Page 248 - DMGT505_MANAGEMENT_INFORMATION_SYSTEM
P. 248

Unit 13: Redesigning the Organization with Information Systems




          Taylor’s scientific management once did. They defined business process redesign as “… the  Notes
          analysis and design of work flows and processes within and between organizations.”
          They prescribe a five-step methodology for achieving process redesign. The methodology starts
          with setting business vision and process objectives. Instead of rationalizing tasks to eliminate
          bottlenecks, as done in previous process redesign works, they suggest that process redesign
          should be performed on entire processes to achieve desired business vision and process objectives.
          The second step is to identify the processes to be redesigned. This is similar to the Pareto
          analysis practiced in TQM. Instead of redesigning all processes, key processes that offer the most
          impact should be redesigned. The next step is to understand and measure the existing processes.
          This is to understand the problems in the existing processes and to set baseline performance
          measurements to judge future improvements. The fourth step in their five-step methodology is
          to identify how IT can be leveraged in the process redesign. Instead of simply supporting
          process redesign, Davenport and Short argue that IT can actually create process redesign options.
          The last step is to implement a prototype of the process.
          This prototype should extend beyond IT applications and into business organization and serves as
          the base for iterative improvement before being phased into full implementation. The combination
          of IT and business process redesign creates what the authors term new industrial engineering. Just
          as scientific management created the original industrial engineering discipline, IT, and business
          process redesign would be essential tools in the new industrial engineering discipline.
          About the same time that Davenport and Short published their ideas on business process redesign,
          Michael Hammer published his radical sounding concept of BPR. Hammer claims the process
          rationalization  and  automation  efforts  of  the  past  have  not  improved  productivity  and
          performance significantly. He believes corporations were simply automating processes designed
          prior to the wide usage of computers. This type of automation does not address fundamental
          process limitations. He argues that corporations need to radically change business processes to
          take advantage of computers. The reengineering efforts need to be broad and encompassing.
          They should have cross-functional boundaries and utilize IT to enable the new processes that
          come out of the reengineering efforts. In Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
          Revolution, Hammer and co-author James Champy, further discuss the need for change. They
          debunk Adam Smith’s labor specialization theory and the functional hierarchical organization
          that resulted from it. They state that the new post-industrial economy, started in the 1980s, is
          different from the mass production economy of the past. In this new economy, customers have
          the upper hand, competition has intensified, and constant changes are normal for the conduct of
          business. To compete in this new customer economy, companies need to reinvent how tasks are
          performed. Instead of incremental improvements to business processes, companies need to start
          from scratch and invent a better way of performing business processes. The goal of radical
          change is to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance,
          such as cost, quality, service, and speed. Hammer and Champy offer a set of prescriptions to
          reengineer business processes. The guiding principle is to organize around processes instead of
          tasks. Workers who share complementary tasks report to the same supervisor even though they
          do not share the same skills. In essence, the authors suggest that corporations should be grouped
          along process boundaries rather than functional boundaries. Every process should have a process
          owner. The role of the process owner is to attend to the performance of the process. They further
          state that workers should be trained to perform all the tasks in the process rather than only a
          single step. In other words, labor specialization, as espoused by Smith, Taylor, and Ford, should
          be dismantled. Shared databases are essential to BPR. Traditional IT infrastructures have often
          been designed to satisfy independent business. Various functions have their own information
          systems and databases. This created barriers to process performance because transactions had to
          be recreated in different applications and information replicated in different functional databases.
          Using a common database eliminates this barrier and presents an opportunity to reengineer the
          business processes without functional systemic limitations.



                                           LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY                                   243
   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253