Business Process Reengineering - Coursework Example

Introduction Business Process Reengineering (BPR) has been defined in many ways however; one important aspect that underlies almost all approaches isthe strategic significance of the process itself. The manner it needs to be managed requires the support and will of higher management to make it a success otherwise it can suffer from complacency and lack of top management support which may render this whole exercise as a mere failure. The essential and inherent nature of BPR is such that it requires rapid transformations in potentially small period of time and as such it sometimes becomes extremely difficult for the firms to manage the process successfully. There are various pitfall of BPR including the fact that organizations invest heavily in technology and processes however, at the same time also ignore the fact that underlying organizational processes and systems also need to be changed. Inability to define and identify core business processes can be another important variable that can cause the failure of BPR. Thus the reasons as to why BPR fails can be many however; important and significant element of the role of human dimension is often ignored. Hammer and Champy (1993) therefore argue that most of the BPR failures are related with the human dimensions of the failure. The importance of human dimension in overall success of the process as such therefore is critical and requires an in-depth analysis as to how this can be utilized for achieving highly success change within the organization. This paper will therefore attempt to discuss the human element in the failure of BPR and explore as to what lessons can be learned from this. Business as functional model Historically, organizations have been developed and viewed as a functional model comprised of various sequential and non-sequential functions. Functions therefore are considered as managerial control units with responsibility and authority over related activities. Business processes therefore within the organizations are executed with the help of these functions.(Hoffer, 2004). The functional model of business divides a business into various departments such as admin, marketing, sales, etc with pre-defined hierarchies of managerial controls over such departments. Thus functional model of business used to have set authoritative control over each function with pre-defined accountabilities and responsibilities for each layer of management and control. As such this departmentalization of the organization within different functions allowed workers to develop their specializations and perform particular tasks in more efficient and effective manner. It is critical to note that functional model of business however, was inflexible and did not allowed organizations to think beyond their existing set of functions. The rigid specialization that was developed over the period of time became the sole purpose of the organizations to maintain them. This inflexibility and urge to maintain the status quo therefore did not allowed the organizations to bring in new approaches and models to conduct business in more innovative manner and resultantly organizations started to fail. The transition towards more robust and flexible organizations therefore required the organizations to become ready to break with their past and take on new approaches such as business process reengineering to systematically redesign their processes to become more efficient. Business Process Reengineering Business Process Reengineering is often dubbed as old wine in new bottle because the underlying mythologies and approaches are almost same as the management- as a discipline- started to shape itself. Fredrick Taylor advocated the use of process reengineering so that managers can find out new ways to optimize productivity. Though the concepts of Business Process Reengineering may not be new however, the need to implement BPR in current business environment is more critical than it might have been years ago. (Peppard, 1995). This is because of the fact that organizations have became more complex and the ever changing nature of competition forced organizations to adapt to the ways which are not only unique but also offer them a consistent and definite competitive advantage to excel in competitive landscape.(Davenport, 1993). It is argued that people and processes are two important aspects of an organization and require strategic focus and attention of higher management of the firm. Despite the fact that employees can be motivated to achieve the organizational objectives, the relative change in organizational processes is hard to achieve. Without robust and efficient organizational processes, it may become hard for organizations to achieve comprehensive transformation.(Donlon, 1996). There are various definitions or explanations of Business Process Reengineering or BPR. Generally it is considered as a management approach that is aimed at improving the efficiency of various processes. (Oakland, 2003). It is however, considered as a challenging and critical tool to achieve the required transformation within the organization. It is because of this reason that Hammer and Champy (1993) have probably defined business process reengineering “is starting all over, starting from scratch”. This aspect of BPR therefore outlines that it is a process which requires a complete transformation and advocates for undertaking an approach which requires management to think and consider as to how to do business today. This means managers must set aside their collective wisdom acquired over the period of time and start afresh with new and positive approach to design processes in a manner which can allow them to compete in today’s world. Thus at the core of this approach is the discontinues thinking and a complete break from old thinking patterns to achieve new dimensions to conduct business.( Revenaugh,1994). Hammer and Champy (1993) state that “Re-engineering is the fundamental rethinking and redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed” This definition therefore indicates the need for having a fundamental change in the way companies actually think and behave. The historical concepts and measures such as cost and quality therefore need to be viewed from an entirely different perspective in order to achieve the dramatic improvements. This is fundamentally important because organizations often engage into BPR once they sense the changes in the way their customers normally behave and therefore must realign their processes in order to continue to lock-in their customers. It is generally argued that in order to implement BPR successfully, it is critical that the organization must prioritize the processes that it wants to reengineer. This process mapping therefore allows an organization to remain focused on those tasks which require immediate attention and are considered as critical for the organization. Davenport (1994) is of the view that once the processes are identified for the change, it is important that organizations must decide as to how this change is to be brought in within the organization. Deciding upon the modus operandi of the change and its systematic introduction therefore indicates the critical role that managers and leaders need to play. Davenport (1994) is also of the view that BPR is essentially an operational change and managers must view this change as the desired change rather than measuring the impact of BPR on firm’s financial position. Thus focus shall be on whether the work flow has improved rather than making it sure that organizational objectives of achieving cost reduction as well as changes in the organizational structure. Business Process Reengineering Failures Despite such strategic significance, BPR however, failed to yield the results for organizations as results indicate that some organizations were successful in achieving the required transformation while most of them could not.(Sarker & Lee, 1997). It is stated that almost 70% of the efforts to undertake BPR fail to provide results to the organizations because of the lack of sustained commitment from the top management of the firm. Lack of shared vision as well as the low employee empowerment is also the reasons as to why the organizations fail to achieve the desired results from their BPR effort.(Huq & Martin, 2006). Organizations, historically, also focused on fixing the processes rather than changing them in their entirety. This approach therefore resulted into putting low level of focus into the business processes and at the same time adapts an approach of pulling back when people resist changing. The lack of information and ability to involve oneself into the project progress and take decisions at critical points therefore indicate that BPR as a process is dependent upon how people behave and react to this. This is not just limited to the top management of the firm however, it is also related with the way employees of the organization resist or accept the change that is produced as a result of the process re-engineering. (Weicher, et. al, 1995). This discussion therefore leads us to the point where the overall importance of human element is discussed extensively in exploring the cause of the failure of BPR and what lessons organizations can learn from such failures. The role of managers and leaders One of the most critical aspects of the failures of BPR is deeply rooted into the way leaders and managers of the organization view this process as a whole. As described above that top management often does not focus on various dimensions of this process but rather focus on the development of core processes. Important variables such as resistance to change as well as the inability of the organization to change or organizational inertia are two important variables which contribute towards high rates of BPR failure. The role of leaders therefore play important part because it is the leadership essentially which can effectively converge everyone to single point agenda of accepting change. This human side of managing the change therefore requires that the managers as well as leaders must show optimism and courage to pass through this transitional period. However, this subtle phase is often ignored by the organizations and many fail to see the real critical success factors for successful BPR. Human Resource Reengineering Hammer and Champy therefore recognize the importance of human resource as they maintain that organizations often fail to reengineer their human resource along with other processes and resultantly the results are not according to the expectation.(Bailie,1995). In order to overcome such shortcomings, organizations therefore are also advised to conduct their cultural audit so that first hand assessment of organizational culture, values and their strategic fit with new processes can be assessed. Many organizations however fail to consider this aspect of BPR implementation and fail to achieve the results. It is also important to understand that the organizations looking to improve their processes and implement the BPR are also required to reeducate and retain people who will use these new and revised processes. As such laying off people as a result of the process change may not serve the organization and resultantly BPR fail to provide results to the organization. Khosrowpour (1996) also outlined the inability of the existing literature to focus on the human side of BPR. This is because the transition from specialist based functions to more business oriented functions depends upon the human resource of the organization. Thus organizations often failed to achieve their desired outcomes from BPR because of their inability to make this transition in their human resource. Lesson to be Learned The above discussion indicates that there is a greater need to have more focus on managing the human side of the transition also. Organizations shall not only focus on the core processes that need to be changed while at the same time ignoring the human side of the transition. In order to make change as successful it is therefore critical that organizations must look into subtle and soft issues so that process efficiency is readily corroborated with more vibrant and informed human resource. Further, the role of leadership is critical as inability to visualize bigger picture as well as the unnecessary dissipating of organizational energy into idle and inefficient resources. The discussion also suggests that it is the human side of BPR which is causing it to fail rather than the process change itself. Conclusion Business Process Reengineering is not a new concept however, with increasing complexities of the business and rigid ways of conducting business required that the organizations must look for changing the way they performed various processes. BPR’s role therefore largely remain confined to changing the processes while at the same time, other elements such as human side of managing change was ignored. This is the reason as to why most BPR efforts failed to provide results to organizations attempting to change the way they performed business activities. References 1. Bailie, J. (1995). Should Personnel Managers be More Critical of BPR?. Personnel Management. 1(9), pp.55. 2. Davenport, T (1994). Managing in the New World of Process. Public Productivity . 18 (2), pp.133-147. 3. Donlon, J. P (1996). Is Re-engineering a Fad. Chief Executive. 113, pp.52-64. 4. Hammer, M, Champy, J (1993). Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. Revised. ed. London: Harper Business Essentials. 5. Hoffer (2004). Modern Systems Analysis and Design. 4th. ed. New York: Prentice Hall. 6. Huq, Z, Martin T (2006). The recovery of BPR implementation through an ERP approach A hospital case study. Business Process Management Journal. 12 (5), pp.576-587. 7. Khosrowpour. M (1996). Information technology management and organizational innovations: proceedings of the 1996 Information Resources Association International Conference, Washington, Part 3. In: Khosrowpour. M. Information Resources Management Association International Conference, 1996, Washington. Washington: Idea Group Inc. pp.470. 8. Oakland, J (2003). Total quality management: text with cases. 3rd. ed. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann. 9. Peppard, J (1995). Broadening the visions of BPR: The Imperative of Strategic Integration [online]. [Accessed 4th August 2010]. Available from: . 10. Revenaugh, D (1994). Business Process Re-engineering: The Unavoidable Challenge. Management Decision. 32 (7), pp.16-27. 11. Sarker, S, Lee, A (2007). A Case Study of Business Process Reengineering Failure. In: Grover, V, Markus, L, (ed). Advances in Management Information Systems, New York: Rutledge, pp251 - 271 . 12. Weicher, M , Chu, W, Lin, W, Le, V, Yu, D (1997). Business Process Reengineering Analysis and Recommendations [online]. [Accessed 4th August 2010]. Available from: . Read More