عملیات خدمات مهندسی مجدد : یک مطالعه موردی طولی

Examples of business process reengineering efforts have tended to emphasize manufacturing applications over service operations. This paper reports on a recently completed longitudinal reengineering project conducted by the authors in a service context. Key lessons learned from the experiences of the case study are presented in the form of propositions. Based on these propositions, a process model for successfully planning and implementing business process reengineering efforts is offered. In the process model, key influencing factors for each stage are identified. The process model can be helpful in overcoming risks of failure associated with business process reengineering initiatives.

The focus of this paper is reengineering service operations. The importance of reengineering in service operations stems from the following reasons. First, overall growth of the service sector and its importance as a strong complement to the manufacturing sector in the overall economy are likely to continue. Second, there is less published research on reengineering service operations compared to reengineering manufacturing operations. Notably, within service operations, reengineering applications involving not-for-profit organizations (such as federal and state government agencies) are rare. Third, reengineering in services is different from manufacturing in two main aspects: planning of BPR projects, and execution of BPR projects. A review of the literature failed to identify previous work based on field study that addresses these unique aspects of reengineering service operations. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap in the literature. Specifically, the paper addresses the following questions of interest: • Are there unique aspects of service operations that lead to differences in the way a reengineering project should be carried out in a service context? If yes, what are they? • Can these differences and their impact be characterized in terms of reengineering methodology, process, data collection and analysis? • What strategies seem to be effective for managing change and implementing reengineering recommendations? In addition to these research questions, we were interested in assessing extant methodological tools and developing enhancements that are particularly useful in a service context. These questions are also relevant to understanding risks of failure in BPR projects. The process model discussed later in the paper is an attempt to identify key influencing factors that need to be considered to avoid risks of failure.

5.1. Process model of BPR The 10 propositions discussed above are synthesized into a process model of effective BPR implementation in a service operations context (see Fig. 3). The literature search did not yield a process model such as the one that is being proposed. The longitudinal nature of our case study allows a richer and fuller conceptualization of a process model of BPR implementation than has been alluded to in a fragmented way in the literature. As can be seen in Fig. 3, there are essentially three stages in a BPR implementation in a service operations context—assessment, design, and implementation planning. These stages are in chronological order representing the sequence of activities that need to be done in a BPR project. The process model identifies influencing factors that are critical for success in each stage Figure options In a recent study, Drew (1994)identified five key success factors for different types of BPR projects—past BPR experience, use of benchmarking, project choice criteria, teamwork, and planning systems—but did not propose a process model. This study was based on a `point-in-time' survey of financial institutions in North America. In contrast, the proposed process model is based on a longitudinal assessment leading to the identification of key success factors relating to specific stages of a BPR project. The key success factors are grounded in data due to the participant-observation approach to data collection. Fig. 3 indicates that five factors are important in the assessment stage—systems view of the processes, project planning, clarity of objectives, identification of core processes, and identification of customers (stakeholders). The assessment phase in reengineering the service delivery system must take into account the unique aspects of service operations. In a service context, often, multiple processes are carried out at different times to provide service to the customer. For example, when a customer applies for renewal of driver's license at a branch office, it triggers two distinct process flows—one relating to testing, vision screening and the issuance of the temporary license, and the other relating to microfilming, storage of documents and the issuance of the new license to the customer. Depending on the context, the service processes might be characterized by `spatial separation' (i.e., carried out in different geographic locations, or parts of the organization; driver license applications are processed in the branch offices while the license is issued by support agency 1), `temporal separation' (i.e., the processes might be carried out at different speeds leading to different completion times; transactions are completed with the customer present, cash control and reconciliation processes are carried out at various times during the day), `multiple modes' of service delivery in that processes might vary in the intensity of technology use (certain transactions are computerized while some require manual processing) and `different deliverables' to the customer (e.g., licenses, titles, court clearances etc.). Also, identifying the `core' processes and defining the scope of the core processes are important distinguishing factors in reengineering service operations. Careful identification of customers (both internal and external) and stakeholders is essential during the assessment phase. The provision of services and consumption of services happens concurrently unlike manufacturing where the process steps can often be `decoupled' by means of buffer inventories. This distinction influences reengineering design choices such as options that provide `real time' flexibility for processing transactions. For example, if there is a breakdown in the computer system which transmits and updates transactions, there should be a provision for processing transactions `off-line'. The multiple process flows have implications for process mapping, and for identifying the process boundaries because the process may flow across several organizational interfaces. The core processes must be identified by jointly considering the impact of such processes on the stated mission, and the desired customer satisfaction goals. As evidenced in this case study, identifying the customers correctly has important implications on process mapping, process design, evaluating design choices and performance evaluation aspects of reengineering. Defining the scope of processes is another important consideration. In the design stage, our case study suggests that the following four factors are important: customer orientation, using multiple sources of data, employee involvement, and developing a method for evaluating design alternatives. In the design and development stage, processes must be appropriately bounded in order to describe the current system and propose new configurations of the system. Because services cannot be inventoried, customer preparation is an issue. The reengineered design should reflect the way in which the customers will be made aware of the new system. Also, in a service context, customer satisfaction has a strong perceptual component (for example, `service environment,' `courtesy,' etc.). It is important to have data on current customer perceptions as well as customer needs, expectations and requirements. The data collection effort is more onerous and needs to be carefully planned and executed. Data should be collected from multiple sources using multiple methods and from multiple customers as was done in our case study. The reengineering team should develop a set of guiding principles for evaluating design choices. These guiding principles must relate to customer oriented project objectives. The use of specification sheets and nominal group process for evaluating design ideas have merit as methodological enhancements. It is essential to have employee involvement at this stage. Finally, in the implementation planning stage, five factors are suggested as being important—process ownership, communication, project orientation, strategy for change, and identifying other project interfaces. It is important to effectively `package and sell' the recommendations and the new process designs to all stakeholders. The use of the value-added/non-value added table (see Table 2) which compares the value-added activities in the existing processes to the value-added activities in the reengineered processes is useful for this purposeIn implementing the reengineering recommendations, it is important to consider the interfaces with other projects concurrently undertaken by the organization. The redesign of the business processes and the implementation strategy for change might impact key interfaces that the BPR project has with other projects. In the process model, `effectiveness' is defined in terms of approval and `buy-in' by all stakeholders. Approval by the stakeholders is critical in all three stages of the BPR initiative. Also, the process model suggests that effective completion of a preceding stage is a necessary condition for the effective completion of the subsequent stage. For example, successful completion of the five activities in the assessment stage is necessary for successful completion of activities relating to reengineering design. The suggested relationship ensures quality of input and, evaluation and ratification of ideas, at an early stage. Similarly, `buy-in' of the ideas and suggestions by the stakeholders results in timely resource commitment decisions by executive management. Effectiveness of the design, in turn, influences implementation planning and the development of a strategy for change. In our project several indicators of effectiveness were used in the different phases of the reengineering project. In the assessment phase, effectiveness was evaluated on the basis of common and comprehensive understanding of customer requirements, common understanding of core processes and key process drivers, development of a system-wide perspective on core processes and customer service, and development of specific, measurable, and attainable objectives. In the reengineering design phase, effectiveness measures included: clear understanding of organization changes required, clear linkages to customer satisfaction, clear understanding of human resource requirements, clarity and consistency in evaluating design alternatives, design alternatives driven by vision, extent of internal customer involvement, and clear identification of tangible benefits. Finally, in the implementation phase, the following indicator measures were used: development of implementation project plan, development of implementation strategies for reengineered processes, and a clear understanding of linkages to concurrent projects and their implications for reengineering.