W7 - BPR Methodologies

Source / Reference:
1) "BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING: A CONSOLIDATED METHODOLOGY" by Subramanian Muthu, Larry Whitman, and S. Hossein Cheraghi 1991
http://webs.twsu.edu/whitman/papers/ijii99muthu.pdf
2) "A comparision of BPR methodologiesUsing the NIMSAD framework" by Joshua Liem
http://www.met-online.nl/pdf/MET12-4-8.pdf

Subject:
In Lect 7 - Evaluation of existing methodologies
======================================================================
Response:

Introduction

Lots of studies and researches are undertaken to study about why lots of BPR efforts fail in the past decades in spite of the aid of BPR methodologies. People start to question about if the current BPR methodologies are problematic and flawed. In this article, the existing BPR methodologies will be evaluated.


Framework of evaluating BPR methodology - NIMSAD

NIMSAD (NormativeInformation Model-based Systems Analysis and Design) in general is a frame work uses as way to understanding and solving problems. According to NIMSAD, methodologies are evaluated through four elements as following:

- Methodology context
- Methodology user
- Methodology (Problem solving process)
- Evaluation

figure 1: NIMSAD framework (Jayaratna, 1994)

figure 2: NIMSAD phases

The advantages of using this framework to evaluate BPR methodology are:

- not limited to specific methodlogy
- wide of scope
- applicable to reality


Evaluation of BPR Methodologies

Two BPR Methodologies will be evaluated in this section, they are 1) Petrozzo & Stepper's Methodology and 2) Davenport & Short's Methodology.

1) Petrozzo & Stepper

figure 3: Petrozzo & Stepper's Methodology 

Strength:

- Identify the scope of project clearly before implementing the project
- Gather data before making decision to prevent making big errors
- Emphasize the use of innovative technologies
- Clear guidelines are provided before implementation
- Emphasize the importance of restructuring organization to bring about radical changes

Weakness:

- may take a long time to implement the BPR project
- Managers may empower the project, stakeholders may not involved
- Linear process without much evaluation in each stage
- Physical design is not considered

2) Davenport & Short

figure 4: Davenport & Short's Methodology

Strength:

- Process objective is clearly defined which prevent ambiguity
- Key process to be changed is clearly identified
- Emphasize IT as enabler
- Prototype is built before implementation

Weakness:

- Focus on a single process rather than structural radical improvement
- No clear guideline on how the project is implemented
- Linear process without much evaluation in each stage

Conclusion

The common features of existing methodologies are focusing on identifying the project scope and the use of IT. However, how to implement the project physically is normally not modeled. Managers may encounter lots of problems in the implementation stage due to unclear solution.

Furthermore, there are not much evaluation between each stage, which make the BPR project a linear process rather than cyclic process. Since no recursive amendments can be made, many errors may be produced in the latter stage due to unthoughtful ideas in the early stage.

As none of the existing methodologies is a perfect methodology, managers may need to combine the strengths of each methodology into a new methodology and make suitable adjustments in different situations rather than just follow these rigid methodologies.

Gather information about successful BPR projects as references to understand the important factors for BPR projects to succeed may also help to increase the success rate of BPR project.