process selection in re‐engineering by measuring degree of change

Process selection inre-engineering by measuring

degree of changePayam Hanafizadeh and Elmira Osouli

Department of Industrial Management,Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a model in order to select the most appropriateprocess for business process reengineering (BPR) through evaluation of the degree of change.

Design/methodology/approach – Corporations usually work in an environment in which businessrequirements are subject to continuous inevitable change. Therefore, in order to sustain competitiveadvantage, the corporations are required to continuously configure their business processes andoperations with respect to these changes. This paper presents a model for evaluating change in anorganization. By applying this model, one can select appropriate processes for reengineering.

Findings – The proposedmodelwas confirmed by consultingwith engineering companies andwas alsoimplemented in one of them. This model includes five soft and hard dimensions, 19 factors, as well as44 indicators for measuring the changes. Eventually, the proposedmodel was carried out in “recruitment”and “performance measurement” processes in a consulting engineering company in the water industry.

Originality/value – The paper shows that by applying the selected best practices in BPR projects,some degrees of changes are imposed upon corporation in which soft factors usually cannot beassimilated to these changes. This condition leads to a high resistance and finally the failure of thechanges in corporation.

Keywords Business process reengineering, Strategic objectives, Best practice, Change management

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionBy introducing the reengineering concept in 1990, Hammer and Champy (1993)established a movement which significantly influenced the world of business. Hebelieves that corporations need to reconsider their condition and reorganize theiractivities on a process-based context in order to succeed and survive in the presentglobal economy (Hammer and Champy, 1993). During recent 20 years, the focus on theprocesses as the core of organizational performance development has had variousstages. Many researchers have also emphasized process reengineering as a managerialtool for satisfying continuous changes in the market, customers, demand, andcompetition (Davenport and Short, 1990; Hammer, 1990; Hammer and Champy, 1993;Grover and Malhotra, 1997; Macintosh, 2003; Terziovski et al., 2003).

According to the literature review done by Deakins and Makgill (1997), the numberof papers using survey research in the field of reengineering is few and constitutes only

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm

The authors express their deep gratitude of DrRoya Gholami from the Operation andInformation Management Group of Aston University for the enlightening comments and all hercontribution and mentorship. They also thank Mahab Ghodss Consulting Engineering Companyfor their support for implementing this research.

BPMJ17,2

284

Business Process ManagementJournalVol. 17 No. 2, 2011pp. 284-310q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1463-7154DOI 10.1108/14637151111122356

3 percent of the business process reengineering (BPR) literature. About half of thesepapers concentrate on execution or information technology and a few others studyhuman resources or BPR strategy goals (Deakins and Makgill, 1997).

In modern corporations, maintenance and development of the productive andstrategic processes are considered as the main components of process management.Therefore, in order to improve and develop corporation’s activities, designing andreengineering of those processes playing a strategic role in the corporation is muchmore effective than those of non-strategic processes (Guha et al., 1993; Benjamin andLevinson, 1993).

Strategic processes which are selected from the corporation’s processes are those thatare directly involved in satisfying the strategic goals of the corporation. Therefore, thecorporation’s investment in such processes causes the effect of process reengineering tobe observed directly on the corporation’s strategic goals (Hanafizadeh and Moayer,2008). It is important to note that only a fewprocesses directly and significantly affect theachievement of the organization’s strategic goals. The question is whether a corporationcan tolerate the changes caused by reengineering the strategic processes or not.

This question can be answered if the candidate strategic processes for reengineeringand the prospective changes to these processes are determined. In this regard,Hanafizadeh and Moayer (2008) propose a methodology for determining the strategicprocesses of some managerial holding companies. First, a list of major processes of thecompany is prepared. Then, these processes are categorized based on the balancedscorecard. Finally, using questionnaire and statistical tests, the processes are graded.A strategic process can be selected for every balanced scorecard (Hanafizadeh andMoayer, 2008). This methodology has also been applied in the context of investmentcompanies (Hanafizadeh et al., 2009b) and in the process of information system strategicplanning (Hanafizadeh et al., 2008).

Many change patterns exist in the literature (Hanafizadeh et al., 2009a). The questionis “which of these experiences gained is the most appropriate one for processreassessment?” Hanafizadeh et al. (2009a) argue that the criteria related to thecorporation’s strategic goals are considered as the selection criteria in choosing the bestpractices. They investigated 29 cases of the best-reported practices in reengineeringliterature and selected the best practices consistent with the organization’s strategy.The most consistent experiences with the organization’s strategic goals were suggestedas the suitable pattern for process change (Hanafizadeh et al., 2009a).

Therefore, the main question addressed in present study is whether the corporationcan tolerate the changes caused by application of the proposed pattern in the processesand how these changes can be calculated. In order to measure the degree of thesechanges, a model is needed which includes all the aspects involved in process changein an organization. This model should have appropriate indicators for measurement.So, the research questions are:

RQ1. Which dimensions are involved in measurements of process change in anorganization?

RQ2. How can the organization’s degree of change be measured based on thesedimensions?

RQ3. In which strategic process, the company is capable of being changed based onthe best strategic practices?

Process selectionin re-engineering

285

Thus, the main purpose of this research is to design a model that measures the changesof processes caused by implementation of reengineering projects. Figure 1 shows aschematic view of the research framework.

Making fundamental change through reengineering is considerably different fromother managerial approaches. Various companies in developed countries, such asWal-Mart, CIGNA, and Ford Motor which were about to collapse or lose theircontribution in global markets managed to basically change their companies’ structureby a new process reengineering approach. As a result, they were able to acquire moremarket share and now they are endeavoring to gain better positions by applyingcontinuous modifications (Currie, 1999). However, reengineering projects are highlycomplicated and risky. Hammer and Champy (1993) estimated that approximately70 percent of the companies could not achieve their desired results (Hammer andChampy, 1993).

Figure 1.Research framework

Selecting the strategic best practices forbusiness process redesignHanafizadeh et al. (2008)

A methodology to define strategicprocesses in organizations

Hanafizadeh and Moayer (2008)

Define the strategicprocesses

Define best strategicpractices

Applying the balanced scorecard framework

Measuring the degree of the changes basedin the strategic best practices

Appropriate process selectionmethod in performing BPR

Selecting appropriate processfor performing BPR

Phase A Phase B

Phase C

Applying the TOPSIS method

BPMJ17,2

286

According to a report published by Forster, about 50-70 percent of the efforts done byvarious companies intending to implement BPR project have failed (Currie, 1999). So,investigating the reasons of failure or success is essential (Currie, 1999). In order forreengineering projects to succeed, several factors are involvedwhich need to be satisfied.Al-Mashari and Zairi (1999a, b) examined five factors including change inmanagement,management competencies, organizational structure, BPR project management, and ITsub-structures. Other researchers have also classified the reasons for the success ofprocess reengineering projects into four groups of egalitarian leadership, workingenvironments, top management commitment, and managerial support (Crowe et al.,2002). The employees’ resistance against change is the reason for most failures(Crowe et al., 2002).

Previous studies have also investigated other factors of success or failure ofreengineering projects (Guimaraes, 1999; Motwani et al., 2005; Terziovski et al., 2003).The findings of previous papers suggest that failure of the majority of reengineeringprojects result from ignoring soft factors in the organization which are directlyassociated with human and social problems (Willcocks and Smith, 1995; Purwadi et al.,1999). It is not possible to simply set a boundary for these complicated and flexiblefactors. On the other hand, hard factors are those which are not related to human aspects(Al-Mashari et al., 2000).

Hence in this paper, the factors leading to measurement of change in reengineeringprojects are categorized into two groups of soft and hard factors.

In this study, the corporation’s degree of change is obtained through measurementof change in terms of soft and hard factors. These factors are extracted from literature.

1.1 Background of effective BPR dimensions and factorsThe key factors, which are effective inmeasuring the change of processes, are derived byexamining 32 credible papers. Since the recommended model by Al-Mashari and Zairi(1999a, b) is quite comprehensive, this model was used for classifying the derivedfactors. However, as most researchers did not underline some factors as the key ones,only those influencing measurement of processes change in process reengineeringcontext are considered. Five hard and soft dimensions, 24 factors, and 46 indicators arederived from literature review and listed in Table I.

This paper is organized as follows: research methodology is followed by researchbackground in Section 2. Research model is examined in Section 3 that includesdesigning questionnaire, analyzing factors, and presenting the final model formeasuring change. In the next section, themodel is validated. Using the proposedmodel,a case study in a consulting engineering company is carried out. This is followed byconclusion.

2. Research methodologyThe survey method was employed in this study. Since the required information and themethod of evaluating the desired factors had been specified for the researcher, thequestionnaire could be used as a useful tool for data collection in this research.Tools utilized included questionnaire and interviews with managers and experts.

Using survey methodology, the experts’ ideas were used for final determination ofthe factors and change measurement indicators, as well as identification of the weight


287

Dim

ensions

Reference

Factors

Reference

Softdim

ensions

Changemanagem

ent

system

sAl-MashariandZairi

(1999a,b)

Revisionof

motivationsandrewardssystem

sLee

(1995),Maullet

al.(1995),Hallet

al.(1993),

Taskinen

andSmeds(1999),K

ennerleyandNeely

(2002),H

artinietal.(2007),A

l-Masharietal.(2001)

andYousef(2000)

Com

municationssystem

sCroweet

al.(2002),Smith(2005),Arm

istead

and

Machin

(1997),Motwaniet

al.(2005),Fui-Hoon

Nah

andLee-ShangLau

(2001)andTaskinen

and

Smeds(1999)

Empow

erment

Smith(2005),Maullet

al.(1995),Arm

istead

and

Machin

(1997)

andCroweet

al.(2002)

Peopleinvolvem

ent

Maullet

al.(1995),Chow

andCao

(2008),Al-

Mashariet

al.(2001)

andArcher

andBow

ker

(1995)

Trainingandeducation

Croweet

al.(2002),Taskinen

andSmeds(1999),

Batem

anandRich(2003)

andMotwaniet

al.

(2004)

Organizational

culture

Yousef(2000),KennerleyandNeely

(2002),

Batem

anandRich(2003),Chow

andCao

(2008)

andMotwaniet

al.(2004,2005)

Managem

ent

competence

Al-MashariandZairi

(1999a,b)

Com

mittedandstrongleadership

Smith(2005),Yousef(2000),Maullet

al.(1995),

Chow

andCao

(2008)

andCroweet

al.(2002)

Cham

pionship

andsponsorship

Smith(2006),Taskinen

andSmeds(1999),

KennerleyandNeely

(2002),Batem

anandRich

(2003)

andGuim

araes(1999)

Managem

entof

risk

Smith(2006)

andMotwaniet

al.(2005)

Hard

dim

ensions

Organizational

structure

Al-MashariandZairi

(1999a,b)

Adequatejobintegration

approach

Arm

istead

andMachin

(1997)

andHartiniet

al.

(2007)

EffectiveBPRteam

sMaulet

al.(1995),Arm

istead

andMachin

(1997),

Chow

andCao

(2008),A

l-Masharietal.(2001)and

Archer

andBow

ker

(1995)

(continued)

Table I.Dimensions-factorsderived from literaturereview dealing withchange

BPMJ17,2

288

Dim

ensions

Reference

Factors

Reference

Appropriatejobsdefinitionandresponsibilities

allocation

Yousef(2000),Smith(2006),Maullet

al.(1995),

Chow

andCao

(2008),A

l-Masharietal.(2001)and

Hallet

al.(1993)

BPRproject

managem

ent

Al-MashariandZairi

(1999a,b)

Alignmentof

BPRstrategywithcorporate

strategy

Maullet

al.(1995),Taskinen

andSmeds(1999),

Al-Mashariet

al.(2001)

andGuim

araes(1999)

Effectiveplanninganduse

ofproject

managem

enttechniques

Smith(2006),Taskinen

andSmeds(1999)

and

Chow

andCao

(2008)

Settingperform

ance

goalsandmeasures

Maulletal.(1995),A

rmistead

andMachin

(1997),

Taskinen

andSmeds(1999),K

ennerleyandNeely

(2002),Batem

anandRich(2003)

andCroweetal.

(2002)

Adequateresources

KennerleyandNeely

(2002),Hartiniet

al.(2007),

Croweet

al.(2002),Basheinet

al.(1994)

and

Guim

araes(1999)

External

orientation

andlearning

Batem

anandRich(2003),Archer

andBow

ker

(1995)

andMotwaniet

al.(2005)

Effectiveuse

ofconsultants

Smith(2006),A

l-Masharietal.(2001)

andArcher

andBow

ker

(1995)

Effectiveprocess

redesign

Al-Masharietal.(2001)

andMotwanietal.(2004)

ITinfrastructure

Al-MashariandZairi

(1999a,b)

Proper

ISintegration

Maullet

al.(1995),Chow

andCao

(2008)

and

Hartiniet

al.(2007)

AdequateIT

investm

entandsourcingdecisions

Maullet

al.(1995)

ITfunctioncompetency

Maullet

al.(1995),KennerleyandNeely

(2002),

Chow

andCao

(2008),Al-Mashariet

al.(2001),

Hartiniet

al.(2007)

andMotwaniet

al.(2005)

EffectiveIT

infrastructure

KennerleyandNeely

(2002)

andAl-Masharietal.

(2001)

Adequatealignmentof

ITinfrastructure

and

BPRstrategy

KennerleyandNeely

(2002)

Table I.


289

of dimensions in the first phase. For this purpose, questionnaires were submitted toexperts via e-mail or in face-to-face meetings.

2.1 Data collectionDimensions, factors, and indicators, as well as some main areas, sub-areas, andindicators for measuring change in the process were identified by literature review onreengineering. Then, in a primary study, the questionnaires containing these factorswere sent to 191 experts, who were specialist in the area of organizations and methods,process management, information systems, and human resources of the engineeringcompanies in the context of water industry. The respondents had at least three yearsof work experience and were involved in at least one reengineering project. They wereasked to report their degree of agreement with the suggested factors and indicators byanswering five-point Likret scale questions. The weight factor for each dimension inthe questionnaire was also considered according to their importance indicated by theexperts. Furthermore, a choice for completing other dimensions and indicators ordeleting the recommended dimensions and indicators was included in the questionnaire.A total of 57 responses were discarded due to lack of data and the remaining 134 weresubmitted as appropriate and reliable answers.

2.2 Validity of measurementIn order to find out the extent to which the scale assesses the desired characteristic,its content validity was calculated. The primary scale was sent to five experts in humanresources, process, and information technology in order to test the content validity of themeasures.

2.3 Reliability of measurementCronbach’s alpha method was utilized for calculating the internal convergence ofmeasurement instruments to test the reliability. Alpha coefficient for the firstquestionnaire was obtained to be 0.85 which is greater than 0.7, suggesting that the testhas a satisfactory reliability (Terziovski et al., 2003; Wu, 2002). In the secondquestionnaire, which was used for indicators’ weights and model assessment, alphacoefficient was 0.849, so this test has an acceptable reliability, too.

2.4 Design algorithm for process selection modelThis section is composed of three main phases:

(1) Phase A. Using the methodology for defining the strategic processes in thecorporations, the strategic processes are determined (Hanafizadeh and Moayer,2008).

(2) Phase B. Strategic best practices are identified by business processes redesignapproach.

(3) Phase C.According to the proposed model, the change imposed on each selectedprocess in phase A is measured based on the superior strategy choice in phase B.

Major steps of constructing the suggested model in phase C are as follows:

(1) Final determination of the dimensions, factors, and indicators of the model andweighing them using experts’ opinion.

BPMJ17,2

290

(2) Implementation of the proposed model, which include:. Selection of the strategic processes.. Selection of the best practices.. Inquiring the experts in the field of examined processes to measure the

model indicators.

(3) Model analysis:. Measuring the changes and forming the strategic process/best practice

model matrix and obtaining the radar graph.. Investigating different scenarios.. Selecting the proper strategic process which is changeable enough towards

the best practice.

Design algorithm for an appropriate process selection model in performingreengineering, by measuring degree of change is shown in detail in Figure 2.

3. ModelingThe purpose of the survey in the first step is to examine and delete indicators andfactors which are less influential in measuring the change or have high correlation witheach other. Factor analysis, which intends to simplify the complex sets of data,is applied here for identifying the main indicators and factors, and removing thecorrelated indicators and factors.

Moreover, since the number of factors was determined based on a comprehensiveliterature review, the confirmatory factor analysis was utilized in which the number ofthe factors was set by the user. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted usingvarimax rotation and 24 factors were chosen as default value. To execute factoranalysis, the number of samples had to be between 50 and 400. Various claims existregarding the tested factors to variables ratio, oscillating from the high ratio of 10 to 1to the minimum required ratio of 2 to 1. The sample of 134 was chosen for testing46 indicators with a ratio of approximately 3-1. Then, principal component method offactor analysis was performed on data and for this analysis, 0.621 was indicated byKaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test. Since this number was greater than 0.5, samplingsufficiency and data appropriateness for performing factor analysis were concluded.Also, Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicated that the correlation between matrix datawas confirmed with a significance coefficient of 0.0001.

Factor analysis suggested that indicators related to “effective use of consultants”,“effective planning and use of project management techniques”, “adequate resources”,“setting performance goals and measures”, “external orientation and learning”,and “alignment of BPR strategy with corporate strategy” measured the samefactor. However, indicators related to “adequate alignment of IT infrastructure andBPR strategy” factor measured two different factors. Similarly, indicators related to“IT function competencies” measured two factors. On the other hand, other indicatorsfit into the appropriate factors based on the results of the literature review. This wasresulted from the high correlation between “effective use of consultants”, “effectiveplanning and use of project management techniques”, “adequate resources”, “settingperformance goals and measures”, “external orientation and learning”, and “alignment


291

of BPR strategy with corporate strategy” factors. To resolve this problem, the abovefactors were combined and reduced to a single factor. Besides, the indicators havingmaximum factor load on “adequate alignment of IT infrastructures and BPR strategy”and “IT function competency” factors were preserved; meanwhile those which were notcorrelated to the mentioned factors were deleted.

The confirmatory factor analysis was repeated for 19 factors. KMO test resulted in0.649 for this analysis, which was acceptable. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also verifiedwith a significance coefficient equal to 0.0001. These results are shown in Table II.

All indicators were rotated on appropriate factors. Since the factor loadings weregreater than 0.4, it can be concluded that removing the mentioned factors and indicators

Figure 2.Design algorithm forprocess selection model

Developing the main model ofstrategies considering the

indicators of cost, quality, timeand flexibility

Start

Assessing and scoring thedistance of best practices with

main model

Prioritizing the best practicesHanafizadeh et al. (2008)

Determining the processes

Categorizing the processes bythe BSC framework

Ranking the categorizedprocesses using statistical

analysis on the questionaireHanafizadeh and moayer (2008) Determining the best

evaluation dimensions of theBPR projects

Determining the bestevaluation indicators relatedto each factor and weighing

indicators

Determining the bestevaluation factors related to

each dimension

Loading the dimensions, factors &indicators of the model

Rescaling the indicators

Developing the scenarios andradar graphs

Developing the matrix model

Designing the degree ofchanges table and selecting

the appropriate strategicprocess for BPRimplementation

End

Expert’s point ofview

Scientificresearches

Phase A Phase B

Assessing the alignment of bestpractices with subsidiary ideal

model

Making the ideal subsidiarymodel of strategies using

indicators mentioned earlie

Phase C

Study based on literatureresearch in the field of

reengineering

BPMJ17,2

292

was a reasonable decision. As a result, 44 distinct indicators and 19 distinct factors wereselected out of the primary 46 indicators and 24 factors, respectively. Finally, selectedindicators within factors and dimensions were categorized using the suggested model byAl-Mashari and Zairi (1999a, b), as well as expert opinion. Consequently, a list of theclassified factors and indicators in addition to comprehensive functional definitions wasprepared. The indicators related to each factor are explained in the questionnaire in detail.Table III illustrates the modified factor-dimension table versus soft and hard dimensions.

Having utilized expert opinion for questionnaire design and final confirmation of thefactors and indicators and their weights, the linear method could be used for weighingthe factors and indicators. In fact, the dimensions’ weights were the average opinions ofthe experts in the first study. Hence, each dimension’s factors were considered with thesame weight in calculation. Moreover, the weight of each factor’s indicator was in factthe arithmetic average of the primary indicators related to that factor.

4. Model implementationThe proposed model was verified using a second questionnaire from “recruitment” and“performance measurement” strategic processes experts in Mahab Ghodss Consulting

KMO measure of sampling adequacy 0.621Bartlett’s test of sphericityApprox. x2 6.446 £ 103

df 1,035Sig. 0.0001

Table II.KMO and Bartlett’s test

Dimensions Factors

Soft dimensionsChange management systems Revision of motivations and rewards systems

Communications systemsEmpowermentPeople involvementTraining and educationOrganizational culture

Management competence Committed and strong leadershipChampionship and sponsorshipManagement of risk

Hard dimensionsOrganizational structure Adequate job integration approach

Effective BPR teamsAppropriate jobs definition and responsibilities allocation

BPR project management Project managementEffective process redesign

IT infrastructure Proper IS integrationAdequate IT investment and sourcing decisionsIT function competencyEffective IT infrastructureAdequate alignment of IT infrastructure and BPR strategy

Table III.Final dimensions –

factors


293

Engineering Company. The respondents were 45 experts, in “organizations andmethods”, “process management”, “information systems”, and “human resources” withminimum work experience of five years and bachelor’s degree. The purpose of thisquestionnaire was to collect the data required for implementing the model in order tomeasure the change of the studied processes. The questionnaires were delivered to theexperts via e-mail or by personal attendance, and 42 of them were completed.

4.1 Case studyMahabGhodss ConsultingEngineering Company in Iran is one of the biggest consultingengineering companies in the field of water industry in the Middle East. Having 2,500experienced and skillful engineers and technicians has made it one of the major publicdivisions in the country that provides basic infrastructural services for Iran’s waterindustry.

Mahab Ghodss strategy. As indicated inMahab Ghodss’s vision, it is an internationalcompanymoving towards sustainable development intending to be a pioneer in offeringconsulting, executing, and operating services for infrastructural plans at a global level.Also, promotion of the company’s globalization through active involvement in foreignmarkets is one of the main topics of the company’s strategic map. Consequently,improving the company’s position to the rank of the best international engineeringservices companies, investing on and financially supporting national and internationalprojects, securing customer satisfaction through improving quality of the services andoffering reasonable prices, precisely following the contract’s contents, and finallyenhancing the organizational and human resources of the company are the substantialobjectives of the company.

Thus, regarding the principal threats facing the company, including competitiveinternal and external markets, reduction of the government’s financial supports forperforming new projects of providing water supplies, diminution of the government’sresponsibilities along with its tendency towards private and foreign sector, emigrationof educated and experienced experts to foreign companies and countries, and finallyorganizations’ inclination toward private companies in order to obtain financial andeconomic advantages are the reasonswhichmake costmanagement a vital and strategicconcern for the companies like Mahab Ghodss. Since the organization’s asset is itsworkforce, cost management strategy is the main framework for the organization’sstrategic processes which are directly involved with work force and are affected by it.

Selection of the strategic processes. Organizations set different values for theirrequired resources based upon their assumed tasks and defined strategies. Financial,physical, technological, and human resources are those that are specifically consideredby corporations. Among these, the people who play an effective role in various levelsof the organizations have a specific position. In many pioneer corporations,human resources have such a great importance that managers create specialprocesses for their absorption, maintenance, and training, as well as their inspirationand satisfaction.

Obviously, designing and reengineering of the processes which have a strategicaspect for the organization affect improvement and development of the company’sactivities more than non-strategic ones. Hence, Mahab Ghodss’s strategic processeswere identified using method recommended in Hanafizadeh and Moayer (2008).These processes were selected from the company’s processes based on the company’s

BPMJ17,2

294

strategy and the limitations of the balanced scorecard method. “Recruitment” and“performance measurement” are two strategic processes chosen for implementing theresearch model.

Recruitment process. Currently, recruitment process is carried out with cooperation ofa consulting company out of Mahab Ghodss. The existing process consists of listingindividuals introducedby the employees or through jobposting innewspapers, evaluatingtheir CVs, holding exams and professional interviews for applicants, assessing theinterview results, requesting for the employment of the accepted ones, getting director’sapproval, and finally administrative employment.

Nevertheless, this process has some major disadvantages which lead todissatisfaction of the people involved and inappropriate performance of the process.Some of these drawbacks include, disregarding the exact job program and the predictedbudget for providing the required work force, having a time-consuming recruitmentprocess due to lack of proper coordination between the divisionwho demandsworkforceand the applicant, lack of an integrated recruitment system in company’s informationsystems, irrelevance between the contents of the exams and interviews with the kind ofthe required skills, and finally taking a similar exam from all applicants. Therefore, themanagement intends to perform some modifications for improving the above process.

Performance measurement process. Currently, performance measurement process isconducted by the managers of each organizational unit in a traditional and case-basedform rather than a continuous one. Performance control in Mahab Ghodss ConsultingEngineering Company is limited to performance evaluation forms which consider somecriteria related to the organization’s objectives.

Although these forms are known as the main tool for performance control in themajority of organizations, they do have some weak points. In fact, it is a bureaucraticsystem in which the assessments are truly validating the managers’ viewpoint.Evaluating the applicants is totally based on the power-based relations. Rewards andpromotions are merely in the hands of one person, the line manager, and a kind ofpolicy-based control is applied. As a whole, it can be claimed that this kind of evaluationis a subjective one which is in conflict with personal and organizational promotion.

Since performance measurement is not an acceptable process for most beneficiaries,applying an alternative which is capable of managing the performances and aligningthem with organization’s objectives sounds reasonable.

In this research, the reengineering is conducted on “recruitment” and “performancemeasurement” processes based on two selected practices. “Control addition” and“re-sequencing” are the two practices which lead to the introduction of new patterns inprocesses (Hanafizadeh et al., 2009a).

Selecting the best strategic practices. In the present study, general cost leadershipstrategy is used for classifying the best practices (Hambrick and Fredrickson, 2001;Porter, 1985). By utilizing the methodology for identifying the best strategic practices inredesigning of business processes in addition to the cost leadership strategy, the two ofthe best strategic processes introduced by Hanafizadeh et al. (2009a) are selected.“Control addition” and “re-sequencing” are two selected practices for accomplishingbusiness processes reengineering projects.

Recruitment strategic process.First strategic best practice: control addition. Given the significant role of workforce

in the organizations, recruitment process is required to be redesigned efficiently.


295

The purpose of this process is employment of the best and the most suitable workforcefor the advertised job.

To design an ideal recruitment process, its phases should be designed bothscientifically and practically. In other words, for designing “recruitment process”, thequantity and quality of the company’s required workforce should be accuratelyestimated. Next, the individuals who seem to have the potential qualifications for aspecific job are identified, and the ones who have the best capabilities, according to thedesired job’s specified criteria, are selected. Once an exact assessment of the applicants isperformed during a tentative employment period, “recruitment process” terminates byemploying the accepted ones. It is recommended that all steps of the recruitment processare performed centrally by the human resourcesmanagement division,where competentand skillful experts are working. But as described in the process, this division performsthe above recruitment process by applying managers’ comments about the peopleinvited for exam and interview, and directly considering their viewpoints once a need isannounced.

Figure 3 shows the recommended recruitment process according to this bestpractice.

Second strategic best practice: re-sequencing. Performing the recruitment processby the consultants, who are not completely aware of the company’s professionalactivities and their diversity, as well as the number of existing proficiencies inMahab Ghodss Company, has caused many problems in the recruitment of qualifiedforces. Thus, in order to improve the recruitment process, it is recommended that ahuman resource team is established in each organizational unit. These teams, whichconsist of experts, are supposed to perform the activities related to the recruitment ofqualified and competent specialists in their own organizational unit.

Performance measurement strategic process.First strategic best practice: control addition. Converting the process lacking

supervision and management to a controlled and manageable one is the conceptmentioned in the vision and strategies, aswell as company’s annual qualitative objectives.

It was previously mentioned that improving the performance measurement in theform of performance management is one of the essential tools for forming theperformances and organizational achievements. It is noteworthy that organizationslacking appropriate performance will undoubtedly fail and the ones which followtraditional methods for accomplishing the desired performances and achievements willbe placed in the bottom of the organizations list. Considering the need for managing thepersonnels’ performance and organizational achievements, managers try to considerperformance management as a strategic process. This is because in Mahab GhodssCompany, intelligent, expert, professional, and dedicated staffs, who can convert theknowledge to the added value, are considered as the critical success factor. In fact,Mahab Ghodss’s principal product is intellectual consultation, ideas, and thoughts ofexperts and motivated employees who are faithful to corporation’s goals.

One may superficially suppose that the most qualified workforces can be easilyemployed at any time as there are many applicants for each advertised position.However, the important point about Mahab Ghodss is its skill-based service areaswhich require skillful and experienced forces. Performance management, having amulti-faceted perspective, is a valuable process for promoting the individuals to the

BPMJ17,2

296

required quality level and satisfying many of their requirements. The recommendedperformance management process is shown in Figure 4.

Second strategic best practice: re-sequencing. Since the existing performancemeasurement process is performed by directors of the organizational units and in acase-based form, these assessments are not based on any scientific method. Therefore,these programs have never been considered properly and the plans are executed

Figure 3.Diagram of the

“recruitment” processbased on “control

addition” strategic bestpractice

Predicting the humanresource (HR) budget

If the required job ispredicted in HR budget?

Database of thePrevious personnel of

this company thatimplement their CV inthe HR site of companyfor further recruitment

Introduce the qualifiedapplicants to the required job

Prioritizing the introduced qualifiedapplicants

Inviting the prioritized applicantsto take entrance exams

Taking entrance examsfrom the prioritized

applicants

Providing the applicant’srecruitment form

No

Give the contradictoryreports to the top

managers

Collecting the evaluation results

Evaluating the personnel In the end ofthe convention time

If there is anysuggestion to extend

this convention inanother department?

If there is anagreement to extend

the convention for thenext period in the

current department?

Administrativeworks

Determining the jobrequired The number of predicted required workforces

If the introduced applicants areapproved by the Manager?

If the selectedapplicant is stillworking in this

company?

Administrativeworks to employ

the selectedapplicant

Administrativeworks to changethe job order of

the selectedapplicant

Introduce the further qualifiedapplicants to the required job

If the selected applicanthas not been worked in

this company?

Approval of the managers

Interviewing theprioritized applicants

Analyzing the results(The total grade of the selected applicantshould not be lower than 70 out of 100)

Approval of the applicant’srecruitment form as the 3 monthtentative workforce by the top

manager

Evaluating the selectedapplicant in the last part of the

tentative period

If the evaluation results of theapplicant is acceptable? Administrative

works to lay offthe applicant

Yes

Database of theemployment’sapplicants that

implement their CV inthe HR site of

company

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

NoYes

No


297

in an insular manner, without any concentrated supervision on the performedassessments. So, it is recommended that these assessments are performed under thesupervision and responsibility of the human resources management division in aconcentrated, periodical, and continuous manner.

Figure 4.Diagram of the“performancemanagement” processbased on “controladdition” strategic bestpractice

Sending the questionnaire to the departments togather the list of the goals and duties

Make an agreement on the goals and dutiesbetween the managers and personnel

Supervising on the agreement goals and duties bythe technical committee

Sending the assessment questionnaire to thesuperior manager of each personnel

Filling the assessment questionnaire by thesuperior manager of each personnel

Collecting the assessment auestionnaire by thetechnical committee

Categorizing the assessment questionnaire to thenatural and unnatural part

Reviewing the complaint of the unnaturalquestionnaire and resending the questionnaire for

reevaluation

Collecting the modified questionnaires

Data analyzing of all the questionnaires

Give results report to the managers

Collecting the final feedback from the departments

Analyzing the feedbacks

Planning for the educational requirements Planning for the motivation systems

BPMJ17,2

298

4.2 Model analysisModel matrix. The model matrix presented in this paper is formed by combining thestrategic best practices in redesigning of business processes with organization’sstrategic processes. Thus, the resulted values of all questionnaire indicators, based onthe assignedweights by linearmethod, should be combinedwith each other in themodelmatrix. Accordingly, once the values of indicators are combined in their relevant factors,the values of the defined dimensions in the model structure can be measured at theexisting condition with respect to the two selected strategic best practices.

In this questionnaire, the indicators related to model factors were measured as0-1-3-5-7-9 in three conditions, i.e. existing condition, first strategic best practice, andsecond strategic best practice. The values of the dimensions’ factors and indicatorsof the model which measure the variations are calculated through the following twosteps:

Step 1. The weights of the factors and indicators are calculated:. wj ¼ the weight of the j dimension.. na ¼ the number of factors related to each dimension.. waj ¼ wj=na ¼ the weight of the a factor from the j dimension.. nb ¼ the number of indicators related to each factor.. wba ¼ waj=nb ¼ the weight of the b indicator from the a factor.

Step 2. The weighted values of the dimensions (Ij), factors (Ia), and indicators (Ib)are calculated:

Ib ¼ xb £ wba

Ia ¼Xnbb¼1

Ib

I j ¼Xnaa¼1

Ia

where xb is the value of the indicators which is given by the experts in the questionnaire:

xb ¼

0 Not applicable

1 Very low

3 Low

5 Modest

7 High

9 Very high

8>>>>>>>>>>><>>>>>>>>>>>:

For example, according to the research model presented in the questionnaire, the firstdimension includes six factors whose first factor includes two indicators; thus, thecalculation procedure in the case of existing condition of recruitment process is asfollows:


299

for j ¼ 1 ) a ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 6

for a ¼ 1 ) b ¼ 1; 2

wj ¼ w1 ¼ 10

waj ¼ w11 ¼10

6¼ 1:67

wba ¼ w11 ¼1:67

2¼ 0:83

wba ¼ w21 ¼1:67

2¼ 0:83

According to the experts opinions:

for b ¼ 1 ) xb ¼ x1 ¼ 1 ) Ib ¼ I 1 ¼ 1 £ 0:83 ¼ 0:83

for b ¼ 2 ) xb ¼ x2 ¼ 3 ) Ib ¼ I 2 ¼ 3 £ 0:83 ¼ 2:5

Ia ¼ I 1 )X2b¼1

Ib ¼ ðI 1 þ I 2Þ ¼ 0:83þ 2:5 ¼ 3:33

In this case, the values of the remaining five factors respective to the first dimension arecalculated in a manner similar to the steps above. Finally, the total value of the firstdimension is as follows:

I j ¼ I 1 ¼X6a¼1

Ia ¼ ðI 1 þ I 2 þ I 3 þ I 4 þ I 5 þ I 6Þ

¼ 3:33þ 2:5þ 5þ 3:33þ 3:89þ 1:67 ¼ 19:72

The results of the field study in Mahab Ghodss Consulting Engineering Company arepresented in the model matrix in Tables IV and V. In this matrix, the weighted values ofeach dimension are submitted according to the existing condition, selected strategic bestpractices, and selected strategic processes. In order for these weighted values ofdimensions to become comparable and accumulated, they should be rescaled. In thisway, the accumulative value of these dimensions is presented as “perceived degree”.Also, “the perceived degree of change” demonstrated in the model matrix, indicates thedifference between the values of the process-related dimensions and the reengineeredprocesses according to each selected best practice. The results are schematically shownin radar graph Figures 5 and 6.

Scenario-based analysis. Performing reengineering in “recruitment” and“performance measurement” processes based on the two selected best practices inMahab Ghodss Company led to some new changes in the processes which are explainedin details in the rest of this paper. As it is observed, using the model matrix, fourscenarios can be obtained from the set of combinational states of strategicprocesses/strategic best practices. These scenarios present the combinational states ofstrategic processes/strategic best practices taking into account the research objectivesrelated to the “perceived degree of change”. Table VI shows these scenarios.

BPMJ17,2

300

Strategicbestpractice

Existingcondition

Control

addition

Re-sequencing

Dim

ensions

Factors

Weighted

valueof

factor

Weightedvalue

ofdim

ension

Weighted

valueof

factor

Weightedvalue

ofdim

ension

Weighted

valueof

factor

Weightedvalue

ofdim

ension

Strategicprocess

Recruitment

Change

managem

ent

system

s

Revisionof

motivationsand

rewardssystem

s3.33

19.72

13.33

81.39

6.67

51.39

Com

municationssystem

s2.50

13.33

7.50

Empow

erment

5.00

15.00

11.67

Peopleinvolvem

ent

3.33

12.50

10.00


3.89

13.89

7.22

Organizational

culture

1.67

13.33

8.33

Managem

ent

competence

Com


23.33

54.44

23.33

72.22

23.33

65.56

Cham

pionship

andsponsorship

16.67

23.33

23.33

Managem

entof

risk

14.44

25.56

18.89

Organizational

structure


approach

9.00

3027.00

7215.00

54EffectiveBPRteam

s12.00

21.00

18.00

Appropriatejobs,definition,and

responsibilitiesallocation

9.00

24.00

21.00

BPRproject

managem

ent

Project

managem

ent

13.00

20.95

28.72

47.24

16.00

28.19

Effectiveprocess

redesign

7.95

18.52

12.19

ITinfrastructure

Proper

ISintegration

3.60

31.2

14.40

64.8

9.00

41.4

AdequateIT

investm

entand

sourcingdecisions

5.40

12.60

5.40


7.80

12.60

9.00

EffectiveIT

infrastructure

1.80

12.60

5.40

Adequatealignmentof

ITinfrastructure

andBPRstrategy

12.60

12.60

12.60

(continued)

Table IV.Strategic

process/strategic bestpractice model matrix

based on factor


301


Existingcondition

Control

addition

Re-sequencing

Dim

ensions

Factors

Weighted

valueof

factor

Weightedvalue

ofdim

ension

Weighted

valueof

factor

Weightedvalue

ofdim

ension

Weighted

valueof

factor

Weightedvalue

ofdim

ension

Perform

ance

measurement

Change

managem

ent

system

s

Revisionof

motivationsand

rewardssystem

s3.33

17.78

15.00

77.78

6.67

51.94

Com

municationssystem

s3.33

12.50

8.33

Empow

erment

3.33

13.33

10.00

Peopleinvolvem

ent

3.33

12.50

9.17


2.78

12.78

9.44

Organizational

culture

1.67

11.67

8.33

Managem

ent

competence

Com


23.33

61.11

23.33

7023.33

58.89

Cham

pionship

andsponsorship

16.67

23.33

16.67

Managem

entof

risk

21.11

23.33

18.89

Organizational

structure


approach

9.00

3027.00

7521.00

51EffectiveBPRteam

s9.00

24.00

15.00

Appropriatejobs,definition,and

responsibilitiesallocation

12.00

24.00

15.00

BPRproject

managem

ent

Project

managem

ent

17.68

23.24

42.58

54.1

20.71

27.43

Effectiveprocess

redesign

5.56

11.52

6.72

ITinfrastructure

Proper

ISintegration

10.80

45.6

14.40

69.6

10.80

49.2

AdequateIT

investm

entand

sourcingdecisions

5.40

12.60

5.40


11.40

13.80

11.40

EffectiveIT

infrastructure

5.40

16.20

9.00

Adequatealignmentof

ITinfrastructure

andBPRstrategy

12.60

12.60

12.60

Table IV.

BPMJ17,2

302


Existingcondition

Control

addition

Re-sequencing

Dim

ensions

Weighted

value

Perceived

degree

outof

100

Weighted

value

Perceived

degree

outof

100

Perceived

degree

ofchange

Weighted

value

Perceived

degree

outof

100

Perceived

degree

ofchange

Strategicprocess

Recruitment

Change

managem

ent

system

s19.72

31.74

81.39

68.37

36.63

51.39

48.99

17.25

Managem

ent

competence

54.44

72.22

65.56

Organizational

structure

3072

54BPRproject

managem

ent

20.95

47.24

28.19

ITinfrastructure

31.2

64.8

41.4

Perform

ance

measurement

Change

managem

ent

system

s17.78

35.98

77.78

69.82

33.84

51.94

48.46

12.48

Managem

ent

competence

61.11

7058.89

Organizational

structure

3075

51BPRproject

managem

ent

23.24

54.1

27.43

ITinfrastructure

45.6

69.6

49.2

Table V.Strategic

process/strategic bestpractice model matrixbased on dimension


303

Figure 5.The radar graph forassessing the state ofreengineering of therecruitment process

Change management systems

Management competence

Organisational structure

IT infrastructure

BPR project management

100

50

0

Existing condition

Control addition

Resequencing

Figure 6.The radar graph forassessing the state ofreengineering of theperformance measurementprocess

Change managementsystems

Management competence

Organisational structure

Existing condition

Control addition

Resequencing

100

50

0

IT infrastructure

BPR project management

ScenarioStrategicprocess

Strategic bestpractices

Existingcondition

After thereengineering

Perceiveddegree ofchange

Selectedscenario

First scenario Recruitment Controladdition

31.74 68.37 36.63 Selected

Second scenario Recruitment Re-sequencing 31.74 48.99 17.25Third scenario Performance

measurementControladdition

35.98 69.82 33.84

Fourth scenario Performancemeasurement

Re-sequencing 35.98 48.46 12.48

Table VI.A compound scenarioof strategicprocesses/strategic bestpractices

BPMJ17,2

304

In this table, the perceived degree for each scenario is presented for the existing andafter reengineering status.

Comparing the results of reengineering recruitment process using “control addition”,and best practice using “re-sequencing” best practice, with 36.63 and 17.25 units ofperceived change, respectively, indicates that the effective dimensions in reengineeringthe recruitment process using “control addition” pattern change the processsignificantly. Moreover, the results of applying the third and fourth scenarios ofreengineering “performance measurement” process according to “control addition” and“re-sequencing” best practices imply 33.84 and 12.84 units of perceived change ineffective dimensions of reengineering the processes. In these two scenarios, which arerelated to “performance measurement” process, the imposed change due to “controladdition” best practice has also a significant value.

However, the generated change is caused by soft and hard dimensions concurrently.The perceived degree of changes of soft and hard dimensions should be evaluated.

Perceived degree of change. Recruitment process’s perceived degree of change whichis obtained according to the dimensions’ change from the existing condition to theafter-reengineering condition is demonstrated in Table VII.

Likewise, Table VIII shows the perceived degree of changes of the performancemeasurement process which is obtained according to the dimensions’ change from theexisting condition to the after-reengineering condition.

Based on Tables VII and VIII, it can be claimed that the change occurred in “changemanagement system”, a soft dimension directly associated with human concerns andits features, has almost the highest value in both processes. That is because, thisdimension incorporates factors such as revision of motivations and rewards systems,communication systems, empowerment, people involvement, training and educationsystem, and organizational culture.

Nevertheless, since the company has a unique position in the country’s waterindustry and enjoys presence of experienced and conscious managers, the softdimension of “management competence” did not undergo any specific change.

Model matrix, scenarios’ tables, and tables of the perceived degree of changes canassist company management in making any decision about selecting the appropriatestrategic process for implementation of projects about process reengineering.

Existingcondition

Controladdition Re-sequencing

Weightedvalue

Weightedvalue

Perceived degreeof change

Weightedvalue


Soft dimensionsChange managementsystems 19.72 81.39 61.67 51.39 31.67Managementcompetence 54.44 72.22 17.78 65.56 11.12Hard dimensionsOrganizational structure 30 72 42 54 24BPR projectmanagement 20.95 47.24 26.29 28.19 7.24IT infrastructure 31.2 64.8 33.6 41.4 10.2

Table VII.Perceived degree of

changes of therecruitment process


305

Hence, considering the imposed change on company’s strategic processes, the companymanagement can select the appropriate process for reengineering the processes. This isdone with respect to the criteria such as the organization’s age, training level of the staff,dominant organizational culture, and corporation’s foreign policies. In other words, byestimating the change in dimensions of the processes especially the soft dimensions, theresearch provides some conditions for the managers so that they can better decide onimplementing reengineering projects. In the case of Mahab Ghodss Company, someunique characteristics can be enumerated, such as having skilled, devoted, and highlyeducated workforce who have organizational dependencies, being a merit-basedcorporation in which possessing the prerequisites for taking organizational positionsis necessary, being a learning company equipped with modern technologies, andfinally having personnel with an average age of 40 years. Thus, management of such acompany can assimilate and endure enormous changes in its strategic processes,specifically the factors related to the “change management” dimension. Consequently,the management concludes that the company’s structure is prepared to change therecruitment process based on the “control addition” strategic best practice.

5. Concluding remarksFailure of most reengineering projects in business processes is caused by thecombination of soft and hard dimensions. However, majority of the survey researcheson the failure of these projects have examined hard dimensions. So, in this paper, thedegree of change of dimensions, segregating soft and hard dimensions are measured.That is because, nearly half of the failed reengineering projects had only consideredtechnological and profit-making aspects rather than human-related ones.

The degree of change of each best practice creates in the organization along withmeasurement of these changes, and the strategic processes’ capability for acceptingthem are important factors that assist senior management in making any decisionabout implementing reengineering projects.

By considering the degree of change applied on the company’s strategic processes,especially soft dimensions’ change which is determinant in the project success,management can select the appropriate processes for implementing processreengineering projects.

Existingcondition

Controladdition Re-sequencing

Weightedvalue

Weightedvalue


Weightedvalue


Soft dimensionsChange managementsystems 17.78 77.78 60 51.94 34.16Managementcompetence 61.11 70 8.89 58.89 -2.22Hard dimensionsOrganizational structure 30 75 45 51 21BPR projectmanagement 23.24 54.1 30.86 27.43 4.19IT infrastructure 45.6 69.6 24 49.2 3.6

Table VIII.Perceived degree ofchanges of theperformancemeasurement process

BPMJ17,2

306

Obviously, by considering both the degree of the applied change of soft dimensions,such as “change of management” and having old employees in the organization, themanagement may believe that implementing the project is risky.

The model proposed in the current paper on appropriate process selection inperforming process reengineering by evaluating their degree of change is the key inperforming reengineering projects.

This research was conducted by evaluating all credible models and patterns in thefield of reengineering and its resulted change. Also the dimensions, factors, andindicators related to the change in business processes were derived. Inquiring theexperts of water management industry is the third tool utilized in this paper.

This model contains five dimensions, 19 factors, and 44 indicators. The suggestedmethod was investigated for “recruitment” and “performance measurement” strategicprocesses in a consulting engineering company in the field of water industry. Then, thestrategic processes that the company could change were identified. This was conductedbased on the strategic best practices.

Since there are few survey research papers in the field of reengineering (only 3 percentof theBPR literature), examiningfield-based andpractical areas of process reengineeringprojects can be the subject of future studies. In this research, the changes in organizationcaused by performing process reengineering were measured. Measuring threshold limittolerance changes of organization can be an important topic for future research, as well.In other words, it can be recommended that more comprehensive empirical studies beconducted to study the level of change that an organization can bear on a particularprocess based on corresponding changes that is imposed by strategic best practices onthat process. In this case, if the threshold limit tolerance change of organization is lessthan the potential change that the corresponding strategic best practices are imposingon, then reengineering on the process is likely to fail.

Moreover, in order to select the best scenario, besides considering the degree of softand hard dimensions of change implicit in the model study, cost and time factors canalso be used.

The present model is proposed for consulting engineering companies in the field ofwater industry, and the results can only be generalized for this industry. Therefore, it issuggested that the proposed model is applied in other industries and the results and itsapplicability in other areas are reported.

References

Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (1999a), “BPR implementation process: an analysis of key successand failure factor”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 87-112.

Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (1999b), “Business process reengineering: a survey of internationalexperience”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 437-55.

Al-Mashari, M., Irani, Z. and Zairi, M. (2000), “Revisiting BPR: a holistic review of practice anddevelopment”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 10-42.

Al-Mashari, M., Irani, Z. and Zairi, M. (2001), “Business process reengineering: a surveyof international experience”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 5,pp. 437-55.

Archer, R. and Bowker, P. (1995), “BPR consulting: an evaluation of the methods employed”,Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 28-46.


307

Armistead, C. and Machin, S. (1997), “Implications of business process management foroperations management”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 886-98.

Bashein, B., Markus, L. and Riley, P. (1994), “Precondition for BPR success”, Information SystemsManagement, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 7-13.

Bateman, N. and Rich, N. (2003), “Companies’ perceptions of inhibitors and enablers for processimprovement activities”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 185-99.

Benjamin, R.I. and Levinson, E. (1993), “A framework for managing IT-enabled change”,Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 23-33.

Chow, T. and Cao, D.B. (2008), “A survey study of critical success factors in agile softwareprojects”, The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 961-71.

Crowe, T.J., Fong, P.M. and Zayas-Castro, J.L. (2002), “Quantative risk level estimation ofbusiness process reengineering efforts”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 8No. 5, pp. 490-511.

Currie, W.L. (1999), “Revisiting management innovation and change programmes: strategicvision or tunnel vision?”, Omega, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 647-60.

Davenport, T. and Short, J. (1990), “The new industrial engineering: information technology andbusiness process redesign”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 11-27.

Deakins, E. and Makgill, H. (1997), “What killed BPR? Some evidence from the literature”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 81-107.

Fui-Hoon Nah, F. and Lee-Shang Lau, J. (2001), “Critical factors for successful implementation ofenterprise systems”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 285-96.

Grover, V. and Malhotra, M.K. (1997), “Business process reengineering: a tutorial on the concept,evolution, method, technology and application”, Journal of Operations Management,Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 193-213.

Guha, S., Kettinger, W. and Teng, T. (1993), “Business process reengineering: buildinga comprehensive methodology”, Information Systems Management, Summer, pp. 13-22.

Guimaraes, T. (1999), “Field testing of the proposed predictors of BPR success in manufacturingfirms”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 53-65.

Hall, J., Rosenthal, J. and Wade, J. (1993), “How to make re-engineering really work”, HarvardBusiness Review, November/December, pp. 119-31.

Hambrick, D.C. and Fredrickson, J.W. (2001), “Are you sure you have a strategy?”, Academy ofManagement Executive, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 51-62.

Hammer, M. (1990), “Reengineering work: don’t automate, obliterate”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 104-12.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for BusinessRevolution, Harper Business, New York, NY.

Hanafizadeh, P. and Moayer, S. (2008), “A methodology to define strategic processes inorganizations: an exploration study in managerial holding companies”, Business ProcessManagement Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 219-27.

Hanafizadeh, P., Moayer, S. and Rezaei, M. (2008), “Defining CSFs for information systemsstrategic planning in holding companies: a case study in an Iranian managerial holdingcompany (system group)”, Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications,Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-25.

BPMJ17,2

308

Hanafizadeh, P., Mosakhani, M. and Bakhshi, J. (2009a), “Selecting the strategic best practices forbusiness process redesign”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4,pp. 609-27.

Hanafizadeh, P., Rezaei, M. and Ghafouri, A. (2009b), “Defining strategic processes in investmentcompanies: an exploration study in Iranian investment companies”, Business ProcessManagement Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 20-33.

Hartini, A., Francis, A. and Zairi, M. (2007), “Business process reengineering: critical successfactors in higher education”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3,pp. 451-69.

Kennerley, M. and Neely, A. (2002), “A framework of the factors affecting the evolution ofperformance measurement systems”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 22 No. 11, pp. 1222-45.

Lee, J. (1995), “An exploratory study of organizational/managerial factors influencing businessprocess reengineering implementation: an empirical study of critical success factors andresistance management”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska,Lincoln, NE.

MacIntash, R. (2003), “BPR: alive and well in the public sector”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 327-44.

Maull, R.S., Weaver, A.M., Childe, S.J., Smart, P.A. and Bennett, J. (1995), “Current issues inbusiness process re-engineering”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 15 No. 11, pp. 37-52.

Motwani, F., Kumar, A. and Antony, F. (2004), “A business process change framework forexamining the implementation of six sigma: a case study of Dow chemicals”, The TQMMagazine, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 273-83.

Motwani, J., Subramanian, R. and Gopalakrishna, P. (2005), “Critical factors for successful ERPimplementation: exploratory findings from four case studies”, Computers in Industry,Vol. 56, pp. 529-44.

Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance,The Free Press, New York, NY.

Purwadi, D., Tanaka, K. and Ota, M. (1999), “Reengineering for human resource management inJapanese companies: is it important to be introduced?”, International Journal of ProductionEconomics, Vol. 60-61, pp. 103-7.

Smith, I. (2005), “Continuing professional development and workplace learning – 11: managingthe ‘people’ side of organizational change”, Library Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 152-5.

Smith, I. (2006), “Continuing professional development and workplace learning – 15: achievingsuccessful organizational change – do’s and don’ts of change management”,Library Management, Vol. 27 Nos 4/5, pp. 300-6.

Taskinen, T. and Smeds, R. (1999), “Measuring change project management in manufacturing”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 1168-87.

Terziovski, M.E., Fitzpatrick, P. and O’Neill, P. (2003), “Successful predictors of business processreengineering (BPR) in financial services”, International Journal of Production Economics,Vol. 84, pp. 35-50.

Willcocks, L. and Smith, G. (1995), “IT-enabled business process reengineering: organizationaland human resource dimensions”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 3,pp. 279-301.

Wu, I.L. (2002), “A model for implementing BPR based on strategic perspective: an empiricalstudy”, Information and Management, Vol. 39, pp. 313-24.


309

Yousef, D.A. (2000), “Organizational commitment and job satisfaction as predictors of attitudestoward organizational change in a non-western setting”, Personnel Review, Vol. 29 No. 5,pp. 567-92.

Further reading

Grant, D. (2002), “A wider view of business process reengineering”, Communications of the ACM,Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 84-92.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1994), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for BusinessRevolution, Revised Paperback Edition, Harper Business, New York, NY.

Henderson, J. and Venkatraman, N. (1993), “Strategic alignment: leveraging informationtechnology for transforming organizations”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 4-16.

Im, I., El Sawy, O.A. and Hars, A. (1999), “Competence and impact of tools for BPR”, Information& Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 301-11.

Kirk, D. (1995), “Hard and soft systems: a common paradigm for operations management?”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 13-16.

Lau, H.C. and Idris, M.A. (2001), “The soft foundation of the critical success factors on TQMimplementation in Malaysia”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 51-60.

Mansar, S.L. and Reijers, H.A. (2007), “Best practices in business process redesign: use andimpact”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 193-213.

Rodsutti, M.C. and Makayathorn, P. (2005), “Organizational diagnostic factors in familybusiness: case studies in Thailand”, Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 19No. 2, pp. 16-18.

Wee, S. (2000), “Juggling toward ERP success: keep key success factors high”, ERP News,February, available at: www.erpnews.com/erpnews/erp904/02get.html

Zucco, N. (Ed.) (1996), “Reengineering in Australian banks – achieving a quantum leap inperformance”, An Internal Study Paper, KPMG, Sydney.

About the authorsPayam Hanafizadeh is an Assistant Professor of Industrial Management at Allameh Tabataba’iUniversity in Tehran, Iran and a member of the Design Optimization under Uncertainty Group atthe University of Waterloo, Canada. He received his MSc and PhD in Industrial Engineering fromTehran Polytechnic University and pursues his research in information systems and decisionmaking under uncertainty. He has published in such journals as the Information Society, Journalof Global Information Management, Telecommunications Policy, Mathematical and ComputerModeling, Expert Systems with Applications, International Journal of Information Management,among others. Payam Hanafizadeh is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Elmira Osouli holds a BSc in Industrial Engineering from Tehran Polytechnic University,Iran, and a Master’s degree in Information Technology Management from Allameh Tabataba’iUniversity, Iran. Her research interests include business process re-engineering/redesign, changemanagement, and evaluating readiness of change in organizations.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

BPMJ17,2

310

process selection in re‐engineering by measuring degree of change

Documents