Application 2 – Annotated Bibliography

The State of Business Process Reengineering: A Search for Success Factors

DAVID PAPER� & RUEY-DANG CHANG�� �BISE Department, Utah State University, Logan, USA, ��Department of Business Management, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Taiwan, Republic of China

ABSTRACT In this article, we explore the organizational process change dynamic through a theoretical lens of business process reengineering (BPR) models. We review relevant literature related to such models to devise a synthesized model of BPR. The synthesized model facilitates the identification of success factors for BPR. Results from in-depth case-study research add explanatory power to our model. It is hoped that our model and subsequent success factors will offer insights to help organizations effectively manage change and transformation.

KEY WORDS: Business process reengineering, change management, information technology, innovation, transformation vision

Introduction

In the early 1990s, business process reengineering (BPR) came blazing onto the business

scene as the saviour of under-performing organizations. Early advocates of BPR (e.g.

Harrington, 1991; Davenport, 1993; Hammer & Champy, 1993) touted it as the next revolu-

tion in obtaining breakthrough performance via process improvement and process change.

However, BPR has failed to live up to expectations in many organizations (Davenport,

1993; Hammer & Champy, 1993; Kotter, 1995; Bergey et al., 1999). Some of the

reasons include adoption of a flawed BPR strategy, inappropriate use of consultants, a

workforce tied to old technologies, failure to invest in training, a legacy system out of

control, IT architecture misaligned with BPR objectives, an inflexible management

team, and a lack of long-term commitment (Bergey et al., 1999). As one can see from

this list, it seems obvious that many organizations failed to realize the scope and resource

requirements of BPR.

Although the proliferation of research articles has been abundant, research findings have

provided limited explanatory power concerning the underlying reasons behind BPR failure

Total Quality Management

Vol. 16, No. 1, 121 – 133, January 2005

Correspondence Address: R. D. Chang, Department of Business Management, National Sun Yat-Sen University,

Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan, Republic of China. Email: [email protected]

1478-3363 Print=1478-3371 Online=05=010121 – 13 # 2005 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080=1478336042000309907

and what it takes to succeed. To address this problem, several recent in-depth case studies

have appeared in the Information Systems (IS) literature to add explanatory power to this

issue (Broadbent et al., 1999; Clark et al., 1997; Cooper, 2000; Cross et al., 1997; Hark-

ness et al., 1996; Paper, 1999). Of course, much more work of this type needs to be under-

taken to uncover a rich and theoretically sound explanation of BPR success or failure.

In this piece, we choose to synthesize the existing BPR literature into a theoretical

model that depicts the components necessary for successful BPR. We begin by classifying

the BPR literature into five categories (or components). This classification is an extension

of several multi-component theoretical models adapted from the literature.

Theoretical Lens

We explore the organizational process change dynamic through a theoretical lens of BPR

models developed by Clark et al. (1997), Paper & Dickinson (1997), Paper (1998a), and

Paper (1999). Each of the BPR models (with the exception of Clark et al.) drew con-

clusions based on in-depth case-study research with Caterpillar and Honeywell. Ancillary

data was obtained, analysed, and synthesized from case-study work with FannieMae

(Paper, 2001), Safeco (Paper, 1999), Bank of America (Paper, 1998b), The Utah Depart-

ment of Transportation, The Department of Defense (Rodger & Pendharkar, 2000), The

U.S. Military (Rodger & Pendharkar, 2000), AntHill.com (Mills et al., 2001), and

Moore BCS (Paper & Mok, 2003).

Clark et al. (1997) offered a five-component star model featuring people skills, structure,

reward systems, processes, and change-ready IT capabilities. The components ‘structure’

and ‘reward systems’ fall into the ‘environment’ category developed by Paper (1998a).

The component ‘strategy’ falls into the ‘vision’ category developed by

Paper (2001). Paper (1999) extended the model to include IT capabilities. Paper et al.

(2001) further extended the model to include vision that weaves the other components

together with a ‘top-down’ imperative. Since the component ‘process’ is what organizations

are attempting to change to improve performance (Broadbent et al., 1999; Davenport &

Stoddard, 1994; Harkness et al., 1996; Kettinger et al., 1997; Nissen, 1998; Paper, 1999),

we felt that it should not be a part of our theoretical lens. Figure 1 depicts the theoretical

lens, which consists of five interdependent components – environment (E), people (P),

methodology (M), IT perspective (I), and transformation vision (T).

Environment

Basic environmental factors (Figure 2) that lead to structural change include top-manage-

ment support, risk disposition, organizational learning, teaming, compensation and reward

Figure 1. Theoretical lens

122 D. Paper & R.-D. Chang

systems, information sharing, and resources (Amabile, 1997; Clark et al., 1997; Lynn,

1998; O’toole, 1999). Innovation can come from any level of an organization, but environ-

mental change originates at the top (Cooper & Markus, 1995; Paper, 1999). However, fear

of failure must be limited and risk taking promoted for innovation to thrive (Nemeth, 1997;

Paper & Dickinson, 1997). Once innovation is fostered, it can easily dissipate if nothing is

learned. Organizational learning thereby should be cultivated by investing in training and

education (Paper, 2001; Winklhofer, 2002). Team work is another key factor because

organizational knowledge crosses functional boundaries.

Reward systems are recognized as a viable means to motivate people to perform better

(Pfeffer, 1998). However, compensatory resources must be shifted to promote information

sharing because it enables people to better understand the business and what is required to

be successful (Paper & Dickinson, 1997; Harkness et al., 1996).

People

Transformation success hinges on people (Figure 3) and their knowledge, creativity, and

openness to change (Cooper & Markus, 1995). A shift in their skills will thereby be

required (Cross et al., 1997). Mechanisms to build new skills include training and edu-

cation, challenging work, team work, and empowerment (Paper & Dickinson, 1997).

Challenge allows people to see the significance of and exercise responsibility for an

entire piece of work (Cummings & Oldham, 1997). It also stimulates creativity, gives a

sense of accomplishment, and increases productivity (Amabile, 1997; Hackman et al.,

1975). However, people cannot reach their creative potential unless given freedom

(Pfeffer, 1998). Politics is another critical issue. Often change results from internal politics

rather than external factors (Winklhofer, 2002).

Methodology

Methodology is critical to effectively dealing with the scope and complexities involved in

change (Davenport & Short, 1990; Guha et al., 1993; Talwar, 1993; Kim, 1996; Kettinger

et al., 1997; Paper & Dickinson, 1997; Paper, 1998a; Teng et al., 1998). Methodology

Figure 2. Environment

Figure 3. Environment and people

The State of Business Process Reengineering 123

(see Figure 4) keeps people focused and acts as a rallying point for cross-functional teams,

facilitators, and managers as it informs them about where the project is and where it is

going (Paper & Dickinson, 1997).

Methodology incorporates both top-down vision and bottom-up design. That is, vision

originates at the top but design of detailed process activities can only be done by those who

do the work (Davenport & Stoddard, 1994). Methodology is therefore a joint activity

between top management, middle management, and process workers on an ongoing

basis to hone and fine tune the approach (Paper & Dickinson, 1997).

El Sawy & Bowles (1997) argued that customer support should be a key ingredient in

process-redesign efforts. The tendency is to focus on workflow without consideration for

the customer.

IT Perspective

The perspective of IT (Figure 5) professionals toward change is critical because technology

implementation is an organizational intervention (Markus & Benjamin, 1996) and integral

to the successful implementation of business-process redesign (Broadbent et al., 1999).

Moreover, a BPR project is labeled as a success or failure depending on the perceptions

of people and their role in and view of the IT development process (Lyytinen, 1988).

Given that the role of technology is to facilitate business processes (Davenport, 1993)

and that the end goal of BPR is to delight the customer (Davenport, 1993; Drucker, 1998;

Hammer & Champy, 1993; Paper & Dickinson, 1997), it is imperative not to lose sight of

the importance of developing process workers and somehow extracting the knowledge

they gain by being intimately involved in the effort.

Transformation (Change) Vision

Vision (Figure 6) offers a means of communicating the reengineering philosophy to the

entire organization by pushing strategic objectives down to the process level, and aligning

Figure 4. Environment, people, and methodology

Figure 5. Environment, people, methodology, and IT perspective

124 D. Paper & R.-D. Chang

the project with business goals (Harkness et al., 1996; Paper & Dickinson, 1997). Davenport

& Short (1990) added that top-down design is ineffective unless the people who do the

work are involved (Davenport & Stoddard, 1994) and understand the business (Paper &

Dickinson, 1997).

Davenport & Stoddard (1994) purported that top-down imperatives should be tempered

with involvement from people along the process path. Change management, however, is

very difficult because people tend to react negatively to it (Topchik, 1998). Further,

cultural change is the most difficult challenge of BPR (Caron et al., 1994). Hence, a

top-down vision tempered with involvement from process workers is imperative

because it helps people understand the reasons for change. If people believe that change

will benefit them and/or the organization, negativity is reduced. Top management should proactively sell the vision to key stakeholders (process

workers, management, stockholders, etc.) before they try to implement change (Beer

et al., 1990; Clark et al., 1997; Winklhofer, 2002). However, change brings many

events that cannot be anticipated. Hence, Orlikowski & Hofman (1997) argued that the

vision should account for both anticipated and unanticipated change. That is, the vision

must be improvisational (Clark et al., 1997). Top management must be flexible enough

to understand that the vision is ‘organic’. The vision may have to change dramatically

as more is learned about new ways of doing business.

BPR Success and Failure

The model developed offers a theoretically sound representation of the fundamental com-

ponents needed to achieve successful BPR. However, it offers no specific guidelines to

assist managers in their dealings with change. In this section, we offer such guidance

by articulating a set of BPR success factors.

Environmental Success Factors

The working environment of any organization permeates everything people do. In a

command and control environment, people are naturally discouraged from taking risks

and being creative. Hence, top management must cultivate an environment conducive

to change to make BPR work. As such, environmental success factors include top-

management support, risk disposition, organizational learning, teaming, compensation

and reward systems, information sharing, and resources.

Top managers are the only people in a position of power to influence the environment.

Moreover, top managers committed to change and personally involved in BPR tend to have

more success than those who are not (Paper & Dickinson, 1997; Paper, 1998a, 1998b,

1999, 2001; Paper et al., 2000, 2001; Paper & Mok, 2003). When people actually see

Figure 6. Transformation component model

The State of Business Process Reengineering 125

top managers initiating process-improvement changes, they perceive that their work is

noticed and that it is important to the organization (Paper & Dickinson, 1997; Paper,

1999). Top-management support is also a key factor in reducing the inherent fear of

failure in people. People will not take risks without being encouraged to do so by their

superiors. Encouragement comes in the form of rewards for thinking out of the box and

compensation for innovative ideas that add value to the process. Top management is

also in a position to provide resources for training, education, and learning. All of this

has no long-term impact unless organizations learn from success and failure. Teaming

offers a vehicle to enhance information sharing and reduce communication-channel block-

age inherent in functionally separated organizations. We now articulate environmental

success factors:

. Top intervention is critical to successful change management. Intervention includes active involvement in the planning and execution of the change initiative, adequate budget for

education, training, and technology, and compensation for innovative thinking.

. Organizational learning must be planned. Training and education are wasted in the long term unless management plans ways to share such learning with the organization as a

whole. Successes and failures during the change should also be shared. IT can play a

critical role in information sharing of this kind. However, the budget must

have funds allocated to innovative ways to share and ultimately store organizational

knowledge.

. Compensation must be recast to reward teamwork, innovation, and information sharing. In most organizations, this runs counter to the status quo. Hence, management must

devise and execute detailed plans to change the reward structure.

. People tend to be risk-averse, which is natural in an organization that fails to foster risk taking. To redirect this tendency, management must devise and execute detailed plans to

change the perception of risk in its people.

From the success factors, it is obvious that there is interaction between the components

of the model. For instance, the environment cannot be adaptive without serious top-

management support. Moreover, people are the key to change because it is they who do

the work. Hence, the environment must be conducive to the change in the perception of

the people that will enact the change.

People Success Factors

Since people enact change, it is logical that they are the most valuable assets of any organ-

ization. People success factors include training, education, politics resolution, ownership,

and empowerment.

Education and training are the single most powerful tools in cultural transformation

(Wong, 1998) as they raise awareness and understanding of the business and customer

(Paper & Dickinson, 1997; Wong, 1998). Training people helps them develop creativity,

problem-solving, and decision-making skills so they can better deal with complex issues

that potentially impact the entire enterprise. However, these tools are not enough if

management is not proactive in dealing with political obstacles. Politics can derail an

otherwise solid change program. If politics can be effectively dissipated, transformation

will be fostered if people perceive ownership of the change process (Davenport &

126 D. Paper & R.-D. Chang

Stoddard, 1994; Paper & Dickinson, 1997; Paper, 1998b; Mir et al., 2002) and are empowered

to enact change. We now articulate people success factors:

. Management needs to be sensitive to and aware of their role in creating a workplace that allows people freedom to act on their ideas (Winklhofer, 2002). Management must also

temper such freedom with adherence to objectives and company policy (Paper &

Dickinson, 1997). Freedom without some semblance of control may lead to

chaos and poor performance.

. Management needs to foster commitment and ownership at all levels (Caron et al., 1994; Mir et al., 2002). At the same time, management must be tolerant of failure (Paper & Dick-

inson, 1997). A willingness to allow failure and learn from it is paramount to BPR success

(Caron et al., 1994). Keep in mind that people are not used to ownership. The status quo has

typically been following directives with little or no tolerance for error. As ownership is

passed to people, errors will follow. The trick is to work with people to reduce repetition

of the same mistake and to help people learn from each other’s mistakes.

. To effectively deal with politics, managers must first be aware of its existence (Pinto, 1998). In our experiences, managers have never had any reason to question the political

environment. They have simply had to deal with it. To foster change, managers must

now be sensitive to the detrimental effects of politics and plan for ways to dissipate

political resistance to change.

. Education and training must be concentrated on developing people to thrive in a dynamic environment. The literature agrees that people perform better if they understand how

their jobs fit into the overall scheme of the organization and how they do them adds

value (Paper & Dickinson, 1997; Paper, 1998a, 1999, 2001; Paper et al., 2000, 2001;

Winklhofer, 2002). Managers must thereby devise and execute plans to better link

education and training with what people must do to enact change at the process level.

. People fear change. They also inherently protect their position. Management at all levels must work to reduce this fear and let people know that their jobs are secure as

change occurs. One problem with this thinking is that managers are also people with

the same tendencies. They therefore have to be carefully trained and educated in how

to deal with subordinate politics and their own political tendencies.

As with the environmental component, there is interaction between the people component

and the others. For instance, politics is a structural and cultural phenomenon but it is also an

individual one. That is, politics exists at the organizational and individual levels. Organizations

are political entities with functional, process, and ownership boundaries. Individuals also

possess their own political allegiances and perceptions. The complexities inherent in politics

make dissipation of such a much more difficult managerial task. However, successful change

will be stymied unless management at all levels makes a conscious effort to deal with it.

Methodology Success Factors

Methodology provides a guiding blueprint for successful transformation. Methodology

success factors include appropriate guiding principles, buy-in, direction, continuous

monitoring, graphical process map, and customer support.

Transformation cannot be accomplished in the absence of fundamental guiding principles

(Hammer & Champy, 1993; Tapscott & Caston, 1993). Existence of such principles allows

The State of Business Process Reengineering 127

people to challenge existing assumptions, recognize resistance to change, and establish

project buy-in (Kettinger et al., 1997). Also of critical importance is direction from top man-

agement (Paper & Dickinson, 1997), which is essential to identifying information-technology

opportunities, informing stakeholders, setting performance goals, and identifying BPR

opportunities. Direction can be formalized in the form of a process model (Harrington,

1991; Davenport, 1993; Paper & Dickinson, 1997). A process model provides a graphical

representation of the targeted processes and a starting point for measurement-driven inference

(Nissen, 1998). We now articulate methodology success factors:

. A customized BPR methodology (process map) facilitates business and contingency planning for process transformation (Kettinger et al., 1997). It also provides a ‘step-

by-step’ map of activities and resource-allocation requirements (Paper & Dickinson,

1997). Hence, a detailed methodology for addressing change must be devised and

customized by management prior to undergoing change.

. A process map, however, only maps tasks and activity requirements. It fails to provide high-level support and direction. Management is thereby responsible for budgeting

along mapped activities, directing (redirecting) process workers, and exhibiting

visible support. A map is just a blueprint. Management must lead change.

. The process map must be based on sound business principles and be appropriate for each business. That is, it should be customized. As such, an organization’s map

should incorporate business-specific principles and undergo continuous refinement

based on current and ongoing business needs.

. A BPR methodology is not a ‘turn-key’ program and should not be purchased as such. Each organization has its own special needs, environment, and business culture.

. The process map should be represented as a graphical blueprint that depicts what needs to take place at each phase of a project so that everyone involved understands his or her

role in the transformation (Paper, 1999). A graphical map makes it much easier for

everyone to ‘see’ the phases and conditions necessary for success.

. The customer should be the focus of any change event. Hence, the process map should reflect this focus. That is, customer demand should ‘pull’ the change plan.

The BPR methodology (process map) acts as a rallying point to keep people engaged

and to help management continuously monitor the transformation as it unfolds. Buy-in

of course is critical as management at all levels and people involved in change along

the process path need to understand and believe in its potential for success. Top manage-

ment and project leaders must offer direction, as it is very easy for transformation projects

to glide off track. Finally, customer support must be part of the change plan as they are the

reason for transformation in the first place. An organization would not need to change if

customers were already delighted.

Given the cross-functional and radical nature of process redesign, a lot is learned by

process workers (Paper & Dickinson, 1997). Further, new knowledge is created by

those involved (El Sawy & Bowles, 1997). However, the organization can lose this valu-

able knowledge through attrition if an effort is not made to capture the knowledge on an

organizational basis. As a result, the BPR methodology must move to a higher order of

analysis to formalize the way in which the ‘process’ learns during the redesign process.

Thus, interactions between people, management, and the environment are necessary to

enact a process map.

128 D. Paper & R.-D. Chang

IT Perspective Success Factors

Technology plays a critically important role in change efforts as the complexity and scope

of a project increases. Further, BPR is considered a success or failure depending on the

perceptions of people and their role in and view of IT. Technology perspective success

factors include IT knowledge, IT belief system, and IT architecture.

IT offers a vehicle to capture valuable knowledge gained during a change event. Such

a vehicle has to be planned, developed, executed, and directed by management to be effec-

tive. One option is to build the technology architecture around adaptive learning processes.

That is, coordinate IT to facilitate information sharing and capture knowledge as process

workers learn during change. El Sawy & Bowles (1997) argued that IT built around adap-

tive learning architectures can provide a basis toward building faster-learning knowledge-

creating organizations. The only missing ingredient to this plan is creativity. An increase

in creativity tends to increase the likelihood of alternative-technology solutions, thereby

enhancing the chances for project success (Cooper, 2000). People, however, will not be

creative unless encouraged to do so. Moreover, creativity can be stifled quite easily in

‘command and control’ environments. As such, people need autonomy as well as oppor-

tunity for professional growth (Cooper, 2000). Success is also dependent upon buy-in to

not only the transformation goals, but also the uncertainties associated with an unproven

design (Clark et al., 1997).

Perception of technology is critical because people who benefit most from change are

more positive than those who feel threatened and insecure (Winklhofer, 2002). That is,

opinions of success and failure differ based on perceived benefit. As a result, management

must work hard to develop an environment perceived as equitable to everyone. This

environment should also decry the importance of the customer to process workers and

IT staff.

IT has been touted as one of the key enablers of BPR (Davenport, 1993). However,

IT can be one of the biggest obstacles if not properly aligned with business objectives

(Broadbent et al., 1999). The heritage of a legacy system can contribute greatly to

BPR failure (Bergey et al., 1999). Many legacy systems are not under control

because they lack proper documentation, historical measurements, and change-control

processes (Bergey et al., 1999; Paper, 1998b). Due to the scope and complexities

inherent in a typical legacy system infrastructure, it should be treated with the same pri-

ority as the cultural and organizational structures when undergoing process change

(Broadbent et al., 1999; Clark et al., 1997; Cross et al., 1997). We now articulate IT

success factors:

. IT architecture should be built around adaptive learning processes. As change unfolds, process workers learn how to adapt. To share this knowledge gained from people, we

need to devise a means to capture it. As processes change, IT should be used to facilitate

proper flow. As such, we should be able to creatively capture what is happening because

IT is already a facilitator.

. Creativity must be encouraged and rewarded. Without creativity, valuable changes in IT during transformation are very difficult (Couger, 1996; Glass, 1995). People enact

change. People create new technology and ways that existing technology can be

adapted. Finally, it is people that create knowledge with IT (Couger, 1996). Manage-

ment must, therefore, account for creativity development in their change plan.

The State of Business Process Reengineering 129

. People must know their role in the change process. Managers facilitate and guide the process, but they do not enact the process. People enact processes, set their own

goals (in adherence to directives), and are responsible for the consequences.

However, managers must be responsible for sharing goal-setting tasks with process

workers. They must also champion the effort, defuse political blockages, and encourage

innovative behaviour. Technology is only a critical facilitative tool.

. Perception varies among people. However, it can be shaped by policy. By encouraging innovation, sharing information, and providing a change blueprint, management is com-

municating the change vision to its people. Perception cannot be controlled, but it can be

influenced by such behaviour. If people know what is expected of them and their role in

the change process, resistance will be drastically reduced.

. Communication channels between management and IT change advocates should be kept as open as possible to ensure success (Markus & Benjamin, 1996).

Creativity is very important to successful transformation. Creative people help design

better processes that add value to the enterprise. As such, the IT architecture should be

refined to support process changes and help people more creatively approach their jobs.

IT gives people the power to move information across and outside the organization at

incredible speed. Harnessing such potential allows people to rethink existing ways of

doing business. However, people must understand IT and how it works if they are expected

to use IT to make change happen. None of this will work unless the management

encourages IT education and change. The IT department must reach out to educate

people as to the uses of IT for process change. In addition, the IT department cannot be

an obstacle to change if real transformation is to take place.

Transformation (Change) Vision Success Factors

The change vision is the ‘glue’ that ties the other components together into a cohesive

whole. Top management is critical in directing, monitoring, and controlling activities

related to transformation. They are the only ones who can effectively remove political

obstacles that cross department boundaries. They are the only ones who can set up and

monitor equitable reward structures for all people within the organization. They are the

only ones who can resolve real conflict between managers. They are also the only ones

who can push IT to embrace change. They set the cultural and political tone of the organ-

ization. The vision is the mandate that is communicated from top management to the

people. The people can thereby see what top management advocates as transformation

unfolds. Vision success factors include vision development, vision communication,

vision deployment, and vision flexibility.

Top management has in its power the ability to influence how the organization perceives

environment, people, IT, and methodology. As such, they are responsible for developing,

communicating, and deploying the vision as well as making the resources available to

process workers to effectively do their job. We now articulate vision success factors:

. The vision offers a blueprint for directing change. As such, it must be fully communi- cated to all. Moreover, it must be enacted. That is, top management must ‘live’ the rules

laid out by the vision. Top management must also be ‘actively’ involved in all phases of

change (Kettinger et al., 1997). After all, change is broad and strategic.

130 D. Paper & R.-D. Chang

. Open communication channels must be open (and kept open) between top management, IT, and process workers. Since top management has the clout, they should be respon-

sible for the activities that facilitate openness. Open communication can help inform

top management of political obstacles, training issues, and budget problems before

they stymie the project. With open communication channels, top management has the

means to identify communication bottlenecks that may occur between departments

and between people at all levels of the organization (Winklhofer, 2002). It can also

help top management disseminate information about the business and BPR progress

across the organization. The more informed people are about the business, the better

they feel about what they do. Happy people are more committed to their work (Mir

et al., 2002), less resistant to change (Paper & Dickinson, 1997; Winklhofer, 2002),

and more likely to trust management and their plans (Paper, 1999).

. Change is broad and complex. One solution to this problem is to target a BPR initiative that is ‘manageable’ and that will garner quick results (Paper, 1998a). A quick success

shows that management is competent in dealing with change and serious about the

change effort.

. The change vision should be holistic. As such, work should be viewed as part of the whole system (Teng et al., 1998). The goal of such a vision must be to align employee

goals and actions with those of the organization and vice versa (Drucker, 1998; Drucker,

1989). However, such a vision is too diluted to guide employees (Cross et al., 1997).

Hence, top management must communicate with general managers the tactical and

operational intentions. In turn, general managers must decompose management inten-

tions into do-able activities at the process level.

The vision should be developed in such a way to appeal to everyone involved in the

change effort. Process workers who make changes should be considered just as important

as any manager, even those at the top of the enterprise. The vision should therefore reflect

the importance of each person and how people are rewarded for their efforts. The vision

should also include recourse for people who believe they are doing the right thing but are

stymied by their supervisors and managers. Finally, the vision should also be developed to

appeal to customers and other stakeholders. However, Bartlett & Ghoshal (1994) argued

that a vision can be too focused, which leads to myopia and inflexibility. Their solution is a

more balanced approach that tempers broad vision with ‘hard’ financial realities.

Transformation is expensive and should be justified in terms of increased competitive-

ness, profits, and efficiencies. The vision should be reflective of such performance require-

ments. It must also be properly communicated to the organization. Top management is

responsible for this. As such, top management must be actively involved in transformation

to show people that the project is important. Top management should also communicate a

strategy for deployment in terms of project phases, timelines, and impacts on the business.

Finally, the vision should be flexible enough that it can be changed to accommodate

changes in the business climate, personnel, and other unforeseen events.

Conclusion

In this study, we examined change through a component theoretical lens. Success factors

for each component were individually identified and explained. We also articulated how

the components overlap. People enact change, but they need direction. The change vision

The State of Business Process Reengineering 131

is the blueprint that provides such direction. The BPR methodology is the actionable plan

that flows from the vision. However, the environment must be supportive of change. Such

support must be championed by top management. Moreover, people must be rewarded, not

reprimanded, for taking calculated risks. Technology plays a supportive role in this

process. Hence, the vision must account for the environment, methodology, people, and

technology.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1997) Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do,

California Management Review, 40(1), pp. 39 – 58.

Bartlett, C. A. & Ghoshal, S. (1994) Changing the role of top management: beyond strategy to purpose, Harvard

Business Review, 72(6), pp. 79 – 88.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A. & Spector, B. (1990) Why change programs don’t produce change, Harvard Business

Review, 68(6), pp. 158 – 166.

Bergey, J., Smith, D., Tiley, S., Weiderman, N. & Woods, S. (1999) Why reengineering projects fail, Carnegie

Mellon Software Engineering Institute – Product Line Practice Initiative, 1, pp. 1 – 30.

Broadbent, M., Weill, P. & St. Claire, D. (1999) The implications of information technology infrastructure for

business process redesign, MIS Quarterly, 23(2), pp. 159 – 182.

Caron, J. R., Jarvenpaa, S. L. & Stoddard, D. B. (1994) Business reengineering at CIGNA Corporation:

experiences and lessons learned from the first five years, MIS Quarterly, 18(3), pp. 233 – 250.

Clark, C. E., Cavanaugh, N. C., Brown, C. V. & Sambamurthy, V. (1997) Building change-readiness capabilities

in the IS organization: insights from the Bell Atlantic experience, MIS Quarterly, 21(4), pp. 425 – 454.

Cooper, R. (2000) Information technology development creativity: a case study of attempted radical change,

MIS Quarterly, 24(2), pp. 245 – 276.

Cooper, R. & Markus, M. L. (1995) Human reengineering, Sloan Management Review, 36(4), pp. 39 – 50.

Couger, J. D. (1996) Creativity and Innovation in Information Systems Organizations (New York: Boyd & Fraser

Publishing).

Cross, J., Earl, M. J. & Sampler, J. L. (1997) Transformation of the IT function at British Petroleum, MIS

Quarterly, 21(4), pp. 401 – 423.

Cummings, A. & Oldham, G. R. (1997) Managing work contexts for the high-potential employee, California

Management Review, 40(1), pp. 22 – 38.

Davenport, T. H. (1993) Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology (Boston,

MA: Harvard Business School Press).

Davenport, T. H. & Short, J. E. (1990) The new industrial engineering: information technology and business

process redesign, Sloan Management Review, 31(4), pp. 11 – 27.

Davenport, T. H. & Stoddard, D. B. (1994) Reengineering: business change of mythic proportions?,

MIS Quarterly, 18(2), pp. 121 – 127.

Drucker, P. F. (1998) Management’s new paradigms, Forbes, 162(7), pp. 152 – 177.

Drucker, P. F. (1989) What businesses can learn from non-profits, Harvard Business Review, July – August, p. 89.

El Sawy, O. A. & Bowles, G. (1997) Redesigning the customer support process for the electronic economy:

insights from storage dimensions, MIS Quarterly, 21(4), pp. 457 – 483.

Glass, R. L. (1995) Software Creativity (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Guha, S., Kettinger, W. J. & Teng, J. T. C. (1993) Business process reengineering: building a comprehensive

methodology, Information Systems Management, 10(3), pp. 13 – 22.

Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G., Janson, R. & Purdy, K. (1975) A new strategy for job enrichment, California

Management Review, 17(4), pp. 57 – 71.

Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993) Reengineering the Corporation (New York: Harper Collins Books).

Harkness, W. L., Kettinger, W. J. & Segars, A. H. (1996) Sustaining process improvement and innovation in

the information services function: lessons learned at the Bose Corporation, MIS Quarterly, 20(3), pp.

349 – 368.

Harrington, H. J. (1991) Business Process Improvement: the Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality,

Productivity, and Competitiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill).

Kettinger, W. J., Teng, J. T. C. & Guha, S. (1997) Business process change: a study of methodologies, techniques,

and tools, MIS Quarterly, 21(1), pp. 55 – 81.

132 D. Paper & R.-D. Chang

Kim, C. (1996) A comprehensive methodology for business process reengineering, Journal of Computer

Information Systems, Fall, pp. 53 – 57.

Kotter, J. P. (1995) Leading change: why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review. March – April,

pp. 59 – 67.

Lynn, G. S. (1998) New product team learning: developing and profiting from your knowledge capital, California

Management Review, 40(4), pp. 74 – 93.

Lyytinen, K. (1988) Expectation failure concept and system analyst’s view of information systems failures:

results of an exploratory study, Information & Management, 14, pp. 45 – 56.

Markus, M. L. & Benjamin, R. I. (1996) Change agentry – the next IS frontier, MIS Quarterly, 20(4), pp.

385 – 407.

Mills, R., Paper, D. & Rodger, J. A. (2001) Modeling a successful e-business using essential principles from

Netscape, Journal of Small Business Strategy, 12(1), pp. 52 – 61.

Mir, A., Mir, R. & Mosca, J. B. (2002) The new age employee: an exploration of changing employee – organiz-

ation relations, Public Personnel Management, 31(2), pp. 187 – 200.

Nemeth, C. J. (1997) Managing innovation: when less is more, California Management Review, 40(1), pp. 59 – 74.

Nissen, M. E. (1998) Redesigning reengineering through measurement-driven inference, MIS Quarterly, 22(2),

pp. 509 – 534.

O’toole, J. (1999) Lead change effectively, Executive Excellence, 16(4), pp. 16 – 17.

Orlikowski, W. J. & Hofman, J. D. (1997) An improvisational model for change management, Sloan Management

Review, 38(2), pp. 11 – 21.

Paper, D. (1998a) BPR: creating the conditions for success, Long Range Planning, 31(3), pp. 426 – 435.

Paper, D. (1998b) Identifying critical factors for successful BPR: an episode at Barnett Bank, Failure & Lessons

Learned in Information Technology Management, 2(3), pp. 107 – 115.

Paper, D. (1999) The enterprise transformation paradigm: the case of Honeywell’s industrial automation and

control unit, Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications, 1(1), pp. 4 – 23.

Paper, D. (2001) Managing radical transformation: a holistic paradigm, in: 2nd Annual GITM World Conference,

June 10 – 12, Dallas, TX.

Paper, D. & Dickinson, S. (1997) A comprehensive process improvement methodology: experiences at Cater-

pillar’s Mossville engine center, in: M. Khosrowpour & J. Liebowitz (Eds) Cases on Information Technol-

ogy Management in Modern Organizations, Chapter 9 (Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing).

Paper, D. & Mok, W. (2003) The relation between BPR and ERP systems: a failed project, Annals of Cases on

Information Technology, 5, pp. 45 – 62.

Paper, D., Rodger, J. A. & Pendharkar, P. C. (2000) Development and initial testing of a theoretical model of

transformation, in: Hawaiian Conference on System Sciences, pp. 325 – 333.

Paper, D., Rodger, J. A. & Pendharkar, P. C. (2001) A BPR case study at Honeywell, Business Process

Management Journal, 7(2), pp. 85 – 99.

Pfeffer, J. (1998) Seven principles of successful organizations, California Management Review, 40(2), pp. 96– 124.

Pinto, J. K. (1998) Power, politics, and project management, in: J. K. Pinto (Ed.) The Project Management

Handbook, pp. 256 – 266 (New York: Jossey-Bass Inc.).

Rodger, J. A. & Pendharkar, P. C. (2000) Telemedicine and the Department of Defense, Communications of the

ACM, 43(3), 19 – 20.

Talwar, R. (1993) Business re-engineering – a strategy-driven approach, Long Range Planning, 26(6), pp.

22 – 40.

Tapscott, D. & Caston, A. (1993) A Paradigm Shift: The New Promise of Information Technology (New York:

McGraw-Hill).

Teng, T. C., Jeong, S. R. & Grover, V. (1998) Profiling successful reengineering projects, Communications

of the ACM, 41(6), pp. 96 – 102.

Topchik, G. S. (1998) Attacking the negativity virus, Management Review, 87(8), pp. 61 – 64.

Winklhofer, H. (2002) Information systems project management during organizational change, Engineering

Management Journal, 14(2), pp. 33 – 37.

Wong, W. Y. L. (1998) A holistic perspective on quality quests and quality gains: the role of environment, Total

Quality Management, 9(4), pp. 241 – 245.

The State of Business Process Reengineering 133