Search results

Attempts to contextualize the current high level of interest in business process re‐engineering (BPR) in UK business and industry. Reviews a number of surveys of UK business involvement with BPR and suggests long‐term secular trends in the business environment of Western firms that seem likely to have encouraged its use. Presents a brief history of the development of BPR to date, examining some of the seminal works on BPR and highlighting the major debates currently found in the literature. Examines the novelty of BPR in relation to other, more established, management approaches, with particular emphasis on the similarities and differences between total quality management and BPR. From case studies reported by UK businesses in the literature and popular press, concludes that: a large number of applications are found in the financial services sector; there is a notable absence of BPR case studies in SMEs; and there is a lack of information available about the failure rates of BPR projects in UK businesses. Identifies several areas where further research is required. Concludes that BPR addresses the need for established enterprises to move to a new organizational paradigm, from one focused on functions to one focused on processes. This need to change has been brought about by the advancing capabilities of information technology, increased levels of competition, the increasing sophistication of consumers and the threats posed by new entrants who have already adopted radically different modes of operation. Since these forces for change appear to be long‐run tendencies in developed economies, BPR cannot be viewed as a passing fad.

This paper seeks to present a best practice guide to using analytics as a tool for leaders at every organizational level to drive their companies towards better decision making.

The piece is based on the book Analytics at Work by Thomas Davenport, Jeanne Harris and Robert Morison, which was published in 2010.

Accenture research shows conclusively that high‐performing businesses have a much more developed analytical orientation than other organizations. In fact they are five times more likely than their competitors to view analytical capabilities as being core to the business.

Senior executives are playing a crucial role in moving their organizations towards analytical decision making. Experience shows that, if leaders support analytical initiatives, they are much more likely to succeed. This is partly because of the powerful influence they exert over business culture, and partly because they can deploy the people, money and time needed to develop effective analytics capabilities. That said, senior executives are not the only people needed to build an analytical business. Almost any employee can play a vital role as an analytical leader.

Accenture uses case studies based on in‐depth interviews and thought leadership to demonstrate how individuals at different organizational levels have succeeded in driving their business towards analytical decision making – with impressive results.

The structure of the economy continues to change; where once they are dependent on the productivity of a manual workforce, companies increasingly depend on the productivity of knowledge workers. Today, knowledge workers account for more than two‐thirds of the workforce, and thus should be the focus of strategic plans to improve productivity. Currently there are no universally accepted methods to measure knowledge worker productivity, or even generally accepted categories. This paper provides a taxonomy of knowledge worker productivity measurements, and identifies a number of productivity dimensions that are used to categorize the findings of previous research. Also describes the relative density of discussions along these dimensions and identifies critical areas for future research.

BPR can be deconstructed into four different identities. In the first place it is a product of the management fad industry. In the second place it is part of a neo‐Taylorist movement because of the following characteristics: a top‐down streamlining of operations, unproblematic acceptance of typical Taylorist solutions and the prevalence of assertions that the outcome for workers is an upgraded work content. In the third place BPR is a euphemism for downsizing. Downsizing is much more at the core of BPR than some of its proponents would have it. Finally, BPR functions as a non‐normative, descriptive label for process oriented change. The paper seeks to show how the different identities of BPR interact and get into one another’s way.

This paper aims to set out key steps in the development, engagement and retention of analytical leaders, showing why they are such a core resource, highlighting the key types of analytical talent and focusing on the core skills needed to attain analytical proficiency.

The research is based on a comprehensive survey of 799 analytical professionals employed by large US companies across a range of industries carried out in July 2008, as well as on the book Analytics at Work by Thomas Davenport, Jeanne Harris and Robert Morison, which was published in 2010.

The research identified the core skills requirements for each of the four main types of analytical talent, highlighting the skill set needed by analytical leaders. Where developing and retaining this vital resource is concerned, it was found that analysts who understood their roles were six times more likely to be engaged than those who did not.

Organizations need to take steps to develop, care for and retain their analytical talent. This is a prerequisite for establishing analytical leadership in a recruitment market where competition for analytics talent is increasing all the time.

As well as drawing on exclusive research, the paper shows that Accenture uses case studies based on in‐depth interviews and thought leadership to demonstrate analytical leaders' unique qualities.

This paper aims to analyse how well enterprise systems capture the business network in which an industrial company is involved. Enterprise systems have been presented as a “dream come true” with a seamless integration of business data through a common database and software modules that can be customized to the companies’ different functions. However, research shows that companies’ utilization of enterprise systems is limited, and that internal processes are prioritized.

European multinational companies and some of their partners have been followed through case studies between 2003 and 2010. The pattern-matching analysis has been supported by a theoretical framework that depicts industrial companies as engaged in business relationships in a network setting.

The results show that the company’s relationship-oriented activities are badly captured by the enterprise system. The study highlights limitations that future enterprise systems need to address if they are to be able to offer the company a better insight into its business network.

The traditionally internal focus on enterprise systems means that important business information transcending inter-organizational activities will be missed. To be worthy of the name enterprise system, more customer- and supplier-oriented activities need to be supported and captured.

Initiatives to enhance operational performance can include some programs that strive for continuous improvement and others that attempt radical innovation. But implementation depends upon learning how to integrate the substantially different approaches of total quality management (TQM) and business reengineering.

In most cases, neither top‐down reengineering nor bottom‐up individualized processes and information systems best serve most companies' change purposes. What we need are intermediate solutions that allow for top‐level direction while remaining sensitive to the fact that business processes are human interactions. Fortunately, in the areas of both information systems and business processes, participative middle‐ground approaches are emerging.

This study aims to test the validity of a knowledge work typology proposed by Davenport. Although this typology has been referenced extensively in the literature, it does not appear to have been empirically validated.

The typology was tested through a questionnaire survey among knowledge workers (n=459) in a multinational company. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to determine the knowledge work groupings arising from the survey.

The vast majority of the respondents could not be grouped into any one of Davenport's four knowledge work types. Furthermore, PCA revealed four groupings: low‐agency collaboration; low‐ agency routine work; rule‐based work; and high‐agency expert work. The results confirm only one of Davenport's typology models, the Expert model. Davenport's Collaboration model was found to have elements of the Transaction model. The Transaction and the Integration typology models were not confirmed. Instead, two further models incorporating elements of both Transaction and Integration models emerged. Finally, in contrast to Davenport's typology, the clusters that emerged from this study do not fit a matrix structure.

A follow‐up qualitative study would be required to better understand the four models that emerged from the data and to elucidate organisational factors that underpin the models.

This is the first empirical study testing the validity of Davenport's typology.