Reengineering methodologies share common elements, but simple differences can have a significant impact on the success or failure of a project.


Reengineering tutorials | Best Practices | Bookstore | Yellow Pages | Articles
Full navigation toolbar

 

Welcome to the BPR Tutorial Series

Return to INDEX

Reengineering (BPR) Methodologies

Module Purpose: Compare Reengineering Methodologies

This review looks at methodologies for reengineering business processes after a project area has been identified. Most reengineering methodologies share common elements, but simple differences can have a significant impact on the success or failure of a project.

This module looks only at the highest level methodology components -- the high level steps. At this level, similarities and differences are noted, and each approach is reviewed for the purpose of stimulating thought and discussion around different reengineering approaches.

Reengineering Methodology 1

  1. Describe the project (establish boundaries)
  2. Create vision, values and objectives
  3. Redesign business processes and tools (model)
  4. Evaluate concept (benefits statement)
  5. Plan for implementing the solution
  6. Implement the redesign
  7. Transition to continuous process improvement (measure results)


Reengineering Methodology 2

  1. Define the project
  2. Document as-is processes (diagnose)
  3. Redesign business processes and technology
  4. Develop a cost / benefit analysis
  5. Plan and Implement new processes and systems
  6. Evaluate process performance


Reengineering Methodology 3

  1. Create project prospectus (define project)
  2. Learn from others (customers, associates, benchmarking, technology)
  3. Create vision and design new business process model
  4. Develop enabling technology architecture and organizational model
  5. Perform a gap analysis and prepare a business case for change (benefits and costs)
  6. Define process, systems and training requirements, and plan implementation
  7. Develop and pilot solutions
  8. Implement solution and measure performance


Reengineering Methodology 4

  1. Define project and identify team
  2. Brainstorm new processes and technologies
  3. Analyze and prioritize opportunities (benefit analysis)
  4. Select "best" opportunity and design solution
  5. Develop and trial new processes, information systems and enabling tools
  6. Plan transition and implement solution
  7. Measure results


Common attributes among all four methods:


Unique attributes between all four methods:

Review:

Method 1: overall very strong, but lacks a learning process prior to vision creation. In today's environment, creating a vision, values and goals without knowledge of customer needs, associate needs, competitor and non-competitor capabilities, and technology is somewhat suspect. Common questions that may be asked of the reengineering team include:

It would be difficult to answer these questions if some effort were not made to learn about customers, competitors and technology prior to jumping to the vision process.

Method 1 ends with a transition to a continuous improvement model, which is a real strength for this approach. The best process improvements, whether they are incremental or breakthrough in nature, are most successful when they are implemented in a process management environment.

Method 2: documenting current (as-is) processes is time consuming and rarely useful to a reengineering team as a starting point. This step has the possibility of bogging down the team in today's processes to the extent that they have difficulty thinking creatively about new ways of doing business. Reengineering teams are already constrained by the fact that most if not all of the members are from the same company. There is a natural tendency for the team to think inside the "box" of their culture and operational experiences. Even the best creative processes cannot break down years and years of conditioning, and only separation from this environment and from today's processes produces some out-of-the-box thinking. For reengineering teams the principal value of understanding current processes is to help with a gap analysis that occurs later in the reengineering process.

Method 2 also lacks a vision as the basis for the process redesign work. Lack of a vision or guiding principles can result in difficulty designing and implementing the solution over the life of the project. The ideas or process "breakthroughs" are without foundation in the context of the larger, future view for the organization. When things get difficult during the implementation phase, people may ask, "why are we doing this?" In other words, after time passes, and other players get involved, those breakthrough ideas that seemed so good during the brainstorming session are more and more difficult to defend and implement. Successful reengineering solutions are tied to both the strategic direction for the company as well as a vision for the organization.

Method 3: overall very strong,but lacks transition to continuous improvement model at end of project. Failure to implement a continuous improvement model results in "flash-in-the-pan" reputations for initiatives, and the organization can grow weary of another change, another consultant, another stab in the dark. When an overall process management system with key performance measures is in place, both incremental and breakthrough improvement initiatives are seen as part of a long term effort for business performance improvement.

Method 4: would be significantly faster than methods 1-3, but less likely to produce long-lasting business results. Just gathering a team together and brainstorming, even with the best intentions and tools, lacks substance for new ideas, both from the vision perspective and from the learning perspective. Your best and brightest may have great ideas, but these ideas may pale against the ideas the same team would have if they understood the strategic direction, had profound knowledge of their customer, competitors and technology, and had created a vision -- a future state -- for their organization. Now ask them to create breakthrough processes in this context, and you most likely will be amazed at the difference.

At this level of review, the reader should note that within some of these steps other activities that are not explicitly stated in the bullet list could be performed. However, if key activities are hidden within a methodology's detailed definition, this in itself is a weakness given that many reengineering team members and others in the organization (including the leadership) rarely read the fine print. A strong methodology covers the essential steps in the outline of the approach.

In this short review, four methodologies were compared that give an initial insight into reengineering approaches. These four were chosen not because they are the four best, or even the only four, but because most approaches discussed in the literature and applied by consultants have the general themes discussed here. The best approach for a reengineering team is one they have agreed to as a team, especially when that agreement is based on an in-depth understanding of the tradeoffs and benefits of different business process reengineering methodologies.

Probably the most important questions for this module are:

Should you create a vision prior to beginning process and systems redesign?

Should you document the as-is processes prior to the redesign work?

Should a learning process come before the visioning or redesign activities?

Did early reengineering projects have a high failure rate because of the methodology they used (or lack thereof)?

Sign up to receive free tutorials, announcements and news as a member of our Learning Center community.

Email  

 

Related Reengineering Resources

Reengineering Toolkits and Document Templates
Business Process Reengineering Methodologies
Business Process Reengineering Implementation
Change Management Strategies and Action Planning
Process Management and Improvement
Professional Services, Coaching and Training Offers

Send questions to bpr@prosci.com
More about the Author

HOME

About ProSci. ProSci is a registered trademark of the
Quality Leadership Center, Inc. Copyright 1996-1999, All Rights Reserved.

Tutorial Series | Bookstore | Articles | Books | Benchmarking | Mailing lists | Yellow Pages
Register | Search Other Sites | Comments | Home Page