See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323885590

Business process reengineering framework and methodology: A critical study

Article  in  International Journal of Services and Operations Management · January 2018

DOI: 10.1504/IJSOM.2018.090456

CITATIONS READS

6 12,481

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A comparative study of BPR application in Indian manufacturing sector organizations View project

A Study on Stress Management among Employees in Insurance Sector View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hari Lal Bhaskar on 14 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Services and Operations Management, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2018 527

Business process reengineering framework and

methodology: a critical study

Hari Lal Bhaskar

Department of Business Administration,
Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University,
Gorakhpur – 273009 (UP), India
Email: bhaskar.gkp@gmail.com

Abstract: Business process reengineering (BPR) has become a most popular

change management approach for radical redesign and improvement of
business process. It promotes companies to do things effectively in order to
achieve overall quality. Unfortunately, it has been estimated that more than
70% of BPR implementations have failed to achieve expected results due to
lake of suitable framework and methodology. Therefore, the author tried to
assess the available some different BPR framework and methodology aiming to
develop a suitable framework and methodology as well as to fill the literature
gap. The other aims of this study are to study the BPR factors that may
influence the performance and to explore the implementation level of BPR in
Indian manufacturing organisations. In this paper, a proposed common BPR
framework and methodology for organisations has developed based on the
design of recent BPR frameworks and methodologies identified in the
literature. The major component factors of BPR for the manufacturing
organisations have been shown in figure. This paper also presents the success
and failure factor that affect BPR projects. Finally, the conclusion places the
findings of this study and outlines the expected benefits of BPR.

Keywords: business process reengineering; BPR; BPR framework; BPR

methodology; BPR factors; organisational performance; success and failure
factors.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Bhaskar, H.L. (2018)

‘Business process reengineering framework and methodology: a critical study’,
Int. J. Services and Operations Management, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.527–556.

Biographical notes: Hari Lal Bhaskar is a PhD Research Scholar in the

Department of Business Administration, DDU Gorakhpur University
Gorakhpur, UP, India. He received his MBA in HR and Marketing
specialisation from Institute of Cooperative and Corporate Management
Research and Training (ICCMRT), Lucknow, UP, India. He has qualified
UGC-NET/JRF in management subject. His research and professional interests
include human resource management, organisational behaviour, principle and
practice of management, industrial sociology/psychology/management, quality
management and business process reengineering. He has been presented many
research articles in different national and international conferences.

Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

528 H.L. Bhaskar

1 Introduction and overview

Over the past five decades, the concepts of quality management and productivity
improvement have been practiced and implemented in Indian as well as other developing
countries. Various frameworks, strategies and methodologies were developed to improve
manufacturing quality, productivity and reduce costs during this period. Yet, Indian
manufacturing organisations are not growing up with time or producing world-class
products so that Indians can depend ourselves.
In this modern digital era, Indians are being habitual to consume international
products and services and avoiding their home-made products due to lower/inferior
product and service quality, high cost, lack of durability, etc. Also there are so many
reasons behind this such as – lack of suitable framework and methodology, strategies,
traditional approach, and avoidance of new technologies, old business processes, and lack
of awareness about advance tools and technique like business process reengineering
(BPR), etc. Therefore, researcher in this research paper suggests adopting BPR at any
cost to handle the present situations. Because, BPR has become a most popular change
management approach which has attracted great attention from manufacturers,
practitioners and academicians in this world of change recently (Erim and Vayvay, 2010;
Goksoy et al., 2012; Razalli et al., 2015; Bhaskar, 2016).
The organisations which do not change according to environment will disappear from
the markets (Nisar et al., 2014). Thus, manufacturers should adopt the BPR approach to
transform processes not only for their own survival but also for the survival of their
organisation. Reorganising and redesigning the old/traditional business processes are the
crucial factors for manufacturing organisations. BPR is only one best method that must
implement for this purpose. Improving the overall manufacturing quality is the main
purpose of this method (Ghanadbashi and Ramsin, 2016).
In global scenario, BPR considered as redesigning the business processes by using
advanced information technology (IT) to maximise performance in manufacturing sector
(Huang et al., 2015). Manufacturers are paying attention to boost up their business
performance and reduce the manufacturing cost to run the business (Nisar et al., 2014).
In Indian context, manufacturers are also focusing to redesign their old or traditional
processes, IT systems, to polish peoples’ skills, and redesigning the resource allocations
to gain competitive advantages and to improve the overall manufacturing performance.
For this purpose they are searching effective and efficient BPR framework and
methodology to face the changing business conditions (Essam and Mansar, 2012).
Habib and Shah (2013) found the failure rate of BPR is more than 70%. On the other
hand, Cao et al. (2001) recorded the failure is as high as 70%. Marjanovic (2000) and
Goksoy et al. (2012) also found the failure rate of BPR implementation is as more than
70%. In this order, Alghamdi et al. (2014) says that more than 70% of BPR
implementation has failed in delivering expected results.
According to Chiplunkar et al. (2003) and Hussain et al. (2014) it is a risky operation
and almost 80% of these implementation result into failure. While Weerakkody et al.
(2011) concluded that BPR is the only one (consistent) tool (if applied properly) will
produce ground breaking result. Therefore, planning, managing, and implementing the
BPR properly is necessary. It is very difficult to develop BPR framework and
methodology because critical success factors are required for it. There are also
misunderstanding among different BPR frameworks and methodologies and their tools
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 529

and techniques. Author views different frameworks and methodologies in different ways
because it causes incorrect implementation and confusion in their application.
The important part of this work deals with designing a proposed framework and
methodology by eliminating the confusion and ambiguity about this framework and
methodology related to manufacturing organisation. The framework and methodology is
focused on process control and manufacturing management of the industry. It can be used
for any large, medium or small manufacturing company/organisation who wants to
develop its business processes, productivity and quality.
In this paper, author has focused on various recent BPR implementation frameworks
and methodologies by analysing each of these. After that outline of critical success and
failure factors are presented based on the assessment of these frameworks and
methodologies. Lastly, future work has suggested that can ensure successful
implementation of proposed BPR framework and methodology.
This paper is organised as follows: Section 1 gives an introduction and background
on BPR and related work. Section 2 presents a brief theoretical/literature review.
Section 3 describes assessment of different BPR frameworks and methodologies which is
developed by prominent BPR practitioners/researchers. Section 4 provides the outline of
critical success and failure factors. Section 5 provides major component factors of BPR
for manufacturing organisation. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper and provides
suggestions with future direction of work. Study was restricted to the subject of available
researches and to the specific objective, i.e., to review the progress in this field of BPR
mainly management oriented not to IT or engineering, etc.

2 Theoretical review

First, a theoretical review and background of the principles used in this work are
presented.

2.1 BPR
BPR has gained great attention from both industry and academics, no matter how BPR is
defined; its main goal is to redesign business processes the best-in-class (Yin, 2010). It
has become a most famous management tool for dealing with business and technological
changes in the competitive environment (Jain et al., 2010). Since 1990, different
researchers have developed different definitions of BPR. Hammer and Champy (1993)
defined that BPR is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes
to achieve breakthrough improvements in critical contemporary measures performance,
such as cost, quality, service and speed. Kontio (2007) defined BPR as an “approach
where processes are developed to maximise an organisation’s potential”. Setegn et al.
(2013) defined that “BPR is a process based management tool that can deliver both,
either redesign or replace inefficient processes, as required, with a breakthrough result”.
It can be applied to a single process, a group of processes, or the entire processes
comprising the organisation. Bhaskar (2014) says that, BPR is also a customised
approach (i.e., every organisation is using it in its own way to fulfil their requirements
and needs). It may be applied for small, medium or large manufacturing/service
organisation. BPR can also be defined as a total transformation of a business, an
530 H.L. Bhaskar

unconstrained reshaping of all business processes, technologies and management

systems, as well as organisational structure and values, to achieve quantum jumps in
performance throughout the business (Eke and Achilike, 2014; Mlay et al., 2013).
Concept of BPR is mostly misunderstood and it is used just for IT induction or
redesign of an organisation. While, there is still a need for fashionable and universally
acceptable model/framework for BPR as well as a commonly applicable methodology. It
is the redesign of business processes and the associated systems and organisational
structure to achieve a dramatic improvement in business performance (Goksoy et al.,
2012; Bhaskar, 2014).
Goksoy et al. (2012) consider BPR as a strategic tool for an organisational change.
Habib and Shah (2013) stated that BPR is a tool for change and it is necessary to identify
need for change, and to construct a base regarding need for change. Zinser et al. (1998)
identified the main cause of change for companies are customer focus, customer
satisfaction and to attract/retain customers. Rahali et al. (2008) also recognised several
causes for change: to reinvent work methods and rules of the game, to satisfy employees
and customers, to be in competition, cure process and behavioural problems, enhance
capability, to survive and be successful in long term. Habib and Shah (2013) and O’Neill
and Sohal (1999) concluded that the need to change arises due to diversified customers,
local and global competition as well as fast technological change. Furthermore it is
concluded that change is a continuous process which forces organisations to organise and
reorganise there activities (process, services, etc.) with every passing day (Habib and
Shah, 2013).
The organisations that do not change there approach are going out of competition and
soon will be disappeared/vanished (Nisar et al., 2014; Habib and Shah, 2013). Habib and
Shah (2013) identified some major changes for organisations are process changes,
structural changes, policies and procedures, strategic changes, people oriented changes,
culture change, and technology change (including ICT). To adopt the change and to
manage with change, it is necessary to know what kind and level of change a
firm/company want. Therefore, it is required to assess the type and level of change along
with available methodologies, frameworks, tools and technique for change.
BPR requires a proper integration with the various other organisational subsystems,
advance technology and other techniques. It is not effective alone. IT plays a central role
in BPR by providing the way to achieve breakthrough performances in organisational
systems, but it can be easily misplaced (Orlikowski et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2015;
Bhaskar, 2014; Gunasekaran and Nath, 1997). Effectiveness of IT may depend on the use
of technology expert, i.e., how they are using it. IT is an essential enabler of BPR which
permits companies to reengineer their business processes. The role of IT in BPR must be
considered as a catalyst, as a supportive tool (Hussain et al., 2014), as an enabler
(Eftekhari and Akhavan, 2013), as a strategic resource (Aremu and Saka, 2006), as an
essential and integral part of BPR (Bhaskar, 2016; Hussain et al., 2014) and as a most
powerful tool for reducing cost of coordination (Davenport and Short, 1990). IT and BPR
have recursive relationship (Davenport and Short, 1990). IT capabilities provide a basis
of gaining competitive advantage and enhance organisational performance (Ringim et al.,
2012; Eke and Achilike, 2014). The implementation of BPR using innovative application
of IT aims at flexible, team-oriented and cross-functionally coordinated management
(Bhaskar, 2016). IT should also be viewed as an automating or mechanising force; to
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 531

fundamentally reshape the way through which business is done (Davenport and Short,
1990).
Tomanek (2001) states that it is possible to integrate TQM and BPR together, but it is
necessary to ensure their mutual separation TQM can be used on implementation of
moderate changes after radical change through reengineering. Mansar and Reijers (2007)
ascertain the level of integration between BPR and TQM at the sample organisation.
Thus, it is possible to start with TQM, continue with BPR, then certain time with TQM,
etc. Kumar and Tyagi (2014), Goksoy et al., (2012) and de Bruyn and Gelders (1997)
also state that TQM is an enabler of reengineering. Love and Gunasekaran (1997) argue
that TQM is a superior starter for BPR. Harrington (1995) and Kelada (1994) state that
both BPR and TQM are complementary that have aims at the forefront in order for it to
be successful. Grover and Malhotra (1997) state TQM can often serve as the building
block for successive reengineering efforts. Gonzalez-Benito et al. (1999) identified that
advance research and their analysis is needed to provide only a broad set of guidelines.
Yet, application or adaptation of BPR framework methodologies for implementation of
TQM principles seems to be possible.
Now, it is clear that BPR and TQM are the most commonly used methods mostly
used by the manufacturing or service organisations for greatest improvement in business
processes. The successful implementation of both methods can lead to achieving of
significant results. While, its implementation is very challenging for the
managers/practitioners (Martonova et al., 2013). Practical experiences in the companies
where reengineering of the business processes was conducted, have shown the following:
the quality was improved by 84%, time to product appearance was decreased by 75%,
communication was improved by 61%, development costs were reduced by 54%,
changes were reduced by 48% and profit was increased by 35% (Eric and Stefanovic,
2008).

2.2 Key elements of BPR

To improve quality and productivity of a business process has to under go fundamental
changes (Gunasekaran and Kobu, 2002; Beugre, 1998). BPR focuses on the whole
process (Jamali et al., 2011). Process refers to a collection of activities that gets a set of
input and creates a set of outputs for the customer value (Bhaskar, 2014; Temponi, 2006;
Wu, 2003; Beugre, 1998). With the help of advanced IT, BPR provides great
opportunities to reengineer the old fashioned business process (Bhaskar, 2016; Jamali
et al., 2011). It helps companies to change their traditional, non-valued structures into
cost efficient, effective (Lindsay et al., 2003) and innovative processes (Davenport,
1993). As we know that BPR is not effective alone. The key element/component factors
play crucial role in BPR effectiveness. Gunasekaran and Nath (1997) recognised some
key element/component of BPR which shown in Figure 1, with possible organisational
changes in the information system. The key component factors of BPR have shown as an
organised structure for a manufacturing system.
Organisational redesign and behavioural change with its supplementary structure
principle, process, tools and methods are most essential part for a manufacturing
enterprise which links with each other (Jang, 2003).
532 H.L. Bhaskar

BPR requires organisational restructuring with the help of simplification and

standardisation, and with other information systems such as enterprise resource planning
(ERP), commerce at light speed (CALS)/electronic commerce (EC), product data
management (PDM), supply chain management (SCM), just in time (JIT), internet
application, electronic data interchange (EDI) (Davenport and Short, 1990; Hewitt,
1999).
In order to perform an enterprise performance measurement, an IDEF0 model is
needed. The IDEF0 model is often used to design a technique and then evaluate it for
BPR implementation. IDEF0 has been used extensively in the modelling of
manufacturing enterprise systems (Jang, 2003). Thus, managers should not avoid any
elements at any cost. They must focus on each of them.

Figure 1 Key elements of BPR

2.3 Critical success and failure factors for BPR

BPR is a risky operation (Jamali et al., 2011). According to Nisar et al. (2014), Alghamdi
et al. (2014), Jamali et al. (2011), Al-Mashari et al. (2001), Dennis et al. (2003), Holland
and Kumar (1995), Hall and Rosenthal (1993) and Chiplunkar et al. (2003) above 70% of
BPR efforts fail to achieve its expected results. Accordingly to implement BPR
successfully, critical success factors must be identified and analysed (Nisar et al., 2014;
Alghamdi et al., 2014; Jamali et al., 2011; Adigun and Biyela, 2003).
Successful BPR implementation involves several success factors (Jamali et al., 2011).
In an attempt to help manufacturers, practitioners and managers to implement BPR
project successfully, author tried to identify and summarise the major success and failure
factors based on a critical literatures review, academicians’ viewpoints and personal
conversation with several top level Indian managers (see Table 1).
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 533

Table 1 Success factors for BPR implementation

No. Success factors Authors

1 Readiness for change, Hussain et al. (2014), Habib and Shah (2013), Natarajan (2014)
courage and willpower and Abdolvand et al. (2008)
2 Best methodology and Habib and Shah (2013) and Rahali et al. (2008)
framework
3 Shared working Alghamdi et al. (2014), Nisar et al. (2014), Habib and Shah
environment (2013), Ringim et al. (2012), Salimifard et al. (2010),
Abdolvand et al. (2008), Reijers and Mansar (2005), Terziovski
et al. (2003), Maull et al. (2003), Dennis et al. (2003), Crowe
et al. (2002), Ranganathan and Dhaliwal (2001), Mlay et al.
(2013) and Kasemsap (2015)
4 Top management Alghamdi et al. (2014), Nisar et al. (2014), Habib and Shah
commitment and support (2013), Hussein et al. (2013), Ringim et al. (2012), Goksoy
et al. (2012), Salimifard et al. (2010), Abdolvand et al. (2008),
Kasemsap (2015), Rahali et al. (2008), Ahmad et al. (2007),
Motwani et al. (2005), Reijers and Mansar (2005), Ahadi
(2004), Dennis et al. (2003), Maull et al. (2003), Terziovski
et al. (2003), Crowe et al. (2002), Ranganathan and Dhaliwal
(2001) and Mlay et al. (2013)
5 Alignment of BPR Alghamdi et al. (2014), Nisar et al. (2014), Habib and Shah
strategies, IT capabilities (2013), Ringim et al. (2012), Salimifard et al. (2010),
(IT integration, IT Abdolvand et al. (2008), Rahali et al. (2008), Motwani et al.
infrastructure and (2005), Reijers and Mansar (2005), Dennis et al. (2003), Maull
redesign, etc.) et al. (2003), Grant (2002), Crowe et al. (2002), Ranganathan
and Dhaliwal (2001), Guimaraes (1999) and Kasemsap (2015)
6 Training, education, fair Alghamdi et al. (2014), Nisar et al. (2014), Habib and Shah
reward system (2013), Ringim et al. (2012), Salimifard et al. (2010), Natarajan
(2014), Ahadi (2004), Terziovski et al. (2003), Mansar et al.
(2003), Dennis et al. (2003) and Crowe et al. (2002)
7 Less bureaucratic Alghamdi et al. (2014), Nisar et al. (2014), Habib and Shah
structure (2013), Ringim et al. (2012), Salimifard et al. (2010), Ahadi
(2004) and Terziovski et al. (2003)
8 Culture Alghamdi et al. (2014), Nisar et al. (2014), Habib and Shah
(2013), Ringim et al. (2012), Salimifard et al. (2010), Natarajan
(2014), Abdolvand et al. (2008), Ahmad et al. (2007), Reijers
and Mansar (2005), Terziovski et al. (2003), Ahadi (2004),
Dennis et al. (2003), Maull et al. (2003) and Crowe et al.
(2002)
9 Adequate financial Alghamdi et al. (2014), Nisar et al. (2014), Habib and Shah
support (2013), Ringim et al. (2012), Salimifard et al. (2010), Ahmad
et al. (2007) and Terziovski et al. (2003)
10 Customer focus and Habib and Shah (2013), Ringim et al. (2012), Natarajan (2014),
effective communication, Goksoy et al. (2012) and DiFonzo and Bordia (1998)
motivation
11 Business needs analysis, Hussein et al. (2013), Habib and Shah (2013), Goksoy et al.
effective and skilled BPR (2012) and Rahali et al. (2008)
team
534 H.L. Bhaskar

There are different reasons for failure of a BPR project. Author summarised these failure
factors in Table 2.
Table 2 Failure factors for BPR implementation

No. Failure factors Authors

1 Lack of readiness Hussain et al. (2014), Habib and Shah (2013),
Natarajan (2014), Amensis (2014) and Mlay et al.
(2013)
2 Lack of suitable and effective BPR Habib and Shah (2013), Amensis (2014) and Jang
framework and methodology (2003)
3 Lack of reliable advanced Hussein et al. (2014a), Amensis (2014), Habib and
technology (IT) Shah (2013), Goksoy et al. (2012) and Jang (2003)
4 Inadequate business case, unclear Habib and Shah (2013), Amensis (2014), Goksoy
strategy, et al. (2012), Natarajan (2014) and Jang (2003)
unclear/unreasonable/unrealistic
scope and unjustifiable
expectations from BPR project
5 Incomplete BPR implementation Habib and Shah (2013) and Jang (2003)
6 Ineffective communication Hussein et al. (2014a), Habib and Shah (2013),
Natarajan (2014) and Mlay et al. (2013)
7 Poor leadership style Hussein et al. (2014a), Habib and Shah (2013),
Goksoy et al. (2012), Malhotra (1998) and Eke and
Achilike (2014)
8 Lack of top management Hussein et al. (2014a), Amensis (2014), Habib and
commitment Shah (2013), Goksoy et al. (2012), Malhotra (1998)
and Eke and Achilike (2014)
9 Lack of collaborative working Hussain et al. (2014) and Habib and Shah (2013)
10 Insufficient authority given to BPR Hussain et al. (2014) and Amensis (2014)
team
11 Lack of innovation in redesigned Habib and Shah (2013) and Hall and Bagchi-Sen
process (2007)
12 Resistance to change Goksoy et al. (2012), Malhotra (1998) and Mlay et al.
(2013)
13 Lack of training and education Mlay et al. (2013)

2.4 Continuous process improvement tools and techniques

Process mapping flowcharts are great tools to help you visualise your processes and to
make process optimisation happen. Continuous process improvement however has to be
planned to make it happen. This will take many other tools other than just flowcharts.
Flowcharts work best when used in combination with all of the other quality tools; you
can learn about these by looking at the seven quality tools. A leading Japanese process
improvement guru, Kaoru Ishikawa, contended that 95% of organisation problems can be
solved using seven basic tools including: PCDA, cause-and-effect or fishbone diagram or
Ishikawa diagram, checklists or check sheet or tally chart, Pareto charts, histograms or
bar chart, scatter grams, statistical process control charts (SPC). Besides the seven basic
tools, there are many other simple tools which can be useful in analysing processes.
These are – the force field, the ‘measles’ chart, benchmarking, cycle time management
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 535

(CTM), Kanban production system (Sabaghi et al., 2015), total productive maintenance
(Sabaghi et al., 2015), multi-vari charts and the five whys.

2.4.1 The seven process management and planning tools

The seven management and planning tools, or seven new QC tools, were first described
in a book published by the Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) in 1979,
edited by Shigeru Mizuno. These tools represent mechanisms by which management can
plan and analyse business processes in ways that lead to quality improvements. The seven
tools include: the affinity diagram, the relations diagram, the tree diagram, matrix
analysis, matrix diagrams, the process decision program chart and the arrow diagram.

2.5 BPR framework

The reengineering effort is broken down into phases where the output of one phase serves
as the input to the next. Both the diagnosing and transforming phases must be carried out
before any implementation is attempted providing little agility. Several strategies and
frameworks have been developed for the implementation of BPR whereas most important
concern among BPR practitioners is the methodology to model or follow to use (Hussein
et al., 2014b). However, it has been reported that most of the business organisations
which have carried out BPR initiatives followed a traditional approach by using
traditional linear life cycle models. Most of the existing BPR models were inspired by
traditional software development and engineering which have always been criticised for
the inconsistency and the variation in their stages (Hussein et al., 2014b).
Motwani et al. (1998) presented a framework on BPR (as shown in Figure 2) which
includes six phases. At the phase (stage 1), top management should realise and
understand what they want and why they want it? It is also very important that the top
management should show their full commitment towards the initiative. In second phase,
vision is necessary to run the business in right direction. Thus vision is also a task of the
top management to provide a proper vision and objectives to the employees so that the
activities of the company are channelised. Third phase is related to the benchmarking,
where current process and activities are evaluated to find out the real concern areas so
that a baseline can be establish for BPR project. Forth stage is related to transformation
where a pilot study is conducted and work is evaluated to measure the needed resources
and scope of change for this transformation. Stage 5 is about the implementation where
the BPR project is implemented. This phase is very crucial that requires top management
support and commitment of middle managers to provide leadership, modification of
reward system, educate employees, alignment of the structure and implementation of IT
so that integration can be completed as a successful project. A proper and effective and
continuous communication should be among all levels of the organisation to avoid
resistance. Last stage is about monitoring and evaluation of the entire project where the
progress of project is monitored and the area that needs modification are also identified.
A study undertaken by Luo and Tung (1999) on development of a framework which
will help in selecting appropriate BPR modelling method that many organisations are
implementing BPR due to increase in competition and dynamic business environment.
Availability of complete information, selection of right tools is required for BPR success
at the time of BPR planning. According to author BPM is a technique for characterising
536 H.L. Bhaskar

and analysing of the business processes. There are various methods and software that
helps practitioners’ and researchers in designing BPM.

Figure 2 A framework on BPR

Source: Motwani et al. (1998)

Business processes are entities, objects and activities. Entities refer to the consideration
of all processes of the organisation. Objects refer to the area of organisation that need to
be handled and activities that requires consideration (Davenport and Short, 1990). Curtis
et al. (1992) identified most common outlook of BPR modelling, i.e., functional,
behavioural, organisational and informational. Author says that before undertaking BPR,
understanding of existing process must be consider and then mapping new process and
preparing measurement tools.
A framework for selecting BPM method should be based on certain pre-defined
objectives that need clear perspective and characteristics for reengineering. Objectives
can be classified into three categories; communication, analysis and control.
Fazel and Salegna (1996) argue that TQM and BPR are two widespread techniques
used for change but most of the effort to transform this as a successful project is turned
out as a failure. Author justify their statement as being of having lack of integrated
framework for implementing those projects and further due to not having clear vision and
mission with company’s plan, culture, strategic objectives and competitive environment.
Many of the management teams consider TQM and BPR as mutually exclusive and
choose any one of them. However, in the opinion of authors the quality and reengineering
should be unified for sound results. Both approaches will provide successful results only
in case they are properly linked with strategic objectives of organisation and properly
planned. There is difference between the tools and techniques and the areas that are
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 537

covered by these approaches. Both approaches reduced cycle time; cost efficiency,
employee and customer satisfaction. For the success of both, Al-Mashari and Zairi (2000)
presented a holistic framework for BPR implementation (see Figure 3). It has been
proved by above discussion that BPR is having no universal approach, model/framework
or system that can be used for reengineering by companies. Despite of the differences,
there are several factors that are considered and reported time to time as causes of success
and failure. Therefore, it is important to discuss and show those factors as well.

Figure 3 A holistic framework for BPR implementation

Source: Al-Mashari and Zairi (2000)

538 H.L. Bhaskar

A BPR framework has suggested by Roberts (1994) that starts with a gap analysis and
ends with a transition to continuous improvement (see Figure 4).
The gap analysis focuses on three questions:
1 the way things should be
2 the way things are
3 how to reconcile the gap between 1 and 2.

Figure 4 Robert’s (1994) framework for BPR (see online version for colours)

Lowenthal (1994) also suggested a framework for BPR; which consists of four phases
(see Figure 5).
1 preparing for change
2 planning for change
3 designing for change
4 evaluating change.
Phase 1 Goals
• building management understanding, awareness and support for change
• preparing for a cultural shift and acquire employee ‘buy-in’.
Phase 2 Assumption
• organisations need to adopt to constantly changing marketplaces.
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 539

Phase 3 Method
• to identify, assess, map and design
• a framework for translating process knowledge into leaps of change.
Phase 4 Means
• evaluate performance during a specified time frame.

Figure 5 Lowenthal’s (1994) framework for BPR (see online version for colours)

Cross et al. (1994) suggested framework for BPR which consist of three phases; analysis,
design and implementation (see Figure 6). Author has summarised as follows:
1 Analysis
• in depth understanding of market and customer requirements
• detailed understanding of how things are currently done
• where are the strengths and weaknesses compared to the competition.
2 Design
• Based on principles that fall into six categories:
a service quality – relates to customer contacts
b workflow – managing the flow of jobs
c workspace – ergonomic factors and layout options
d continuous improvement – self-sustaining
e workforce – people are integral to business processes
f IT.
3 Implementation
• transforming the design into day to day operations.
540 H.L. Bhaskar

Figure 6 Cross et al.’s (1994) framework for BPR (see online version for colours)

2.6 Reengineering methodology

In this section, we first present a generic meta-model of BPR methodology. On the basis
of meta-model, we have developed a BPR methodology called BPR life cycle (BPR-LC)
that can be customised by organisations for their own BPR projects or used to evaluate
other methodologies.
The BPR-LC methodology decomposes a business reengineering project into
interrelated phases in which a set of integrated structured methods and tools is applied to
specific tasks in each BPR phase. Each phase and its detailed tasks contain clearly
defined goals and deliverables. We have discussed above several methods and tools that
are appropriate for supporting BPR projects.
Reengineering is not automation of an existing system (i.e., computerisation) or doing
less with less (i.e., downsizing). It is the obliteration of what now exists conceptually and
starting over with the design of a process on a clean sheet of paper (Hammer, 1990).
Reengineering sometimes will transform every aspect of an organisation, including
organisation structures, values, reward systems, etc. All of these aspects should be
considered concurrently to ensure successful implementation of a BPR project.
Objectives of companies initiating reengineering projects include: improved customer
satisfaction, shortened process cycle time, improved product/service quality level,
reduced costs in production and marketing, and increased competitiveness in the
marketplace. Because of the complexity of reengineering a process, a systemic approach
to managing a BPR project is needed.

2.6.1 Meta-model for BPR methodology

A BPR methodology called BPR-LC that uses a life-cycle approach is described in this
section. The development of this methodology was guided by a meta-model that defines
all aspects of a BPR methodology. Because a BPR project is itself a process that needs to
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 541

be analysed and managed (Moad, 1993), users can use the meta-model to customise a
proposed BPR methodology for their BPR projects or use it to compare various BPR
methodologies.
The meta-model of BPR methodology is depicted in Figure 7, in which BPR project
is divided into major phases that are further broken down into tasks and steps. Each
element in the work breakdown structure can be defined in terms of inputs required for
starting work and deliverables to be created by the work.

Figure 7 The meta-model for a BPR methodology (see online version for colours)

The BPR team consists of participants who play different roles at various phases of the
BPR project. We suggest that the core team size should be kept fewer than 12. The core
team can be supported by subject-matter experts when needed. The team members should
be sincerely committed to the project and should have a mixture of the following skills:
teamwork, process engineering, quality management, information systems,
benchmarking, organisational and job design, and change management. Team members
can include employees, customers, suppliers, and external consultants.
BPR methods and tools can be applied to various phases, tasks, or steps of the
BPR-LC. A clear understanding of BPR concepts is critical in the earlier stages of the
BPR phases to ensure that initiatives are appropriate for the circumstances. BPR
principles are useful in guiding the redesign of new processes, as are methods such as
business process modelling and analysis methods (e.g., IDEFO and activity-based
costing). BPR tools are computer-aided tools that support specific methods. Deliverables
from BPR work include items such as process diagrams, analysis reports, or design
documents that are often created, maintained, and generated by BPR tools.

2.6.2 A BPR-LC methodology

Based on these existing BPR methodologies described in the literature and used by BPR
consulting firms, we have synthesised a comprehensive life cycle approach to conducting
BPR. The BPR-LC methodology presented in Figure 8 has seven phases:
542 H.L. Bhaskar

1 Visioning: companies engage in a reengineering effort because they want to catch up

with their competitors, to stay ahead of the competitors, and/or to respond swiftly to
the changing structures and dynamics of the marketplace (Hammer and Champy,
1993). Visioning is required for an enterprise-wide reengineering effort. Employees
should be involved in the creation of a shared new vision. This stage includes several
tasks:
a Development of current organisational structure and business process. The real
organisational chart and macro-level processes are identified.
b Develop an organisational commitment to reengineering.
c Develop and communicate a business case for action.
d Create a new corporate vision and strategies.
2 Identifying: based on the macro-level process map, the BPR team needs to identify
which business processes are to be reengineered. Tasks in this phase include:
a Develop a high-level process map based on the value chain model to show
dependency among processes. Evaluate and select processes to be reengineered.
b Identify owners of business processes.
c Prioritiise selected processes to be reengineered.
3 Analysing: once a process has been selected to be reengineered, the BPR team enters
into stages specific to an individual BPR project. The specific business process needs
to be analysed in detail. Tasks in this stage include:
a Conduct a preliminary study.
b Develop a high-level AS-IS baseline process model of the existing process.
c Perform activity-based costing if cost cutting is the primary objective of the
BPR project.
d Measure critical process metrics. Measurement of an existing process can be
very useful in benchmarking.
4 Redesigning: identify enabling IT and create design alternatives to reengineer the
process. Creative ideas may come from understanding potential IT enablers. Tasks at
this phase include:
a Create ideas for dramatic changes. ‘Thinking-out-of box’ is required to come up
with innovative ideas to reach a conceptual breakthrough.
b Explore enabling technologies.
c Identify core sub-processes. Sub-processes can be eliminated, simplified, made
parallel, or integrated. Core sub-processes that are causing a bottleneck in the
system or are contributing most to added-value should be the focus of the
redesign effort.
d Design alternative new processes.
5 Evaluating: evaluate redesigned alternative process models and select a design
alternative to use in proceeding with the implementation phase.
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 543

a Develop criteria to evaluate alternatives of redesigned processes.

b Estimate costs, benefits, and risks involved in proposed designs. Identify all the
hidden costs and intangible benefits involved.
c Evaluate design alternatives based on costs, benefits, and risks, as well as any
additional criteria identified.
d Select and recommend a reengineered process.
6 Implementing: implement the reengineered process. Implementation is as important
as redesign because “even when breakthroughs are achieved on the conceptual level,
implementation can be daunting”.
7 Improving: process owners of the reengineered processes should measure
performance indicators of the process to evaluate the impacts of BPR and try to
improve the process continuously. They should use and implement continuous
process improvement (CPI) to amend the process on an ongoing basis (Elzinga
et al., 2012).

Figure 8 BPR-LC methodology (see online version for colours)

The first two phases are required for an enterprise-wide reengineering effort. The 3rd to
7th phases are for process-specific reengineering projects. The most difficult issue facing
the BPR team is resistance from people to introduction of dramatic changes. Therefore, a
BPR team needs to manage the BPR project as a planned change. To rally support and
minimise resistance, stakeholders’ interests need to be accounted for from the beginning.
The BPR-LC methodology can be used to support BPR project scheduling and
management. It also helps in selecting proper techniques and tools for specific tasks
during a BPR project. Several guiding principles in applying BPR methodology include:
544 H.L. Bhaskar

• Focus on customer-facing processes and support of front-line workers.

• Cycle-time reduction.
• Sustaining continuous support and commitment from top managers and people
involved in the process.
• Focus on core business processes.
• Use IT to enable new business processes, not just to automate existing ones.
• Start with a clean sheet of paper during redesign and think out-of-the-box by going
back to the basic purposes of the process. BPR principles and methodology can be
used to create new processes to support new products/services.
• Adopt a BPR methodology and use proven methods and tools in analysing and
redesigning the process. Many BPR projects fail because people do not follow a
proper BPR methodology.
• Manage the change and implementation process from the beginning of the project by
identifying issues involving all the stakeholders. Constantly communicate reasons
for change with all the parties involved and use a team approach to getting broader
participation.

3 Proposed common framework and methodology for a BPR project

implementation

3.1 Proposed methodology for a BPR project implementation

BPR is universally applicable technique of business restructuring focusing on business
processes, which provides huge improvements in a short period of time. This technique
implements organisational change based on the close coordination of a methodology for
fast change, employee empowerment and training and support by IT. With the aim of
BPR implementation to an enterprise the followings key actions require to take place:
• selection of the strategic (added-value) processes for redesign
• simplify new processes – minimise steps – optimise efficiency – (modelling)
• organise a team of employees for each process and assign a role for process
coordinator
• organise the workflow – document transfer and control
• assign responsibilities and roles for each process
• automate processes using IT (intranets, extranets, workflow management)
• train the process team to efficiently manage and operate the new process
• introduce the redesigned process into the business organisational structure.
Most reengineering methodologies share common elements, but simple differences can
have a significant impact on the success or failure of a project. After a project area has
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 545

been identified, the methodologies for reengineering business processes may be used. In
order for a company, aiming to apply BPR, to select the best methodology, sequence
processes and implement the appropriate BPR plan, it has to create effective and
actionable visions. Referring to ‘vision’ we mean the complete articulation of the future
state (the values, the processes, structure, technology, job roles and environment). For
creating an effective vision, four basic steps are mentioned below.
1 the right combination of individuals come together to form an optimistic and
energised team
2 clear objectives exist and the scope for the project is well-defined and understood
3 the team can stand in the future and look back, rather than stand in the present and
look forward
4 the vision is rooted in a set of guiding principles.
All methodologies could be divided in general ‘model’ stages:
• the envision stage: the company reviews the existing strategy and business processes
and based on that review business processes for improvement are targeted and IT
opportunities are identified
• the initiation stage: project teams are assigned, performance goals, project planning
and employee notification are set
• the diagnosis stage: documentation of processes and sub-processes takes place in
terms of process attributes (activities, resources, communication, roles, IT and costs)
• the redesign stage: new process design is developed by devising process design
alternatives and through brainstorming and creativity techniques
• the reconstruction stage: management technique changes occur to ensure smooth
migration to the new process responsibilities and human resource roles
• the evaluation stage: the new process is monitored to determine if goals are met and
examine total quality programs.

Figure 9 Modified proposed universal BPR methodology (see online version for colours)

Source: Developed by author for research purpose

546 H.L. Bhaskar

3.2 Proposed framework for a BPR project implementation

BPR is a distinct, one-time event and it needs to be treated as a project, which is critical
to the future of the organisation. So like any other project Reengineering will have an
analysis phase, a design phase and an implementation phase. The complete process of
reengineering can be captured as in the flow diagram given in Figure 10.
The main purpose of this BPR framework and methodology is to guide organisations
for process reengineering initiatives and efforts. The development of various stages in the
model is explained in the following paragraphs.
In the analysis phase readiness for change is necessary with in-depth understanding of
markets and customer requirements. Also an understanding about how work is being
done today internally toward attaining the performance level needed to meet and beat
competition is developed. In some cases benchmarking of best practices in the industry is
also done. In the initial phase of analysis decisions are made about which process are
candidates for reengineering and where decisions need to be focused first.

Figure 10 A proposed common BPR framework for organisation (see online version
for colours)

Source: Developed by author for research purpose

After assessment of current capability, organisations must diagnosing unproductive
processes and then redesign their business processes as per their need. A SWOT analysis
is also necessary to predict its real impact upon the system. Pilot test of the new design is
blueprint for any reengineering project.
The basic model does not elaborate on the implementation phase of reengineering; the
proposed method of implementation is described herein. In implementation phase the
entire organisation has to apply and institutionalise the new design into its daily
operation. Implementation phase has two components:
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 547

1 planning and executing and measuring performance on a large scale to the new mode
of operation
2 continuous process enhancement and control.
The implementation of reengineering needs people who have different roles in the
reengineering horizon. The selection of people who will reengineer is a critical success
factor in reengineering. The roles played by people in reengineering are:
1 Leader: the leader is a senior executive who authorises and motivates the overall
reengineering effort.
2 Process owner: the process owner is a manager with responsibility of the process
that is reengineered. It is his process that is reengineered.
3 Reengineering team: the reengineering team is a group of individuals who are
dedicated to reengineering of the particular process. This group includes – BPR
project sponsors, process owners, process participants, BPR facilitator and
consultants, HR specialists, IT and e-commerce specialists, etc.
4 Steering committee: the steering committee is a strategy team consisting of senior
managers, who will make the strategy for reengineering in the company and
monitors the reengineering effort.
5 Reengineering ‘czar’: the reengineering czar is the individual responsible for
developing reengineering techniques and tools within the company and achieving
synergy across various reengineering efforts that are going on in the organisation.
Czar has two important functions:
a enabling and supporting the process owners and reengineering teams
b coordinating all the ongoing reengineering activities in the organisation.
Reengineering requires effective and advance processes, advance IT, clear BPR strategy,
suitable BPR tools and excellent knowledge of existing and new processes. These make
BPR successful. Nowadays, some reputed manufacturing and service companies in India
are also implementing BPR to radically improve their performance and gain competitive
advantage. There are ten steps which appear to provide a sound basis for the
implementation of BPR in manufacturing industry.
1 clear vision and objectives
2 ensure executive committee
3 develop high level process map
4 identify process for reengineering
5 understand and measure existing process
6 redesign the process and identifying IT levels
7 develop model of new process
548 H.L. Bhaskar

8 ensure change management and support capabilities

9 make new process ready
10 implement current improvement strategy.

4 Expected benefits

To sustain in a global manufacturing and cutthroat era, companies are redesigning and
managing their business processes by setting up competitive priorities. Thus, they must
determine which of the following eight priorities are to be emphasised as competitive
advantages:
1 low-cost operations
2 consistent quality
3 high performance design
4 development speed
5 on-time delivery
6 fast delivery time
7 product customisation
8 quantity flexibility.
BPR brings about numerous benefits to organisations. Some of the more obvious and
common benefits are cost reduction, quality improvement, service improvement,
customer satisfaction, and efficiency enhancement.
First, BPR can help companies reduce cost. Large numbers of non-value adding
activities emerge when companies expand their businesses. Those activities result in
higher cost and are often overlooked by companies. Through rethinking and redesigning
business processes, management minimises non-value adding activities leading to cost
reduction.
Second, BPR can aid organisations in delivering a higher quality to their customers.
In process-centred organisation, a work team handles a product manufacturing process.
They understand each step of the process and have full control of the whole process. Any
problems occurring during manufacturing can be detected as early as possible and the
work team can take corrective actions to resolve problems. As a result, companies can
produce better products than before.
Third, customer service can be improved by implementing BPR. In a functional
company, people in each part of the process only understand what their day-to-day job
involves. On the other hand, when an organisation is cross-functional, a process owner
oversees the whole process and its result. They can tell the customer where the order is
and when it will arrive. Therefore, customers can track their orders any time and get
feedback rapidly.
Finally, reorganising business processes can enhance efficiency. In a traditional,
functional structure, departments are separated and process flows in different departments
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 549

can be extremely complex. After developing horizontal, cross-functional processes, a

company can prevent work from overlapping between departments. As a result, a great
deal of time can be saved and work productivity can be increased.

5 Discussion and conclusions

There is no any perfect framework and methodology that can be applied in any situation
to all organisation. Although having all the success factors incorporated in a methodology
steps will boost the prospect of BPR project success.
Over the past decade, numerous BPR frameworks have planed to guide organisations
through their process reengineering initiatives and efforts. Most of those models exhibit
similarities in key areas but have different features and characteristics. The number of
phases used in such frameworks which vary widely in range and type. The best approach
for reengineering is the one that can help an organisation carry out BPR successfully in
effective manner. As such, it should be based on well-defined phases that flow smoothly
though out the project life cycle. In addition, these phases should represent a generic
structure that comprises the overall reengineering activity. They also should be
reasonable in number and efficient in type.
In this study, author presented a brief theoretical review to understand the BPR and
key factors that contribute big role to implement BPR in a successful manner. This paper
also presents an assessment of the various elements (see Figure 1), frameworks,
methodologies, and redesign business processes in order to increase its performance. All
the issues were analysed to cover a more in-depth look at the problems of existing
traditional BPR frameworks and the traditional approach they follow. It was found that
most of these frameworks were developed for other purposes in the first place and were
later relabelled to fall under the BPR umbrella. Most of the existing BPR frameworks
appear to have serious limitations. This work sets the stage for a wide-ranging efficient
BPR framework and methodology that may implement.
On the basis of theoretical review and personal interaction with top level managers’
author identified different success and failure factors for BPR implementation that
require to compete are identified and prioritised (see Tables 1 and 2). Now, it is clear that
application of BPR in Indian manufacturing is not difficult, the situations are different
and the reasons for adaptation vary in this sector. There is still a need for exclusive and
universally acceptable model for BPR as well as a commonly applicable methodology.
Author also concludes that BPR is the ultimate solution for increasing productivity and
quality while cutting costs at the same time, putting the customer first has finally been
found. This study will be helpful to organisations seeking to improve their
organisational/operational performance.

6 Suggestions and future directions

Some Indian manufacturing organisations have adopted BPR while most organisations
are not ready for this. The major reasons behind this are – lack of suitable
framework/methodology, poor traditional technology, lack of resources, commitment,
550 H.L. Bhaskar

culture, inferior leadership quality, etc. Therefore, author suggests the best practices of
BPR framework and methodology as depicted in Figures 9 and 10 based on previous
literature on BPR and recommendations of some managers. Author also suggests that
BPR must be implemented at any cost to improve overall quality and performance
because the operations and performances of Indian manufacturing organisations (small,
medium, large) are not satisfactory and not similar to the other countries’ manufacturing
organisations. Critical importance of change management must be completely understood
by all organisations. Superior management skills, courage and willpower for radical
change should be included in organisational philosophy. Demand for change should not
be avoided. Quality cross functional operations should be a central feature in
manufacturing organisations. New methodology, framework, tools and techniques,
strategy, technology should not be avoided. Organisations must place the customer at the
centre of the reengineering effort by concentrating on Fragmented processes that lead to
delays or other negative impacts on customer service. The proposed model presented in
this study must be empirically tasted and analysed before its implementation and some
most valuable dimensions may be added if required.
In future, manufacturers, researchers or managers can expand this concept by adding
some more valuable dimensions of BPR and can produce more refined results. They can
do research on following areas:
1 Effectiveness of system development life cycle (SDLC) and agile methodology
implementation.
2 Development of a universally acceptable integrated BPR framework and
methodology.
3 How TQM can facilitate the successful implementation of BPR within
manufacturing organisation. How IT support business processes and how can
business processes be transformed using IT.
4 Risk Management tools and techniques during pre and post BPR implementation.
5 Role of culture, customers, suppliers, and process owners in effective BPR
implementation.
6 Organisational change management machinery.
7 How BPR process can be linked up with organisational strategies and performance.
8 Critical study on BPR tools and techniques and its relationship with organisational
structure.
9 Analysis, test and measurement the effectiveness of existing/proposed BPR
frameworks and methodologies before its implementation.
10 Benchmarking as an integral part or as a tool of BPR.
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 551

References
Abdolvand, N., Albadvi, A. and Ferdowsi, Z. (2008) ‘Assessing readiness for business process
reengineering’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.497–511, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150810888046..
Adigun, M.O. and Biyela, D.P. (2003) ‘Modelling an enterprise for re-engineering: a case study’,
Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of
Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on Enablement through Technology,
South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, September,
pp.153–164.
Ahadi, H.R. (2004) ‘An examination of the role of organizational enablers in business process
reengineering and the impact of information technology’, Information Resources Management
Journal (IRMJ), Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.1–19, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2004100101.
Ahmad, H., Francis, A. and Zairi, M. (2007) ‘Business process reengineering: critical success
factors in higher education’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3,
pp.451–469, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150710752344.
Alghamdi, H.A., Alfarhan, M.A. and Abdullah, A.L. (2014) ‘BPR: evaluation of existing
methodologies and limitations’, International Journal of Computer Trends & Technology,
Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.224–227 [online] http://www.ijcttjournal.org/Volume7/number-4/IJCTT-
V7P154.pdf (accessed 1 December 2015).
Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (2000) ‘Revisiting BPR: a holistic review of practice and
development’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.10–42, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150010283045.
Al-Mashari, M., Irani, Z. and Zairi, M. (2001) ‘Business process reengineering: a survey of
international experience’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp.437–455,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150110406812.
Amensis, G. (2014) An Evaluation of BPR Implementation at Jimma University: Challenges and
Successes, Doctoral dissertation, Jimma University, 20pp.
Aremu, M.A. and Saka, H.T. (2006) ‘The impact of information technology on library
management: a marketing perspective’, Advances in Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.141–150
[online] http://www.arabianjbmr.com/pdfs/OM_VOL_4_%284%29/1.pdf (accessed
5 December 2015).
Beugre, C.D. (1998) ‘Implementing business process reengineering the role of organizational
justice’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.347–360, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886398343007.
Bhaskar, H.L. (2014) ‘Business process reengineering: a recent review’, Global Journal of
Business Management, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.24–51 [online] http://globalvisionpub.com/
globaljournalmanager/pdf/1421149799.pdf (accessed 1 May 2015).
Bhaskar, H.L. (2016) ‘A critical analysis of information technology and business process
reengineering’, Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.98–115.
Cao, G., Clarke, S. and Lehaney, B. (2001) ‘A critique of BPR from a holistic perspective’,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.332–339, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/EUM0000000005732.
Chiplunkar, C., Deshmukh, S.G. and Chattopadhyay, R. (2003) ‘Application of principles of event
related open systems to business process reengineering’, Computers & Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 45, No. 3, pp.347–374, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-8352(03)00029-9.
552 H.L. Bhaskar

Cross, K., Feather, J. and Lynch, R.L. (1994) Corporate Renaissance: The Art of Reengineering,
14 October 2015, Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts, USA, ISBN:
10:1557864713; ISBN: 13:9781557864710.
Crowe, T.J., Fong, P.M., Bauman, T.A. and Zayas-Castro, J.L. (2002) ‘Quantitative risk level
estimation of business process reengineering efforts’, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 8, No. 5, pp.490–511, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150210449148.
Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I. and Over, J. (1992) ‘Process modeling’, Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 35, No. 9, pp.75–90, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/130994.130998.
Davenport, T.H. (1993) Process Innovation. Reengineering Work through Information Technology,
p.336, Harward Business School Press, Boston, MA, USA, ISBN: 0-87584-366-2.
Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. (1990) ‘The new industrial engineering: information technology
and business process redesign’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.11–27.
de Bruyn, B. and Gelders, L. (1997) ‘Process re-engineering: a review of enablers’, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 50, Nos. 2–3, pp.183–197.
Dennis, A.R., Carte, T.A. and Kelly, G.G. (2003) ‘Breaking the rules: success and failure in
groupware-supported business process reengineering’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 36,
No. 1, pp.31–47, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00132-X.
DiFonzo, N. and Bordia, P. (1998) ‘A tale of two corporations: managing uncertainty during
organizational change’, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37, Nos. 3–4, pp.295–303, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Eftekhari, N. and Akhavan, P. (2013) ‘Developing a comprehensive methodology for BPR projects
by employing IT tools’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.4–29,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151311294831.
Eke, G.J. and Achilike, A.N. (2014) ‘Business process reengineering in organizational performance
in Nigerian banking sector’, Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol. 3, No. 5,
pp.113–124, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/ajis.2014.v3n5p113.
Elzinga, D.J., Gulledge, T.R. and Lee, C.Y. (Eds.) (2012) Business Process Engineering:
Advancing the State of the Art, p.195, Springer Science & Business Media,
ISBN: 1461550912, 9781461550914, New York.
Eric, M. and Stefanovic, M. (2008) ‘Comparative characteristic of TQM and reengineering’,
Quality Festival 2008, International Quality Conference, 13–15 May, Krafujevac, pp.1–5
[online] http://www.cqm.rs/2008/pdf/2/29.pdf (accessed 24 August 2015).
Erim, A. and Vayvay, O. (2010) ‘Is the business process reengineering (BPR) proved itself to be a
trustable change management approach for multinational corporations’ case studies from the
literature’, Journal of Aeronautics and Space Technologies, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.23–30.
Essam, M.M. and Mansar, S.L. (2012) ‘Towards a software framework for automatic business
process redesign’, ACEEE International Journal on Information Technology, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp.23–28, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/01.IJIT.02.01.42.
Fazel, F. and Salegna, G. (1996) ‘An integrative approach for selecting a TQM/BPR
implementation plan’, International Journal of Quality Science, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.6–23, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598539610152462.
Ghanadbashi, S. and Ramsin, R. (2016) ‘Towards a method engineering approach for business
process reengineering’, IET Software, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.27–44, DOI: 10.1049/iet-
sen.2014.0223.
Goksoy, A., Ozsoy, B. and Vayvay, O. (2012) ‘Business process reengineering: strategic tool for
managing organizational change an application in a multinational company’, International
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.89–112, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.
5539/ijbm.v7n2p89.
Gonzalez-Benito, J., Martinez-Lorente, A.R. and Dale, B.G. (1999) ‘Business process
re-engineering to total quality management: an examination of the issues’, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.345–358, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
14637159910297385.
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 553

Grant, D. (2002) ‘A wider view of business process reengineering’, Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 45, No. 2, pp.85–90, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/503124.503128.
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, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(96)00104-0.
Guimaraes, T. (1999) ‘Field testing of the proposed predictors of BPR success in manufacturing
firms’, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.53–65, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0278-6125(99)80012-0.
Gunasekaran, A. and Kobu, B. (2002) ‘Modeling and analysis of business process reengineering’,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40, No. 11, pp.2521–2546, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540210132733.
Gunasekaran, A. and Nath, B. (1997) ‘The role of information technology in business process
reengineering’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp.91–104,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(97)00035-2.
Habib, M.N. and Shah, A. (2013) ‘Business process reengineering: literature review of approaches
and applications’, Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference,
25–26 February, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp.1–25, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1.
Hall, G. and Rosenthal, J. (1993) ‘How to make reengineering really work’, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 71, No. 6, pp.119–131.
Hall, L.A. and Bagchi-Sen, S. (2007) ‘An analysis of firm-level innovation strategies in the US
biotechnology industry’, Technovation, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.4–14, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.technovation.2006.07.001.
Hammer, M. (1990) ‘Reengineering work: don’t automate, obliterate’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 68, No. 4, pp.104–112 [online] http://www3.uma.pt/filipejmsousa/ge/Hammer,%
201990.pdf accessed 12 April 2014.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993) ‘Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business
revolution’, Business Horizons, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp.90–91, ISBN: 9781857880977.
Harrington, J.M. (1995) Total Improvement Management: The Next Generation in Performance
Improvement, Vol. 198, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, ISBN: 0070267707, 9780070267701.
Hewitt, F. (1999) ‘Information technology mediated business process management-lessons from
the supply chain’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 17, Nos. 1–2,
pp.37–53, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.1999.002707.
Holland, D. and Kumar, S. (1995) ‘Getting past the obstacles to successful reengineering’, Business
Horizons, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp.79–85.
Huang, S.Y., Lee, C.H., Chiu, A.A. and Yen, D.C. (2015) ‘How business process reengineering
affects information technology investment and employee performance under different
performance measurement’, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp.1133–1144,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9487-4.
Hussain, M., Saleh, M., Akbar, S. and Jan, Z. (2014) ‘Factors affecting readiness for business
process reengineering-developing and proposing a conceptual model’, European Journal of
Business and Management, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.55–60 [online] http://www.iiste.org/
Journals/index.php/EJBM/article/view/10208/10424 (accessed 6 July 2015).
Hussein, B., Bazzi, H., Dayekh, A. and Hassan, W. (2013) ‘Critical analysis of existing business
process reengineering models: towards the development of a comprehensive integrated
model’, Journal of Project, Program & Portfolio Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.30–40
[online] http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/pppm/article/view/3285/3812 (accessed
22 August 2014).
Hussein, B., Chouman, M. and Dayekh, A. (2014a) ‘A project life cycle (PLC) based approach for
effective business process reengineering (BPR)’, Industrial Engineering Letters, Vol. 4,
No. 6, pp.1–8 [online] http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/IEL/article/view/13828/13925
(accessed 9 June 2015).
554 H.L. Bhaskar

Hussein, B., Hammoud, M., Bazzi, H. and Haj-Ali, A. (2014b) ‘PRISM – process reengineering
integrated spiral model: an agile approach to business process reengineering (BPR)’,
International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 9, No. 10, pp.134–142, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v9n10p134.
Jain, R., Chandrasekaran, A. and Gunasekaran, A. (2010) ‘Benchmarking the redesign of business
process reengineering curriculum: A continuous process improvement (CPI)’, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.77–94, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
14635771011022325.
Jamali, G., Abbaszadeh, M.A., Ebrahimi, M. and Maleki, T. (2011) ‘Business process
reengineering implementation: developing a causal model of critical success factors’,
International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, Vol. 1,
No. 5, pp.354–358.
Jang, K-J. (2003) ‘A model decomposition approach for a manufacturing enterprise in business
process reengineering’, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 16,
No. 3, pp.210–218, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951192021000039594.
Kasemsap, K. (2015) The Role of Business Process Reengineering in the Modern Business World,
pp.87–115, IGI Global, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8510-9.ch005.
Kelada, J.N. (1994) ‘Is reengineering replacing total quality’, Quality Progress, Vol. 27, No. 12,
pp.79–83.
Kontio, J. (2007) ‘Business process re-engineering: a case study at Turku University of Applied
Sciences’, Proc. of European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems,
pp.24–26.
Kumar, A. and Tyagi, P. (2014) ‘Total quality management in business process reengineering’,
International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.2644–2646
[online] http://inpressco.com/category/ijcet (accessed 11 February 2015).
Lindsay, A., Downs, D. and Lunn, K. (2003) ‘Business processes-attempts to find a definition’,
Information and Software Technology, Vol. 45, No. 15, pp.1015–1019, DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0950-5849(03)00129-0.
Love, P.E. and Gunasekaran, A. (1997) ‘Process reengineering: a review of enablers’, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp.183–197, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0925-5273(97)00040-6.
Lowenthal, J.N. (1994) Reengineering the Organization: A Step-by-Step Approach to Corporate
Revitalization, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, USA, ISBN-13: 978-0873892582.
Luo, W. and Tung, Y.A. (1999) ‘A framework for selecting business process modeling methods’,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 99, No. 7, pp.312–319, DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/02635579910262535.
Malhotra, Y. (1998) ‘Business process redesign: an overview’, IEEE Engineering Management
Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.27–31.
Mansar, S.L. and Reijers, H.A. (2007) ‘Best practices in business process redesign: use and
impact’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.193–213, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150710740455.
Mansar, S.L., Marir, F. and Reijers, H.A. (2003) ‘Case-based reasoning as a technique for
knowledge management in business process redesign’, Electronic Journal on Knowledge
Management, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.113–124 [online] http://alexandria.tue.nl/repository/freearticles
/623838.pdf accessed 21 September 2014.
Marjanovic, O. (2000) ‘Supporting the ‘soft’ side of business process reengineering’, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.43–55, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
14637150010313339.
Martonova, I., Surinova, Y. and Paulova, I. (2013) ‘Analysis of TQM and BPR integrability in
conditions of Slovak organizations’, European International Journal of Science and
Technology, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp.159–170 [online] http://www.cekinfo.org.uk/images/
frontImages/gallery/Vol_2_No._6/18.pdf (accessed 11 October 2014).
 Business process reengineering framework and methodology 555

Maull, R.S., Tranfield, D.R. and Maull, W. (2003) ‘Factors characterising the maturity of BPR
programmes’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23, No. 6,
pp.596–624, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570310476645.
Mlay, S.V., Zlotnikova, I. and Watundu, S. (2013) ‘A quantitative analysis of business process
reengineering and organizational resistance: the case of Uganda’, The African Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.1–26.
Moad, J. (1993) ‘Does reengineering really work?’, Datamation, Vol. 39, No. 15, pp.22–28.
Motwani, J., Kumar, A., Jiang, J. and Youssef, M. (1998) ‘Business process reengineering: a
theoretical framework and an integrated model’, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 18, Nos. 9–10, pp.964–977, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000004536.
Motwani, J., Subramanian, R. and Gopalakrishna, P. (2005) ‘Critical factors for successful ERP
implementation: exploratory findings from four case studies’, Computers in Industry, Vol. 56,
No. 6, pp.529–544, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2005.02.005.
Natarajan, M. (2014) ‘Exploring the business process re-engineering: national science library’s
experience’, Communications of the IIMA, Vol. 9, No. 4, p.7.
Nisar, Q.A., Ahmad, S. and Ahmad, U. (2014) ‘Exploring factors that contribute to success of
business process reengineering and impact of business process reengineering on organizational
performance: a qualitative descriptive study on banking sector at Pakistan’, Asian Journal of
Multidisciplinary Studies, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp.219–224 [online] http://ajms.co.in/sites/
ajms/index.php/ajms/article/viewFile/405/365 accessed 12 October 2015.
O’Neill, P. and Sohal, A.S. (1999) ‘Business process reengineering a review of recent literature’,
Technovation, Vol. 19, No. 9, pp.571–581 [online] http://edi-info.ir/files/Business-Process-
Reengineering,-A-review-of-recent-literature.pdf accessed 12 October 2015.
Orlikowski, W.J., Walsham, G., Jones, M.R. and DeGross, J. (Eds.) (2016) Information Technology
and Changes in Organizational Work, p.9, Springer International Publishing, Cham, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34872-8.
Rahali, E., Chaczko, Z.C., Agbinya, J.I. and Chiu, C.C. (2008) ‘Business process re-engineering in
Saudi Arabia: a survey of understanding and attitudes’, International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence & Interactive Multimedia, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.33–38, IEEE.
Ranganathan, C. and Dhaliwal, J.S. (2001) ‘A survey of business process reengineering practices in
Singapore’, Information & Management, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.125–134, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00087-8.
Razalli, M.R., Ringim, K.J., Hasnan, N. and Hassan, M.G. (2015) ‘A framework of best practices
in managing business reengineering for Islamic’, Journal of Advanced Management Science,
Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.22–25, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12720/joams.3.1.22-25.
Reijers, H.A. and Mansar, S.L. (2005) ‘Best practices in business process redesign: an overview
and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics’, Omega, Vol. 33, No. 4,
pp.283–306, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.04.012.
Ringim, K.J., Razalli, M.R. and Hasnan, N. (2012) ‘A framework of business process
re-engineering factors and organizational performance of Nigerian banks’, Asian Social
Science, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.203–206, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n4p203.
Roberts, L. (1994) Process Reengineering: The Key to Achieving Breakthrough Success, ASQC
Quality Press, Milwaukee, ISBN-13: 978-0873892742.
Sabaghi, M., Rostamzadeh, R. and Mascle, C. (2015) ‘Kanban and value stream mapping analysis
in lean manufacturing philosophy via simulation: a plastic fabrication (case study)’,
International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.118–140,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2015.065977.
Salimifard, K., Abbaszadeh, M.A. and Ghorbanpur, A. (2010) ‘Interpretive structural modeling of
critical success factors in banking process re-engineering’, International Review of Business
Research Papers, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.95–103 [online] http://irbrp.com/static/documents/July/
2010/7.%20Salimi.pdf (accessed 12 October 2013).
 556 H.L. Bhaskar

Setegn, D., Ensermu, M. and Moorthy, P.K. (2013) ‘Assessing the effect of business process
reengineering on organizational performance: a case study of Bureau of Finance and
Economic Development (BOFED), Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia’, Researchers World,
Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.115–123.
Temponi, C. (2006) ‘Scalable enterprise systems: quality management issues’, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp.222–235, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijpe.2004.12.014.
Terziovski, M., Fitzpatrick, P. and O’Neill, P. (2003) ‘Successful predictors of business process
reengineering (BPR) in financial services’, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 84, No. 1, pp.35–50, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(02)00378-X.
Tomanek, J. (2001) Reengineering and Change Management: Collection of Articles, Lectures and
Studies, p.515, Computer Press, Praha, ISBN: 80-7226-428-1.
Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2011) ‘Transformational change and business
process reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector’, Government
Information Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.320–328, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.
2010.07.010.
Wu, L. (2003) ‘Understanding senior management’s behavior in promoting the strategic role of IT
in process reengineering: use of the theory of reasoned action’, Information & Management,
Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.1–11, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00115-5.
Yin, G. (2010) ‘BPR application’, Modern Applied Science, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.96–101, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/mas.v4n4p96.
Zinser, S., Baumgartner, A. and Walliser, F.S. (1998) ‘Best practice in reengineering: a successful
example of the Porsche research and development center’, Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.154–167, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637159810212325.

View publication stats