Review of BPR methodologies

This paper presents the advantages and disadvantages of employ a methodological analysis in the context of BPR. It also provides a critique of existing BPR methodologies which erved as a basis for the development of the CONDOR BPR methodological analysis. The paper also presents the main points of the writ of execution of this methodology to three European construction companies. What buttocks a methodology offer to the BPR field? According to Preece and Peppard (1996), a methodology is simply scheme put into practice aiming at holding with real world situations.According to Valiris and Glykas (1999) a BPR methodology should provide a consistent set of techniques and guidelines which pass on enable the backing process redesigner to reorganise business ctivities and processes in an organisation. The mathematical function of a methodology is essential for a number of reasons. First, a methodology provides a means of codifying experience, knowledge and ideas, in a form that n on only can be easily applied, but also can be evaluated and tested. Second, a methodology offers a certain level of organisation, and facilitates cookery and monitoring.In BPR initiatives, a methodology enables the organisation, on the one hand, to have a light(a) picture of its current processes along with their associated problems and, on the other, to design the new situate of these processes. In addition, by following a certain methodology, BPR re-engineers have the chance to monitor and evaluate the progress of the re-engineering effort. Third, a methodology enables those who be twisting or affected by the BPR to understand their tasks and clarify their roles.A BPR methodology which is distinctly defined and explained to those who are leading the BPR work can facilitate the conference between them, and serve as a kind of contract in which all the parties understand their responsibilities and are, at that placefore, able to monitor the overall process re-engineering p rogress. Finally, word meaning of a methodology allows a standard set of necessary skills to be identified and developed. Key skills required for BPR include process gravelling, organisational development techniques, and skills to deal with resistance to change.There are, however, a number of problems related to the use of a methodology. unrivalled important reason which explains the reluctance of developing and using methodologies or models in the BPR context is that the widely accepted methodologies are based on how the business processes should change and how the organisation should adapt itself in this change, rather than on the military rating of urrent practices and on the codification of successful practical experiences (Simsion, 1994).Moreover, the BPR literature search reveals that there are an increasing number of successful re-engineering implementations and case studies using BPR methodologies. Although distributively business situation has some unique characteristi cs, an appropriate methodology will need to allow tor assessment and re-use ot existing successful approaches and practical experiences. In addition, a methodology hides the danger of restraining creativity and innovation. The latter are authoritative elements in he radical thinking during the re-engineering process.By encouraging those who are have-to doe with in the reengineering process to comply with the requirements of a given methodology, there is a potential risk of restricting the opportunity of optimising the results according to the level required by the methodology (Simsion,1994). Critique of existing BPR 239 240 In conclusion, there are some advantages and disadvantages regarding the use of a specific methodology or model in the re-engineering initiative. Each side demonstrates equally important arguments that affect the organisation.The lternative to using a methodology in an attempt to minimise the negative consequences is non anarchy but a contingency approach tai lored to type the objectives and needs of every organisation or business sector, building on basic principles of planning and monitoring as well as on previous successful working practices. Critique of existing BPR methodologies and models The are many BPR methodologies and models purchasable, and most of them pursue a similar path and exhibit commonalities in key areas (Butler, 1994).Today, an increasing number of methodologies, models and tools taken from other disciplines re available in the market, claiming that they are suitable for BPR initiatives. Ruessmann et al. (1994) reported the results of their research, claiming that BPR methodologies are based on a synthesis of techniques drawn from other disciplines and methodologies such as flocculent systems, total quality management (TQM), benchmarking, and organisational development. According to a I-JK BPR methodology great deal summary findings (Archer, 1996), the number of stages involved in BPR approaches varies greatly, despite the fact that they do present key similarities.