مهندسی مجدد فرآیند کسب و کار : آموزش در مورد مفهوم، تکامل، روش، فن آوری و کاربرد

It is ironical that while much is being discussed about business process reengineering (BPR), most companies are still searching for methods to better manage radical change. Academics are studying the phenomenon but precious little has been published. Many basic questions remain unanswered. What does reengineering involve? Are there methods for effectively accomplishing BPR? Why is it so popular? Is there a logic behind reengineering? Is BPR fundamentally different from old Taylorian approaches to industrial engineering based on task decomposition and specialization? Is BPR the same as TQM, restructuring, etc.? What is the relationship between process redesign and organizational structures? How do we best plan, organize and control BPR efforts? Under what conditions will BPR be most effective? Answers to these questions are neither easy nor direct. However, this tutorial seeks to address them in a systematic, comprehensive and unbiased manner. In doing so, the tutorial will attempt to synthesize a variety of material from both practitioner and academic literature sources into a coherent précis that defines and discusses BPR in a language palatable to both the manager and the academic. A variety of frameworks will be presented to clarify the nature of the phenomenon as prescribed (in theory) and as companies are learning about it (in practice). The objective of this tutorial is to inform rather than provide an academic discourse.

Cross-functional teams working on common processes and tighter integration across functions reduces inefficiencies in a process. A broader (general) understanding of a process rather than a parochial function, joint responsibility for a process and compensation schemes based on performance not position can lead to more challenging jobs and processes that are both efficient and effective. However, to accomplish the transformation from the vertical to the process-based organization requires radical rethinking of existing processes that have been indoctrinated into the organizational culture for years and have gathered layers of bureaucracy over time. This requires not only a strong committment from top executives, but also a significant management of change.

In this tutorial, we have reviewed reengineering as it has evolved from its original conception, studied the fundamental components of reengineering as distinguished from other change programs, examined its logic, studied a generic reengineering methodology, and evaluated its technological and organizational enablers. We then proceeded to challenge some of the fundamental components of reengineering, leading to a recognition that the future of this concept is perhaps (a) less in its radical nature, and more in the need to make organizations more process centric rather than task or function centric, and (b) in the ability of organizations to learn how best to implement change which involves people and social structures that resist change. For (a), the challenge is to recognize the process as an organizational unit, and to manage its change effectively. For (b), the challenge is even more daunting, and that is to change while avoiding imposition of change. Process centering ((a) above) is not merely structural change, even though structural implications can be profound. It is challenging a century of corporate theology by thinking of processes as the unit that all people in the organization have to serve. Processes are concerned with results, not jobs. Processes involve multiple people working toward these results. Customers are key. And integration and coordination, particularly with today's Internet and Intranet technologies among others, could be critical in achieving results. In light of (b) above, the question is: how do you sell the idea of major change to the employees of the organization, and get them to “buy into” the strategic changes that must be undertaken for the firm to survive and prosper. For example, outsourcing of those activities that do not contribute to core competencies or technologies to other firms who can perform them better, may be a legitimate outcome of a good reengineering effort. It would lead to workforce reduction, but only with the purpose of making the firm leaner and more responsive. Time-based competition and the creation of “agile” corporations may not even be possible without such changes in workforce size and composition. As emphasis shifts towards greater knowledge component in value creation, process reengineering may perhaps be the only way to avoid skill obsolescence of employees and encourage horizontal career paths. The extent to which top-level management can sell such a vision of change and its impact on the employees will determine whether the reengineering phenomenon fulfils its true potential, or is merely relegated to the sidelines as another panacea and buzzword of the 1990s. The good news is in the success stories of corporations like Intel and 3M that are successfully undertaking these challenges.