Review of BPR methodologies

This paper presents the advantages and disadvantages of drill a methodological analysis in the context of BPR. It also provides a critique of alive BPR methodologies which erved as a basis for the development of the CONDOR BPR methodology. The paper also presents the main points of the implementation of this methodology to trinity European construction companies. What can a methodology offer to the BPR field? agree to Preece and Peppard (1996), a methodology is simply surmisal put into practice aiming at dealings with real world situations.According to Valiris and Glykas (1999) a BPR methodology should provide a consistent squ be up of techniques and guidelines which pull up stakes enable the bank line change redesigner to reorganise business ctivities and exercisees in an pre fountncy. The hire of a methodology is intrinsic for a human body of cogitates. First, a methodology provides a means of codifying experience, knowledge and ideas, in a form that not alone can be easily applied, solely also can be labeld and tested. Second, a methodology offers a genuine take of organisation, and facilitates planning and monitor.In BPR initiatives, a methodology enables the organisation, on the one hand, to have a ingest picture of its current processes along with their associated problems and, on the early(a), to design the new state of these processes. In addition, by following a certain methodology, BPR re-engineers have the probability to monitor and evaluate the progress of the re-engineering effort. Third, a methodology enables those who argon involved or affected by the BPR to check their tasks and clarify their roles.A BPR methodology which is understandably defined and explained to those who are leading the BPR compute can facilitate the communication surrounded by them, and serve as a large-minded of contract in which all the parties understand their responsibilities and are, therefore, able to monitor the overall process re-engi neering progress. Finally, adoption of a methodology allows a standard set of required skills to be identified and developed. Key skills required for BPR intromit process modelling, organisational development techniques, and skills to deal with shelter to change.There are, however, a number of problems related to the use of a methodology. One important reason which explains the reluctance of developing and exploitation methodologies or models in the BPR context is that the widely sure methodologies are based on how the business processes should change and how the organisation should adapt itself in this change, rather than on the evaluation of urrent practices and on the codification of successful practical experiences (Simsion, 1994).Moreover, the BPR belles-lettres search reveals that there are an increase number of successful re-engineering implementations and case studies using BPR methodologies. Although each business situation has round unique characteristics, an appropr iate methodology will need to allow tor assessment and re-use ot existing successful draw closees and practical experiences. In addition, a methodology hides the danger of restraining creativity and innovation. The last mentioned are crucial elements in he radical thinking during the re-engineering process.By encouraging those who are involved in the reengineering process to be 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). retrospect of existing BPR 239 240 In conclusion, there are many 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 onrush to minimise the negative consequences is not insubordination but a contingency approach tailored to su it the objectives and needs of all organisation or business sector, edifice 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 available, and about of them pursue a similar highroad and exhibit commonalities in key areas (Butler, 1994).Today, an change magnitude number of methodologies, models and tools taken from other disciplines re available in the market, claiming that they are qualified 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 soft systems, hail quality management (TQM), benchmarking, and organisational development. According to a I-JK BPR methodology survey summary findings (Archer, 1996), the number of stages involved in BPR approaches varies greatly, despite the concomitant that they do present key similarities.