Application 2 – Annotated Bibliography

TOTAL QUALIT Y M ANAGEM ENT, VOL. 10, NO. 2, 1999, 173 ± 186

Business process re-engineering: Learning

from organizational experience

YASAR F. JARRAR & ELAINE M. ASPI NWALL School of Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, The U niversity of B ir mingham ,

Edgbaston, B ir mingham B 15 2T T, U K

ABSTRACT Since the early 1990s, there has been an organizational race to im plement business

process re-engineer ing (B PR). M any B PR methodologies and variations have been proposed by both

academ icians and practitioners, but a close look at the concept of B PR emerged from obser ving the

practices of highly successful organizations in the 1980s and early 1990s. Thus, to understand tr uly

B PR one has to lear n from the world of organizational experience. It is vital to look at what others

have done, their feedback, mistakes, results and overall approach to re-engineering. This paper

provides a critical review of 79 case studies from the re-engineering literature. It introduces a review

of a wide spectr um of case studies, studying the various approaches, methodologies and tools applied

to assess the applicability of B PR concepts universally, the applicability within diþ erent organizational

types and sectors, the actual results achieved, and the cr itical success factors and major challenges

from the viewpoint of practitioners.

Introduction

The concept of business process re-engineerin g (BPR ) emerged from ob serving the practices

of highly successful organizations in the 1980s and early 1990s (D avenpor t, 1993; Hammer,

1990; H ammer & Champy, 1993), thus to understand truly BPR one has to learn from the

world of organizational experience. It is vital to look at what others have done, their feedback,

mistakes, results and overall approach to re-engineering. Although the main key success

factors have been unanimously presented in the literature, the emphasis (whether on human

or technical aspects) has varied. M oreover, as re-engineering is still a relatively new concept,

there is much to learn. M any challenges and pitfalls have been reported in the case studies,

which were either not foreseen by theorists, or under mined. The same holds true for

the applicability of re-engineerin g within diþ erent cultural contexts and within diþ erent

organizational environments. A lthough some of these areas were tackled by theorists, the

only reliable source of information is the case studies.

This paper aims to provide a critical review of 79 case studies from the re-engineering

literature to complement the theoretical information. It introduces a wide spectrum of case

studies studying the various approaches and methodologist to assess: the applicability of BPR

concepts universally; the applicability within diþ erent organizational types and sectors; the

C orrespondence: E . Aspinwall, School of M anufacturing and M echanical E ngineering, The U niversity of Bir mingham , E dgbaston, Birm ingham BI5 2TT, UK . Tel: 0121 41 4 4249 ; Fax: 0121 414 4152.

0954-412 7/99 /020173-1 4 $7.00 � 199 9 Taylor & Francis Ltd

174 Y. F. JARR AR & E. M . ASPINWALL

actual results achieved; and the critical success factors and major challenges from the

viewpoint of practitioners.

Backg round to the review

The case study review was under taken as part of a larger research programm e involving best

practice management. The aim initially was to study and assess BPR’ s success factors and

challenges. A ll the case studies analysed have been taken directly from the literature, and are,

in the main, success stories, since, not surprisingly, promoters of re-engineerin g are publishing

the concept and most probably have repor ted easily explained success stories. Inevitably,

these organizations were mostly large to medium in size, highly focused, and very well capable

of withstanding the required investments. However, there have been a few cases reported

recently that involved small companies, and even a few failure stories. The fact that most

reports were success stories does not under mine the analysis, since the review mainly aims

at discovering the best practices for successful re-engineering. There is unanimous agreement

in re-engineerin g literature that most failure cases were due to par tial or total misapplication

of the concept, which can ultim ately be recti® ed by following the best practices reported.

M oreover, and although a critical selection of cases was made, as the case studies were taken

from diþ erent sources the information repor ted in some of them m ay not have been

exhaustive, and might have overlooked some aspects of the organization’ s eþ ort. However,

having considered a large number and a wide spectrum of cases from numerou s sources, it

is believed that the overall conclusions drawn are representative of the issues faced in general

real-life scenarios.

One assumption that was made was regarding the `results’ achieved by re-engineering.

The re-engineerin g literature always reported `radical’ and `order of magnitude’ improvement

without anyone actually setting a clear de® nition of how radical `radical’ is. For the purpose

of this review, the following de® nition s have been set:

(1) RadicalÐ in excess of 60% im provement over the old way of working.

(2) M ajorÐ between 30 and 60% improvement over the old way of working.

(3) IncrementalÐ less than 30% im provement over the old way of working.

These numbers were selected to re¯ ect the magnitude of the results for the purpose of this

study and do not necessarily constitute a global system of measurement. M oreover, the

`results’ are taken as those reported in the case studies, and attributed to the re-engineering

eþ ort. In some cases other factors may have caused or in¯ uenced these results, for example,

legislation, market factors, etc.

Fram ework of analysis

A ll the case studies analysed were of organizations that were engaged in, or have completed,

a re-engineerin g change programme. The cases have been analysed using a common

framework, as shown in Fig. 1.

In total, 79 case studies were analysed, ranging from manufacturing to ser vice, private

to public, and business to non-pro® t organizations; the full list is given in the A ppendix. The

selection of cases for analysis was based on the availability of suý cient information as per

the analysis framework.

BUSINESS PROCESS R E-ENGINEER ING 175

Figure 1. Framework for case study analysis.

R esults

Applicability of B PR world-w ide

The cases analysed were from all over the world , as shown in Fig. 2. This re¯ ects a

universal acceptance of re-engineering concepts and stresses the globalization aspect of

today’ s organizational world. Cer tain countries, in par ticular the U S and U K , appear to be

over-represented because most of the literature consulted originated there. Still, it is accepted

that they (mostly the U S) are the biggest followers of BPR to date, since the U S is the

birthplace of the subject matter. This fact is the main reason why re-engineering has been,

in some cases, labelled as an Àmerican’ concept only suitable for the US. The results of the

Rest of the W orld (C anada, Australia,

M iddle East) 5.5%

USA 59%

UK 22%

R est of Europe 8%

Far East (Japan, Singapore,

Korea) 5.5%

Figure 2. G eog raphical spread of B PR.

176 Y. F. JARR AR & E. M . ASPINWALL

analysis undertaken, however, do not suppor t this claim at all; if anything , they prove the

contrar y to be true. The data show a world-wide spread of re-engineerin g, with some par ts

of the world only just embracing the concepts. Hammer and Stanton (1995) recently noted

that after BPR’ s huge success in the US, `̀ people in Europe, Latin America, and A sia began

to reengineer their companies’ processes’ ’ . It can be deduced that in the next 3 ± 4 years, as

many scholars agree (Davenport, 1993; H ammer & Stanton, 1995; Harmon, 1996), re-

engineerin g will spread more and more internationally.

Regarding the need for regional variations to the re-engineering concepts, the cases

analysed produced no evidence to support this. The only exception was the Asian experience

(e.g. Samsung in K orea (Choi, 1995) and Higashimaru in Japan (Cooper & M arkus, 1995)),

which will be discussed later. Overall, the re-engineering concepts and guidelines laid down

by the founders of re-engineering (D avenpor t, 1993; H am mer & Champy, 1993) were

applied throughout the world , and to all diþ erent cultures. This point was not a surprise,

since re-engineering requires a shift to process orientation, teamwork, IT and customer focus.

A part from major Asian com panies, these concepts are not adopted anywhere in the world

where most organizations still rely on the task-oriented, hierarchical, comm and-and-control,

`traditional’ organization. Thus, the changes they all need are the same, and the methods are

again the same. It should be noted that this ® nding is related to the basic re-engineering

guidelines and methodology, since it is known that operational tactics of BPR diþ er between

individual organizations, let alone countrie s.

Applicability of B PR to diþ erent organizational sectors

The results shown in Table 1 provide clear evidence that re-engineering is applicable, without

any variations to the concept, to all types of organizations, be they manufacturing, service,

non-pro® t, private, or public. There are no obvious trends of diþ erences between sectors in

terms of length of BPR projects, methods applied, or results achieved.

One interesting result is that both the manufacturing and the service sectors had almost

equal contributions. Earlier literature suggested that BPR was more appealing to the ser vice

sector due to its focus on business processes and it not being directly related to manufacturing,

Table 1. O rganizations that successfully re-engineered.

Sector O rganization type % cases

M anufacturing (45.9 % ) Automobile, aeroplanes 5.3

O ý ce equipment, videos, locks 11.2

C hem ical, m achine tools 12.4

C omputer related 10.0

M edical equipm ent and m edicine 4.1

Tobacco 2.9

Public (1.7% ) Gover nment oý ces 1.7

Service (52.4 % ) Insurance 12.4

Financial 10.0

Transpor t, food 5.3

C omm unication, media 8.9

Health care 7.6

Retail 2.9

M iscellaneous (utility, repair, courier) 5.3

BUSINESS PROCESS R E-ENGINEER ING 177

as was total quality management (TQM ). All the organizations in which BPR has been

applied are ® nding it applicable and bene® cial, irrespective of what sector they are in.

The concepts used for application, the success factors, and, needless to say, the problems,

were the same. Still, tactical m oves and implementation details diþ ered enormously, and

there was always roo m, and need, for creative and innovative variations. N o two organizations

re-engineered in the same way, but they all re-engineered!

The scope of B PR applicatio ns

Examples were found of BPR applications at all levels, e.g. departmental processes, cross-

functional processes, whole organizations, supply chains and even whole communities (e.g.

Silicon Valley in the US). The least encountered were management processes, despite the

fact that this need has been stressed by some experts (Caron et al., 1995; Champy, 1995).

M ain stimulants for re-engineering

The initiative to under take re-engineerin g can be either reactive, proactive, or a mix. In most

cases reviewed, an organization would re-engineer for several reasons rather than an isolated

one. Analysing the actual reasons, it was found that most of the cases had re-engineered,

unsurprisingly, reactively. Fifty-three and a half per cent of the organizations had re-

engineered to face changes in the business world (increased competition, government

legislation, and /or IT revolution), and 36.9% pursued re-engineering because of reduced

revenues and market share loss due to the `big organization’ disease (depar tmentalization

and bureaucratic work). H owever, only 25% said that they re-engineered due to increasing

custom er demands or with customer bene® t in sight! This was a disappointing result, since

it shows that the dominant organizational culture is `organization-® rst’ , and although re-

engineerin g calls for customer focus as a must, this was not what prompted organizations to

implement it.

On the other hand, the number of organizations that undertook re-engineerin g proac-

tively was a healthy ® gure re¯ ecting a growing popularity and belief in it. In 27% of the

organizations studied, the re-engineerin g initiative came from `visionar y leaders’ in a clim ate

where the organization was doin g well. This result exceeded the predictions of many early

scholars, who suggested that it is very diý cult to start re-engineerin g proactively (Coeyman,

1993; M acdonald, 1995). Ashland Chemical (Caron et al., 1994) was doing very well both

in the market-place and internally, but still it `̀ reengineered to ensure that it would be in

business for another 100 years’ ’ ; (Eicher, Ashland Chemical).

Finally, 23.8% of the organizations’ main reasons for re-engineerin g was because they

were entering a `new era’ , e.g. establishing a new company, entering a new market, or a new

chief executive oý cer (CEO) was in place. This statistic points to a very im portant

opportunity where re-engineering can work dramatically due to the `virgin’ nature of the

organization. It has been highly recommended (Caron et al., 1995) that an organization

should ``exploit the `clean slate’ opportunities’ ’ .

Re-engineering results

A t the tim e the cases were reported, 23% were still underway and had not yet produced

results, but, of the remaining organizations who had completed their eþ orts, Fig. 3 shows

the nature of the results they achieved.

This leads to the conclusion that re-engineering lives up to its name and if an organization

178 Y. F. JARR AR & E. M . ASPINWALL

Radical 69%

M ajor 28%

Increm ental 3%

Figure 3. Re-eng ineer ing-related improvem ents in organizational perfor mance .

successfully applies the concept, it is most likely to achieve dramatic results, or at least major

improvements in its set goals.

Critical success factors

The review resulted in a list of critical success factors, as viewed by practitioners, for each of

the four main aspects of a re-engineerin g programme: culture (Fig. 4); structure (Fig. 5);

process (Fig. 6); and IT (Fig. 7). One comm on ® nding from everyone who succeeded at

BPR was the fact that it is `̀ really, really hard work’ ’ ! Overall, there were no surprises among

the critical success factors that were identi® ed as they reaý rm ed what has been stressed by

BPR theories. H owever, the tactics of each programme diþ ered between organizations and

there was always roo m to tailor BPR to each speci® c study. This re-emphasizes the fact that

innovativeness is always called for and the only constant is change itself.

Overall, and although `learning processes’ can oþ er considerable potential for longer

term trategic bene® ts, most BPR practitioners ignored them. Thus, B PR seems to be making

little, if any, impact upon learning capability. On the other hand, one area highlighted by the

® ndings is the impor tance of a pre-re-engineering cultural audit as it proved successful in

Figure 4. C ultural cr itical success factors.

BUSINESS PROCESS R E-ENGINEER ING 179

Figure 5. Str uctural cr itical success factors.

Figure 6. P rocess critical success factors.

tailoring the human side of change management to achieve a smooth transformation. Finally,

it was reported by the majority of cases that the most critical success factor in re-engineerin g,

and the m ost diý cult to achieve, was changing the corporate culture.

The results in Fig. 5 stress the need to communicate through a structured communication

strategy, and some organizations even established a dedicated `communication action team’

(Strategic Direction s G roup, 1994). H owever, other organizations (Stainton, 1995) found

continuous informal communication to be more eý cient. In either case, the key to successful

communication was seen as honesty and openness.

Figure 6 reveals the fact that, overall, and in spite of `customer focus’ being seen as a

key success factor theoretically, only 30% of the organizations considered it so. It is clear that

the primar y uses of BPR were directly aimed at bene® ting the organization, assuming that

custom ers and other stakeholders may also gain from im proved performance results.

Surprisingly, Fig. 6 shows that benchmarking was considered to be one of the least

critical success factors, although it is promoted as an im portant tool for im proving process

performance. M oreover, although involving an outside consultant was considered a major

factor, many (Lewishon & Reynoso, 1995; Stainton, 1995) warned about consultants with

oþ -the-shelf programmes and stressed that they m ust be involved as advisors and not

decision-makers. Finally, one area that received higher emphasis by practitioners was the

need to achieve quick hits and maintain a commitm ent to rapid results.

Finally, Fig. 7 con® rm s the fact stressed by Hammer and Champy (1993) and Davenport

180 Y. F. JARR AR & E. M . ASPINWALL

Figure 7. IT cr itical success factors.

(1993), among others (Harmon, 1996; M acdonald, 1995), that IT is the `essential enabler’

in BPR. H owever, it does show that 30% of the organizations reviewed did not consider IT

as a key success factor. This leads to the conclusion that BPR is not necessarily dependent

on IT solutions, but they act as a pow erful enabler in process redesign. IT has a crucial

enabling role and tremendous capability, so that many new processes would not be possible

without it, but im provements can and have been gained without always resor ting to

technology.

Pitfalls and challenges

It has been stressed in many organizations’ experiences that re-engineering is ver y diý cult

and one should not be put oþ by initial failure (Brustowicz, 1995; Caron et al., 1994). Cigna

reported that ``willingness to accept failure, and learn from it’ ’ is one of the top 10 lessons

they learnt from their 5-year re-engineering experience (Caron et al., 1994). Failure, in most

cases, was mainly due to partial or total misapplication. Hammer and Stanton (1995) said,

``The real key to reengineerin g success is staying focused and avoiding stupid m istakes’ ’ . One

of the best ways to avoid mistakes is to know them, by learning from one’ s ow n and others’ .

Still, many problems that occur durin g the organizational eþ ort will be company-speci® c,

and organizations do always make their ow n new mistakes (Hammer & Stanton, 1995).

The main challenges and pitfalls reported by the organizations in the study are presented

below. It should be noted that most of the problems are organization-speci® c, and have only

been reported by one or two organizations because much depends on the situation and

circumstances of the individual cases. Thus, the sheer diversity of what was encountered

makes generalization dangerous. However, this does not under mine these lessons, and if

anything goes to prove that re-engineerin g theory does not have a major ¯ aw from which

everyone suþ ers.

Cultural challenges. Overall, the area perceived to have a common de® ciency in BPR

implementation was the failure to pay suý cient attention to the `people’ or `hum an’ factors.

The majority of the cases reported facing the problem of resistance to corporate culture

change. People resisted job changes and organizations did not realize that people had

emotional attachments to their jobs. The biggest hurdle was resistance from middle manage-

ment due to the `dis-em powerment’ eþ ect. The underlying cause of this was fear of layoþ s

and uncertainty. Som e organizations (Britain, 1994; Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

introduced 24-hour free phones to deal with employee anxiety and eliminate the `rumour

mill’ , while others took more concrete steps, such as starting their re-engineering eþ ort with

a `no layoþ ’ promise and relying on voluntar y redundanc y and relocation within company

subsidiaries.

BUSINESS PROCESS R E-ENGINEER ING 181

One interesting problem faced by a handful of organizations was that the top down

approach did not allow bottom up democratic involvement. Needless to say, this was a

misapplication of the concept.

Finally, in one speci® c case, H allmark (H ammer & Champy, 1993; Strategic Directions

G roup, 1994) found it diý cult to star t re-engineerin g proactively as they noted it was a lot

easier to rally people where there was a clear and com mon danger facing the organization.

This con® rm s, and partially explains, the conclusion that re-engineerin g is usually initiated

reactively.

Process challenges. The main diý culty faced was keeping focus throughout the re-engineering

eþ ort. Some organizations lost customer focus while others tended to shift to streamlining

existing processes instead of radical change. M oreover, some organizations suþ ered from a

slow im plementation process which diþ used the mom entum. These problems stressed the

need for `speed and focus’ throughout the eþ ort, which are mainly the responsibility of the

leader and the team captains. The need for speed is also highlighted by the fact that many

found it diý cult to maintain `business as usual’ while change was in progress. Speedy and

pressurized BPR projects often resulted in an overworked re-engineerin g force complaining

about lack of tim e.

Structure challenges. The only signi® cant problem reported by a few organizations was the

lack of new skills to deal with a process-centred structure. This was probably caused by lack

of adequate training.

IT challenges. It was within the IT area where many challenges were repor ted. The main

ones that concern ed several organizations include:

(1) Believing too much in technology: M any (Stoddard & M eadows, 1992; Strategic

Directions G roup, 1994) organizations had blind faith in technology which created

very high expectations and a certain am ount of disillusionment. The main advice

given was not to be blinded by technological solution s and to scrutinize new

technology to ensure it achieves its purpose and does not further complicate the

process. In some cases (Strategic Directions G roup, 1994) IT was an inhibitor

instead of an enabler as it produced unworkable solutions and more work. The

mistake was later seen as starting with an inaccurate vision, and using IT for the

sake of it (i.e. focus on system development rather than system change). The lack of

IT reasearch and development caused the computer-aided despatch system intro-

duced by the Londo n Ambulance Service (Hougham, 1996) to fail within 2 weeks

of installation!

(2) Findin g the right technology: A lthough this might not be a problem at ® rst, with all

the IT experts around , many organizations found that choosing the `right’ techno-

logy, hardware and software proved to be a very critical and time-consuming task.

M any advised seeking external help from someone experienced with IT and re-

engineering.

(3) Creating an international IT structure.

(4) Heavy investment in IT: Finance was probably the major obstacle faced by many

organizations as IT solution s for the 21st Century are mostly costly ones. A lthough

the payback should produce radical improvements and reduced costs, the initial

investment was too great for many small to medium organizations (and even a few

large ones) and some eventually had to comprom ise their IT solution due to ® nances.

182 Y. F. JARR AR & E. M . ASPINWALL

Re-engineering and Asian m anagement

A sian organizations, namely Japanese and Korean (Boyd, 1994; Choi, 1995; Cooper &

M arkus, 1995), relied on concepts radically diþ erent from many Western organizations in

their re-engineering eþ ort. The main diþ erence was the fact that while re-engineerin g calls

for transforming the organization to rely on teams, empowerment and information sharing,

A sian organizations already had these elements in their culture. M oreover, the diþ erent

philosophies followed, such as lifetime em ployment, gave Asian re-engineerin g a distinctive

¯ avour. This clearly show ed in Samsung’ s (Choi, 1995) experience where employees were

given highly focused training (no expenses spared) and expected to undertake continuous

self-development (some were given money and time to go to the gym, while others started

learning a new language). This A sian experience seems to have tackled a major problem

faced by Western organizations, namely re-engineerin g `learning processes’ and creating a

learning organization.

Re-engineering and sm all companies

Small companies seem to have followed the same concepts and main re-engineerin g guide-

lines, but they had some advantages in their re-engineering projects over larger ones,

including: time (they re-engineer much faster); fewer resources needed; and easier, open

communication. However, they require much more commitment and time from the leader,

who usually plays the role of the czar, process owner and re-engineerin g team member.

Re-engineering and TQM

Overall, the organizations that already had a TQM program me prior to re-engineering

reported ® nding less resistance from their people, lower training costs and generally gained

greater improvement in performance (Strategic Direction s G roup, 1994; Britain, 1994;

Taylor, 1993; McLoud, 1994; Towers, 1994). This is probably due to the greater experience

with process management, a culture that accepts continuo us change and improvement,

teamwork experience and the customer focus.

C onclusions

In general, no two companies were identical, nor did they tackle re-engineerin g in the same

way. The fundamental BPR principles were always followed as guidelines or as a ver y basic

recipe for success; still, a diþ erent cooking time, special `secret recipes’ and imagination were

added diþ erently by every company. This stressed the fact that there is no guaranteed success

recipe to im plement, and each organization must look at the basic concepts, learn the

thinking mode, understand the lessons learnt, avoid the pitfalls and use its imagination.

From the review undertaken, it could be concluded that:

(1) Overall, and in spite of `customer focus’ being seen as a key success factor, the

primary uses of BPR were directly aimed at bene® ting the organization, assuming

that customers and other stakeholders may also gain from im proved performance

results.

(2) There was a shared determination by all successful organizations not to stop

after succeeding and to `go on to the next step’ , mainly de® ned by continuo us

improvement.

(3) M any of the BPR cases reviewed were undertaken to achieve medium term cost and

BUSINESS PROCESS R E-ENGINEER ING 183

time savings rather than longer term strategic bene® ts. A greater focus on `working

and learning’ at the expense of a preoccupation with `cost and time’ could increase

the strategic impact of many re-engineering applications. In general, human factors

tended to be overlooked, and there needs to be a greater concentration of eþ ort on

improving employees’ work environment and learning processes.

(4) The `success factors’ and `challenges’ revealed by this study have been found to

agree with m ost of the published BPR theory. H owever, these are not `golden rules’ ,

and it must be stressed that re-engineerin g is about innovation and dramatic change.

It is certain that many organizations will soon come up with better ways to approach

re-engineerin g and the learning process will go on.

(5) No matter how good the organization is, it pays to improve. The main theme for

successful organizations will be change, change, and change again.

(6) Fro m the few experiences that were documented about organizations that failed re-

engineering, it is feared that `̀ as has already happened with TQM , we are now

seeing many organisations pick up half an understanding of reengineerin g and then

install half of that’ ’ (Clemmer, 1994; H ammer & Stanton, 1995). A nother danger

seems to come from the fact that it is becoming a quick-® x, as it is appealing to

quick-® x managers because it aims for quick breakthrough im provement and might

become another managerial example for our `̀ fast and instant relief ’ ’ or ``lose 85

pounds in three weeks’ ’ society (Clemmer, 1994).

R eferences

A P P LEGATE, L. & O SBORN, C. (1989 ) Phillips 66 , Harvard Business School.

AT&T Q UALI TY STEERI NG C OM MI TTEE (1994) R eengineer ing Handbook (U SA, AT &T Bell Laboratories).

B ALAGUER, B. & PERUNI NGER, J. (1990 ) K odak, Har vard Business School.

B AM BURGER, B. (1993a ) C arrier Transicold team s up w ith U niversity of Tennessee to im plant C LPS, Industrial

Eng ineer ing , M arch, pp. 36 ± 41.

B AM BURGER, B. (1993b ) Osram Sylvania’s tim e-based continuous im provem ent approach to BPR, Industrial

Eng ineer ing , D ecem ber, pp. 14 ± 18.

B AM BURGER, B. (1994a ) M ellon Trust reengineering work¯ ow managem ent system for 401K plan, Industrial

Eng ineer ing , M ay, pp. 38 ± 40 .

B AM BURGER, B. (1994b ) C orning Asahi Video Products C ompany elim inates cost of errors for $2 m illion

savings, Industr ial Eng ineering , July, pp. 28 ± 30.

B OY D, J. (1994 ) Reeng ineering . . . Japanese Style, Infor mation Week, 504, pp. 37 ± 46.

B RI TAI N, C. (1994 ) Reengineer ing com plements Bellsouth’ s m ajor business strateg ies, Industr ial Engineer ing,

Februar y, pp. 34 ± 36.

B RUSTOW I CZ, P. (1995 ) D iar y of a reeng ineering experience, B est’ s R eview, 96 , pp. 53 ± 56.

C ARON, J., JARVENP AA, S. & STO DDARD, D. (1994 ) Business reengineering at C IGN A corporation: experiences

and lessons learned from the ® rst ® ve years, M IS Quarterly, 18, pp. 23 3 ± 249.

C H AM P Y, J. (1995) Reeng ineer ing M anagementÐ The M andate for N ew Leadership (London, H arper Business).

C H O I, C. (1995 ) Sam sung: reengineering K orean style, Long Range P lanning , 28, pp. 74 ± 80.

C LEM M ER, J. (1994 ) Process reengineering and process improvem ent: not an either /or choice, C M A M agazine,

68, pp. 36 ± 39.

C O EY M AN, M . (1993 ) Ashland practices a kinder, gentler for m of reengineering , Chem ical Review, 153, p. 42.

C O OP ER, R. & M ARKUS, L . (1995 ) Hum an reengineering , Sloan M anagement Review, Summ er, pp. 39 ± 49 .

C REGO, JR. E . & SCH I FFRI N, P. (1995) Custom er-centred Reeng ineer ingÐ R em apping for Total Custom er Valu e

(N ew York, IRW IN Professional Publishing).

D AVENPORT, T. (1993) Process InnovationÐ Reengineer ing work through Infor m ation Technolog y (Boston, H arvard

Business School).

D AVENPORT, T. & L I NDER, J. (1991 ) Rank X erox, U K, Har vard Business School.

D I GNAN, W. (1995 ) Business process reeng ineering at the C o-operative Bank: im proving personal custom er

ser vice, The TQM M agazine, 7, pp. 42 ± 45 .

F I TZGERALD, B. & M URRAY, C. (1995 ) The practical application of a m ethodology for Business process

184 Y. F. JARR AR & E. M . ASPINWALL

reengineering. In: C .J. C OULSON-TH O M AS (Ed.) (1994 ) B usiness Reeng ineer ing: M yth and Reality (London,

Kogan Page).

G EE, F. & JI CK, T. (1993 ) Singapore Airlines, INSEAD E uro-Asia C entre.

G REEK, D. (1995 ) Special repor t: hard cell pays oþ for Ser vom ex, P rofessional Eng ineering , 8, pp. 23 ± 24 .

H AM M ER, M . (1990 ) Reengineering workÐ don’ t autom ate, obliterate, Har vard B usiness Review, 64,

pp. 104 ± 112.

H AM M ER, M . & C H AM PY, J. (1993) Reengineer ing the Cor porationÐ A M anifesto for B usiness Revolution (London,

N icholas Brealey).

H AM M ER, M . & STANTON, S. (1995) The Reen g ineering Revolution: The Handbook (London, H arper C ollins).

H ARM ON, R. (1996) Reinventin g the B usiness± P repar ing Today’ s Enter prise for Tomorrow’ s Technolog y (N ew York,

The Free Press).

H EYGATE, R. & D UTTA, S. (1993 ) N ew Bank, INSE AD Euro-Asia C entre.

H OUGH AM, M . (1996 ) L ondon Am bulance Ser vice computer aided despatch system , International Jour nal of

Project M anagement, 14, pp. 103 ± 110.

INSTI TUTE OF C H ARTERED A CCOUNTANTS I N E NGLAND AND WALES (1994) B usiness P rocess Redesign (E ngland,

N C C Blackwell).

JACKSON, S. (1995 ) Reengineering the Post oý ce, N ew Technolog y Work and Employment, 10, pp. 142 ± 146.

JANSO N, R. (1993 ) Thanks to its employees, the reengineering eþ ort worked, Jour nal of Quality and Par ticipation,

16, pp. 78 ± 80.

L EW I SH ON, C. & R EY NOSO, J. (1995 ) Improving health ser vice quality from within: the case of U nited L eeds

Teaching Hospitals N HS Trust, International Jour nal of Health C are Q uality A ssurance, 8, pp. 18 ± 20 .

L ORENZ, C. (1992 ) Restoring O rder from C haos, Financial Times, 2 June.

M ACC AALN, M . (1996 ) Reengineering treasur y at C ookson Group, TM A Journal, 16, pp. 45 ± 51 .

M ACDONALD, J. (1995) U nderstanding B usiness Process Reen g ineering in a Week (London, Institute of

M anagem ent).

M CL OUD, J. (1993 ) M cDonnell D ouglas saves over $1,000,00 0 per plane w ith reeng ineering eþ ort, Industrial

Eng ineer ing , 25, pp. 27 ± 30.

M CC LO UD, J. (1994 ) C hanging custom er dem ands ser ve as im petus for BPS at Schlage Lock C om pany,

Industrial Eng ineer ing , June, pp. 30 ± 34.

O BO LENSKY, N . (1994) P ractica l Reeng ineer ingÐ Tools and Techniques for Achievin g Eþ ective C hange (London,

Kogan Page).

PEM BERTON, A. (1993 ) Team working at British Alcan, M anagem ent D evelopm ent Review, 6, pp. 13 ± 15 .

R ATEB, Z . (1995 ) Business process reengineeringÐ case study of an Australian organisation, P roceedings of

Team International’s 8th Annual Conference, R eengineer ing Arab Institutions, Cairo.

R OSSELL, G. & JI CK, T. (1993 ) D aim ler Benz Holding , INSEAD Euro-Asia C entre.

SCH M ERKEN, I. (1992 ) Reengineering Wall Street’ s system s, Wall Street C omputer Review, 9, pp. 14 ± 22 .

STAI NTO N, J. (1995 ) Successful reengineering at work: the Western Provident case study, M anagem ent Ser vices,

O ctober, pp. 12 ± 15.

STALK, G., E VANS, P. & SH ULM AN, L. (1992 ) C om peting on capabilities: the new r ules of corporate strategy,

Har vard B usiness Review, M arch± April, pp. 57 ± 69.

STODDARD, D. & M EADOW S, C. (1992 ) C apital Holding C orporation, Har vard Business School.

STRATEGI C D I RECTI ONS G RO UP (1994) The B usiness R eengineer ing PortfolioÐ Volume IIÐ Reeng ineer ing in action

(Switzerland, Strateg ic D irections P ublishing).

TATE, P. (1995 ) O n the cutting edge: Shell, Infor mation Week, D ecem ber, pp. 45 ± 57.

TAY LO R, S. (1993 ) Eastm an C hem ical strives for better than world class, Industr ial Engineer ing, N ovember,

pp. 28 ± 34.

TAY LO R, S. (1994 ) Patent and Tradem ark oý ce sets the standard for reeng ineering governm ent, Industrial

Eng ineer ing , April, pp. 36 ± 38.

TOW ERS, S. (1994) B usiness P rocess Reengineer ingÐ A Practical H andbook for the Executive s (London, Stanley

Thom as).

Appendix

(1) CIG NA (Caron et al., 1994; Obolensky, 1994)

(2) Samsung (Choi, 1995)

(3) Daimler Benz H oldin g (Rossell & Jick, 1993)

(4) Wal-M ar t (Stalk et al., 1992)

BUSINESS PROCESS R E-ENGINEER ING 185

(5) Singapore Airline s (G ee & Jick, 1993)

(6) Capital H oldin g Corporation (Stoddard & Meadows, 1992; Strategic Directions

Group, 1994)

(7) Carrier Transicold (Bamburger, 1993a)

(8) Taco Bell (Hammer & Champy, 1993; Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

(9) New Bank (H eygate & D utta, 1993)

(10) Reuters (Lorenz, 1992)

(11) Kodak (B alaguer & Peruninger, 1990)

(12) Phillips (A pplegate & Osborn, 1989)

(13) United Ser vices Automobile A ssociation (Institute of Chartered Accountants in

England and Wales, 1994)

(14) Mellon Trust (Bamburger, 1994a)

(15) Corning A sahi Video Products Com pany (Bamburger, 1994b)

(16) Eastman Chemical Com pany (Taylor, 1993)

(17) Schalge Lock Com pany (M cLoud, 1994)

(18) McDonell Douglas Transport Aircraft (M cLoud, 1993)

(19) The Progressive Corporation (Obolensky, 1994)

(20) Oticon (Obolensky, 1994)

(21) National Vulcan Engineering Insurance (Obolensky, 1994)

(22) Kingston H ospital (Obolensky, 1994)

(23) Digital South Paci® c (Obolensky, 1994)

(24) Birmingham Midshires Buildin g Society (Obolensky, 1994)

(25) Banca d’ America d’ A talia (Obolensky, 1994)

(26) AT&T G lobal Business Com m unications Systems (Obolensky, 1994)

(27) Heavy Manufacturing Com pany (Rateb, 1995)

(28) Microelectronic Devices Incorporated (Fitzgerald & M urray, 1995)

(29) Hallm ark (Hammer & Champy, 1993; Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

(30) BellAtlantic (Hammer & Champy, 1993; Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

(31) Bellsouth Telecom (Britain, 1994)

(32) Osram Sylvania (Bamburger, 1993b)

(33) Patent and Trademark Oý ce /U S Department of Com merce (Taylor, 1994)

(34) Ford (Institute of Chartered A ccountants in England and Wales, 1994; Obolensky,

1994)

(35) Motorola (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, 1994)

(36) Siemens Nixdorf Service (Obolensky, 1994)

(37) Conner Peripherals (Strategic D irection s G roup, 1994)

(38) MassM utual Life Insurance (Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

(39) Cincinnati M ilcor n (Strategic Direction s G roup, 1994)

(40) Mutual Bene® t Life (Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

(41) Texas Instruments (Strategic D irection s Group, 1994)

(42) The Principal Financial Group (Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

(43) Allstate Insurance (Strategic Direction s G roup, 1994)

(44) Digital Equipment (Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

(45) Baxter International (Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

(46) Osterreichisches Landesbank (Strategic Direction s G roup, 1994)

(47) First National Bank of Chicago (Strategic Direction s G roup, 1994)

(48) Northern Telecom (Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

(49) California State Automobile Association (Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

(50) R.J. R eynolds Tobacco (Strategic Direction s G roup, 1994)

186 Y. F. JARR AR & E. M . ASPINWALL

(51) Blue Cross of Washington and Alaska (Strategic D irection s G roup, 1994)

(52) Showtime Networks (Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

(53) IBM (Strategic Direction s G roup, 1994)

(54) Pennsylvania Power and Light (Strategic Direction s G roup, 1994)

(55) Brinne r Mond (Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

(56) Syntex Corporation (Strategic D irection s G roup, 1994)

(57) Xerox Canada (Strategic Directions G roup, 1994)

(58) Engelhard (H ammer & Stanton, 1995)

(59) Liber ty M utual (Hammer & Stanton, 1995)

(60) Amoco (Hammer & Stanton, 1995)

(61) Vortex Industries (Hammer & Stanton, 1995)

(62) IVI Publishing (H ammer & Stanton, 1995)

(63) Mathew Thornton H ealth Care (H ammer & Stanton, 1995)

(64) Australian Depar tment of Ar ts and Administration (Crego & Schiþ rin, 1995)

(65) Old Line Life Insurance Com pany (Brustowicz, 1995)

(66) Ashland Chemical (Caron et al., 1994)

(67) America M odern H om e Insurance G roup ( Janson, 1993)

(68) Merill Lynch (Schmerken, 1992)

(69) Western Provident A ssociation (Stainton, 1995)

(70) United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NH S Trust (Lewishon & Reynoso, 1995)

(71) Co-operative Bank (Dignan, 1995)

(72) Higashimaru Shoyu (Cooper & M arkus, 1995)

(73) London Ambulance Service (H ougham , 1996)

(74) Cookson G roup (M acCaaln, 1996)

(75) Ser vomex (G reek, 1995)

(76) Post Oý ce (U K) ( Jackson, 1995)

(77) Shell (Tate, 1995)

(78) British Alcan (Pemberton, 1993)

(79) Rank Xerox, U K (Davenport & Linder, 1991)