Week 7 - BPR Methodologies

Source / Reference:

1.      Muthu, S., Whitman, L. and Cheraghi, H. S., 1999. “Business process reengineering: aconsolidated methodology”, Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference onIndustrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice. Retrieved October 19, 2007, from http://webs.twsu.edu/whitman/papers/ijii99muthu.pdf.

Subject:

A comparison between El Sawy’s BPR methodology and Muthu, Whitman & Cheraghi's BPR methodology.

Response:

        The El Sawy’s BPR methodology introduces five phases:

Phase 1: Triggering and executive visioning

If business processes are inefficient, such as much lead-time, late in completed, the business processes reengineering should be triggered as it will increase customers’ satisfaction.

Phase 2: BPR project mobilization

A core BPR team should be formed, thus we should identify HR specialist, process owners, process participants, IT and e-commerce specialists, BPR project sponsor sand BPR facilitators and consultants. The BPR team can allocate resources and hence BPR can run smoothly.

Phase 3: Process redesign

Process redesign comprises of five steps,

1. Scoping
2. Modeling
3. Analysis
4. Redesign
5. Integration

Phase 4: Implementation& organizational transformation

When BPR was implemented, personnel and IT infrastructure should have adjustments according to new business processes.

Phase 5: Monitoring & maintaining

Business processes should be monitored and maintained so that the efficiency and effectiveness of each process can be ensured.

From Muthu, Whitman & Cheraghi's BPR methodology, there are some differences between this methodology and El Sway’s methodology.

 
Muthu, Whitman & Cheraghi's BPR methodology:

Phase 1: Prepare for BPR

Phase 2: Map and Analyze As-Is Process

Phase 3: Design To-Be Processes

Phase 4: Implement Reengineered processes

Phase 5: Improve Continuously

By comparing first three phases of two methodologies, El Sawy’s methodology emphasizes the factors that trigger the BPR and it claims that BPR team is crucial.

The Muthu, Whitman & Cheraghi's BPR methodology claims that the analysis of As-Is process is important that it will provide a correct direction for designing To-Be process. The last phase of El Sawy’s methodology emphasizes monitoring and maintenance. However Muthu, Whitman & Cheraghi's BPR methodology emphasizes improvement of BPR should be done continuously.

The focus of two methodologies is different.