Comparative Analysis of the Systems that to Enhance Business Functions and Processes - Literature review Example

Comparative Analysis \ Comparative Analysis Introduction Business organizations are often established in order to achieve certain goals and objectives that are in line with the vision and mission of the organisation. In order to achieve these, it is important that effective strategies and approaches be put in place in order to guide the different work flows and business process. Effective strategies and approaches often enable businesses to compete effectively in their industries, making them achieve and consolidate their respective market share. Research activities and studies on organisation performance and effectiveness have led to the development of several strategies that are thought to be effective towards organizational performance when implemented. However, it is important to note that organizations differ in many ways even those in the same industry. For this reason, organizational managers and owners need to ensure that they develop or adopt systems and approaches that can give them competitive advantages and market position. This paper examines a comparative analysis of some of the systems that have been thought to enhance business functions and processes as well as work flows. Business process reengineering Business functions are supposed to be designed in a manner that enhances business efficiency and effectiveness. Man strategies have been developed by people in the past in order to help businesses in their work flows and work processes (Pour 2006). One of the systems that has been used by some businesses in the past include the business process reengineering, which is commonly referred to as BPR. Business process reengineering simply describes the business strategy most used in the management function (Mohapatra 2013); it was pioneered in the early 1990s and focused much on design and analysis of various business processes and workflows that exist in the daily life of an organisation. Business process reengineering enables organizations to fundamentally rethink of how can handle their work in the process of improving the customer service dramatically (Mohapatra 2013). This can be achieved through cutting on the running and operational costs thus enabling particular business to emerge as world-class and powerful competitors in their respective industries. By the mid 1990s, many companies that had been listed in the Fortune 500 reported to have preferred the approach (Pour 2006), with many of them having used it and others were creating plans for adopting the system in their performance. BPR aims at helping companies in making radical structures for their respective organisation through focusing on various ground-up designs for their business functions and processes (Pour 2006). A business process, in this perspective, refers to a set of various logically related activities and tasks performed in order to achieve certain defined business goals and objectives. The process of reengineering in this perspective emphasizes on a holistic outlook and focus on the business objectives as well as the associated processes. It thus encourages a full-scale recreation for the processes instead of a mere iterative optimization of the sub-processes. Therefore, it is also important to point out that the business reengineering process can also be referred to as business transformation, process redesign or business processes and effective change management. Success factors of the BPR system BPR efforts and other associated projects in businesses have often given interesting findings for practitioners and academicians. Many researchers on the functions of BPR have tended to focus on major factors in the business process reengineering that have been responsible for various successful outcomes. Many lessons have so far been learned on the different elements that comprise the success and failure factors emanating from the BPR process in business organizations. Some of them are discussed below. Team Composition Once the organisation-wide commitments have been effectively secured in all the business departments involved in the process of reengineering at various levels, it is important to select an effective BPR team to oversee the process (Mohapatra 2013). This team forms the nucleus for the efforts of BPR, they are responsible for making key decisions and other recommendations, then communicates the final outcomes to the rest of the organisation. In summary the factors that determine the effectiveness of the BPR team include competency of team members and their respective motivations, their level of credibility within the organisation and creativity (Mohapatra 2013). Having such kind of teams play an important role in directing work flows in the organisation, this later becomes an important competitive advantage for the business. Businesses that have set up BPR systems have teams that give active representations in various work groups in the business like top management, technology groups and fiannce among others. This representation ensures that information about business performance from other employees is effectively evaluated and used. Systems thinking Systems thinking, another important approach that aims at improving organizational and business functions describes the process of comprehending the way things, often regarded as systems tends to influence each other within the whole (Stacey & Griffin 2000). Naturally, some of the examples where systems thinking can has applied include ecosystems where various elements like water, air, plants, movement and animals seem to work dependently in the process of survival or perishing. In an organisation, systems comprise of structures, processes and people, which work together in meeting the set goals and objectives in the organisation. It is important to realize that in the past, systems thinking have often been described as an effective approach towards problem solving, where problems are regarded as important parts of the overall system instead of reacting to the specific parts, events and outcomes while taking part in the development of various unintended consequences. Systems thinking should not be seen as an individual thing but a variety of practices and habits within frameworks that are depended on the attitude and belief that component parts of systems can be understood under contexts of the existing relationships (Stacey & Griffin 2000). Systems thinking mainly aims at understanding about the cyclical as opposed to the linear cause and effect, which is common in organizations process and work flows. According to the systems science, it has often been argued that the best way to fully comprehend why problems and challenges happen in the business organizations and tends to persist is to simply understand how the individual parts relate in the different functions and process that take place on routine basis. In this regard, the system thinking proposes that the organisation be understood holistically as opposed to individual elements. This kind of approach towards organizational functioning examines the various linkages and interactions happening between the elements, which make up the entire system. As far as systems science is concerned, very many small and minute catalytic events are often separated by time and distance and seem to be the causes of many significant changes in various complex systems. In this regard, when one area faces an improvement in its functioning then it has the potential to cause a similar improvement in another part. In this move, systems thinking can be said to be instrumental in enhancing organizational communication in many levels so as to effectively avoid a silo-effect. The concept of systems thinking can be used towards the study of any type of system, whether it is biological, physical, social, engineered or conceptual. How does systems thinking compare with the BPR approach Systems thinking seem to have great differences in terms of its application as compared to the business process reengineering. First, systems thinking tends to focus on how the individual elements in the organisation as a whole contribute towards the success of the whole system. Many people seem to prefer the systems approach as opposed to the BPR because it enables the business to establish the relationship that exists between the different individual units in the organisation, and establish an effective symbiotic relationship such that the success of one can have a multiplier effect (Stacey & Griffin 2000), causing the success of the rest and thus the entire organisation. The BPR approach focuses on the reengineering or redesigning process of the various functions of the business in order to make them effective. However, the system does not spell out the specific directions and approaches to be taken towards thus reengineering (Meadows & Wright 2008). Therefore, an organisation can decide to redesign its management and work flow processes so that it initiates a systems thinking approach that can cause the success of the organization. The systems thinking approach seems to be older than the BPR, having been first proposed in the 1940s and 50, with the later taking root in the early 90s (Midgley 2003). Organizations that have used the systems thinking emphasis that the approach is effective in streamlining information flow as well as other important business functions such the overall goal of the business organisation can be achieved from the success of all the unit components (Midgley 2003). In the BPR approach, the success of the organisation can be largely attributed to the success of effective BPR teams that are set (Meadows & Wright 2008). However, when these teams fail in their mandate, then the entire organisation also fails; but in the systems approach, one system that is not effective can easily be examined and made to conform to the standards of the entire organisation. Kaizen Kaizen is another business process that advocates for continuous improvement of business functions and workflows. The concept was first introduced by Masaaki Imai to the west through his famous book “The Key to Japans Competitive Success in 1986” (Ptacek & Sperl 2012). In modern times, kaizen has become an important systems used in business organizations as an important tool and pillar towards its long-term competitive approach. The kaizen process as used in business organizations depends on certain principles that guide the process of continuous improvement. For instance, one of the principles for the success of this system is that by creating good processes, it is possible to get good results in the end. Additionally, another important principle involves effective data collection about various work process and functions, then using the data to make corrections in areas that need improvement (Ptacek & Sperl 2012). In this regard, an organization is supposed to ensure that it commits to continuous research and data collection in order to improve on its process and functions. The kaizen approach, though its research and data collection emphasizes on the need to take action and correct the identified causes of problems and challenges (Ptacek & Sperl 2012). It is expected that through the data collection process, managers can understand the root causes of problems in their organizations and used information and insight from their data collection to make necessary amendments and position their businesses for success. How it compares with BPR and systems thinking approaches The Kaizen process is quite different from the two business process identified above because it does not have a definite structure that can be adopted by the business in developing its competitive advantages (Hutchins 2008). While BPR proposes various ways of the business reengineering process, same to the systems thinking which emphasizes on the success of unit components in the system, which is the organisation as a whole, the Kaizen approach understands that the business environment and keeps changing and that businesses are supposed to commit to continuous research and data collection in order to implement changes that encourage effectiveness and efficiency in the business processes and functions (Monden 2012). The Kaizen approach seems to suit perfectly in the changing business environment since it can easily enable businesses to adapt to changes that encourage effective performance amidst changing economic times (Monden 2012). However, the system may be expensive to undertake since organizations are supposed to develop systems and approaches that allow consistency in market research and associated activities for data collection. Conclusion In conclusion, it is important to realize that systems and strategies that ensure success in business functions and process are many and varied. Business managers are supposed to choose on methods that allow them acquire competitive advantages and market position in the most effective and cost-efficient manner. Business managers should understand that the essence of business functions is to achieve maximum results while keeping the operating costs as low as possible. Therefore, before implementing any business process that is deemed appropriate in enhancing work flows and business processes it is important that managers and owners examine the cost implications vis a vis the expected outcomes. Only those systems and strategies that can deliver maximum outcomes should be used in enhancing organizational success and performance. References Hutchins, D. (2008). Hoshin Kanri the strategic approach to continuous improvement. Aldershot, England: Gower. Meadows, D., & Wright, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green Pub. Midgley, G. (2003). Systems thinking. London: SAGE. Mohapatra, S. (2013). Business process reengineering automation decision points in process reengineering. New York: Springer. Monden, Y. (2012). Toyota production system: An integrated approach to just-in-time (4th ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Ptacek, R., & Sperl, T. (2012). Todays lean! The wiki (or quick) Kaizen approach to continuous improvement. Chelsea, MI: MCS Media. Pour, M. (2006). Cases on information technology and business process reengineering. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Pub. Stacey, R., & Griffin, D. (2000). Complexity and management fad or radical challenge to systems thinking? New York: Routledge. Read More