Page 33 - DCAP302_ENTERPRISE_RESOURCE_PLANNING

Unit 2: ERP and Related Technology

was a corporate environment that promotes learning, especially learning from failure. Although, notes
the process was initiated from the top, the ownership was moved down to the people who
actually had to implement the changes and were affected by those changes. The BPR effort
took into consideration the differences in management cultures in different countries. The BPR
initiative started at the operational levels and was later moved to “higher forms” (strategic) of
re-engineering over time.

Why Bpr projects fail? What can be done about it?

70% of the BPR projects fail. Biggest obstacles that re-engineering faces are: (i) Lack of sustained
management commitment and leadership; (ii) Unrealistic scope and expectations; and
(iii) Resistance to Change.

Based on the BPR consultants’ interviews, Bashein et al. (1994) outline the positive preconditions
for BPR success as: Senior Management Commitment and Sponsorship; Realistic Expectations;
Empowered and Collaborative Workers; Strategic Context of Growth and Expansion; Shared
Vision; Sound Management Practices; Appropriate People Participating Full-Time (cf: CIGNA:
BPR as a way of life); and Sufficient Budget. They also identify negative preconditions related
to BPR as: The Wrong Sponsor; A “Do It to Me” Attitude; Cost-Cutting Focus; and, Narrow
Technical Focus. The negative preconditions relating to the Organization include: Unsound
Financial Condition; Too Many Projects Under Way; Fear and Lack of Optimism; and, Animosity
Toward and By IS and Human Resource (HR) Specialists. To turn around negative conditions,
firms should: Do Something Smaller First (CIGNA’s pilot); Conduct Personal Transformation
(CIGNA’s change of mindset); and Get IS and HR Involved (CIGNA’s CIO initiated the change
and HR factors were given due emphasis).
King (1994) views the primary reason of BPR failure as overemphasis on the tactical aspects
and the strategic dimensions being compromised. He notes that most failures of re-engineering
are attributable to the process being viewed and applied at a tactical, rather than strategic,
levels. He discusses that there are important strategic dimensions to BPR, notably, Developing
and Prioritizing Objectives; Defining the Process Structure and Assumptions; Identifying
Trade-Offs Between Processes; Identifying New Product and Market Opportunities; Coordinating
the Re-engineering Effort; and, Developing a Human Resources Strategy. He concludes that the
ultimate success of BPR depends on the people who do it and on how well they can be motivated
to be creative and to apply their detailed knowledge to the redesign of business processes (cf:
Davenport & Stoddard 1994, Markus et al. 1994).

Where is Bpr Headed?

Over the last few years, the re-engineering concept has evolved from a “radical change” to
account for the contextual realism (Caron et. al 1994, Earl 1994), and to reconcile with more
incremental process change methods such as TQM, towards a broader, yet more comprehensive
process management concept (Davenport 1995).

Based upon a theoretical analysis and survey of literature relevant to re-engineering, Kettinger &
Grover (1995) outline some propositions to guide future inquiry into the phenomenon of BPR. Their
propositions center around the concepts of knowledge management, employee empowerment,
adoption of new IT’s, and a shared vision. Earl et al. (1995) have proposed a “process alignment
model” that comprises four lenses of enquiry: process, strategy, MIS, change management and
control, and used it for developing an inductive taxonomy of BPR strategies. Malhotra (1996) has
developed the key emphasis on these issues based primarily on an integrative synthesis of the
recent literature from organization theory, organization control, strategy, and MIS.

LoveLy professionaL university 27