شایستگی و تاثیر ابزارهای BPR

Software tools for Business Process Reengineering (BPR) promise to reduce cost and improve quality of projects. This paper discusses the contribution of BPR tools in BPR projects and identifies critical factors for their success. A model was built based on previous research on tool success. The analysis of empirical data shows that BPR tools are related to effectiveness rather than efficiency of the projects. Process visualization and process analysis features are key to BPR tool competence. Also success factors for BPR tools are different from those for CASE tools.

Since the emergence of Business process reengineering (BPR), a large number of software tools have emerged to help BPR efforts. However, studies show that the lack of user-friendly, yet flexible, software to support BPR is seen as a major problem [3] and [13]. It is surprising that despite the discrepancy between user needs and available tools, there have been only a few studies about BPR tools. In order to provide a basis for evaluation and proper selection of BPR tools, research is needed to examine their features and their contribution to BPR success. Since BPR tools have many similarities with Computer-aided software engineering (CASE) tools, the failures of CASE tool have led to concern about similar failures of BPR tools. This research, therefore, focuses on the following questions. 1. Which features are important in BPR tools? 2. How important are BPR tools in BPR success? 3. Does the failure of CASE tools also portend similar failure for BPR tools? To answer these questions, important features of BPR tools and CASE tools experiences were identified through a literature survey. A model was built to explain the relationship between BPR tools’ success and determinants of success such as features, costs, and organizational conditions.

This research examined the important determinants of BPR tools success and the relationship between BPR tools and BPR success. The result shows that BPR tools are different from CASE tools in various aspects. Costs, long learning time, and organizational resistance in BPR tools do not seem to be as critical as for CASE tools. BPR tools are linked to effectiveness of BPR projects rather than efficiency of BPR projects. Interestingly, unlike CASE tools, change of work has a positive impact on BPR tool competence. Our model confirmed that process visualization and process analysis are key features for the success of BPR tools. On the organizational side, one important finding is that sufficient training of users, informing them about productivity gains, and persuading them that tools would not deprive them of their expertise are necessary for the success of a BPR project in which BPR tools are utilized. In a BPR project, managers should pay attention to the selection and usage of BPR tools. In addition to careful selection of tool, managers will also have to be thoughtful in managing usage of the tool and supporting users. Different tools and different usage would result in difference in design and, in turn, difference in the success of the project. The survey shows that BPR tools can contribute to the effectiveness of BPR projects by providing better visualization and measurement of processes.