The Failure Of Business Process Reengineering Commerce Essay

The Failure Of Business Process Reengineering Commerce EssayLet us spring with a little history. In 1990, Business Process re-engineering emerged as a concept for integrating information technology into business coveres with a cross functional perspective (Childe, Maull Bennett, 1994, pp.22). putz and Champy(2001, p.35) on the other hand check to their famous book defined business touch reengineering (BPR) as the fundamental rethinking and groundwork redesign of business affectes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical present-day(a) measure of performance such as cost, quality, service and speed. BPR take in the methodologies, techniques from Information systems analysis, instruction, behaviour of the boldness and communication (Al-Hudhaif, 2009, pp.184). The pressure to meet expectations of customer is increase at a fast rate and Ronald tell us that the need for complete change is the way we work (as cited in Magutu, Nyamwange Kaptoge, 2010).The total quality way (TQM) is found to be used to manage system cost according to quality requirements and a discrete event simulation is used to perform process reengineering and process improvement (Borgianni, Cascini Rotini, 2008, 305-306).HypothesisFor this essay, we have developed the below hypothesisHypothesis 1 Resistant to change will is ace of the top calamity factors that need to the affliction of implementing of BPR since BPR is all about implementing dramatic changes.Business Process Reengineering ResearchVarious essay and studies estimated that about 70% failed to achieve the remarkable resolvent that was intended (Hammer Champy, 2001, pp.221 Chamberlin, 2010, pp.14). It is due to the high failure rate that we need to investigate on it failure factors to identify why it failed. Elmuti and Kathawala (2000, pp.34) came out with the list of 10 failure factors that lead to BPR failure from a survey conducted. This survey was derived from the 24 placements which were mentioned that they failed in BPR implementation out of the 146 questionnaires returned from the 500 questionaries sent out to organisations throughout the United States. The 10 failure factors ar shown in figure 1.Figure 1 Failure factors that whitethorn contribute to business reengineering (Elmuti Kathawala, 2000).I would be discussing on the first 3 failure factors on the above figure 1 as Hammer and Champy(2001) on the other hand have another set of failure factors which in my opinions are more interesting to share.BPR failure factorsInadequate understanding of business reengineering ( Elmuti Kathawala, 2000, pp.34) You can understand something but you dont have to lead but you cant lead something you dont understand. Of the 24 organisations, 78 percentages of them saw business reengineering as a mass chaos w here there were no clear directions or clear solutions to many of the organisation problems. Hammer and Champy(2001, pp.229) further supported that by say that in order to succeed un BPR, only one who is capable of thinking about the entire time value added chain from production to sales and service can take the lead in the reengineering attempt and not just any senior management who has no clue on what is BPR.Lack of an successful methodology to take on the reengineering plan( Elmuti Kathawala, 2000, pp.34)Having a detailed methodology allow the organisation to know how it is suppose to start implementing BPR (Elmuti Kathawala, 2000, pp.34). Carr and Johansson (1995, pp.86) stated that two third of the companies that surveyed used a structured framework or what they termed it as methodology. Carr and Johansson(1995, pp.86) informed that a methodoloy is 60 percent designed by a outside consultant, 20 percent developed in house and 20 percent a combination of consultant and in house. The advantage of an in house methodology is that it will present ideas that the employees are familiar with and easier to follow. An example of an methodology with regard to Aetna(Carr Johansson, 1995, pp.87) includes methods for belowProject SelectionProject planning which need richly requirements forDefining a missionDefining critical success factorsInternal and external scansDefining gaps today and predicting gaps to be filled in the futureObjectives on what will be delivered , to whom and whySteps to be takenTeam formationProject management done by a reengineering teamA successful methodologies as stated by Carr and Johansson(1995, pp.87) is shown as belowA Successful BPR FrameworkIncorporates change managementProvides for organisation communicationsAllow for thoroughgoing changePrescribes clearly defined goal/ targetsProvides a variety of tools to be used throughout processes as necessaryPlans for customer/supplier inputIntegrates ITIs on the table enough to be tailored to the organisation needs.Lack of leadership support and low participation( Elmuti Kathawala, 2000, pp.34)Farina Group was one such organisation that has lack of higher management suppor t that the business reengineering was abandoned (Newman Zhao, 2008, p.413). The top management from Farina apparently didnt want to change the business processes that are current existing when BPR is being implemented.Try to liven a process instead of altering it (Hammer Champy, 2001, pp.222)Hammer and Champy(2001, pp.222) stated that the most conspicuous way to fail is to not reengineer at all but conducting process changes and called it reengineering. The IBM Credit Corporation is such example that used to do it this way and failed before they finally change for the better. They first tried to automate their existing process which enabled them to commit to computer software instead of the previous offline system. This did not balance the work load to minimise wait times which they intend to. After changing the whole process by using queuing theory and linear programming techniques, they finally were able to solve the whole problem.Dont focus on business processes(Hammer Champ y, 2001, pp.223)BPR should construe in on business processes and nothing else. This is due to organisations is only as efficient as it business processes (Hammer Champy, 2001, pp.223). An U.S subsidiary of major European guild was one such example that failed in such a case by not defining the architecture of the work processes (Hammer Champy, 2001, pp.224). Cardarelli, Ritu Mohan(1998) also supported by express that management must focus on the process and not event to make sure that the redesigned process affects the strategy positively now and into the future.Neglect good deals value and beliefs(Hammer Champy, 2001, pp.225)Hammer and Champy(2001, pp.225) stated that when radical changes occurs, there must be a form of rewarding mechanism that cultivate the employees to exhibit the right behaviours to changes. Ford and DRG are examples stated by Hammer and Champy to successfully adapt to such changes.Allow current corporate cultures and management attitudes to prevent reen gineering from starting(Hammer Champy, 2001, pp.228)Hammer and Champy(2001, pp.228) stated that a company cultural characteristics can support or defeat a reengineering effort before it begin. They shared that companies that focus on short terms quarterly results may find it hard to be successful to reengineering longer horizons. Bias against conflict in organisation may feel uncomfortable challenging long complete old rules.Make reengineering happen from bottom up (Hammer Champy, 2001, pp.228)Hammer and Champy(2001, pp.228) stated that reengineering will never happen from bottom to top. Hammer and Champy(2001, pp.229) put it to two fences on they are frontline employees and middle managers are unable to initiate and implement a successful reengineering effort. The first reason is that the push for reengineering must tot from the top of an organisation as people near the front line lack the broad perspective that reengineering demands. Their expertise is largely bound to the i ndividual functions and departments that they stay in. The second reason is that any business process will cross organisational boundaries and no midlevel managers will have the sufficient authority to insist on a process to be transformed. Furthermore, some of the affected middle managers will fear that major changes to existing processes might kill off their own power or authority. These managers have a great deal invested in the existing ways of doing things and the future of the company may compromise their own career interests. They will fear changes and if radical changes threaten to bubble up, they may pooh-pooh it. Only Strong leadership from above will induce people to accept the transformation changes.Bury reengineering in the middle of the corporate agenda(Hammer Champy, 2001, pp.230)Hammer and Champy(2001, pp.231) stated that if organisations do not put reengineering at the top of their agenda, they will never get it done. They mentioned that without constant manageri al concern, the natural tendency of doing what people beauteous much want will be reverted back. This will result BPR to fail altogether.Dissipate energy across a great many reengineering projects(Hammer Champy, 2001, pp.231)Hammer and Champy(2001, pp.231) stated that reengineering requires companies to concentrate their efforts on small number of processes at any given time. This is for example if customer service, research and development and sales processes all need radical redesign and nothing will really happen if all of them are done simultaneously.Attempt to reengineer when the CEO is two forms from retirement(Hammer Champy, 2001, pp.231)Hammer and Champy(2001, pp.231) stated here that the CEO is the head of the business. If any organisation attempts to reengineer when the CEO is one or two years away from retiring may take a blind and unenthusiastic view to reengineering. They stated that this is because a retiree may not want to deal with such complex issues that will constraint a successor. other problem raised by them is that when CEO is about to retire, contenders for that post will want to focus on impressing rather than doing reengineering which could hinder their advancement such as reengineering.Pull out when people start to resist to reengineering changes making(Hammer Champy, 2001, pp.233)Hammer and Champy(2001, pp.233) stated that people almost would resist to change. It is in a human trait to resist major changes. When managers are face to resistant and do not press on, it is almost likely that BPR will fail.Drag the effort out(Hammer Champy, 2001, pp.234)Hammer and Champy(2001, pp.234) stated that reengineering is cognise to be a stressful job for everyone. Stretching it over a long period will discomfort start to surface. Normally 1 year should be enough for a company to move from articulation of a case for action to the first release of a reengineered process. Taking longer and people may become frustrated and the reengineering will fall apart.ConclusionBased on the research on the failure factors of BPR, we could conclude that our hypothesis is not fully correct. It is found in the survey by Elmuti Kathawala(2000) that non understanding of BPR as the top factors leading to failure. Resistant to changes has become ranked as number 5. Which allow me to come to a conclusion that although BPR is about dramatic changes, it is not necessary classified as the main factor for failure in the BPR implementation.