BPR or SCM this uncertainty is exaggerated because of the lack of knowledge about the entire process - most employees will have never looked beyond their own department. The available evidence suggests that re-engineering always takes longer than expected, always involves more resources than are available and always presents unanticipated problems [30]. For example, although IT is seen as a major catalyst for both BPR and SCM, it can also be a major constraint with companies trying to free up their large legacy systems. Good project management involves the setting of measurable objectives, which provide a clear focus for the changes and the careful planning of the approach to be taken, with realistic milestones. These then allow the project to be monitored and corrective action taken, as and when necessary. Although it is important that companies spend time planning the projects, they must also be prepared for the unexpected and arrange contingency plans. This level of uncertainty also corroborates the need for top management commitment, which will be severely tested by the difficulties associated with a major change. Page 2 Conclusion Executives and managers alike need to look beyond the hype that often accompanies management concepts. They need to truly understand what underlies the concept, how the competitive advantage is achieved, and how this may be applied to their own ‘organization, For every management concept success there will be many more failures. The difference between those that fail and those that succeed is understanding and ‘commitment. Each concept must be evaluated {or its appropriateness to a given situation, but none offers a ‘quick fix’. Real change takes time and effort to implement, it also needs to bbe multidimensional if ti to be sustained. The lessons learned from the implementation of BPR should be kept in mind during the implementation of SCM. Although these are not the only success factors for implementing SCM, they do give some idea of the level of commitment and effort involved in making such a change. By understanding those issues, which caused difficulties for the implementation of BPR, practitioners of SCM may be able to avoid making similar mistakes or resolve them before they become e major problem. References [1] Hammer, Michael and James Champy, Re-Engineering The Corporation, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 1993. [2] Davenport, Tom, “Why Re- engineering Failed: The Fad That Forgot People,” Fast Company, Premiere Issue, 1996. (3) Bowersox, Donald and David Closs, Logistical Management, Intemational Edition, London: McGraw-Hill, 1996. (4) Christopher, Martin, Logistics and Supply Chain Management, London: Pitman Publishing, 1992. [5] Mumford, Enid and R. Hendricks, “Re-engineering Rhetoric and Reality: The Rise and Fall of a Management Fashion," EPSRC Business Process Resource Center Web Site, Http://opre.warwick.ac.uk/re-repb- 6.html., 1996, 16] Hammer, Michael and James Champy, 1993, op. 17) Davis, D., “Partnerships Pay Off,” Manufacturing Systems, November 1994, pp. 4-14 By understanding those issues, which caused difficulties for the implementation of BPR, Practitioners of SCM may be able to avoid ‘making similar mistakes or resolve them before they become a major problem. The International Journal of Logistics ManagementVolume 9, Number 1 1998 (8] Forrester, |. W., industrial Dynamics, ‘Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1961 9] Childe, S., R. Maull and 8. Mills, “U. K. Experiences in Business Process Re-engineering,” EPSRC Business Process Resource Center = Web —_ Site, Httpy/bpre.warwick.ac.ub/te-rep-9.himl, 1996. [10] Hammer, Michael and Steven A Stanton, The Reengineering Revolution, Harper Business, 1995, p. 5, [11] Cooper, Martha C., Douglas M. Lambert and Janus D. Pagh, “Supply Chain ‘Management: More Than a New Name for Logistics,” The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1997), pp. 1-13, [12] Bechtel, Christian and Jayanth Jayaram, “Supply Chain Management: A Strategic Perspective,” The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1997), pp. 15-34. [13] Hammer, Michael, “Re-engineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, No. 4 (1990), pp. 104-172 [141 Childe, 5., R. Maull and 8. Mills, 1996, op cit [15] Byrne, Patrick M. and William J Markham, “Only 10% of Companies Satisfy Customers,” Transport and Distribution; December, 1993, pp. 41-45, [16] Beesley, Adrian, “Time Compression = New Source of Competitiveness in the Supply Chain,” Logistics Focus, Vol. 3, No. 5 (1995), pp. 24-25. [17] Stalk, George and Thomas M. Hout, Competing Against Time, New York: The Free Press: 1990, p. 31, 118] Christopher, Martin, 1992, op. cit. p.169. (19] Matthews, Ryan, “Shattering The Myths,” Progressive Grocer, Vol. 76, No. 8 (August 1997), pp. 67-70. [20] Hall, G., J. Rosenthal and J, Wade, “How To Make Re-Engineering Really Work,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, No. 6 (1993), pp. 119-131 [21] Hewitt, Fred, “Supply Chain Redesign,” The International journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1994), pp. 1-10. [22] Hammer, Michael and Steven A. Stanton, 1995, op. cit, p. 30. [23] Grover, Varun, Seung Ryul Jeong, William J. Kettinger and James T. C. Teng, “The Implementation Of Business Process Re- engineering,” Journal of Management information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Summer 1995), p. 109, [24) Childe, S., R. Maull and B. Mills, 1996, op. cit. [25} Baxter, Andrew, “Breaks in the Supply Chain - People are the Biggest Barrier to Good Logistics,” The Financial Times, London: April 1ith, 1994, p.11 [26] Burgess, Rachel, “The Best Practice Implementation of Supply Chain Management,” submitted towards the degree of Engineering Doctorate, University of Warwick, 1997. [27] Hall, G., J. Rosenthal and J. Wade, 1993, op.cit [28] O'Shea, James and Charles Madigan, Dangerous Company: The Consulting Powerhouses and the Companies They Save and Ruin, Times Busines/Random House, 1997. [29] Machiavelli, Niccoli, The Prince. [30] Mumford, E. and 8. Hendricks, 1996, opcit. [31] Hall, G., J. Rosenthal and J. Wade, 1993, opt. [32] Hall, G., J. Rosenthal and J. Wade, 1993, op.cit. also being used as the basis for her Er Rachel Burgess is a Research Engineer at the Warwick Manufacturing Group, [University of Warwick. She is currently specializing in Supply Chain Management within the aerospace industry, working with a multi-national component supplier. This work is ring Doctorate, which is funded by EPSRC. [She can be reached at the Intemational Manufacturing Center, IMC Building, Room 308, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom. Phone: 01203524972. Fax: 01203 524307. E-mail: esrit@warwick.ac.uk Page 23