Page 63 - DCAP302_ENTERPRISE_RESOURCE_PLANNING

Unit 3: Business Process Re-engineering

Benefits realisation management is enabled through: notes
1. Focusing on business outcomes from the inception of the change initiative and how they
will be achieved and measured;
2. Ensuring that the organisation’s change initiative is supported throughout by a robust
Business Case for change;

3. Matching the use of appropriate cost/benefit techniques to the desired business
outcomes.
4. Incorporating comprehensive project, benefits, change and transition management
activities throughout the change initiative.

3.4.2 process modelling tool

In executing process re-engineering assignments PricewaterhouseCoopers makes use of a
comprehensive set of tools. Our approach for business transformation, streamlining and
simplification, together with our access to our Global Best Practices database and benchmarking
tools enables us to fast-track the identification of operational process issues and opportunities.
PwC has selected Casewise Corporate Modeller as our advanced process modelling tool to
complement other flowcharting tools already used in our practice.
We acknowledge that some assignments may require only a simple process mapping tool to
manage a small number of “flat” flowcharts. However, in other client engagements the processes
subject to improvement may require the capturing of additional information or relationships
between process components for further analysis (i.e. transaction volumes, processing times,
people, locations, technologies). Thorough analysis may also require simulation to facilitate
resource planning, cycle time improvement, queue management or bottleneck identification and
resolution. Casewise Corporate Modeller is deployed where clients require a more advanced
approach to process re-engineering.

Task “Business process re-engineering concept really support the organization for
improvement their business strategy.” Discuss.

3.5 History of Bpr

In 1990, Michael Hammer, a former professor of computer science at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT), published an article in the Harvard Business Review, in which he claimed
that the major challenge for managers is to obliterate non-value adding work, rather than using
technology for automating it. This statement implicitly accused managers of having focused
on the wrong issues, namely that technology in general, and more specifically information
technology, has been used primarily for automating existing processes rather than using it as an
enabler for making non-value adding work obsolete.
Hammer’s claim was simple: Most of the work being done does not add any value for customers,
and this work should be removed, not accelerated through automation. Instead, companies
should reconsider their processes in order to maximize customer value, while minimizing the
consumption of resources required for delivering their product or service.

A similar idea was advocated by Thomas H. Davenport and J. Short in 1990, at that time a member
of the Ernst & Young research center, in a paper published in the Sloan Management Review the
same year as Hammer published his paper.

LoveLy professionaL university 57