مهندسی مجدد فرآیند کسب و کار__واژگان بی اعتبار؟

Business process re-engineering (BPR) literature has demonstrated over the past 5 years how significant is the potential of BPR in keeping businesses competitive. However, a tremendous variation in the vocabulary used in the literature has blurred the meaning of re-engineering and a high level of misconception, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation has been identified during an investigation at three British and three Brazilian companies. Although, the spoken languages in the two countries are completely distinct, the root of the problems concerning BPR are exactly the same. Directors, managers, workers, and the authors of BPR literature all seem to be working with completely different mind sets. The evidence reported in this paper suggests that the credibility of BPR as a management change tool is becoming weaker, and if no urgent action taken to unify vocabulary and definition, then BPR is predestined to become another has-been theory in the history of management.

The old principles of manufacturing, for example Taylorism and Fordism,are coming under increasing strain from new communicationtechnologies and new methods of management. Society readilyembraces developments in information technology and this fuels increasing customer expectations for better service. As one companydirector interviewed for theresearch to be described in this paperstated:We are transforming our business, because society [has changed]. It is our work force, and our customers who aredriving us now.Typically, organisations have experimented with a number of managementtools, often implementing the next new idea without first completelyabsorbing and understanding the previous one. This processcauses confusion to arise concerning the interpretation of the growingnumber of concepts and jargon rich vocabulary that now imbuesmanagement literature.In the 1990s a new theory, business process re-engineering (BPR)emerged and has become veryfashionable. Many companies hopedBPR would meet their competitive needs without the uncertainties of previous management theories. BPR carries with it a new set of words,propositions, and concepts.The purpose of this paper is to bring to light from the case studiesinvestigated, inthe UK and Brazil, three concerns about the applicationof BPR. Firstly, the lack of clarityconcerning what constitutes BPR asopposed to less radical organisational changes. Some company leaders questioned in this research gave almost any recent change as an exampleof BPR.Secondly, the evidence suggests that there is an increasing divergenceof understanding of the principles of BPR between company managers.This leads to misconceptions and misunderstandings within and betweenthe companies. In a series of interviews it was found that concepts and vocabulary used by employees to describe BPR are not common to eachother, not even among the designated BPR team members from thesame company.Finally, it is posited that a significant portion of responsibility can beassigned to the literature for generating some of the misconceptions andmisinterpretations that now exist among industrial practitioners.The framework of this paper is supported by six case studies based onlarge manufacturing companies, three in the UK and three in Brazil. Ineach company the interviews were held in person, usually beginningwith the respondent of a initial postal questionnaire, or someone delegated by him or her. A selection of other employees were thennamed for further interviews. The general structure of all the interviewswas the same, to assist making a comparison between the beliefs andassumptions of those interviewed. As a result the interviews provided ameasure of how well employees were tuned in to the company's vision for BPR. It was paramount in the research to maintain the integrity ofthe interviewees' words, therefore the meetings were tape recorded onaudio cassette and a full transcription took place at a later date.In reporting the data for the purposes of this paper, each company istackled separately in order to highlight the differences in understandingthat exist even within the same organisation. A short summary isprovided after each company to aid clarity. An integrated discussionand conclusion follow the company analyses.

The first of several lessons which can be derived from this study is that ifbusiness process re-engineering is to survive as a useful concept, thereneeds to be a convergence of understanding about what BPR reallymeans, and how and where it can be applied. Standards should beestablished on the use of vocabulary and definitions with reference toBPR.There is an urgent need for transparent differentiation between BPRand other management tools and theories. Many contradictions havebeen reported due to the fact that some of the practitioners did not havea clear understanding of the difference between BPR and other terms such as TQM.The findings suggest that without a quick resolution to this confusingsituation business process re-engineering is destined to be overtaken orcast aside in a few years time, simply because too many managers havebecome disillusioned by the contradictions and false claims that arefrequently made concerning BPR. It may be in the best interests of BPR advocates and followers to convene an international conference toformulate serious BPR guidelines, based on academic and industrialexperiences to date, in order to gain much more of a consensus ofmeaning and practice than has obtained hitherto.