Search results

This study offers a framework for understanding the causes and impact of reengineering. The framework views the causes and impact from two aspects, namely, external and internal dimensions. Using case research, it was found that both external and internal factors were important in driving reengineering as well as in explaining the results brought about by reengineering.

It cannot be known for sure, but it appears that the sentence uttered most often by advocates for the reengineering construct is: ‘Reengineering is not downsizing!’ This disputed association of terms usually draws a defensive complaint or disclaimer from reengineering enthusiasts and from any corporate communicator who must win either public or employee support for the programme. But this paper argues that this recurring disclaimer is naive and self‐serving. That is, enthusiasts for reengineering tend to mislead us and themselves in three ways. They—fail to examine the suspect organisational metaphor on which the reengineering construct is based;—equivocate about the meaning of the essential term ‘work’; and confound the goals of reengineering with its inevitable consequences.

Process redesign is not always successful and is almost always accompanied by pain or at least unpleasant side effects. Many companies have undertaken reengineering efforts only to abandon them with little or no positive results. As important as it is to understand how to reengineer, it is crucial to understand how to avoid the traps. A disciplined, step‐by‐step approach to implementing process redesign is critical to the effort. This article offers a framework for the successful design and construction of the reengineering solution.

The only true gauge of successful reengineering is whether the reengineered process delivered results that increased the competitive advantage of the organization. Therefore, success lies not only in executing a well‐defined methodology, or in developing leading‐edge technology or a set of human‐resource enablers, but in effectively implementing the changes.

This study examined employee reactions to a process reengineering initiative in a large financial services organization. Data were obtained from 2,514 employees, using questionnaires completed anonymously. Employees having longer company tenure, those at higher levels, and men held more favorable attitudes toward the reengineering initiative. Employees indicating greater understanding of the reengineering effort had more favorable attitudes toward it. Employees holding more favorable attitudes toward the process reengineering initiative also reported more positive work experiences and outcomes and described the organization in more favorable ways. Implications for managing large‐scale change efforts are proposed.

Business process reengineering is the hottest trend in management. Done well, it delivers extraordinary gains in speed, productivity, and profitability. But process redesign is not always successful and almost always accompanied by pain or at least unpleasant side effects. Many companies have undertaken reengineering efforts only to abandon them with little or no positive results. How can you increase the odds for success? Here are a few lessons from the front.

If reengineering's such a cure‐all, why does it fail more often than not? The answer, say its adherents, lies in how seriously you take its mandate.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a methodology to industry and academia on how to reengineer the order fulfillment process (OFP) by capitalizing on integration and coordination across the entire supply chain to sustain supply chain management.

A case study at a semiconductor equipment manufacturer in Singapore is undertaken.

This paper confirms that the traditional OFPs present companies a challenge to satisfy the demanding customer requirements while achieving performance optimization of each supply chain partner; and it is imperative to reengineer the OFPs to stay competitive. To successfully reengineer OFPs, the efforts should be systematically organized to, for example, exploit potential processes as many as possible, determine an optimal process based on mathematically sound grounds.

The use of a single case study may limit the generalizability of the findings.

A methodology incorporating accountability‐centered approach and simulation is developed for companies to reengineer OFPs while considering the entire supply chain.

The literature does not provide solutions for reengineering OFPs regardless of the fact that OFP reengineering is an emerging area of interest. This paper presents a valuable contribution to this topic by introducing a methodology and by applying the methodology to a semiconductor equipment manufacturer in Singapore.

This work employs a phenomenological approach to investigate how people experience the radical transformation of their work lives caused by reengineering (BPR) processes. The common essences of the experiences of three co‐researchers are synthesized into a composite textural‐structural description of the reengineering phenomenon. The analysis of the rich, multidimensional information offered by participants reveals that reengineering projects elicit complex experiences involving a multitude of horizons. In particular, the analysis suggests that, by taking the discourse of efficiency to extremes, reeengineering ends up by unveiling the conflicts inherent in the arrangements that generally characterize workplace. This proposition goes beyond the traditional belief that the basic reason for resistance in BPR projects is the fear of layoffs or the modification of power arrangements. Indeed, such factors seem to be part of the problem. It is also necessary to understand the important role of the crisis that reeengineering may generate in individuals’ ongoing process of sense making.

The purpose of this paper is to address the need of a reengineering of the software development process in a Mexican technology services company. In general, the main risk faced by small- and medium-sized software developers (SMEs) is the inability to meet delivery times or to adjust to project requirements, whether through lack of follow-up on the critical activities of the development process or through an inadequate distribution of workloads among members of the project team.

The methodology used to carry out the reengineering of the software development process is Hammer and Champy, which consists of six stages: introduction to the current situation of the company and the need for change; identification of the business processes; selection of the business process to be redesigned; understanding of the process selected; proposal for reengineering the business process selected; and the results of the comparison between the current situation of the process and the proposed reengineering of the process through the use of Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN 2.0).

Based on the results, the paper shows the importance of the analysis and implementation of the reengineering in a software development company. It describes step-by-step how to apply the methodology of Hammer and Champy in a business process through simulated scenarios, using BPMN 2.0. By carrying out the implementation of the proposed reengineering, the company would therefore save 45.12 percent of costs, 41.17 percent of time, and a better distribution of resources, at the same time guaranteeing the satisfaction of its clients.

The study addresses the current needs of small- and medium-sized software developers, providing a step-by-step guide to the implementation of a process reengineering methodology, performing an analysis and modeling of processes in BPMN 2.0 and providing results through a simulation of the critical process, with the aim to observe the flow of activities and the significant improvements that would be achieved by implementing the reengineering proposal. This simulation schema allows business owners to observe the potential of the changes and to verify the positive impact they would have on the company before beginning to make operational changes in the organization.