به چالش کشیدن پارادایم سازمانی فرایند : تجزیه و تحلیل مطالعه موردی از اجرای BPR
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|468||2002||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 7220 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Omega, Volume 30, Issue 3, June 2002, Pages 215–225
The dangers of functional organisation structures are well documented and have led to the advocation, particularly by exponents of BPR, of the process enterprise paradigm. This paper reports the results of case-study research that was conducted in order to explore the operational changes resulting from re-engineering companies along process, rather than functional lines. Increased market responsiveness, improved collaboration between functions and alignment of organisational objectives were some of the perceived benefits of the new process structures; but some disadvantages were also identified. Duplication of functional expertise and increased operational complexity resulted in an escalation of costs, the emergence of horizontal silos, inconsistency in the execution of functional decisions between processes, and general erosion of the efficiency of the operations network. These preliminary findings point to some possible contingencies of organisational design, suggesting that process structures may be conducive to the realisation of differentiation strategies, whilst functional structures may offer benefits to cost leaders. It is further proposed that matrix structures may be appropriate for companies adopting mixed strategies; however, it is envisaged that a more flexible approach to organisational design, based on a network rather than a matrix paradigm, could stimulate new developments in the future quest for strategic and structural alignment.
BPR is a radical form of organisational re-structuring based on process, rather than functional lines. It aims to improve the interface between the diverse organisational activities which support the provision of products and services to the customer, with a view to improve business performance and market responsiveness. Exponents such as Hammer , Hammer and Champy  and Davenport  emphasise the importance of adopting revolutionary new approaches to organisational design, maintaining that the small, incremental improvements, characteristic of Kaizen  and the 5-S approach  and , are often inadequate to sustain the dramatic performance improvements which are required to compete effectively in aggressive markets. The advocates of BPR have consistently promoted the concept of the process enterprise, although it is often unclear as to whether process structures should replace functional hierarchies or be overlaid onto them in a matrix structure. This paper presents the findings of case-study research into the perceived benefits and costs of process structures, compared to the traditional functional hierarchies. The research is based on two case studies of large UK organisations which adopted process-based organisation structures during the 1990s, and reflects on the perceived impact, both positive and negative, of this structural change on the companies’ operations.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This preliminary research has facilitated the identification of a number of benefits and limitations of functionalised and process-based organisation structures as summarised in Table 1. There has been a tendency for the BPR literature to focus on the benefits of process structures, without recognising their costs, and without countenancing the advantages of traditional functional structures. What this study reminds us is that value for the customer can be added not only along the process but also within functions (as was the case in the electronics company).Porter  stressed the importance of identifying the value-adding activities along cross-functional processes and value chains; this study reminds us of the opportunities to increase value within the functions. The lesson to be learned here is not that functional structures are best after all, but simply that functional and process structures have different benefits and limitations. The dysfunctional effects of each structure are minimised only when there is a match between the organisation structure and the competitive strategy, and this implies the ability to identify where in the organisation value is added for the customer. The BPR literature has been criticised for not being “context sensitive” . This paper proposes a contingency approach to the implementation of BPR and the choice of functional versus process-based organisation structures. It appears that the cost advantages of functional structures may make them suitable for companies adopting cost leadership strategies, whilst the increased customer focus facilitated through process structures may render them appropriate to realise differentiation strategies. For companies adopting mixed strategies, matrix structures may be appropriate, so long as these structures can be made flexible to respond to the changing dynamics of process and functional-based value. Further research is now required to test these contingencies in different industries and competitive arenas. It is further proposed that Ishikawa's “warp and weft” model of organisation structures should not constrain future management thinking. A move away from the disjunction between vertical and horizontal structures towards a network perspective, whereby processes traverse in complex ways across the organisational fabric, promises to be a liberating perspective on organisational design. The challenge for the future is to develop guidelines of best practice for strengthening and improving the processes that add value, recognising the need to be able to adapt the relative strength of different processes in the light of strategic change. Ironically, this implies not so much the radical, step changes of the sort advocated in the BPR literature, but gradual and continuous organisational evolution.