International Journal of Operations & Production ManagementFactors characterising the maturity of BPR programmesR.S. Maull D.R. Tranfield W. Maull

Article information:To cite this document:R.S. Maull D.R. Tranfield W. Maull, (2003),"Factors characterising the maturity of BPR programmes",International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 Iss 6 pp. 596 - 624Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570310476645

Downloaded on: 16 December 2014, At: 22:36 (PT)References: this document contains references to 67 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2030 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Majed Al-Mashari, Mohamed Zairi, (1999),"BPR implementation process: an analysis of keysuccess and failure factors", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 87-112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637159910249108S.M. Disney, D.R. Towill, (2003),"Vendor-managed inventory and bullwhip reduction in a two-level supplychain", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 Iss 6 pp. 625-651 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570310476654Maximilian Röglinger, Jens Pöppelbuß, Jörg Becker, (2012),"Maturity models in businessprocess management", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 328-346 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151211225225

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 196377 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Factors characterising thematurity of BPR programmes

R.S. MaullSchool of Business and Economics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

D.R. TranfieldCranfield School of Management, Cranfield, UK, and

W. MaullSchool of Education and Life Long Learning, University of Exeter,

Exeter, UK

Keywords Business process re-engineering, Factor analysis, Implementation, Empirical study

Abstract Addresses the implementation of business process re-engineering (BPR) programmesin 33 public and private organisations wishing to improve performance. By reviewing the existingliterature, the research presented here began by identifying ten dimensions along which BPRprojects might be measured. This research then uses these dimensions to investigate two researchquestions. Uses factor analysis based on quantitative data to address these questions. The factoranalysis identified three independent aspects of BPR implementation: strategy, process and cost.These terms were then used in labelling three characteristic approaches, strategic BPR, process-focused BPR and cost-focused BPR. To investigate causality we re-visited seven of the originalorganisations which had been in the early stages of implementation. Preliminary results indicatethat managers might avoid the naturalistic tendency towards slow or stalled BPR maturity byintervening in a strategic sense at an earlier stage of implementation, thus bringing anorganisation to a mature BPR programme more quickly.

IntroductionBusiness process re-engineering (BPR) as an approach to performanceimprovement was established in 1990 (Hammer, 1990; Davenport and Short,1990). It is a controversial approach with many authors highly critical of someof its methods and assumptions. For example, Grint and Case (1998) in theircritique of the bellicose language associated with BPR, claim that it is a US-ledmanagement consultancy approach that is a reaction against the dominantJapanese management practices. For Grint and Case BPR is associated with aviolent rhetoric. They quote Hammer as using phrases such as “taking an axeand a machine gun to your existing organisation”; “re-engineering will requirea lobotomy”; and “if senior management is serious about reengineering theywill shoot you” (Grint and Case, 1998). This is then somewhat paradoxicallylinked to a utopian view “re-engineering can lead you to a promised land”.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

This paper results from research work carried out on two EPSRC grants, GR/K67328, “UKexperiences in business process re-engineering: a scoping study” and GR/L41479 “Amethodology for the re-engineering of business processes”. The authors acknowledge theconsiderable amount of work carried out by Doctors Stephen Childe and Barry Mills in collectingsome of this data.

IJOPM23,6

596

International Journal of Operations &Production ManagementVol. 23 No. 6, 2003pp. 596-624q MCB UP Limited0144-3577DOI 10.1108/01443570310476645

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

De Cock (1997) also draws heavily on the discourse of BPR. He claims that ifBPR is to influence organisations its “meaning must be socially negotiatedwithin the context of particular concrete activities”. Critically appraising thediscourse and rhetoric of BPR is important, for it contributes to definition andscoping of the field. This research can be seen as complementary in that itadopts a practitioner sensitive view, using terminology drawn from extensiveempirical work in a variety of public and private organisations. In this sensethe work reflects a distinctly managerial perspective.

Further controversy surrounds whether or not BPR, as an approach toperformance improvement has been successful. Some claim success given theright conditions (Harvey, 1994) while others claim failure rates as high as 70per cent (Laudon and Laudon, 1998). Unsurprisingly, some have described it asnothing more than a passing fad (Verespej, 1995), a view not shared by Francisand Macintosh (1997). In their view this was because organisations were beingrequired to move away from the hierarchical, functional, command and controlmanagement model which had been dominant, and BPR was a fundamentaltool contributing to that re-organisation. They foresaw that BPR wouldundergo name changes and modifications to its structure and approach, butconcluded “it cannot be ignored” (Francis and Macintosh, 1997, p. 361).

As Francis and Macintosh (1997) predicted, interest in BPR has remainedhigh in both academic and practitioner communities. In 1998 IJOPM produceda special edition on BPR (Vol 18 No. 9 and 10). Through 2000 to 2002 there havecontinued to be regular contributions in the journal relating to BPR in (see forexample, Belmiro et al. (2000), Kuwaiti and Kay (2000), Silvestro and Westley(2002)). Overall, there have been over 200 academic papers related to BPR since1999 across a range of journals and from several different managementdisciplines and themes, including change management, quality managementand logistics. The practitioner community has also continued to adopt BPR.For example, McCabe and Knights (2000, p. 74) state that “far from having died,re-engineering is increasingly being used by management to rationalise anddescribe a variety of innovations irrespective of their content.”.

However, much of the recent reported work (not least those views reported inthe special edition of IJOPM) concentrates on different facets of BPR.Predominately this has tended to focus on the “technology push” aspects, forexample the many articles on enterprise resource planning and BPR (Solimanand Youseff, 1998; Martin and Cheung, 2000; Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000a, b), orhas taken a strong organisational change/human factor perspective (McAdamand Donaghy, 1999; Zucchi and Edwards, 2000; Bright, 1999). Researchintegrating the various aspects of BPR, such as Evans et al. (1998) andAl-Mashari and Zairi (2000a, b), has tended to take a theoretical approach,typically providing comprehensive checklists with little empirical evidence, yetoffering guidance for practitioners seeking to implement BPR.

This research attempts to fill a gap in the literature on BPR which hastended to focus on discrete aspects of BPR implementation and where it has

The maturityof BPR

programmes

597

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

taken a more integrated theme has not embedded that approach with aninvestigation into what has taken place in practice. This relative lack ofempirical research into the integration of the elements of BPR implementationwas the inspiration for the research reported in this paper.

In some ways our study and results might be interpreted as a furtherexample of the importance of strategic issues in change management using aparticular change introduction vehicles. We explore this in discussion later.However, the prime focus on business process change, which may bedistinctive to BPR leads us to caution. For example Belmiro et al. (2000) foundthat many practitioners misunderstood the business process element and usedthe term when describing generic re-engineering activities. We set outspecifically to address BPR issues, and the extent to which our results might begeneralised and applied to other change vehicles remains problematic.

Themes and dimensions of BPR implementationIn their brief history of BPR Francis and Macintosh (1997) review some of thediscussion points associated with a BPR project. These include: labels,approaches, tools, techniques, the definition of a business process, the role of ITand the scope and timing of BPR projects. All of this is predicated on their viewthat BPR as a subject area has yet to mature and there is still “much debate onwhat constitutes BPR”. In the following year Motwani et al. (1998), in anextensive review and classification of the BPR literature, classified BPRresearch into four streams:

(1) Definitions and overview of BPR.

(2) Normative studies of BPR – mainly produced by practitioners.

(3) Conceptual models for assessing and implementing BPR.

(4) Assessment and successful implementation of BPR across sectors.

Motwani et al. (1998) concluded by pointing out some directions for future BPRresearch, stating that “managers need to know the levers of BPR that they canmanipulate to make organisational wide improvements.” To enable managersto know this, they identified the need for further work in all four streams. Wehave focused this work on streams three and four. This paper attends to both ofthese areas of need.

In examining the literature, we extracted five themes each of which has beenargued to be central to effective implementation:

(1) Taking a strategic approach.

(2) Integrating performance measurement.

(3) Creating business process architecture.

(4) Involving human and organisational factors.

(5) Identifying the role of information technology (IT).

Each of these is discussed below.

IJOPM23,6

598

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Taking a strategic approachThe importance of aligning any BPR project with business strategy has beenstrongly emphasised in the literature. For example Guha et al. (1993), Kaplanand Murdock (1991), Harrison and Pratt (1993) and Parnaby (1993), all specifythe importance of this view.

More recent authors agree. For example Attaran and Wood (1999, p. 754) intheir review of BPR case examples of success state, as a useful guideline forother firms to follow that the “Re-engineering effort should be driven by aclearly defined strategic mission”. Pritchard and Armistead (1999) in theirlessons from European business suggest opportunities from which thepractitioner community could benefit. They place primary importance on thelinking of business process management (BPM) with strategic programmes,citing BT as good practice in this area. Al-Mashari and Zairi (1999, p. 93), intheir considerable review of success factors in BPR implementation, point outthat a “consideration of the strategic context of growth and expansion, creatinga top-level strategy to guide change and a careful alignment of corporatestrategy with BPR strategy are crucial to the success of the BPR efforts”.

We considered two dimensions to be important in strategic alignment. Thefirst was the alignment of the BPR project within the overall business strategy(Attaran and Wood, 1999; Pritchard and Armistead, 1999; Al-Mashari andZairi, 1999). This was reflected by the degree of involvement in the project.

Dimension 1 – strategy: (1) localised involvement-(5) broad involvement. Theextent to which the BPR programme was a company-wide strategic initiative ora more localised relatively low-level programme (such as one that which wasundertaken in one department or site).

The second dimension concerns the extent of the alignment of the overallbusiness strategy with the business environment. Strategic advantage may beseen as predominantly determined “outside-in”, largely by market positioning(the “competitive forces” perspective; Porter, 1980) or predominantly “inside-out”, largely by the exploitation of firm-specific resources (the “resource-basedview” (Penrose, 1959; Rumelt, 1994; Teece, 1984; Wernerfelt, 1984)). This latterview has been explored in a manufacturing context by Tranfield and Smith1998 and Gagnon 1999).

Dimension 2 – strategy: (1) single point-(5) dual point.The extent to whichacross the company the programme was seeking to address solely externalrequirements (e.g. customer need, market need) or was also focused onexploiting internal competencies and developing future capabilities.

Integrating performance measurementThe requirement to develop an integrated set of performance measures thatspans all the business processes within the organisation has been proposed byGuha et al. (1993), Jones (1994), Rummler and Brache (1990) and Kaplan andMurdock (1991). Without an integrated set of measures it is possible to optimise

The maturityof BPR

programmes

599

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

one area of the business process but not the system overall. This has the effectof simply moving the bottleneck to other business areas.

More recently Kuwaiti and Kay (2000), in an empirical study based inBahrain, looked at the importance of performance measurement systems (PMS)in the introduction of BPR. They suggest that “a relevant PMS (PerformanceMeasurement System) in the BPR context is one that takes into account the factthat people work in teams and produce final output for a customer”. In effect,this is arguing for a PMS that spans the whole process. They conclude theirempirical study by summarising that their results, “confirm previouslyunsubstantiated beliefs that any organisation should seriously consider thedevelopment of a PMS that focuses on strategic aims before embarking on anyre-engineering projects” (Kuwaiti and Kay, 2000, p. 1425).

In addition to the strategic alignment of the performance measures asecondary issue is the driving force and focus of the BPR project. Forexample, Chan and Peel (1998), in their investigation into the cause andimpact of re-engineering, point out 37 re-engineered organisations to theimportance of both the external and internal focus of the BPR project. In theirview organisations need to rethink their strategies to recognise that while thecustomer has the “upper hand in the customer/producer relationship”, thisplaces an increasing emphasis on service quality. Further, they recognise theimportance of cost reduction in BPR, noting that “corporate giants like GEand IBM, right down to the small entrepreneur, are looking for ways to reducecosts”. Similarly, Attaran and Wood (1999) point out the need andopportunities for both cost reduction and revenue growth as drivers forre-engineering efforts.

Our review identified three dimensions under the theme of performancemeasurement. The first concerns the importance of aligning performancemeasures with strategic measures (Guha et al., 1993; Jones, 1994; Rummler andBrache, 1990; Kaplan and Murdock, 1991; Kuwaiti and Kay, 2000).

Dimension 3 – performance measures: (1) localised-(5) strategic. The extentto which the BPR project measures of performance were integrated with acompany’s critical success factors or were project based and largelyindependent of strategic direction.

The second and third dimensions within performance measurement relate tothe key drivers of BPR projects, for many projects have a strong focus on eithercost reduction and/or service improvements (Chan and Peel, 1998; Attaran andWood, 1999).

Dimension 4 – cost focus: (1) little focus on cost reduction-(5) strong focus oncost reduction.The extent to which the BPR programme was focused on costreduction.

Dimension 5 – service improvement: (1) little service focus-(5) strong servicefocus. The extent to which the company was explicitly intending to improvecustomer service through their BPR programme.

IJOPM23,6

600

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Creating business processes architectureBPR differs from many other approaches to performance improvement becauseit recognises that business processes span both internal and externalorganisational boundaries. Indeed, the focus on business process appears to bea crucial aspect of the novelty in BPR (Belmiro et al., 2000). A major means ofextending business process knowledge within an organisation is throughbusiness process architecture, with such an architecture viewing all thebusiness processes in an organisation systemically. There are two alternativeapproaches to developing business process architectures: company specificarchitectures and generic architectures (sometimes sector specific). Whateverapproach is adopted the emphasis is on integration (Rhodes, 1994). Many haverecognised the importance of defining a business process architecture,including Meyer (1993), Kaplan and Murdock (1991), Davenport (1993) andHarvey (1994). In recent years a number of more generic business processarchitectures have been made available. In a wide-ranging discussion ofenterprise reference architectures, Smart et al. (1999, p. 471) point out that“examples of reference architectures can be found for computer integratedmanufacturing (CIM) initiatives (AMICE, 1993; Williams, 1994), integratedinformation systems projects (Scheer, 1992), and for enterprise modelling.While the application areas of these architectures are different, the unifyingfactor of ‘integration’ can be identified”.

Two dimensions stood out as important in creating process architecture inBPR projects. The first concerned the extent of deployment (Belmiro et al., 2000;Meyer, 1993; Kaplan and Murdock, 1991; Davenport, 1993; Harvey, 1994).

Dimension 6 – process architecture: (1) none-(5) widely deployed. The extentto which a company had defined and deployed a process architecture.

The second dimension concerned the extent to which the design of thearchitecture was system-wide (Smart et al., 1999; Rhodes, 1994).

Dimension 7 – process architecture: (1) isolated unit-(5) systemic. The extentto which a company had designed a process architecture that encompassed thewhole organisation and the interconnections between business processes, orhad only emphasised a local and isolated process architecture.

Involving human and organisational factorsAl-Mashari and Zairi (1999) state that “successful BPR implementationrequires fundamental organisational change in terms of organisationalstructure, culture and management processes”. Changes in organisationalstructure and management have been addressed by Kaplan and Murdock(1991), Hirschhorn and Gilmore (1992), Earl (1994) and Harrison and Pratt(1993). Suggested improvements include the creation of process owner teams(POTs), changes in organisational structure and new work methods. Biazzo(1998) also suggests that one aspect of BPR is that “change is revolutionary”consisting of “the passage from functional units to process teams”. He goes on

The maturityof BPR

programmes

601

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

to point out that “the process team represents the application of classicalorganizational theory through the creation of self-contained tasks” (Biazzo,1998, p. 1004).

A second dimension associated with human and organisational factors inBPR is the issue of changing organisational culture (see for example McCabe,1998). Al-Mashari and Zairi (1999) advocate that one of the key factors inincorporating BPR within an organisation is the “cultural adjustmenttechniques needed by management to facilitate the insertion of newlydesigned processes and structures into working practice”.They argue thatempowerment as part of a BPR project will push decisions down the levels ofthe organisation and “establish a culture in which staff feel more responsibleand accountable”(Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999, p. 89). Ahmed and Simintiras(1996) agree, concluding that BPR programmes are likely to lead to “changedorganisational culture; a culture driven by a new agenda and behaviour”(Ahmed and Simintiras, 1996, p. 86).

We concluded that two key dimensions were important concerning humanfactors. The first concerned changes to the organisational structure (Al-Mashariand Zairi, 1999; Kaplan and Murdock, 1991; Hirschhorn and Gilmore, 1992;Earl, 1994; Harrison and Pratt, 1993).

Dimension 8 – structural reconfiguration: (1) sustain existing-(5) changeexisting. The extent to which the BPR programme aimed to change thereporting structure of the organisation.

The second dimension addressed the deeper underlying platform, theorganisational culture and its relationship to the BPR programme (McCabe,1998; Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999; Ahmed and Simintiras, 1996). The concept ofculture is a complex and potentially problematic construct. Consequently, weadopted Schein’s (1984, p. 3) definition of culture “the pattern of basicassumptions that a given group has invented, discovered or developed inlearning to cope with its problems of internal integration and externaladaptation”.

Dimension 9 – cultural change: (1) sustain existing-(5) change existing. Theextent to which a company sought to change culture through the BPRprogramme.

Identifying the role of ITThe crucial role of IT in BPR programmes has been identified by manyauthors. Davenport and Short (1990), Grover et al. (1993) and Dennis et al.(1994), have all approached BPR from an IT perspective. In case studies Coleet al. (1993), Housel et al. (1993) and Short and Venkatraman (1992) describesuccessful applications of IT underpinning the business processes in Milacron,Pacific Bell and Baxter’s Healthcare respectively.

On the whole, the role of IT in BPR implementation has been thoughtimportant, but also contentious. For example, Soliman and Youseff (1998) have

IJOPM23,6

602

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

pointed to the crucial importance of IT within the BPR implementation. Theyargue that “BPR relies heavily on the use of it to create radically differentworking methods to achieve improvements”, and that “in BPR IT is an activeagent of change” (Soliman and Youseff, 1998, p. 886). On the other hand,however, Ahmed and Simintiras (1996, p. 86) point out “increasingly studieshave found that information technology does not feature as a critical enabler ofre-engineering success”.

Given that our investigation centred on the success of the implementation ofBPR programmes, we concluded that our focus should be on the extent towhich IT actually enabled or constrained programmes (Ahmed and Simintiras,1996).

Dimension 10 – effect of IT: (1) did not enable-(5) enabler. This indicates theextent to which IT had or had not been used to enable the BPR programme.

BPR maturityThe final object of the study was BPR maturity. We grouped the organisationsinto one of five positions:

(1) Group 1 – represented those organisations who were in the early phaseof project planning. These organisations were typified by one companywho reported that “Big boy consultants were telling organisations tore-engineer their processes”. They were considering what type of projectto launch and which components the project should have. In their case ITwas crucial and they were still thinking about the appropriate strategy.Alternatively, some BPR projects were at an early stage because they

had become bogged down by internal political issues. One typicalcompany complained that “we are dealing with different cultures, onedefinition of a process will be different to another, and that doesn’tmatter on paper but when we want to bring two big departmentstogether we are going to have a problem. It’s not something we canenforce, we must think of it as a business opportunity”.Organisations in this grouping constituted the least mature group

insofar as they were in the first phase of their BPR project. They weredeveloping the project plan, defining the project goals and objectives,specifying tasks, resources and budgets. They were considering thepotential obstacles and barriers and the general scope of the project.

(2) Group 2 – these organisations had moved on from project definition andhad begun executing their programme. This grouping representedorganisations which we characterised as “work-in-progress” in that theyhad carried out some activity but which had not yet gone on to completethe project.A typical example was a company who had recently begun a 14-month

project looking at the feasibility of BPR. In their case consultants hadrecently completed four months As-Is modelling and identified some

The maturityof BPR

programmes

603

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

costs and potential bottlenecks. This had been a limited feasibility studywhich had stalled slightly “as the board cannot see their jobs in the newprocess oriented structure”.

(3) Group 3 – these organisations had moved on from execution and hadrecently completed the BPR project or were in the final stages ofimplementation.A typical example was a company whose BPR programme had

developed from a previous total quality management programme. Sincethen they had tried to adopt what they termed “managing performancethrough processes”. They were heavily focusing on deploying theprocess architecture and target measures for processes. Due to the size ofthe business this was complicated and time-consuming. They werecompleting the roll-out of the new process and the associated employeetraining at the time of our data gathering.

(4) Group 4 – these organisations had moved on from a completed BPRproject and were in the process of capturing the knowledge gained.A good example of this was an organisation that had already achieved

significant benefits of £4.5 million from the re-engineering of their orderfulfilment process. They were now taking this forward and consideringthe implications for process owners, process team leaders, processre-engineering managers, process metrics and the effect on customerrelations. However, their biggest concern was the impact onorganisational culture. They described their organisation as “2000employees who all think for themselves, where if they spot anopportunity the will take it and run with it”. Their concern was that acomplete re-engineering of the whole business might ruin that culture.

(5) Group 5 – these organisations had moved beyond assessing what theyhad learned from their BPR project and were using the knowledgegained to re-engineer the whole business.A typical example was the company which had very recently

completed a large-scale business-wide re-engineering programme. Intheir terms the project attacked process and culture at the same time.That is their re-engineering had the technical elements of a process-wideinfrastructure, strongly underpinned with an object-based IT system.This had also affected the organisation structural arrangements. Theyexplained “there were 36 grades, 20 layers of management, now there arefour role types”. All of this was driven from a clear mission of improvedcustomer service.

There are some limitations associated with the notion of project maturity asoutlined and defined above. First, the categorisation is necessarily imprecise.Ideally, we would have preferred to define maturity tightly using an objectivemeasure such as elapsed time, number of staff involved, size of budget, etc.

IJOPM23,6

604

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

However, some organisations had been considering their project plans,budgets, staffing, facilities etc. for many months, while others in the sametimescale had pushed through to implementation. Some organisations withlarge teams and budgets were still at the outset, other organisations had acomplete implementation with a smaller tighter knit team. For some this mightbe explained as a function of organisational size, while for others, suchvariation may have more to do with an organisation’s readiness to change. Inconsidering how maturity might be measured, we toyed with the idea ofcombining elapsed time, size of team, etc. with some weighting for readiness tochange. However, this led to even further definitional problems and would haveadded considerable complexity to the research design and resultinginstrumentation. In the event we opted to take a phenomenological approachand asked individual organisations to estimate their own assessment onprogramme maturity using the structure and definitions provided above. Thisgave an overall judgement which we checked later from our interview data. Inonly one case of the 33 responses was a significant incompatibility foundbetween these two datasets.

The second problem was that the movement along the maturity axis maynot be linear. Thus, for example, if a variable doubled on average for each stepin the maturing process the linear correlation would be weak. Any assumptionthat the phases of the maturing process are equispaced on the maturity axismust therefore be treated with some caution, the axis representing an ordinalmeasure only.

Recognising this, we rejected the mechanistic methods of linear correlationfor the more sophisticated approach of analysing the scatter plots, grouped bymaturity category, and plotting the movement of the group mean. This wasthen plotted against the three independent axis which resulted from the factoranalysis (see later). In short we made no assumptions about the linearity ofmaturity or otherwise and have carried out no analysis which depends on theassumption of linearity.

Research methodResearch questionsGiven that we set out to identify empirically the characteristics of BPRimplementation we developed two research questions:

RQ1 What are the relationships (if any) between the dimensions identified?That is, are all the dimensions independent or do they group, and ifthey group what are the characteristics of these groups?

RQ2 What are the relationships (if any) between the dimensions identifiedand the maturity of a BPR implementation? If the dimensions group,are there any relationships between the groups and the maturity of theBPR implementation?

The maturityof BPR

programmes

605

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Answers to these questions are important for both industry and academia. Forindustry they may provide some guidance on why some BPR implementationsare more successful than others. For academia answers to these questionsmight integrate the various dimensions of BPR to go beyond the ratherpiecemeal and discrete approaches which have so far focused on IT, humanfactors, process architectures, etc.

Sample of organisationsA wide variety of organisations that had identified themselves asimplementing BPR (either by presenting experiences at commercialconferences, publishing in the daily or business press or sendingrepresentatives to BPR practitioner workshops) were selected. Theseincluded organisations from the service, construction and manufacturingsectors, as well as organisations from the public sector. Sizes of companyranged from 500 to over 170,000 employees, although most of the organisationswere large (. 1,000 employees). The sample included both organisations withprogrammes of considerable longevity (over five years old) and those whichwere at the earliest planning stages.

Because this research was essentially exploratory in nature, it was thoughtappropriate to use organisations drawn from a range of sectors (Motwani et al.,1998) to search for more significant issues which might have generalsignificance for those initiating and implementing BPR projects. However,given the limited nature of the sample, we thought it not appropriate toexamine our data from a sectoral perspective, focusing instead on therelationship between project maturity and the ten dimensions outlined earlier.

The list of participating organisations by sector is shown in Table I.

Unit of analysisThe unit of analysis was the individual company and specifically the BPRproject within the individual company.

Data collectionWe used the ten dimensions as variables in a data collection instrument. Weasked representatives from each organisation to locate their organisation on a

n

Process industries 7Manufacturing 9Service sector 11Public sector 3Retail 1Utility 1Construction 1

Table I.By industry sector

IJOPM23,6

606

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

five-point ordinal scale with respect to each dimension. Further discussion ofhow the data were collected and moderated is provided below (see also researchmethods). An example of using the ordinal scale to develop a comparison forbusiness process architecture is given in Figure 1.

This fieldwork was conducted in 33 organisations. In all, it consisted of aninterview with an individual or team which had overall responsibility for theBPR project within the organisation. The purpose of the fieldwork was twofold,each company visit enabled us to build a brief case study, and also to gather theinformation to locate the company on each of the ten dimensions.

Within each organisation representatives of the BPR team were asked todescribe their project using a “time-line”, beginning with an explanation of why

Figure 1.An example of acategorisation for

process architecture

The maturityof BPR

programmes

607

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

they began the project and outlining the major stages within it. If any of the tenkey dimensions had not been covered by the end of the interview, then therespondents were asked to comment on those specifically, with respondentsself-reporting their position. “Time-line” data were recorded and extensivefieldnotes were kept.

The “time line” method focused on which activities were undertaken andwhen, and the perceived rationale and purpose for each. Where possible, theseperceptual data were checked and validated with company documentation andhistorical record. The advantage of such a data collection technique was that itallowed respondents to unveil their implementation data in a natural fashionby “telling the BPR story”. Recording the data also facilitated validation at theend of the interview when respondents were asked to check through theresearch material for factual inaccuracies or other required changes. Thisserved to increase the quality of data collected.

To structure the data gathering we also used a set of pro-formas based onthe ten dimensions. A team of three experienced researchers carried out thewhole data collection exercise. This ensured considerable consistency withinthe data collection process, and helped the research team in contrastingperceptions of programmes one with another, thus introducing a furtherelement of validation into the research.

It is also important to note that in the first instance, it was left to theorganisations themselves to decide their position on each scale. Later, theresearch team examined these responses, and based on comparisons acrossorganisations assessed their relative positions. However, only in one case was acompany’s maturity reclassified, a re-categorisation from a “three” to a “one”.This company saw themselves as having completed a BPR project, but theconsensus within the research team was that the project was considered to bestill at the project planning stage. Further, there were five other minor changesto company results on the dimensions (i.e. a change of one scale point). In total,something less than 2 per cent of the data (six scores of 360) was adjusted.

Data analysisFactor analysisFactor analysis is a technique both for detecting underlying patterns ofcorrelation in data, i.e. for grouping the variables, and for reducing a largenumber of variables to a smaller number of components. In this case, these maybe used to re-examine the cases. It is an excellent tool in theory building, since itdoes not need any a priori assumptions about the cases or variables involved,and deals robustly with a diverse sample. For these reasons, we adopted factoranalysis to address the two research questions identified earlier.

The ten variables were analysed using principal component analysis withinthe software package SPSS. The correlation and significance matrices areshown in Tables II and III.

IJOPM23,6

608

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Strategy:

local-all

Strategy:

single

point-dual

point

Perform

ance

measures:

localised-

strategic

Perform

ance

measures:

cost

focus

Perform

ance

measures:

service

focus

Process

architecture:

reductionist-

system

atic

Process

architecture:

deployment

Human

factors:

culture

Human

factors:

organisational

design

Inform

ation

technology

Strategy:

local-all

1.000

0.634

0.617

20.342

0.671

0.367

0.488

0.654

0.428

0.070

Strategy:

single

point-dual

point

0.634

1.000

0.530

20.400

0.499

0.573

0.521

0.524

0.550

0.153

Perform

ance

measures:

localised-

strategic

0.617

0.530

1.000

0.011

0.347

0.573

0.725

0.688

0.574

0.004

Perform

ance

measures:

cost

focus

20.342

20.400

0.011

1.000

20.483

20.220

0.050

20.124

0.069

20.328

Perform

ance

measures:

servicefocus

0.671

0.499

0.347

20.483

1.000

0.373

0.433

0.690

0.179

0.277

Process

architecture:

reductionist-

system

atic

0.367

0.573

0.573

20.220

0.373

1.000

0.531

0.260

0.635

0.109

Process

architecture:

deployment

0.488

0.521

0.725

0.050

0.433

0.531

1.000

0.707

0.579

0.022

Human

factors:

culture

0.654

0.524

0.688

20.124

0.690

0.260

0.707

1.000

0.333

0.064

Human

factors:

organisational

design

0.428

0.550

0.574

0.069

0.179

0.635

0.579

0.333

1.000

0.104

Inform

ation

technology

0.070

0.153

0.004

20.328

0.277

0.109

0.022

0.064

0.104

1.000

Table II.Principal

componentsanalysis correlation

matrix

The maturityof BPR

programmes

609

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Strategy:

local-all

Strategy:

single

point-dual

point

Perform

ance

measures:

localised-

strategic

Perform

ance

measures:

cost

focus

Perform

ance

measures:

service

focus

Process

architecture:

reductionist-

system

atic

Process

architecture:

deployment

Human

factors:

culture

Human

factors:

organisational

design

Inform

ation

technology

Strategy:

local-all

0.000

0.000

.026

0.000

0.018

0.002

0.000

0.006

0.350

Strategy:

singlepoint-

dual

point

0.000

0.001

0.011

0.002

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.198

Perform

ance

measures:

localised-

strategic

0.000

0.001

0.477

0.024

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.491

Perform

ance

measures:

cost

focus

0.026

0.011

0.477

0.002

0.110

0.392

0.245

0.352

0.031

Perform

ance

measures:

servicefocus

0.000

0.002

0.024

0.002

0.016

0.006

0.000

0.160

0.059

Process

architecture:

reductionist-

system

atic

0.018

0.000

0.000

0.110

0.016

0.001

0.072

0.000

0.273

Process

architecture:

deployment

0.002

0.001

0.000

0.392

0.006

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.452

Human

factors:

culture

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.245

0.000

0.072

0.000

0.029

0.363

Human

factors:

organisational

design

0.006

0.000

0.000

0.352

0.160

0.000

0.000

0.029

0.282

Inform

ation

technology

0.350

0.198

0.491

0.031

0.059

0.273

0.452

0.363

0.282

Note:Correlation

matrixsignificance

(one-tailed)

Table III.Principalcomponentsanalysis correlationsignificance matrix

IJOPM23,6

610

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

The standard tests for sampling adequacy were applied and yielded a value of0.668 for the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy and anapproximate Chi-Square of 190.652 for Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, which, withdf of 45 is significant at p , 0.001. The data were thus accepted as suitable(Hair et al., 1984).

Three components corresponded to eigenvalues of greater than unity, so arotated solution of three components was obtained using VARIMAX. Theloadings of the rotated solution are shown in Table IV, with values ,0.3suppressed. Figure 2 shows the factor composition in graphic form. Table IVshows that strategy: dual/single point loads negatively on Factor 3, so for thepurposes of the diagram only (and to help understanding considerably), the signsof the variables composing this component have been reversed. The discussionwhich follows has the direction of Factor 3 in the same sense as in Table IV.

From Figure 2, we can identify three types of BPR project from the factoranalysis of the data.

Type 1 we have called strategic BPR (SBPR). SBPR combines a focus on thechanging of organisational culture, with an inclusive approach to developingthe strategic objectives of the project and a BPR project focused on improvingservice delivery. Additionally, the performance measures for the project arestrategically aligned, and the business process architecture is widely deployed.Also, but of lesser importance, the strategic focus includes an element ofcompetency development.

In short, a strategically aligned project with a focus on improving servicedelivery which includes everyone in changing their attitudes and behaviour.

Type 2 we have called process-focused BPR (PBPR). PBPR includes anattempt to change the organisational design to focus more on the businessprocess (e.g. the use of POTs) with a systemic process architecture – a clearconcentration on the process. This is combined with two less important issues,the performance measures for the project are strategically aligned and thebusiness process architecture is widely deployed and to a lesser extent againthe strategic focus includes an element of competency development.

Component 1 2 3Variable SBPR PBPR CBPR

Human factors: culture 0.909Strategy: local-all 0.786Performance measures: service focus 0.780 20.455Human factors: organisational design 0.891Process architecture: reductionist-systematic 0.827Performance measures: localised-strategic 0.595 0.635Process architecture: deployment 0.599 0.610Strategy: single point-dual point 0.493 0.571 20.356Performance measures: cost focus 0.837Information technology 20.704

Table IV.Rotated component

loading matrix

The maturityof BPR

programmes

611

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Type 3 we have termed cost reduction BPR (CBPR). CBPR has a focus on costreduction, where IT is a considerable constraint and the strategic focus is singlepoint, i.e. responding to market requirements. In effect, this might beunderstood as the much criticised downsizing BPR approach, focusing on animmediate market need.

Integrating factors with groupsNext, we brought together the factor analysis with the analysis of companyproject maturity. These results are shown in the scatter plots in Figure 3.

We developed a mean for each of the factors, SBPR, PBPR and CBPR foreach group. To re-iterate:

(1) Group 1 – represented “still thinking”.

(2) Group 2 – organisations which had carried out some activity.

(3) Group 3 – organisations which had very recently finished a BPRprogramme.

(4) Group 4 – organisations which had finished a programme and were inthe process of capturing the knowledge gained.

(5) Group 5 – organisations which were using the knowledge gained fromthe BPR programme to re-engineer the whole business.

Applying the results of the factor analysis to the maturity of BPR groupingsproduces Tables V and VI.

Figure 2.Venn diagram showingfactor composition

IJOPM23,6

612

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Figure 3.Scatter plots of

organisations accordingto BPR maturity onfactors 1, 2 and 3

GroupMean factor 1score (SBPR)

Mean factor 2score (PBPR)

Mean factor 3score (CBPR)

1 20.99 20.84 20.042 20.19 0.10 0.173 20.08 20.10 0.234 0.67 0.55 0.275 0.92 0.31 20.88

Table V.Group mean factor

scores

Group SBPR PBPR CBPR

1 Low Low Medium2 Medium Medium Medium-high3 Medium Medium Medium-high4 Medium High Medium-high5 High High Low

Table VI.Summary of

findings

The maturityof BPR

programmes

613

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Tables V and VI show that as organisations move along the maturity axis theyincrease the extent of SBPR and PBPR while decreasing the extent of CBPR.This indicates that the more mature BPR projects have a strategic alignmentand a process focus (through process architecture and POTs) whilst the lessmature programmes are focusing on responding to market needs and costreduction.

However, the data are worthy of a more intensive analysis. Investigating thethree scatter plots in Figure 4 we can observe that in the SBPR/PBPR (2a)scatter plot that the progression between the groups 1 through 4 is positive andalmost linear on factors 1 and 2. That is, as a company progresses along thematurity axis it tends to show increasing levels of SBPR and PBPR. There aretwo major changes. In moving from group 1 to group 2 there is a substantialincrease in PBPR and an increase in SBPR. In moving from group 3 to group 4there is a jump in SBPR activity and a smaller increase in PBPR activity. Thatis, organisations in group 4 exhibit much more of a strategic focus thanorganisations in group 3. In moving from group 4 to 5 there is a very marginalincrease in strategic activity and a small regression of PBPR. So how can thismovement from group 4 to group 5 be explained?

The analysis of second and third scatter plots (b and c) provide theexplanation. In the SBPR/CBPR scatter plot we can observe that therelationship is very marginally positive and almost linear for groups 1 through4 i.e. that is there is a very slight increase in cost focus as organisations movethrough maturity. However, the relationship between groups 4 and 5 is nearlyorthogonal to the 1, 2, 3, 4 progression. That is organisations in group 5completely lose their cost focus. In the third scatter plot PBPR/CBPR there is asimilar finding. Groups 1 to 4 have an almost linear progression with themovement between groups 4 to 5 being almost orthogonal to the relationshipbetween groups 1 to 4. Indeed in this case there is also a small regression inPBPR, as can be observed in Figure 4.

In summary, as organisations progress through stages of maturity 1, 2 and 3then they increase their strategic and process focus substantially while slightly

Figure 4.Scatter plots oforganisations accordingto BPR maturity onfactors 1, 2 and 3

IJOPM23,6

614

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

increasing their cost focus. Organisations in this stage of progression arefocusing on strategic alignment and organising around business processes.From 3 to 4 the major movement is in the extent of the strategic focus withsome increase in process focus. From 4 to 5 there is effectively no increase instrategic focus and slight fall back in process focus and a major regression incost focus. Our view was that these issues were particularly interesting in thatthey resonated and have similarities with research and practitioner accountsconcerning the maturity of performance initiatives over the last 25 years inmanufacturing (see discussion below).

The main limitation with factor analysis is that it is essentially static. Itprovides a correlation analysis which enables an explanation of a snapshot ofthe phenomenon under investigation. It does not suggest causation and so is inno sense predictive. These are important concerns, for if a company wishes tobecome more mature in its BPR project what steps should it take?

Further interviewsWe decided to revisit organisations and re-interview their management teamsto see whether or not they had made any progress on their projects since ourinitial contact. We chose our organisations on the basis of theoretical sampling,including some who had a low score (level 1) and some who had scored at theintermediate level (2 or 3) on the maturity axis. Our rationale for this was thatthere would be little point in further exploring organisations with higher scores(fully mature programmes) as they would have had little opportunity toprogress further. However, our intention was to include both low andintermediate scoring organisations in order to identify whether or not there wasa difference in the final performance between the two.

Choosing organisations for the follow-up research reflects the nature anddifficulty of empirical research in organisations. Eleven out of the original 33organisations had either merged or been taken over. A further threeorganisations were excluded as they were already in group 4 or 5. Of theremaining 19 we chose seven organisations which were in a variety of differentpositions from their groupmeans on the factors. We looked for outliers. Figure 5shows initial positions of organisations revisited relative to group means onfactors 1, 2 and 3. Organisations A-G all have differences from the group meanon at least one factor, except for company F. This company provided a modelfor a typical group 3 company.

The original configuration on the three factors is shown in column 2 inTable VII. The table is summarised from Figure 5, which shows the initialpositions of organisations revisited relative to group means on factors 1, 2 and3. We re-interviewed the seven organisations and asked them to outline theextent to which their original BPR programme had matured. Table VIIsummarises their position.

Taken as a whole, organisations A, B, C and D did not progress on thematurity of their projects, although their combination of factors is interesting.

The maturityof BPR

programmes

615

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

On the original analysis organisations B, C and D were close to the mean orhigher than their group mean on PBPR, while being lower on SBPR. CompanyA was the opposite, higher than its group mean on SBPR and lower on PBPR.This suggests that for progression it is necessary to have latent potential inboth SPBR and PBPR. It is insufficient to have potential in just one of these.

Company E had a high PBPR and had completed a project, moving on tostage 3. Looking at Figure 5 it can be seen that, compared with their groupmean, they were a strong outlier on PBPR and slightly backward of the group 2mean on SBPR. This suggests that they compensated for their mid ranking in

Company

Configuration of factorsInitialgroup

Group atfollow-upinterviewSBPR PBPR CBPR

A High Very low Very low 1 1B Very low Close to the mean Close to the mean 1 1C Low Slightly high Low 1 1D Low Slightly high Low 1 1E Mid Very high High 2 3F Middle ranking on all 3 3G Medium Medium Low 3 3

Table VII.Re-visitedorganisations,comparison oforiginal andsubsequentpositions

Figure 5.Chart showing initialpositions oforganisations revisitedrelative to group meanson factors 1, 2 and 3

IJOPM23,6

616

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

strategic alignment with a focus on process changes and cost reduction. Whilethis has led to progression, it will be interesting to re-visit this company yetagain, as this research has indicated that a dynamic more towards SBPR iscrucial for the movement from maturity stages 3 to 4.

Company F, which ranked very much in the middle of the maturityclassification, had stayed still and not progressed. An analysis of its positionsuggests that this is as a consequence of a lack of sufficient strategic directionand alignment.

Company G achieved a medium score on SBPR and PBPR and low on CBPR.From the earlier analysis our prediction would have been that it hadinsufficient latent potential to move group 3 to group 4. The follow-up workindicated that it had remained as a group 3 company. The key to the group 4from group 3 movement is the increase in SBPR. That is, organisations ingroup 4 exhibit much more of a strategic focus than organisations in group 3.Company G had just not put enough effort into their SBPR activity.

There are some tentative conclusions we can draw about this investigationinto causality. For organisations at the outset of their BPR project, the resultssuggest that having a latent potential in either PBBR (company C) or SBPR(company A) is insufficient in itself. It is necessary to have latent potential inboth. For organisations in the middle of implementation (groups 2 and 3)having a latent potential in PBPR has led one company to progress. For theothers we would have predicted that they would remain in the same maturitygroup and they have done so.

What issues for management can we draw from this? Any conclusions mustbe tentative given the difficulties in re-visiting programmes after two to threeyears (although most of the four that were active had only recently closed theproject), and the constraints of a small sample. However we believe there are anumber of points worthy of discussion.

DiscussionThis research has investigated the phenomenon of BPR from a changemanagement perspective, using empirical work to examine the ways in whichmanagers have re-engineered their organisations towards the end ofperformance improvement. It has identified three key factors, combinationsof which can be used to characterise sub-types of BPR. In this sense thefindings offer a first step in “mapping the field” of approaches to BPRimplementation. The three factors offer a language which characterises BPRprogrammes through the identification of predominant characteristics, in muchthe same way that other performance improvement initiatives have been“mapped” for academic and practitioner use (e.g. Smith et al., 1994; Bessant andFrancis, 1999). The purpose and potential outcome of taking such a “strategic”research approach is to facilitate understanding and discussion among bothacademic and practitioner communities.

The maturityof BPR

programmes

617

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

While the factor analysis and the associated taxonomy process is significantand important, the most interesting aspect of this work concerns the relativemovement and strength of these factors in the maturing of BPR programmes.In other words, what is of critical importance is an identification and discussionof the maturity dynamics of BPR programmes, their foci at different stages ofdevelopment, and the evolutionary trajectories on which they embark.

A further point to be made concerning this research, and particularly itsimplications for managers, results from the empirically-led nature of the work.The taxonomy of approaches developed is essentially context free. We had nopreconceptions about the types of BPR project we might find (if any) inpractice. Indeed, the classification of types of BPR project was completed afterall the data had been collected. We were therefore unable to anticipate whichcombinations of the three types of BPR project were deployed (other than posthoc) or in what circumstances, or to take any view on whether or not anyspecific approach to BPR was appropriate. In this sense this research hasinvestigated the natural evolutionary paths taken by organisations when usingthe BPR as a theme for performance improvement, rather than adopting acontingency perspective.

From this perspective, this research can be interpreted as one of numerousthematic approaches to performance improvement which have beenundertaken by organisations over the last 25-30 years. Other well-documented themes have included, advanced technology, integrated systems,total quality management (TQM), teamworking, etc. The dynamics of BPRmaturity outlined in Figure 4 indicate what might be described as the results ofa “natural” evolution rather than a “rational” (Scott, 1981) system ofinterventions. The factor analysis emphasises the importance of taking astrategy focus in moving between stages 3 and 4, and the complete movementout of a cost focus in moving from stage 4 to 5. In reporting from this empiricalresearch base the “naturalistic orientation” taken by practitioners, this doesnot, and should not be taken as normative prescription. Our view is thatorganisations appeared to follow the particular path outlined implicitly,learning as they went, focusing initially on taking a cost reduction/processorientation and only later “discovering” the importance of the more strategicimplications of their undertaking. Having “discovered” this, then they oftendropped their initial emphasis on cost reduction as they uncovered a morecomplete understanding of the strategic significance of the changes envisaged.

To those who have been engaged for many years in understanding andresearching strategic change in organisations, the parallels with earlyperformance improvement activities, particularly in manufacturing, areimmediate. For example, Waterlow and Monniot (1986) in their study of thestate of the art in computer-aided production management found that, whilemodular applications aimed at cost reduction were largely successful and hadled to widespread adoption, full exploitation was proving problematic and a

IJOPM23,6

618

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

more strategic approach was required in order to facilitate this end. Also,Barrar et al. (1989) in their study of MRPII, concluded that success inimplementation was dependent on the recognition of more strategic changes inideology, organisation and management process. Buckingham and Bessant(1990) concur “. . . only by moving beyond seeing technology as a substitutiondevice can organisations develop the flexibility necessary to fully benefit fromintegrated technologies”. Bessant and Francis (1999) in their investigation ofpolicy deployment look at levels of continuous improvement in practice. Theytoo have five levels, of which levels 4 and 5 are described in terms of strategicbenefits and strategic innovation.

In addition to this academic work, consultants have also indicated the“patchy success” of performance improvement initiatives. For example, aslong ago as 1986 Ingersoll Engineers surveyed companies introducing CIM,reporting that only approximately one-half were seen as successful in termsof profitability and overall impact on performance. Likewise, A.T. Kearney(1989) reported in the conclusions of their survey of CIM “. . . to be effectiveas a means of achieving competitive advantage, it [CIM] must beintroduced as part of a new strategic thrust in the organisation”.

In all of these examples of the management of the introduction ofperformance improvement using a variety of technologies, techniques andinterventions, an initial focus on efficiency gain had been replaced with agrowing realisation of the importance of a strategic approach. Our researchreinforces this general picture in terms of BPR implementation, wherebymanagement teams seemingly initiate performance improvement driven by theneed to increase local efficiencies, and only later discover the strategicsignificance of their actions. This general view might be interpreted as bothdisappointing on the one hand, yet providing an opportunity on the other.

It is disappointing in so far as learning which was painstakingly achieved inthe 1980s and 1990s concerning the importance of taking a strategicperspective at the outset of performance improvement programmes seems tohave not been transferred immediately to the particular case of BPR. However,on the other hand, there is no reason why this could not be the case. Ourenquiry into unveiling the “naturalistic” progression of BPR interventionstowards maturity, leads us to the view that there is no reason why, once thenatural dynamics are understood, managers cannot intervene earlier and morepurposefully to progress BPR in a more strategic sense rather more quickly. Inthe same way that organisations in the 1980s and 1990s were able to learn fromexperience concerning the downside of “naturalistic” progression, includingextended implementation timescales and lack of exploitation pay off, somanagers can choose to intervene to increase both the timeliness and strategiceffectiveness of BPR implementation. Intervening as purposeful agents in theirconfigurational roles of organisational architects and systems engineers inorder to obtain speedy and full benefit from BPR programmes requires, in our

The maturityof BPR

programmes

619

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

view, a distinct emphasis on taking a strategic approach to BPRimplementation from the outset. Changing mindset (Gear et al., 1989) from acost reduction/processed-focused view to a more strategic perspective,facilitates the “rational” design of BPR programmes. This can be contrastedwith the more “naturalistic” orientation revealed by our research which webelieve to be the more usual and implicit pattern of implementation.

ConclusionsThis paper set out to address two research questions. What are therelationships (if any) between the discussions of a BPR programme? What arethe relationships (if any) between these dimensions and the maturity of a BPRimplementation?

With regard to the first question we conducted a factor analysis on the dataand the results indicated that there is indeed a relationship between those tenissues that we had identified in the literature. The factor analysis suggests thatthe data combine together to form three forms of BPR. The first form we havecalled SBPR. SBPR combines a BPR project focused on improving servicedelivery, an organisation-wide approach to developing the strategic objectivesof the project with changes to the organisational culture. The performancemeasures are strategically aligned and the business process architecture iswidely deployed.

The second type we have called PBPR. PBPR has as its main focus thebusiness process. It includes the management of the organisationalinfrastructure surrounding the business processes, and the development of awidely deployed systemic process architecture.

The third type we have termed CBPR. CBPR has a focus on cost reduction, inorganisations where IT is a considerable constraint and they are responding toan urgent market requirement. In short it has all the components of thedownsizing BPR approach of which Grint and Case (1998) and De Cock (1997)were so heavily critical.

The second research question addressed the dynamics of BPRimplementation, focusing on the maturity of BPR programme, wherematurity was the dependent variable. This produced some interestingresults. As organisations moved through maturity phases 1 to 3, a focus onSBPR and PBPR appeared dominant. The movement frommaturity phases 3 to4 was characterised by a considerable increase in strategic focus and someincrease in process focus. Subsequently, the movement from maturity phase 4to 5 was not characterised by SBPR or PBPR, but by a significant reduction inCBPR. The relationship between those organisations grouped under maturityphases 4 and 5 was almost orthogonal to the 1,2,3,4 progression. Moving fromphase 4 to 5 is typically characterised by organisations drastically reducing theemphasis on cost reduction that is so clear in the first four phases.

Factor analysis shows relationships not causality. To gain insight intocausal developmental issues, in the second phase of the project we re-visited

IJOPM23,6

620

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

some of the organisations we had visited earlier, to see whether or not thoseorganisations that had latent potential in SPBR and PBPR had moved along thematurity axis. For this follow-up phase we chose organisations that had eithera low or intermediate level of BPR maturity. Those organisations in group 1 ofBPR maturity had not progressed. The results indicated that to progress fromgroup one it is not sufficient to have either latent potential on SBPR or PBPR itis necessary to have latent potential on both. For those organisations at theintermediate levels that had no latent potential, as predicted, had notprogressed. The company that had latent potential in PBPR had progressed.The conclusions from such a small sample can be only tentative, however theydo tend to agree with findings from research into other thematic changeprogrammes. It is also interesting to note that of our original sample of 33organisations, one- third had either merged or had been involved in a takeover.It is conceivable that those organisations carrying out BPR projects were doingso because of some difficulty, or that carrying out a BPR project then madethem an excellent target for merger or takeover. From this restricted sample wecan draw no firm conclusions on the potential of BPR organisations fortakeover, however this does seem worthy of extended future research.

These results resonate with conclusions from research into otherperformance improvement themes such as continuous improvement, TQM,teamworking, MRPII, CIM etc., confirming findings that advancedimplementation and full exploitation require the adoption of a “strategic”approach. It follows from this that guidance for practicing managersimplementing BPR programmes is that if they wish to progress towards fullimplementation maturity, and avoid the criticism of participating in yetanother fad or fashion, they should put considerable effort early in theimplementation into developing a strategically-aligned project. Integratingsuch an orientation with a concentration on the issues of process architectureoffers the potential for speedy progression along the maturity axis. Althoughfor many cost reduction may well be the basis on which many projects areoriginally founded, gaining full benefit and progressing towards maturityrequires a fundamental shift both in managerial mindset and in theconsequential prescribed format of the BPR programme.

References

A.T. Kearney (1989), CIM: Competitive Advantage or Technological Dead End?, consultant report,A.T. Kearney, New York, NY.

Ahmed, P.K. and Simintiras, A.C. (1996), “Conceptualizing business process re-engineering”,Business Process Re-engineering and Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 73-92.

Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (1999), “BPR Implementation process: an analysis of key successand failure factors”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 87-112.

Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (2000a), “Supply-chain re-engineering using enterprise resourceplanning (ERP) systems: an analysis of a SAP R/3 implementation case”, InternationalJournal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management;, Vol. 30 No. 3/4, pp. 296-313.

The maturityof BPR

programmes

621

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

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

AMICE (1993), CIM-OSA: Open System Architecture for CIM, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Attaran, M. and Wood, G. (1999), “How to succeed at re-engineering”, Management Decision,Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 752-7.

Barrar, P., Lockett, G. and Tanner, L. (1989), Decision Processes in the Design Implementation andUse of CAPM Systems in Medium Sized Organisations, Final Report to SERC/ACMEDirectorate, Grant GR/E.

Belmiro, T., Gardiner, P., Simmons, J. and Rentes, A. (2000), “Are BPR practitioners reallyaddressing business processes”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 1183-203.

Bessant, J. and Francis, D. (1999), “Developing strategic continuous improvement capability”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 1106-19.

Biazzo, S. (1998), “A critical examination of the business process re-engineering phenomenon”,International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 18 No. 9/10, pp. 1000-16.

Bright, V. (1999), “Delivering BPR via task groups”, Work Study, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 261-3.

Buckingham, J. and Bessant, J. (1989), “Beyond substitution organisational implications for thesuccessful use of integrated technology, a flexible future? Prospects for employment andorganisation in the 1990’s”, paper presented at the Cardiff Business School Conference.

Chan, P.S. and Peel, D. (1998), “Causes and impact of re-engineering”, Business ProcessManagement Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 44-55.

Cole, C.C., Clark, M.L. and Nemec, C. (1993), “Reengineering information systems at CincinnatiMilacron”, Planning Review, May/June.

Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process Innovation: Re-engineering Work through InformationTechnology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. (1990), “The new industrial engineering: information technologyand business process redesign”, Sloan Management Review, Summer.

De Cock, C. (1997), “It seems to fill my head with ideas”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 7No. 2, pp. 144-53.

Dennis, A., Daniels, R., Hayes, G., Kelly, G., Lange, D. and Massman, L. (1994), Business ProcessRe-engineering with Groupware, working paper, Department of Management, TerryCollege of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Earl, M.J. (1994), “The new and the old of business process redesign”, Journal of StrategicInformation Systems, Vol. 3 No. 4.

Evans, G.N., Mason-Jones, R. and Towill, D.R. (1998), “The scope paradigm of business processre-engineering”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 121-35.

Francis, A. and Macintosh, R. (1997), “The market, technological and industry context ofbusiness process re-engineering in the UK”, International Journal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 344-64.

Gagnon, S. (1999), “Resource based competition and the new operation strategy”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 125-38.

Gear, M.C., Liendo, E.C. and Scott, L.L. (1989), Changing Mind-sets: The Role of the PotentialUnconscious, New York University Press, New York, NY.

Grint, K. and Case, P. (1998), “The violent rhetoric of re-engineering: management consultancy onthe offensive”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 557-77.

IJOPM23,6

622

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Grover, V., Teng, J.T.C. and Fiedler, K.D. (1993), “Information technology enabled businessprocess redesign”, Omega International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 21 No. 4.

Guha, S., Kettinger, W.J. and Teng, J.T.C. (1993), “Business process reengineering: building acomprehensive methodology”, Information Systems Management, Summer.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1984), “Factor analysis”, MultivariateData Analysis with Readings, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall International, London, Vol. 7,pp. 364-420.

Hammer, M. (1990), “Re-engineering work: don’t automate, obliterate”, Harvard Business Review,July-August, pp. 104-12.

Harrison, D.B. and Pratt, M.D. (1993), “A methodology for reengineering businesses”, PlanningReview, March/April.

Harvey, D. (1994), Re-engineering: The Critical Success Factors, Business Intelligence, London.

Hirschhorn, L. and Gilmore, T. (1992), “The new boundaries of the ‘boundary less company’”,Harvard Business Review, May-June.

Housel, T.J., Morris, C.J. andWestland, C. (1993), “Business process reengineering at Pacific Bell”,Planning Review, May/June.

Jones, C.R. (1994), “Improving your key business processes”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 2,pp. 25-9.

Kaplan, R.B. and Murdock, L. (1991), “Rethinking the corporation: core process redesign”, TheMcKinsey Quarterly, No. 2.

Kuwaiti, M.E. and Kay, J.M. (2000), “The role of performance measurement in business processre-engineering”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20No. 12, pp. 1411-26.

Laudon, K.C. and Laudon, J.P. (1998), Management Information Systems New Approaches toOrganisation and Technology, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

McAdam, R. and Donaghy, J. (1999), “Business process re-engineering in the public sector: astudy of staff perceptions and critical success factors”, Business Process ManagementJournal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 33-55.

McCabe, D. (1998), “‘A land of milk and honey’?: BPR equals culture change”, paper presented atthe EGOS International Conference, Maastricht, July.

McCabe, D. and Knights, D. (2000), “The human face of re-engineering in financial services”,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 74-8.

Martin, I. and Cheung, Y. (2000), “SAP and business process re-engineering”, Business ProcessManagement Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 113-21.

Meyer, C. (1993), Fast Cycle Time, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Motwani, J., Kumar, A., Jiang, J. and Youssef, M. (1998), “Business process re-engineering: atheoretical framework and integrated model”, International Journal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 9/10, pp. 832-64.

Parnaby, J. (1993), Business Process Systems Engineering, Lucas Industries, November.

Penrose, E. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Basic Blackwell, Oxford.

Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York, NY.

Pritchard, J.-P. and Armistead, C. (1999), “Business process management – lessons fromEuropean business”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 10-32.

Rhodes, D. (1994), “The business process model of enterprise”, Control, BPICS, February/March.

The maturityof BPR

programmes

623

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Rumelt, R.P. (1994), Toward a Strategic Theory of the Firm in Competitive StrategicManagement, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Rummler, G.A. and Brache, A.P. (1990), Improving Performance: How to Manage the WhiteSpace in the Organization Chart, Jossey-Bass Publishers, Oxford.

Scheer, A.W. (1992), Architecture of Integrated Information Systems: Foundations for EnterpriseModelling, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Schein, E.H. (1984), “Coming to a new awareness of organisational culture”, Sloan ManagementReview, Winter, pp. 3-16.

Scott, W.R. (1981), “Developments in organisational theory 1960-1980”, American BehaviouralScientist, Vol. 24 No. 3.

Short, J.E. and Venkatraman, N. (1992), “Beyond business process redesign: redefining Baxter’sbusiness network”, Sloan Management Review, Fall.

Silvestro, R. and Westley, C. (2002), “Challenging the paradigm of the process enterprise: a casestudy analysis of BPR implementation”, The International Journal of ManagementScience, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 215-25.

Smart, P.A., Maull, R.S. and Childe, S.J. (1999), “A reference model of ‘operate’ processes forprocess-based change”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing,Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 471-82.

Smith, S., Tranfield, D., Foster, M. and Whittle, S. (1994), “Strategies for managing the TQagenda”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 1,pp. 75-88.

Soliman, F. and Youseff, M.A. (1998), “The role of SAP software in business process re-engineering”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 9/10, pp. 886-96.

Teece, D.J. (1984), “Economic analysis and strategic management”, California ManagementReview, Vol. 26 No. 3.

Tranfield, D. and Smith, S. (1998), “The strategic regeneration of manufacturing by changingroutines”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 2,pp. 114-30.

Verespej, M. (1995), “Reengineering isn’t going away”, Industry Week, Vol. 20, p. 42.

Waterlow, G. and Monniot, J.P. (1986), A Study of the State of the Art in Computer AidedProduction Management in UK Industry, ACME Directorate SERC.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5,pp. 171-80.

Williams, T.J. (1994), “The Purdue enterprise reference architecture”, Computers in Industry,Vol. 24 No. 2-3, pp. 141-58.

Zucchi, F. and Edwards, J.S. (2000), “How similar are human resource management practices inre-engineered organisations?”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 214-33.

Further reading

Childe, S. and Maull, R. (1996),UK Experiences in Business Process Re-engineering IMI A ScopingStudy Produced for the Innovative Manufacturing Initiative, Report to the Engineering andPhysical Sciences Research Council, Grant No. GR/K67328, report available from theBusiness Processes Resource Centre, University of Warwick.

Ingersol Engineers (1986), Management Attitudes to Change Results of a MORI Survey, IngersolEngineers.

IJOPM23,6

624

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Marija Radosavljevic. 2014. Assessment of process management maturity in developing countries basedon SAW method. Journal of Business Economics and Management 15, 599-614. [CrossRef]

2. Amy Van Looy, Manu De Backer, Geert Poels. 2014. A conceptual framework and classification ofcapability areas for business process maturity. Enterprise Information Systems 8, 188-224. [CrossRef]

3. Amy Van Looy, Manu De Backer, Geert Poels, Monique Snoeck. 2013. Choosing the right businessprocess maturity model. Information & Management 50, 466-488. [CrossRef]

4. Wiljeana J. Glover, Wen‐Hsing Liu, Jennifer A. Farris, Eileen M. Van Aken. 2013. Characteristics ofestablished kaizen event programs: an empirical study. International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement 33:9, 1166-1201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

5. Maximilian Röglinger, Jens Pöppelbuß, Jörg Becker. 2012. Maturity models in business processmanagement. Business Process Management Journal 18:2, 328-346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

6. Amy Van Looy, Manu De Backer, Geert Poels. 2011. Defining business process maturity. A journeytowards excellence. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 22, 1119-1137. [CrossRef]

7. Jan vom Brocke, Theresa Sinnl. 2011. Culture in business process management: a literature review.Business Process Management Journal 17:2, 357-378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Natasa Vujica Herzog, Stefano Tonchia, Andrej Polajnar. 2009. Linkages between manufacturing strategy,benchmarking, performance measurement and business process reengineering. Computers & IndustrialEngineering 57, 963-975. [CrossRef]

9. Payam Hanafizadeh, Morteza Moosakhani, Javad Bakhshi. 2009. Selecting the best strategic practicesfor business process redesign. Business Process Management Journal 15:4, 609-627. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

10. Andrea Magalhaes Magdaleno, Renata Mendes De Araujo, Marcos Roberto Da Silva Borges. 2009. Amaturity model to promote collaboration in business processes. International Journal of Business ProcessIntegration and Management 4, 111. [CrossRef]

11. Neda Abdolvand, Amir Albadvi, Zahra Ferdowsi. 2008. Assessing readiness for business processreengineering. Business Process Management Journal 14:4, 497-511. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

12. Emad M. Kamhawi. 2008. Determinants of Bahraini managers' acceptance of business processreengineering. Business Process Management Journal 14:2, 166-187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

13. Natasa Vujica Herzog, Andrej Polajnar, Stefano Tonchia. 2007. Development and validation of businessprocess reengineering (BPR) variables: a survey research in Slovenian companies. International Journal ofProduction Research 45, 5811-5834. [CrossRef]

14. M. A. Williams, A. K. Kochhar, C. Tennant. 2007. An object-oriented reference model of the fuzzyfront end of the new product introduction process. The International Journal of Advanced ManufacturingTechnology 34, 826-841. [CrossRef]

15. S. Limam Mansar, H.A. Reijers. 2007. Best practices in business process redesign: use and impact. BusinessProcess Management Journal 13:2, 193-213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

16. Zulfiqar Khan, Rajeev K. Bali, Nilmini Wickramasinghe. 2007. Developing a BPI framework and PAMfor SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems 107:3, 345-360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

17. Cecilia Temponi. 2006. Scalable enterprise systems: Quality management issues. International Journal ofProduction Economics 99, 222-235. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

18. Mihir A. Parikh, Kailash Joshi. 2005. Purchasing process transformation: restructuring for smallpurchases. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25:11, 1042-1061. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

19. Selma Limam Mansar, Hajo A. Reijers. 2005. Best practices in business process redesign: validation of aredesign framework. Computers in Industry 56, 457-471. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Mem

phis

At 2

2:36

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)