Business Process Reengineering:Business Process Reengineering:A literature survey reportA literature survey report

Ilda TanogluIlda Tanoglu

Department of Management Information Systems, Bogazici University, IstanbulDepartment of Management Information Systems, Bogazici University, Istanbul

January, 2004January, 2004

__________________________________________________________________________________

AbstractAbstract

The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of the Business Process Reengineering (BPR) concept. This is achieved through a survey of the leading papers, articles, and books in the literature covering the period from 1990 to 2003. The paper first discusses the need for reengineering and then reviews the literature under the following headings: What is a Business Process?, The definition of BPR, How does BPR differ from TQM?, Principles of Reengineering, BPR Methodology, BPR Tools and Techniques, Relationship between BPR and IT, Successful examples of BPR, Failure of BPR Projects: Barriers to effective implementation, and The Myths about BPR. The paper finally addresses the current state and future of the BPR concept.

Keywords: Business Process Reengineering; Literature survey; Total Quality Management; Information Technology____________________________________________________________________________________________________

IntroductionIntroduction

As we had entered the 1990s, with globalization and the extraordinary pace of the developments in the IT area, three driving forces; Customers, Competition, and Change (“the three C’s” as described by Hammer&Champy, 1993) resulted with a new approach to the management of processes, termed Business Process Reengineering, that produces radical improvements in performance.

Customers are now very diverse, segmented, and are expectant of consultation; Competition has intensified to meet the needs of customers in every niche; and Change has become pervasive, persistent, faster and in some markets a pre-requisite. Together, these three forces have created a New World for business, such that organizations designed to operate in one environment are inadequately

equipped to operate well in another. Companies created to thrive on mass production stability, and growth cannot be simply improved to succeed in a world where customers, competition, and change demand flexibility and quick response.

The aim of reengineering in this environment is to facilitate the match between market opportunities and corporate capabilities, and in doing so, reengineering represents a radical shift away from Frederick Taylor’s traditional task-based thinking to process-based thinking. What is a Business Process?What is a Business Process?

Davenport&Short (1990) define business process as “a set of logically related tasks performed to achieve a defined business outcome”.

In their view, processes have two important characteristics:

They have customers, that is, processes have defined outcomes, and there are recipients of the outcomes.

They cross organizational boundaries, that is, they normally occur across or between organizational subunits.On the other hand, Hammer&Champy

(1993) define business process as “a collection of activities that takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output that is of value to the customer”.

Examples of processes include: developing a new product; ordering goods from a supplier, creating a marketing plan, processing and paying an insurance claim, etc.

Davenport&Short (1990) have categorized business processes according to three dimensions:

Organizational entities or subunits involved in the process (Interorganizational, Interfunctional, and Interpersonal Processes)

The type of objects manipulated (Physical and Informational Processes)

The type of activities taking place (Operational and Managerial Processes)Different process types require

different levels of management attention and ownership, need different forms of IT support, and have different business consequences.

The Definition of Business Process The Definition of Business Process Reengineering (BPR)Reengineering (BPR)

To be a truly world-class organization, the company needs to work as a team and all the functional areas of the business need to be properly integrated, with each understanding the importance of cross functional processes. As the basis of competition changes from cost and quality to flexibility and responsiveness, the value of process management is now being recognized. The role that process management can play in creating sustainable competitive advantage was termed Business Process Reengineering (BPR), and was first introduced by Hammer (1990); Davenport&Short (1990).

Davenport&Short (1990) have described Business Process Redesign as “the analysis and design of workflows and processes within and between

organizations”. On the other hand, Hammer (1990) has defined Business Process Reengineering as “the use of information technology to radically redesign business processes in order to achieve dramatic improvements in their performance”. Three years later, Hammer&Champy (1993) have promoted the definition of BPR to “the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service, and speed”.

Where there is confusion, it is in both the interpretation and the scope of the organizational change concept. Hammer referred to business process reengineering, while Davenport and Short to business process redesign.

Although, there are still many other authors with variations on these terms, all referring to process changes large and small, the BPR definition of Hammer&Champy (1993) is widely accepted today. This definition comprises four keywords: fundamental, radical, dramatic and processes.

Keyword 1: Fundamental Understanding the fundamental

operations of business is the first step prior to reengineering. Business people must ask the most basic questions about their companies and how they operate: “Why do we do what we do?” and “Why do we do it the way we do?” Asking these basic questions lead people to understand the fundamental operations and to think why the old rules and assumptions exist. Often, these rules and assumptions are inappropriate and obsolete.

Keyword 2: Radical Radical redesign means disregarding

all existing structures and procedures, and inventing completely new ways of accomplishing work. Reengineering is about business reinvention, begins with no assumptions and takes nothing for granted.

2

Business Process Reengineering... is the fundamental rethinking and

radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality,

service, and speed.

Keyword 3: Dramatic Reengineering is not about making

marginal improvements or modification but about achieving dramatic improvements in performance. There are three kinds of companies that undertake reengineering in general. First are companies that find themselves in deep trouble. They have no choice. Second are companies that foresee themselves in trouble because of changing economic environment. Third are companies that are in the peak conditions. They see reengineering as a chance to further their lead over their competitors.

Keyword 4: Processes The final keyword “Process”, though

the most important in the definition, is the one that gives most corporate managers the greatest difficulty. Most business people are not process-oriented; they are focused on tasks, on jobs, on people, on structures, but not on processes.How does BPR differ from TQM?How does BPR differ from TQM?

Total Quality Management (TQM) is an approach to improving the competitiveness, effectiveness and flexibility of a whole organization. It is essentially a way of planning, organizing and understanding each activity, and depends on each individual at each level. TQM involves placing the customer as the focal point of operations. Its aim is to continuously improve process performance in order to satisfy customer requirements. At the center of TQM is the concept of the management of processes, and the existence of internal suppliers and customers within organizations. (O’Neill&Sohal, 1999)

BPR also emphasizes focus on the process. However, BPR is much more radical than TQM. Quality approaches concentrate on improving existing processes; process reengineering starts from scratch to create new processes without the constraints of existing methods, people, technology, management systems, or organizational structures. (Chang, 1994)

The major differences between Quality Improvement and Process Reengineering approaches are provided by Chang (1994) in the following table:

Quality specialists tend to focus on incremental change and gradual improvement of processes, while proponents of reengineering often seek radical redesign and drastic improvement of processes. On the other hand, Davenport&Short (1990) suggest that TQM and BPR can -and should- form an integrated strategic management system within organizations.

BPR MethodologyBPR Methodology

Assuming that a company has decided its processes are inefficient or ineffective, and therefore in need of redesign, how should it proceed? This is a straightforward activity, but Davenport&Short (1990) prescribe a five-step approach to BPR:

Differences Between Quality Improvement (TQM) and Process Reengineering (BPR)

Major FactorQuality-

Improvement Approach

ReengineeringApproach

Senior-management involvement

Hands-on initially, and becoming more reinforcement-oriented

Hands-on, active involvement throughout the effort

Intensity of team-member involvement

Ongoing involvement on an as-needed, part-time basis

Ongoing involvement for a specified duration on a full-time basis

Improvement goals

Focus on incremental improvements over a period of time

Focus on dramatic improvements in a short time frame

Implementation approach

Emphasis on improving current work processes

Emphasis on creating new ways of doing things

Magnitude of organizational change

Limited disruption to existing systems and structures

Radical changes to existing systems and structures

Breadth of focus

Addresses narrowly defined work processes

Addresses processes that span entire business units

Use of benchmark data

Used after process improvement, to compare data

Used on front end, to assist with process selection

Dependence on information systems

Information systems used for data collection and interpretation

Information systems used as a central enabler with on-line access

3

1) Develop Business Vision and Process Objectives: BPR is driven by a business vision which implies specific business objectives such as Cost Reduction, Time Reduction, Output Quality Improvement, Quality of Worklife (QWL)/Learning/Empowerment.

2) Identify Processes to be Redesigned: Most firms use the High-Impact approach which focuses on the most important processes or those that conflict most with the business vision. Lesser number of firms use the Exhaustive approach that attempts to identify all the processes within an organization and then prioritize them in order of redesign urgency.

3) Understand and Measure the Existing Processes: Understanding and measuring the existing processes before redesigning them is especially important, because problems must be understood so that they are not repeated. On the other hand, accurate measurement can serve as a baseline for future improvements.

4) Identify IT Levers: In the broadest sense, all of IT’s capabilities involve improving coordination and information access across organizational units, thereby allowing for more effective management of task interdependence. An awareness of IT capabilities can -and should- influence process design. Therefore, the role of IT in a process should be considered in the early stages of its redesign.

5) Design and Build a Prototype of the New Process: The actual design should not be viewed as the end of the BPR process. Rather, it should be viewed as a prototype, with successive iterations expected and managed. Key factors and tactics to consider

in process design and prototype generation include using IT as a design tool, understanding generic design criteria, and creating organizational prototypes.

These prototypes of business process changes and organizational redesign initiatives, after agreement by owners and stakeholders, would be implemented on a pilot basis, examined regularly for problems and objective achievement, and modified as necessary. As the process approached final acceptance, it would be phased into full implementation.

BPR Tools and TechniquesBPR Tools and Techniques

The various definitions of BPR suggest that the radical improvement of processes is the goal of BPR. They do not, however, refer specifically to the tools and techniques used in reengineering business processes. The result of this void is that authors and consultants alike have pursued the use of many different tools in the search for the best reengineering application. The basic ones among these tools and techniques are briefly summarized in a BPR literature review by O’Neill&Sohal (1999):

Process visualization: While many authors refer to the need to develop an ideal “end state” for processes to be reengineered, some suggest that the key to successful reengineering lies in the development of a vision of the process.

Process mapping/operational method study: Process mapping and operational method studies have been incorporated into tools such as IDEF0 (Integrated Definition Method), DFD (Data Flow Diagrams), OOA (Object Oriented Analysis), and Prince2 (Process Based Project Management).

Change management: Since management of change is the largest task in reengineering, the human side of reengineering, in particular the management of organizational change should not be neglected.

Benchmarking: Benchmarking forms an integral part of reengineering, since it allows the visualization and development of

4

processes which are known to be in operation in other organizations. (Chang, 1994)

Process and customer focus: The primary aim of BPR, is to redesign processes with regard to improving performance from the customer’s perspective. (Chang, 1994)

It should be noted that few authors refer to any single technique when discussing BPR. Most incorporate a mixture of tools, although the nature of the mix depends on the application, whether it be hard (technological) or soft (management of people).

While some authors appear to suggest that tools and techniques are the key, most authors suggest that a strategic approach to BPR, and the development of a BPR strategy is the key to success. There seems little doubt in either the literature or in practice that efforts on the scale of BPR must be strategically driven and supported by senior management if they are to succeed.

Relationship Between BPR and Relationship Between BPR and Information TechnologyInformation Technology

Information Technology (IT) refers to “the capabilities offered by computers, software applications, and telecommunications”. (Davenport&Short, 1990)

Hammer (1990) considers IT as the key enabler of BPR, which he considers as "radical change." He prescribes the use of IT to challenge the assumptions inherent in the work processes that have existed since long before the advent of modern computer and communications technology.

Davenport&Short (1990) argue that BPR requires taking a broader view of both IT and business activity, and of the relationships between them. IT and BPR have recursive relationship. IT capabilities should support business processes, and business processes should be in terms of the capabilities IT can provide. Davenport&Short (1990) refer to this broadened, recursive view of IT and BPR as “the new industrial engineering”.

Business processes represent a new approach to coordination across the firm; IT's promise -and its ultimate impact- is to be the most powerful tool for reducing the costs of coordination. Finally, Davenport&Short (1990) outline the following capabilities that

reflect the roles that IT can play in BPR: Transactional, Geographical, Automatical, Analytical, Informational, Sequential, Knowledge Management, Tracking, and Disintermediation.

On the other hand, Grover&Malhotra (1997) note that conceptually, an organization should be able to redesign a business process without the aid of IT, and that, however many recent successes in reengineering would be difficult to consummate without the enabling IT. Application of shared computing resources and telecommunication technologies, workflow software, and CAD/CAM systems are powerful enablers of process change.

Finally, Attaran (2003) categorizes IT roles in BPR into three phases:

Phase 1 : Before the process design (as an enabler)

Create infrastructures and manage information that support evolving organization

Foster process thinking in organizations

Identify and select process for redesign Participate in predicting the nature of

change and anticipate the information needs to support that change

Educate IT staff in non-technical issues such as marketing, customer relationships, etc.

Participate in designing measures of success/failures of reengineering

Phase 2: During the process design (as a facilitator)

Bring vast amounts of information into the process

Bring complex analytical methods to bear on the process

Enhance employees’ ability to make more informed decisions with less reliance on formal vertical information flows

Identify enablers for process design Capture the nature of proposed change

and match IT strategy to that change Capture and disseminate knowledge

and expertise to improve the process Communicate ongoing results of the

BPR effort Transform unstructured processes into

routinized transactions

5

Reduce/replace labor in a process Measure performance of current

process Define clear performance goals and

objectives to drive the implementation Define the boundaries and scope of the

process

Phase 3: During the implementation (as an implementor)

Create a digital feedback loop Establish resources for critical

evaluation of the reengineered process Improve IT processes to meet

increasing needs of those divisions that have gone under reengineering processes

Institute a program of ‘‘cleanup’’ and damage control in case of failure

Communicate ongoing results of the BPR effort

Help to build commitment to BPR Evaluate the potential investment and

return of reengineering efforts

Principles of ReengineeringPrinciples of Reengineering

Hammer (1990) has described some of the principles of reengineering the business processes as follows:

Organize around outcomes, not tasks. Have those who use the output of the

process perform the process. Subsume information-processing

work into the real work that produces the information.

Treat geographically dispersed resources as though they were centralized.

Link parallel activities instead of integrating their results.

Put the decision point where the work is performed, and build control into the process.

Capture information once and at the source.

Successful Examples of BPRSuccessful Examples of BPR

Until this section, we have examined the theoretical background of BPR. But what does reengineering look like in the real world? Here is how some mainstream companies such as Ford Motor and IBM Credit have done it.

Case 1: Ford Motor Co. reengineering its accounts payable processes (adapted from Hammer, 1990)

In the early 1980s, when American automotive industry was in a depression, Ford’s top management put accounts payable –along with many other departments- under the microscope in search of ways to cut costs.

At that time, Ford’s North American accounts payable department employed 500 people. By using computers to automate such processes, Ford thought it could cut head count by 20%. Pretty good, thought Ford’s executives, until they visited Mazda.

The Ford managers noted that the admittedly smaller company took care of its accounts payable chores with only five people. The contrast –Ford’s 500 people to Mazda’s 5- was too great to attribute just to the smaller company’s size. Finally, to match Mazda’s efficiency, Ford realized that it would have to rethink the entire process in which the accounts payable department took part.

Under the old system, a number of paper documents was processed sequentially by 3 functions who participate in the process indirectly with a work force of 500 clerks to perform many intermediate steps:

(1) The purchasing function issues a purchase order to the supplier and sends a copy to the accounts payable function.

(2) Upon arrival of purchased goods, the inventory function sends a copy of the receiving document to the payable function.

(3) When the invoice from the supplier arrives in the mail, the payable function matches it against the purchase order and the receiving document before issuing payment to the supplier.

(4) Much of efforts are needed to resolve frequent discrepancies between the documents, and a total of 14 data items must be checked in the process.

6

Ford’s new accounts payable process looks radically different. Accounts payable clerks no longer match purchase order with receiving document, primarily because the new process eliminates the invoice entirely. With a work force of only 125, the 3 functions participate in the process directly by accessing a shared database, eliminating many intermediate steps and sequential flow of paper documents. The new process looks like this:

(1) The purchase order is entered into the shared database by the purchasing function.

(2) Upon receiving goods, the inventory function accesses the database. If a match is found, the goods are shipped and the status of the order in the database is updated. Otherwise, the goods are returned to the sender.

(3) The payable function routinely accesses the database to prepare payment checks for orders that have changed status, and invoices from suppliers are eliminated.

(4) Matching and discrepancy resolution of paper documents are no longer needed, and only 3 data items need to be checked in the process.

The basic concept of the change at Ford is simple. Payment authorization, which used to be performed by accounts payable, is now accomplished at the receiving dock. And the result is a 75% improvement in head count.

Case 2: IBM Credit Co. reengineering its credit approval process (adapted from Hammer&Champy, 1993)

IBM Credit Corporation is in the business of financing the computers, software, and services that the IBM Corporation sells. The IBM Credit's operation comprises of five steps as follows:

(1) When an IBM field sales representative called in with a request for financing, one of the operators in the central office wrote down the request on a piece of paper.

(2) The request was then dispatched to the credit department where a specialist checked the potential borrower's creditworthiness, wrote the result on the piece of paper and dispatched to the next link in the chain, which was the business practices department.

(3) The business practices department was in charge of modifying the standard loan covenant in response to customer request. The

special terms to the request form would be attached to the request if necessary.

(4) Next, the request went to the price department where a pricer determined the appropriate interest rate to charge the customer.

(5) Finally, the administration department turned all this information into quote letter that could be delivered to the field sales representative.

This entire process consumed six days on average. From the sales representative's point of view, this turnaround was too long that the customer could be seduced by another computer vendor. Furthermore, no one would tell where the request was and when it could be done.

To improve this process, IBM Credit tried several fixes. They decided, for instance, to install a control desk, so they could answer the sale representative's question about the status of the request. That is, instead of forwarding the request to the next step in the chain, each department would return the request to the control desk where an administrator logged the completion of each step before sending out the request again. This fix did indeed solve the problem, however, at the expense of adding more time to the turnaround.

Eventually, two senior managers at IBM Credit took a request and walked themselves through all five steps. They found that performing the actual work took in total only ninety minutes. Clearly, the problem did not lie in the tasks and the people performing them, but in the structure of the process itself.

In the end, IBM Credit replaced its specialists - the credit checkers, pricers and so on - with generalists. Now, a generalist processes the entire request from beginning to end. But, how could one generalist replace four specialists? The old process design was, in fact, found on a deeply held (but deeply hidden) assumption: that every bid request was unique and difficult to process, thereby requiring the intervention of four highly trained specialists. In fact, this assumption was false; most requests were simple and straightforward: finding a credit rating in a database, plugging numbers into a standard model, pulling clauses from a file. These tasks fall well within the capability of a single individual when he or she is supported by an easy-to-use computer system. IBM Credit

7

therefore developed a new, sophisticated computer to support the generalists. In most situations, the system provides guidance and data to generalists. In really tough situations, he or she can get help from a small pool of real specialists who are assigned to work in the same team.

The new turnaround becomes four hours instead of six days. The company achieved a dramatic performance breakthrough by making a radical change to the process. IBM Credit did not ask, "How do we improve the calculation of a financing quote? How do we enhance credit checking?" It asked instead, "How do we improve the entire credit issuance process?" And the result was a 90% improvement in cycle time and 100 times (not 100%) increase in productivity (# of deals).Failure of BPR Projects:Failure of BPR Projects:Barriers to effective implementationBarriers to effective implementation

Downsizing and restructuring means doing less with less. Reengineering, in contrast, means doing more with less. It is a refreshing new approach to doing business and there is plenty of evidence that it works well -even spectacularly- at times. Performance gains of 50 to 100 percent are common for some reengineered processes.

However, despite all the energy, money, and efforts spent by companies trying to make their organizations’ reengineering efforts successful, reengineering is still an unfulfilled promise. Hammer&Champy (1993) estimate (unscientifically) that 70% of organizations that undertake reengineering fail to achieve any results. This is true, not because the concept is flawed, but because of implementation problems. Attaran (2003) describes the common barriers to effective implementation of BPR projects as follows:

Misunderstanding of the concept: Lack of understanding the concept cause managers label any organizational change as reengineering which results with a failure to appreciate the promise of reengineering.

Misapplication of the term: Reengineering is not cheap, and it cannot be successful without a continuous improvement process.

Lack of proper strategy: A major reason for the high failure rates of BPR efforts is that the efforts are not connected to the corporate goals.

Unrealistic objectives: Reengineering always takes longer than expected, always involve more people resources than are available, and always presents problems no one anticipates.

Management failure to change: Lack of leadership is a frequent cause for the high failure rate of BPR projects.

Failing to recognize the importance of people: Many companies who attempt reengineering focus on process design and ignore or underestimate the importance of people.

IS failure to change: IT can be one of the greatest barriers to BPR. Many reengineering efforts have been stopped because radical change would require IS redesign. Resistance on the part of IS personnel has more often been a failure in implementation than an enabler.

The Myths about BPRThe Myths about BPR

Besides the common barriers to effective implementation BPR described by Attaran (2003), as time passes, some myths concerning the BPR concept also represent obstacles in front of BPR projects. The seven myths of BPR described by Grover&Malhotra (1997) are as follows:

Myth 1: “Reengineering is a radical one-time approach” is changing as many firms are not willing to invest the money and time to implement change from a “clean state”.

Myth 2: “Reengineering involves breakthrough performance gains” is being challenged as benchmarking and measurement of these gains can prove elusive.

Myth 3: “Reengineering enables change primarily through IT” is being moderated by the numerous organizational innovations involving people, jobs, skills and structures that facilitate process-oriented behaviors.

Myth 4: “Reengineering should focus on cross-functional core business processes” is fine, but many piecemeal improvements within functions can also add up to significant change and have proven very successful.

Myth 5: “Reengineering enhances individual capacities through empowerment and teams” is all well and good but many process-change projects are being defended based on cost objectives achieved through

8

downsizing with few opportunities for retraining.

Myth 6: “Reengineering can use a standardized set of methods touted by armies of consultants” is being questioned given that no standardized approach exists to date.

Myth 7: “Reengineering must be conducted from the top down” is being challenged since often detailed understanding of process design resides with people who do the work. The Current State and Future Of The Current State and Future Of Reengineering Reengineering

Many companies considered reengineering to be the productivity breakthrough of the 1990s. American businesses spent more than US$ 30 billion on reengineering projects in 1994, and as much as US$ 50 billion in 1995 and 1996. Reengineering efforts have produced a wide range of results. Some users achieved large cost reductions, higher profits and throughput, etc. In many of these firms, IT played an important role in process redesign. Many innovative IT applications stem from a combination of breakthrough ideas and from modifying the ideas that have succeeded or failed in other companies. (Attaran, 2003)

Grover&Malhotra (1997) claim that the future of reengineering is difficult to evaluate without considering the current business trends. A global economy has mandated greater operational effectiveness and efficiency, and imposed tremendous pressures for cost reductions. These pressures have cut across different segments of the economy, and greatly impacted the operations of service and manufacturing firms. Unfortunately, many corporations have responded by performing major workforce reductions under the aegis of reengineering. Such efforts are not strategically driven, and lead to firms losing vital components of the workforce that will make them creative and productive in the long run. Such a response compromises future competitiveness and is doomed to fail, as is also being documented for a large proportion of unsuccessful reengineering projects.

On the other hand, Hammer (1999) states that with the advent of the Internet, a new wave of reengineering efforts have come up to the stage that exploit the power of

communications, just as earlier reengineering efforts capitalized on the PC and shared databases. The Internet blurs the boundaries between companies by allowing work to be done wherever it is done best. Hammer (1999) concludes that the S-curve of first-generation business process reengineering took a decade to get liftoff; however the new wave is taking less than half that time.

Finally, Champy (2002) argues that BPR was 1990s remedy for sluggish corporations that lacked customer focus and competitive ability. Today, he sees reengineering as only a beginning. In this decade, businesses will need to continue by using technology to add customers, suppliers, and other partners to the process redesign mix. The redesign of work will be between a company and its customers, suppliers and partners. He calls this process X-engineering— crossing organizational boundaries. Companies such as Cisco, Dell, Intel and Solectron are examples of successful X-engineering implementations.

ConclusionConclusion

This study has presented a survey of the literature on Business Process Reengineering. It first discussed the need for reengineering and then presented a review of the literature on the definition of BPR, how it differs from TQM, its principles, methodology, tools and techniques, relationship with IT, successful examples, barriers and myths. The paper finally addressed the current state and future of BPR.

The concept of BPR has originated in the early 1990s and has achieved popularity amongst businesses in a very short period of time. Now it is going through its second wave with the great pace of the advent in telecommunications.

What is clear from the review presented in this paper is that although there seems to be confusion in the literature as to what constitutes BPR, there is a consensus on the fact that reengineering requires creative thinking. It requires a new perspective on the part of management—may be even a new philosophy…

9

ReferencesReferences

Attaran, M., (2003, October). “Exploring the relationship between information technology and business process reengineering,” Information & Management.

Champy, J., (2002) ”X-Engineering the Corporation: Reinventing Your Business in the Digital Age,” Warner Books, New York.

Chang, R.Y., (1994). “Improve processes, reengineer them, or both?,” Training and Development 48 (3), pp. 54–58.

Davenport, T.H. & Short, J.E. (1990 Summer). "The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign," Sloan Management Review, pp. 11-27.

Grover, V., Malhotra, M.K., (1997). “Business process reengineering: A tutorial on the concept, evolution, method, technology and application,” Journal of Operations Management 15 (3), pp. 193–213.

Hammer, M. (1990, July-August). "Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate," Harvard Business Review, pp. 104-112.

Hammer, M., Champy, J., (1993). “Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution,” Harper Business, New York.

Hammer, M., (1999, April). “Reengineering At Net Speed - The First Wave Of Business Process Revisions Took About A Decade; The New Wave Is Taking Less Than Half That Time,” InformationWeek, p.176.

O'Neill, P., Sohal, A., (1999, September). ”Business Process Reengineering A review of recent literature,” Technovation, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 571-581

Ilda Tanoglu is currently an M.A. candidate in the Department of Management Information Systems at Bogazici University, Istanbul. She received her B.S. from Department of Computer Technology and Programming in 1999, and B.A. from Faculty of Business Administration in 2003 at Istanbul University. She has authored several articles in school

journals, gave seminars and conferences in the IT area and received the second best project award with “Evleniyoruz.com” in the “E-commerce and New Economy Project Contest” in Middle East Technical University, Ankara in 2001.

Her research areas include, e-business and e-government applications, operations research, artificial intelligence, project management, time management, and

business process reengineering.

10