Proceedings of The 4 th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice November 17-20, 1999, San

Antonio, Texas, USA * Corresponding author BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING: A CONSOLIDATED METHODOLOGY Subramanian Muthu, Larry Whitman, and S. Hossein Cheraghi Dept. of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Wichita State University Wichita, KS-67260 0035, USA . Abstract Business Process Reengineering is a discipline in which extensive research has been carried out and numerous methodologies churned out. But what seems to be lacking is a structured approach. In this paper we provide a review of BPR and present best of breed methodologies from contemporary literature and introduce a consolidated, systematic approach to the redesign of a business enterprise. The methodology includes the five activities: Prepare for reengineering, Map and Analyze As-Is process, Design To-be process, Implement reengineered process and Improve continuously.

Keywords: Business Process Reengineering, Methodology, Improvement 1.0 Introduction: In todays ever-changing world, the only thing that doesnt change is change itself. In a world increasingly driven by the three Cs: Customer, Competition and Change, companies are on the lookout for new solutions for their business problems[4]. Recently, some of the more successful business corporations in the world seem to have hit upon an incredible solution: Business Process Reengineering (BPR). Some of the recent headlines in the popular press read, Wal-Mart reduces restocking time from six weeks to thirty-six hours. Hewlett Packards assembly time for server computers touches new low- four minutes.

Taco Bells sales soars from $500 million to $3 billion[3]. The reason behind these success stories: Business Process Reengineering! 2.0 What is reengineering? Reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance such as cost, quality, service and speed[4]. The key words in the preceding definition are the italicized ones. BPR advocates that enterprises go back to the basics and reexamine their very roots. It doesnt believe in small improvements. Rather it aims at total reinvention. As for results: BPR is clearly not for companies who want a 10% improvement. It is for the ones that need a ten-fold increase. According to Hammer and Champy [4], the last but the most important of the four key words is the word-process. BPR focuses on processes and not on tasks, jobs or people. It endeavors to redesign the strategic and value added processes that transcend organizational boundaries. 3.0 What to reengineer? : According to many in the BPR field reengineering should focus on processes and not be limited to thinking about the organizations. After all the organization is only as effective as its processes[4,6] So, what is a process? A business process is a series of steps designed to produce a product or a service. It includes all the activities that deliver particular results for a given customer(external or internal)[9]. Processes are currently invisible and unnamed because people think about the individual departments more often than the process with which all of them are involved. So companies that are currently used to talking in terms of departments such as marketing and manufacturing must switch to giving names to the processes that they do such that they express the beginning and end states. These names should imply all the work that gets done between the start and finish. For example, order fulfillment can be called order to payment process [4]. Talking about the importance of processes just as companies have organization charts, they should also have what are called process maps to give a picture of how work flows through the company. Process mapping provides tools and a proven methodology for identifying your current As-Is business processes and can be 2 used to provide a To-Be roadmap for reengineering your product and service business enterprise functions. It is the critical link that your reengineering team can apply to better understand and significantly improve your business processes and bottom-line performance[4,6]. Having identified and mapped the processes, deciding which ones need to be reengineered and in what

order is the million-dollar question. No company can take up the unenviable task of reengineering all the processes simultaneously. Generally they make there choices based on three criteria:- dysfunction: which processes are functioning the worst?; importance: which are the most critical and influential in terms of customer satisfaction; feasibility: which are the processes that are most likely to be successfully reengineered[4]. 4.0 How to reengineer? With an understanding of the basics of BPR, five methodologies are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. A few BPR methodologies from contemporary literature Activity# Methodology #1 [11] Methodology #2 [5] 1 Develop vision & strategy Determine Customer Requirements &Goals for the Process 2 Create desired culture Map and Measure the Existing Process 3 Integrate & Improve enterprise Analyze and Modify Existing Process 4 Develop technology solutions Design a Reengineered Process: 5 Implement the Reengineered Process Activity# Methodology#3 [2] Methodology #4 [9] Methodology #5 [7] 1 Set Direction Motivating Reengineering Preparation 2 Baseline and Benchmark Justifying Reengineering Identification 3 Create the Vision Planning Reengineering Vision 4 Launch Problem Solving Projects Setting up for Reengineering Technical & Social design 5 Design Improvements As Is Description & Analysis: Transformation 6 Implement Change To-Be Design and Validation 7 Embed Continuous Improvement Implementation 4.1 Consolidated Methodology: A consolidated methodology has been developed from the five methodologies previously presented and an IDEF0 model was developed to provide a structured approach and to facilitate understanding. But for the sake of brevity, we have shown only the major activities in the IDEF0 model in Figure 1. In the ensuing section, we deal with the details of our methodology. 4.1.1 Activity #1: Prepare for Reengineering: If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. Planning and Preparation are vital factors for any activity or event to be successful, and reengineering is no exception. Before attempting reengineering, the question Is BPR necessary?

should be asked? There should be a significant need for the process to be reengineered. The justification of this need marks the beginning of the Preparation activity[9]. 3 Figure 1 BPR: The surest way to the Top! This activity begins with the development of executive consensus on the importance of reengineering and the link between breakthrough business goals and reengineering projects. A mandate for change is produced and a cross-functional team is established with a game plan for the process of reengineering. While forming the crossfunctional team, steps should be taken to ensure that the organization continues to function in the absence of several key players[5]. As typical BPR projects involve cross-functional cooperation and significant changes to the status quo, the planning for organizational changes is difficult to conduct without strategic direction from the top. The impact of the environmental changes that serve as the impetus for the reengineering effort must also be considered in establishing guidelines for the reengineering project. Another important factor to be considered while establishing the strategic goals for the reengineering effort, is to make it your first priority to understand the expectations of your customers and where your existing process falls short of meeting those requirements. Having identified the customer driven objectives, the mission or vision statement is formulated. The vision is what a company believes it wants to achieve when it is done, and a well-defined vision will sustain a companys resolve through the stress of the reengineering process. It can act as the flag around which to rally the troops when the morale begins to sag and it provides the yard stick for measuring the companys progress[4, 9]. 4.1.2 Activity #2: Map and Analyze As-Is Process: Before the reengineering team can proceed to redesign the process, they should understand the existing process. Although some BPR proponents (in particular Hammer and Champy) argue against analyzing the current enterprise, saying that it inhibits the creative process, that might not always hold true[1]. It varies from case to case. While some organizations which are in dire straits might go the Hammer and Champy way (attempt a new process design while totally ignoring the existing processes) most organizations need to map the existing processes first, analyze and improve on it to design new processes. The important aspect of BPR (what makes BPR, BPR) is that the improvement should provide dramatic results. Many people do not understand the value of an As-Is analysis and rather prefer to spend a larger chunk of their valuable time on designing the To-Be model directly. What follows is an illustration that illustrates this fallacy. A large manufacturer spent six million dollars over a period of one year in a bid to develop a parts-tracking

system and was all set to go online. Only then did he realize that he had totally overlooked a small piece of information the mode of transmission of information between the scheduling staff and the shop floor was through Prepare for BPR Build Cross functional team Identify Customer driven objective Develop Strategic Purpose Map & Analyze As-Is Process Create Activity Models Create Process Models Simulate & Perform ABC Identify disconnects & value adding processes Design To-Be Processes Benchmark processes

 Design To-Be processes Validate To-Be processes Perform Trade-off Analysis Implement Reengineered processes Evolve Implementation plan Prototype & simulate transition plans. Initiate training programs Implement transition plan Improve Continuously Initiate Ongoing measurement Review performance against target Improve process continuously 4

a phone call. But just because this small yet vital information had not been documented all his efforts added up to naught and the whole system that he had so painstakingly developed had to be scrapped. Alas! He had recognized the need for an As-Is analysis, way too late[1]. The main objective of this phase is to identify disconnects (anything that prevents the process from achieving desired results and in particular information transfer between organizations or people) and value adding processes[9]. This is initiated by first creation and documentation of Activity and Process models making use of the various modeling methods available. Then, the amount of time that each activity takes and the cost that each activity requires in terms of resources is calculated through simulation and activity based costing(ABC). All the groundwork required having been completed, the processes that need to be reengineered are identified. 4.1.3 Activity #3: Design To-Be process: The objective of this phase is to produce one or more alternatives to the current situation, which satisfy the strategic goals of the enterprise. The first step in this phase is benchmarking. Benchmarking is the comparing of both the performance of the organizations processes and the way those processes are conducted with those relevant peer organizations to obtain ideas for improvement[7]. The peer organizations need not be competitors or even from the same industry. Innovative practices can be adopted from anywhere, no matter what their source. Having identified the potential improvements to the existing processes, the development of the To-Be models is done using the various modeling methods available, bearing in mind the principles of process design. Then, similar to the As-Is model, we perform simulation and ABC to analyze factors like the time and cost involved. It should be noted that this activity is an iterative process and cannot be done overnight. The several To-Be models that are finally arrived at are validated. By performing Trade off Analysis the best possible To-Be scenarios are selected for implementation. 4.1.4 Activity #4:Implement Reengineered Process: The implementation stage is where reengineering efforts meet the most resistance and hence it is by far the most difficult one[2]. If we expect that the environment would be conducive to the reengineering effort we are sadly mistaken. The question that confronts us would be, If BPR promises such breath taking results then why wasnt it adopted much earlier? We could expect to face all kinds of opposition - from blatantly hostile antagonists to passive adversaries: all of them determined to kill the effort. When so much time and effort is spent on analyzing the current processes, redesigning them and planning the migration, it would indeed be prudent to run a culture change program simultaneously with all the planning and preparation. This would enable the organization to undergo a much more

facile transition. But whatever may be the juncture in time that the culture change program may be initiated, it should be rooted in our minds that winning the hearts and minds of everyone involved in the BPR effort is most vital for the success of the effort[10]. Once this has been done, the next step is to develop a transition plan from the As-Is to the redesigned process. This plan must align the organizational structure, information systems, and the business policies and procedures with the redesigned processes. Rapid implementation of the information system that is required to support a reengineered business process is critical to the success of the BPR project. The IDEF models that were created in the As-Is can be mapped to those created during the To-Be and an initial list of change requirements generated. Additional requirements for the construction of the To-Be components can be added and the result organized into a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). Recent developments in BPR software technologies enable automatic migration of these WBS activity/relationships into a process modeling environment. The benefit here is that we can now define the causal and time sequential relationships between the activities planned[9]. Using prototyping and simulation techniques, the transition plan is validated and its pilot versions are designed and demonstrated. Training programs for the workers are initiated and the plan is executed in full scale. 4.1.5 Activity #5: Improve Process Continuously: A process cannot be reengineered overnight. A very vital part in the success of every reengineering effort lies in improving the reengineered process continuously. The first step in this activity is monitoring. Two things have to be monitored the progress of action and the results. The progress of action is measured by seeing how much more informed the people feel, how much more commitment the management shows and how well the change teams are accepted in the broader perspective of the organization. This can be achieved by conducting attitude surveys and discrete fireside chats with those initially not directly involved with the change. As for monitoring the results, the monitoring should include such measures as employee attitudes, customer perceptions, supplier responsiveness etc[12]. Communication is strengthened throughout the organization, ongoing measurement is initiated, team reviewing of performance against clearly defined targets is done and a feedback loop is set up 5 wherein the process is remapped, reanalyzed and redesigned. Thereby continuous improvement of performance is ensured through a performance tracking system and application of problem solving skills. Continuous improvement (TQM) and BPR have always been considered mutually exclusive to each other. But on the contrary, if performed simultaneously they would complement each other wonderfully well. In fact TQM can be used as a tool to handle the various problems encountered during the BPR effort and to continuously improve the process. In corporations

that have not adopted the TQM culture as yet, application of TQM to the newly designed processes should be undertaken as a part of the reengineering effort[8]. 5.0 Conclusion: An intense customer focus, superior process design and a strong and motivated leadership are vital ingredients to the recipe for the success of any business corporation. Reengineering is the key that every organization should possess to attain these prerequisites to success. BPR doesnt offer a miracle cure on a platter. Nor does it provide a painless quick fix. Rather it advocates strenuous hard work and instigates the people involved to not only to change what they do but targets at altering their basic way of thinking itself. In this paper we have attempted in evolving a structured approach to reengineering. 50 to 70 percent of reengineering efforts fail to deliver the intended dramatic results[4]. Those who are standing in the wings afraid to take the plunge must remember just this: A BPR effort has been considered a failure just because it doesnt provide the dramatic results it promised to deliver. But on after thoughts hasnt there been a significant improvement in the companys performance? A 200 % increase in output may not match the 300 % predicted. It may be a failure according to the high standards set by preceding BPR efforts. But if the question is Are the results good enough for pursuing the BPR effort? The answer is a resounding YES!!! One more very critical factor to be noted is that the statement says- 50 to 70 % efforts have failed and not that they will fail. There is a monumental difference between the two. We can track down all these failures to the common trivial mistakes that these corporations commit. Once these mistakes are identified and overcome, the successful completion of the BPR effort is very much possible. Moreover failure doesnt mean that reengineering stops forever. It usually stalls and then restarts as the company gets itself refocused and remobilized. It cannot stop. The business imperative is just too great[4] ! 6.0 Future Research: An IDEF0 model for Transforming the Enterprise is being developed and will be published on the web shortly. References 1. Feldmann Clarence.G, (1998),The Practical Guide to Business Process Reengineering using IDEF0., Dorset House Publishing, New York. 2. Furey, Timothy.R., (1993), A Six Step Guide to Process Reengineering., Planning Review 21 (2), 20-23 3. Grover,Varun., Malhotra, Manoj.K.,(1995), Business Process Reengineering: A tutorial on the concept,

evolution, method, technology and application., Journal of Operations Management 15 (1997) 193-213 4. Hammer,M., Champy.J., (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution., Harper Collins, London. 5. Harrison, Brian.D., Pratt, Maurice.D., (1993), A methodology for Reengineering Business., Planning Review 21 (2), 6-11. 6. Hunt, Daniel.V., (1996), Process Mapping: How to Reengineer your Business Process., John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York. 7. Manganelli, Raymond.L., Klein, Mark.M., (1994), The Reengineering Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Business Transformation., American Management Association, New York. 8. Martin, James., (1995),The Great Transition: Using the Seven Disciplines of Enterprise Engineering to Align People, Technology, and Strategy., American Management Association, New York. 9. Mayer, Richard.J., Dewitte, Paula.S., (1998), Delivering Results: Evolving BPR from art to engineering., 10. Obolensky, Nick., (1994)., Practical Business Reengineering., Gulf Publishing Company, Houston. 11. Underdown, D. R.,(1997), Transform Enterprise Methodology. Unpublished Paper www.mrc.twsu.edu/enteng/tem.html

Business Process Reengineering

Business process reengineering (often referred to by the acronym BPR) is the main way in which organizations become more efficient and modernize. Business process reengineering transforms an organization in ways that directly affect performance. The Impact Of BPR On Organizational Performance The two cornerstones of any organization are the people and the processes. If individuals are motivated and working hard, yet the business processes are cumbersome and non-essential activities remain, organizational performance will be poor. Business Process Reengineering is the key to transforming how people work. What appear to be minor changes in processes can have dramatic effects on cash flow, service delivery and customer satisfaction. Even the act of documenting business processes alone will typically improve organizational efficiency by 10%. How To Implement A BPR Project The best way to map and improve the organization's procedures is to take a top down approach, and not undertake a project in isolation. That means: Starting with mission statements that define the purpose of the organization and describe what sets it apart from others in its sector or industry. Producing vision statements which define where the organization is going, to provide a clear picture of the desired future position. Build these into a clear business strategy thereby deriving the project objectives. Defining behaviours that will enable the organization to achieve its' aims. Producing key performance measures to track progress. Relating efficiency improvements to the culture of the organization Identifying initiatives that will improve performance.

Once these building blocks are in place, the BPR exercise can begin. Tools To Support BPR When a BPR project is undertaken across the organization, it can require managing a massive amount of information about the processes, data and systems. If you don't have an excellent tool to support BPR, the management of this information can become an impossible task. The use of a good BPR/documentation tool is vital in any BPR project. The types of attributes you should look for in BPR software are: Graphical interface for fast documentation "Object oriented" technology, so that changes to data (eg: job titles) only need to be made in one place, and the change automatically appears throughout all the organization's procedures and documentation. Drag and drop facility so you can easily relate organizational and data objects to each step in the process Customizable meta data fields, so that you can include information relating to your industry, business sector or organization in your documentation Analysis, such as swim-lanes to show visually how responsibilities in a process are transferred between different roles, or where data items or computer applications are used. Support for Value Stream mapping. CRUD or RACI reports, to provide evidence for process improvement. The ability to assess the processes against agreed international standards Simulation software to support 'what-if' analyses during the design phase of the project to develop LEAN processes The production of word documents or web site versions of the procedures at the touch of a single button, so that the information can be easily maintained and updated. The software we use by choice is 2c8, a very comprehensive Swedish system that has been translated into English. 2c8 meets all the above requirements, and many more, and is better than any system originated in English that we have seen. Conclusion To be successful, business process reengineering projects need to be top down, taking in the complete organization, and the full end to end processes. It needs to be supported by tools that make processes easy to track and analyze. If you would like help with your BPR project,

What is Business Process Redesign? Business Process Redesign is "the analysis and design of workflows and processes within and between organizations" (Davenport & Short 1990). Teng et al. (1994) define BPR as "the critical analysis and radical redesign of existing business processes to achieve breakthrough improvements in performance measures." How Does BPR Differ from TQM? Teng et al. (1994) note that in recent years, increased attention to business processes is largely due to the TQM (Total Quality Movement). They conclude that TQM and BPR share a crossfunctional orientation. Davenport observed that quality specialists tend to focus on incremental change and gradual improvement of processes, while proponents of reengineering often seek radical redesign and drastic improvement of processes.

Davenport (1993) notes that Quality management, often referred to as total quality management (TQM) or continuous improvement, refers to programs and initiatives that emphasize incremental improvement in work processes and outputs over an open-ended period of time. In contrast, Reengineering, also known as business process redesign or process innovation, refers to discrete initiatives that are intended to achieve radically redesigned and improved work processes in a bounded time frame. Contrast between the two is provided by Davenport (1993):

Process Improvement (TQM) versus Process Innovation (BPR) From Davenport (1993, p. 11) Improvement Innovation Level of Change Incremental Radical Starting Point Existing Process Clean Slate Frequency of Change One-time/Continuous One-time Time Required Short Long Participation Bottom-Up Top-Down Typical Scope Narrow, within functions Broad, cross-functional Risk Moderate High Primary Enabler Statistical Control Information Technology Type of Change Cultural Cultural/Structural

What is a Business Process? Davenport & Short (1990) define business process as "a set of logically related tasks performed to achieve a defined business outcome." A process is "a structured, measured set of activities designed to produce a specified output for a particular customer or market. It implies a strong emphasis on how work is done within an organization" (Davenport 1993). In their view processes have two important characteristics: (i) They have customers (internal or external), (ii) They cross organizational boundaries, i.e., they occur across or between organizational subunits. One technique for identifying business processes in an organization is the value chain method proposed by Porter and Millar (1985). Processes are generally identified in terms of beginning and end points, interfaces, and organization units involved, particularly the customer unit. High Impact processes should have process owners. Examples of processes include: developing a new product; ordering goods from a supplier; creating a marketing plan; processing and paying an insurance claim; etc.

Processes may be defined based on three dimensions (Davenport & Short 1990): . Entities: Processes take place between organizational entities. They could be Interorganizational (e.g. EDI, i.e., Electronic Data Interchange), Interfunctional or Interpersonal (e.g. CSCW, i.e., Computer Supported Cooperative Work). . Objects: Processes result in manipulation of objects. These objects could be Physical or Informational. . Activities: Processes could involve two types of activities: Managerial (e.g. develop a budget) and Operational (e.g. fill a customer order). What are the Myths about BPR Created by the Popular Literature? The popular management literature has created more myth than practical methodology reengineering. The concept of BPR has been with us since about 1990, however it is widely misunderstood and has been equated to downsizing, client/server computing, quality, ABC, and several other management nostrums of the past several years. Based on interviews and conversations with more than 200 companies, and 35 reengineering initiatives, Davenport & Stoddard (1994) identify seven reengineering myths. . The Myth of Reengineering Novelty: Reengineering, although about familiar concepts, is new in that these concepts are combined in a new synthesis. These key components have never been together before. . The Myth of the Clean Slate: Regardless of Hammer's (1990) exhortation: "Don't automate, obliterate!" clean slate change is rarely found in practice. Or, as Davenport and Stoddard (1994) state: A "blank sheet of paper" used in design usually requires a "blank check" for implementation. Hence, a more affordable approach for most companies is to use Clean Slate Design which entails a detailed vision for a process without concern for the existing environment. However, the implementation is done over several phased projects. Also supported by preliminary findings of Stoddard & Jarvenpaa 1995: their findings ran contrary to Hammer (1990): "although reengineering can deliver radical designs, it does not necessarily promise a revolutionary approach to change. Moreover, a revolutionary change process might not be feasible given the risk and cost of revolutionary tactics." . The Myth of Information Systems Leadership: In contrast to the much touted leadership role, Information Systems (IS) is generally viewed as a partner within a cross- functional team that

is generally headed by a non-IS project leader and a non-IS business sponsor who have better control over the processes that are being redesigned. . The Myth of Reengineering vs. Quality: Unlike Hammer & Champy's (1993) call for all out "radical change," most companies have a portfolio of approaches to organizational change including reengineering, continuous improvement, incremental approaches, and restructuring techniques. . The Myth of Top-Down Design: The implementation and execution of the redesigned processes depends upon those who do the work. Hence, the participation, and more importantly, acceptance and ownership, at the grass roots level is essential for successful BPR. . The Myth of Reengineering vs. Transformation: BPR is a process that contributes to organizational transformation (OT), however it is not synonymous with transformation. OT is defined as, "Profound, fundamental changes in thought and actions, which create an irreversible discontinuity in the experience of a system" (Adams 1984). OT is generally about the emergence of a new belief system and necessarily involves reframing, which is a discontinuous change in the organization's or group's shared meaning or culture. It also involves broad changes in other organizational dimensions besides the work processes: such as organizational structure, strategy, and business capabilities. . The Myth of Reengineering's Permanence: Davenport & Stoddard (1994) speculate that reengineering has peaked in the US in 1994 and would probably become integrated with much broader organizational phenomena: such as another synthesis of ideas that includes the precepts of reengineering; its integration into existing change methods; or its combination with quality and other process-oriented improvement approaches into an integrated process management approach. What is the Relation between BPR & Information Technology? Hammer (1990) considers information technology (IT) as the key enabler of BPR which he considers as "radical change." He prescribes the use of IT to challenge the assumptions inherent in the work processes that have existed since long before the advent of modern computer and communications technology. He argues that at the heart of reengineering is the notion of "discontinuous thinking -- or recognizing and breaking away from the outdated rules and fundamental assumptions underlying operations... These rules of work design are based on assumptions about technology, people, and organizational goals that no longer hold." He suggests the following "principles of reengineering": (a) Organize around outcomes, not tasks; (b) Have those who use the output of the process perform the process; (c) Subsume

information processing work into the real work that produces the information; (d) Treat geographically dispersed resources as though they were centralized; (e) Link parallel activities instead of integrating their results; (f) Put the decision point where the work is performed, and build control into the process; and (g) Capture information once and at the source. Davenport & Short (1990) argue that BPR requires taking a broader view of both IT and business activity, and of the relationships between them. IT should be viewed as more than an automating or mechanizing force: to fundamentally reshape the way business is done. Business activities should be viewed as more than a collection of individual or even functional tasks: in a process view for maximizing effectiveness. IT and BPR have recursive relationship. IT capabilities should support business processes, and business processes should be in terms of the capabilities IT can provide. Davenport & Short (1990) refer tothis broadened, recursive view of IT and BPR as the new industrial engineering. Business processes represent a new approach to coordination across the firm; IT's promise -and its ultimate impact -- is to be the most powerful tool for reducing the costs of coordination (Davenport & Short 1990). Davenport & Short (1990) outline the following capabilities that reflect the roles that IT can play in BPR: Transactional, Geographical, Automatical, Analytical, Informational, Sequential, Knowledge Management, Tracking, and Disintermediation. Teng et al. (1994) argue that the way related functions participate in a process - - i.e., the functional coupling of a process -- can be differentiated along two dimensions: degree of mediation and degree of collaboration. They define the Degree of Mediation of the process as the extent of sequential flow of input and output among participating functions. They define the Degree of Collaboration of the process is the extent of information exchange and mutual adjustment among functions when participating in the same process. In their framework, information technology is instrumental in Reducing the Degree of Mediation and Enhancing the Degree of Collaboration. Also, innovative uses of IT would inevitably lead many firms to develop new, coordination-intensive structures, enabling them to coordinate their activities in ways that were not possible before. Such coordination-intensive structures may raise the organization's capabilities and responsiveness, leading to potential strategic advantages. What is the Role of the IS Function in BPR? Although, BPR has its roots in IT management, it is primarily a Business Initiative that has broad consequences in terms of satisfying the needs of customers and the firm's other constituents (Davenport & Stoddard 1994). The IS group may need to play a behind-the-scenes advocacy role, convincing senior management of the power offered by IT and process

redesign. It would also need to incorporate the skills of process measurement, analysis, and redesign. The CIGNA IS group had to develop a new set of basic values that reflected a change in focus from technology to a focus on business processes and results (Caron et al. 1994). The specific business divisions led the BPR initiatives; IS groups served as partners in enabling the radical changes. Is there a BPR Methodology? Davenport and Short (1990) prescribe a five-step approach to BPR: . Develop the Business Vision and Process Objectives: BPR is driven by a business vision which implies specific business objectives such as Cost Reduction, Time Reduction, Output Quality improvement, QWL (Quality of Work Life)/Learning/Empowerment. (cf: Shared Vision of Senge 1990, Ikujiro & Nonaka 1995). . Identify the Processes to be Redesigned: Most firms use the High- Impact approach which focuses on the most important processes or those that conflict most with the business vision. Lesser number of firms use the Exhaustive approach that attempts to identify all the processes within an organization and then prioritize them in order of redesign urgency. . Understand and Measure the Existing Processes: For avoiding the repeating of old mistakes and for providing a baseline for future improvements. . Identify IT Levers: Awareness of IT capabilities can and should influence process design. . Design and Build a Prototype of the New Process: The actual design should not be viewed as the end of the BPR process. Rather, it should be viewed as a prototype, with successive iterations. The metaphor of prototype aligns the BPR approach with quick delivery of results, and the involvement and satisfaction of customers. BPR: All or Nothing?: Insights from CIGNA At CIGNA BPR meant "breakthrough innovation focused on customer needs" (Caron et al. 1994). BPR was essentially driven by the senior management's strategic planning process that had concluded that the mix of business in its portfolio needed to change. It was viewed as a vehicle to realign strategy, operations, and systems to deliver significantly increased financial results. Caron et al. (1994) argue that the real life story of BPR at CIGNA represents a contrast to the general prescriptions of "radical" "all-or-nothing" organizational transformation. At CIGNA, BPR started out as an experimental pilot. The knowledge from the success of this initiative was disseminated for implementing other BPR projects. The BPR initiative was

sustained "from the bottom up, with learning transferred "across."" At CIGNA, the prerequisite for BPR success was a corporate environment that promotes learning, especially learning from failure. Although, the process was initiated from the top, the ownership was moved down to the people who actually had to implement the changes and were affected by those changes. The BPR effort took into consideration the differences in management cultures in different countries. The BPR initiative started at the operational levels and was later moved to "higher forms" (strategic) of reengineering over time. Why BPR Projects Fail? What Can be Done about it? 70% of the BPR projects fail. Biggest obstacles that reengineering faces are: (i) Lack of sustained management commitment and leadership; (ii) Unrealistic scope and expectations; and (iii) Resistance to Change. Based on the BPR consultants' interviews, Bashein et al. (1994) outline the positive preconditions for BPR success as: Senior Management Commitment and Sponsorship; Realistic Expectations; Empowered and Collaborative Workers; Strategic Context of Growth and Expansion; Shared Vision; Sound Management Practices; Appropriate People Participating Full-Time (cf: CIGNA: BPR as a way of life); and Sufficient Budget. They also identify negative preconditions related to BPR as: The Wrong Sponsor; A "Do It to Me" Attitude; Cost-Cutting Focus; and, Narrow Technical Focus. The negative preconditions relating to the Organization include: Unsound Financial Condition; Too Many Projects Under Way; Fear and Lack of Optimism; and, Animosity Toward and By IS and Human Resource (HR) Specialists. To turn around negative conditions, firms should: Do Something Smaller First (CIGNA's pilot); Conduct Personal Transformation (CIGNA's change of mindset); and Get IS and HR Involved (CIGNA's CIO initiated the change and HR factors were given due emphasis). King (1994) views the primary reason of BPR failure as overemphasis on the tactical aspects and the strategic dimensions being compromised. He notes that most failures of reengineering are attributable to the process being viewed and applied at a tactical, rather than strategic, levels. He discusses that there are important strategic dimensions to BPR, notably, Developing and Prioritizing Objectives; Defining the Process Structure and Assumptions; Identifying Trade-Offs Between Processes; Identifying New Product and Market Opportunities; Coordinating the Reengineering Effort; and, Developing a Human Resources Strategy. He concludes that the ultimate success of BPR depends on the people who do it and on how well they can be motivated to be creative and to apply their detailed knowledge to the redesign of business processes (cf: Davenport & Stoddard 1994, Markus et al. 1994). Where is BPR Headed?

Over the last few years, the reengineering concept has evolved from a "radical change" to account for the contextual realism (Caron et. al 1994, Earl 1994), and to reconcile with more incremental process change methods such as TQM, towards a broader, yet more comprehensive process management concept (Davenport 1995). Based upon a theoretical analysis and survey of literature relevant to reengineering, Kettinger & Grover (1995) outline some propositions to guide future inquiry into the phenomenon of BPR. Their propositions center around the concepts of knowledge management, employee empowerment, adoption of new IT's, and a shared vision. Earl et al. (1995) have proposed a "process alignment model" that comprises four lenses of enquiry: process, strategy, MIS (Management Information Systems, and change management and control, and used it for developing an inductive taxonomy of BPR strategies. Malhotra (1996) has developed the key emphasis on these issues based primarily on an integrative synthesis of the recent literature from organization theory, organization control, strategy, and MIS. King (1994) believes that although the current fadism of BPR may end, however, process reengineering, in some form or known by some other name (cf: Davenport & Stoddard 1994) would be of enduring importance.