استفاده از مهندسی مجدد فرآیند کسب و کار برای توسعه بهره وری تولید در شرکت هایی که محصولات را با مهندسی سفارش می سازند
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|477||2004||13 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Production Economics, Volume 89, Issue 3, 18 June 2004, Pages 261–273
Companies making products on an engineer to order (ETO) basis have traditionally found business opportunities through design and product development expertise and an ability to respond to demands for customisation with improved product performance. However, increasingly, customers are seeking lower prices and reduced lead times, which also require improved manufacturing efficiency. These companies are thus being driven to improve the integration of the design, manufacturing and procurement functions. Over the last decade, business process re-engineering (BPR) has been developed to enable organisations to become process driven and customer-focussed. However, BPR has not been generally successful for a variety of reasons. One of these is the wide range of methodologies available for BPR projects and confusion with respect to the selection of an appropriate methodology. This paper describes an investigation with a number of collaborating companies, to investigate the methodologies employed and their interaction with other company factors. The research included comparative analysis and benchmarking against a general BPR methodology through in-depth investigations with four major companies, work on a shorter time-scale with a number of other companies and a questionnaire survey. The research has shown that some elements of BPR are not applicable to companies in this sector. It is also concluded that, rather than adopt a prescriptive model, organisations need to develop metrics for performance that more adequately reflect their competitive position and the type of project undertaken.
Business process re-engineering (BPR) may be seen as an initiative of the 1990s, which was of interest to many companies. The initial drive for re-engineering came from the desire to maximise the benefits of the introduction of information technology (IT) and its potential for creating improved cross-functional integration in companies (Davenport and Short, 1990). Business process re-design was also identified as an opportunity for better IT integration both within a company and across collaborating business units in a study in the late 1980s conducted at MIT (Scott-Morton, 1991). The initiative was rapidly adopted and extended by a number of consultancy companies and “gurus” (Hammer, 1990). The extension to the vision of re-engineering processes to encompass the total radical re-design of companies also raised great interest but organisations which undertook such radical BPR projects found the path to success difficult to follow. Hammer and Champy (1993) found that “50–70% of attempts fail to deliver the intended dramatic results”. To a great extent the initiative has now lost favour in engineering enterprises. However, the re-engineering of specific processes and the resulting efficiency gains were, and remain, of great interest and value to many companies. For any proposed initiative or development such as BPR to be viable and practical requires that there exist a fundamental approach and a proven, reliable methodology, which is generally applicable and repeatable. However, inspection of the literature and company observation showed that there was no standard or typical BPR methodology and different methodologies and various forms of BPR were being proposed (see for example Davenport and Short, 1990, and other papers including Short and Venkatraman, 1992; Vowler, 1993; Humphrey, 1995; Tinnila, 1995; Drew and Coulson-Thomas, 1996; Hallahan, 1996; Selander and Cross, 1999). The approach was also being applied across a wide range of enterprises (see, for example Crego and Schiffrin, 1995; Twaddle, 2000). This ongoing re-invention and re-application of the BPR approach generated an endless list of re-engineering tools and techniques. Quite apart from the question of rigor in any new initiative, this created a difficult task for organisations considering re-engineering in that the selection of an appropriate BPR methodology to suit their company or their particular project objectives was far from obvious. The range of applicability of BPR was also considerable. Whilst its application to improving the efficiency of an individual company process could, perhaps, be predicted, the earliest work also envisaged a hierarchy of business reconfiguration, from local exploitation through internal integration and business process redesign to business network redesign and, ultimately, business scope (Venkatraman, 1991) (see Fig. 1).The objectives of the research presented in this paper were, therefore, to establish whether a generally applicable methodology for BPR can be defined and to investigate the experiences of a number of companies, all of which made products which were engineered to order, in attempting to apply BPR. Further objectives included the assessment of the extent to which a generally applicable methodology would support particular company ambitions and, generally, to explore the reliability and scope of BPR as a concept for these companies.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
A methodology of general applicability has been developed which identifies the major elements in BPR. This was explored with a number of collaborating companies making ETO products. The general methodology has been found to be a useful check-list against which to plan and assess the approach to re-engineering in a number of companies. The scientific method requires that for any methodology to be viable it must produce results which are accurate, reliable, reproducible and widely applicable. For example, in engineering companies any proposed methodology must, in addition to producing satisfactory results, be transportable across sectors. This research has found that BPR is not reliable or widely applicable to companies making ETO products. Because of the complexities inherent in performing BPR across collaborating companies or business units the methodology was found to be restricted to process re-engineering within a defined business unit environment. Further observations of the collaborating companies and the literature suggest that BPR is only really effective within this restricted area of application. At the current state of development BPR is unable to accommodate many of the factors that must be considered when reforming complete company structures and inter-company collaboration. The possibility of this restriction is also evident when examining the general methodology, since it is apparent that this lacks many of the elements which must be considered when developing or assessing inter-company collaboration, networking activities or reforming complete companies. BPR was found to be useful and applicable within particular processes and in single business units. Appropriate application was found to result in improved focus on key processes which produced gains in process efficiency, for example, in significant reductions in lead-time. However, it is necessary to set goals for any BPR initiative in terms of process gains and these were not always straightforward. For example one major company improved (reduced) its order intake/activity commencement time from 26 weeks to 6 weeks. The question remains, what is the minimum time that is possible for this activity consistent with process reliability and accuracy? In the case of design, and particularly in distributed design activity and in the interactions between design and manufacturing, in companies where product performance is paramount appropriate metrics have yet to be developed. Radical BPR has been promoted on the basis of major drastic structural change to companies and their modus operandi with the objective of producing significant benefits. Such wide-ranging change has been found to be impossible in companies engaged in ETO manufacture because of the unique nature of the products and their complexity, including the utilisation of company networks to achieve project (and product) performance through technological and systems innovations in design and manufacture, and the reliance of the companies on individual personal skills within the workforce. As an additional comment it is interesting to note that individuals in these companies often show high levels of empowerment, which is one of the major tenets of radical BPR. This research has also found that the term BPR is poorly understood within many companies, particularly amongst smaller companies, and the term BPR has been used to describe what are really more conventional organisational change activities.