مدلی برای اجرای BPR بر اساس دیدگاه استراتژیک : یک مطالعه تجربی

Business process reengineering (BPR) efforts have been reported successful in many firms. However, the failure rates were as high as 70%. Various reasons for this have been given in past research. One major reason was that the efforts had not been connected to the corporate goals. In addition, the steps in implementing BPR in past discussions were, however, incomplete and the papers merely reported a part of the process. This study proposes an integrative approach based on a strategic perspective. Basically, this framework involves three steps that: (1) identify corporate strategies based on analysis of a strategic thrust/strategic target matrix; (2) select strategic paths for BPR based on analysis of a functional coupling framework with the IT application; (3) implement BPR based on analysis of project characteristics to decide on a suitable version of the composite methodology. Furthermore, this framework is illustrated by using an empirical study to demonstrate its application in some business units.

Business process reengineering (BPR) has been considered as an important way to reshape business organizations for achieving breakthrough improvements in performance. In fact, BPR involves relatively extensive work, not only in emphasizing the concept of processes, but also by requiring understanding in parts of the organization on topics such as: adoption of technology, organizational structure, job design, human resource, etc. [12]. In particular, information technology (IT) is essential in the innovative redesign of business processes [3], [4] and [10]. IT’s strategic role in BPR should be included from the very beginning, otherwise the results will be much less than hoped. Studies of BPR projects have reported very large failure rates. Various reasons have been given, most connected to the mismanagement of projects [34]. While it has been suggested that BPR should be connected to the firm’s goals, actual practice seems to be different. In many cases of failures, it appears that BPR has been viewed and applied at an operational or tactical, rather than strategic level. The failures may be because BPR cannot keep up with the pace of environmental changes, resulting in failure to meet organizational requirements. The solution proposed here aims at setting long-term goals and then bases BPR on the needs. This would help planners to identify a set of critical processes that are aligned with the firm’s strategic performance and then become candidate processes for further implementation. The process of implementing BPR is also often incomplete and fragmented in past literature. The solution to this problem might be achieved in two steps. The first step can be considered from two aspects. First, to achieve substantive reengineering performance, a business process should be first analyzed by certain characteristics from a high-level perspective [33]. These pertain to how different functions are coupled to each other and orchestrated to produce a common process outcome. Second, IT is viewed as a powerful enabler in BPR, and thus BPR efforts would be difficult to implement without the support of IT. Past studies for strategic use of IT in organizations are abundant [30] and [38]. Thus, many researchers have tried to extend the viewpoint of IT’s strategic use to business processes. The second step is in physically implementing BPR tasks for candidate processes. Various project characteristics call for different methodological choices and there are numerous reengineering methodologies for selection. This makes BPR project planners difficult to physically proceed for BPR. Thus, the identification of a suitable methodology is an important consideration for implementing BPR. In conclusion, it is therefore imperative to approach BPR with an integrative aspect of the three steps discussed above. Furthermore, the analytical techniques used for each step are also discussed. Finally, this framework is examined by an empirical study.

Today, the functional organization and its division of labor no longer fully represent the requirements of the organization. The idea of emphasizing the integration of cross-functions based on the perspectives of business processes accordingly becomes a means of increasing enterprise-wide efficiency. Past implementation of BPR projects had high failure rates, may be due to focus on the operational rather than the strategic level. Basically, different firms identify different competitive strategies for their suppliers, customers, or competitors. Consequently, a set of candidate processes can be developed in terms of a firm’s strategic performance, and in turn, the selected strategic paths for BPR deviate from each other. Furthermore, the methodological choices for BPR also differ due to the deviation of the strategic paths for BPR. The implications for these finding are two-fold. First, if BPR is not based on strategic perspective, there will be no obvious way to proceed. This causes a high percentage of failures. Second, functional coupling framework associated with IT applications helps BPR project planners set high-level reengineering paths before BPR implementation. This may help to guarantee the success of the BPR because reengineering directions and guidelines are set in advance. Subsequent research could be founded on this work. First, this study focuses on developing a theoretical framework and further validating it. Future research can be done by applying this framework to reengineer a business project and then verifies its performance. Second, this empirical survey is sampled from a spectrum of industries, and thus the conclusion is more general and comprehensive. Future research can be targeted toward individual industry, for instance, the banking industry, to determine its particular differences and similarities. Third, the method adopted for the analysis of corporate strategy is not unique, and other techniques can also be used for future research to understand the different effects on BPR work. Finally, although this study has produced some interesting results, it still may have some limitations. First, IS managers or chief information officers from larger firms are primarily chosen to be participants in the survey. However, some of the questionnaires may have been completed by subordinates, and as a result the data may have some biases. Second, this research does not look at the activities in each stage and thus suggest best techniques for analyzing each activity, such as the value chain for S1A2 or brainstorming for S4A1.