“Is Reengineering and Strategy Implementation Just Another Management Fad or Does It Offer Something of Lasting Value?”

1. 0 ingress Implementation is the ch all told(a)enge that comes at the end of all unused (and old) methods for improving systems. Strategic be after, architecture development, depart heed, total timbre guidance, current information systems technologies, and re-engineering, atomic fig 18 slightly of the c formerlypts that atomic compute 18 be advocated to effect a al-Qaida feeler organisational procedure. Advocates of individually concept, however, fight when questioned somewhat masteryful writ of execution (Deshpande and Parasuraman, 1986).Strategic readiness literature abounds on how to develop a plan, hardly thither is comparatively little said about how to implement a strategicalalal plan once it is veritable. Reengineering is a radical rethinking of an organization and its cross- structural, end-to-end do byes (Hammer, 1993). aft(prenominal) its introduction reengineering had taken corporations by storm. In a survey of over 500 master(prenominal) information officers (CIOs), the average CIO is dissembled in 4. 4 re-engineering projects (Moad, 1993). Walmart (example 1) is seen as one of the masteryful executers of reengineering. condescension the fermentation over reengineering, however, the rate of ill luck for re-engineered projects is over 50 per penny (Stewart, 1993). Hammer and Champy (1993) estimate as overmuch as a 70 per cent ill luck rate. Luthfansa AG (example 2) is one such company. Such is the piazza that reengineering is strike offled as a direction rage. This paper encounters to explore the facets of dodge carrying out, reegineering that and analyze the label of passion is a worthy one or does the dickens offer a stand uping cheer. 2. 0 Literature Re watch over 2. The evolution of reengineering The concept of reengineering was first base presented in two articles published simultaneously by Hammer (1990) and Davenport and Short (1990). Reengineering is a totally new approach with regard to t he ideas and models used for improving occupation Hammer and Champy (1993). The reengineering approach is a result of the combining of concepts from contrasting schools, including strategic IT systems, prize, systems thinking, industrial engineering, and technological mental hospital. The wobble magnitude power of ustomers, competitors and todays constantly changing problem environment, forced many brass instruments to recognise the pauperisation to move away from concentrate on discordant(prenominal) tasks and functions to guidance on much communicated, integrated and co-ordinated shipway of prevail out by looking at trading operations in terms of backup actiones (Davenport, 1993). 2. 2 delineate reengineering Several enquiryers and practitioners prep ar delimitate reengineering in disparate ways with different emphases. The hobby atomic number 18 some of those definitions the rudimentary rethinking and radical re excogitate of ancestry puzzle outes t o happen upon salient improvements in censorious, contemporary measures of performance, such as price, prize, service and speed (Hammer and Champy, 1993, p. 32). a methodical surgical ferment that uses information engineering to radically overhaul chore regale and thereby attain major(ip)(ip)(ip) descent goals (Alter, 1990, p. 32). The fundamental frequency rethinking and redesign of operating work ates and organisational structure, focused on the organisations core competencies, to achieve striking improvements in organisational performance (Lowenthal, 1994, p. 2). During the last tenner, many authors pass produced ideas regarding what reengineering really is. And thus, to conclude that there is only a single theoretical pro stead underpinning reengineering remains debatable. The following table shows that there are three placeable spots to reengineering as suggested by Tinnila (1995), i. e. strategic, practicable and organisational perspectives. pic body-build 1 Summary of definition of reengineering (Khong and Richardson, 2003) Despite the differences in definitions, and terminology, the speech pattern in all hese definitions and in the reengineering - colligate literature, is on redesigning bank line helpes using a radical IT-enabled approach to organisational change. 2. 3 The need for reengineering Reengineering is motivated by international drivers, natural drivers, or some(prenominal). External drivers are related generally to the addd aim of competition, the changes in guests needs, IT changes, and changes in regulations (Grover etal. , 1993). cozy drivers are mainly related to changes in both organisational strategies and structures. External driversThe increasing level of competition in the global market has emphasised the need for organisational innovation to cope with global standards of products and services. reengineering is approached as a cats-paw to improve dramatically backing performance and raise warring p osition (Schnitt, 1993). First National trust of Chicago (example 3), reengineered in entrap to keep up with the stiff global competition Davenport (1993a), also consider that re-engineering is driven by the never-ending needs of guests to look for better services and products.IBM Credit Corp (example 4) reengineered in the main for satisfying the customer or providing superior customer service. Owing to the unsettled changes in the global parentage environment, social life, technological and organisational practices, and economical situations, new rules and regulations are introduced to reflect these changes (Plowman, 1995). Yellow Freight (example 5) decided to reengineer because of outdoor(a) factors related to governmental or political pressure. congenital drivers Many organisational strategic and structural changes are centred on IT-enabled reengineering (Venkatraman, 1993).Parcel Service (example 6), found that they had to improve their engine room in order to survive in the competitive shipping commercial enterprise. Changes in organisational schema whitethorn involve some reengineering motions to bring about the new line of descent desires (Keen, 1991). The desire to reduce cost was one major reason that led First National rim of Chicago (example 7) to reengineer. Changes of capability in terms of runes, methods, skills competencies, attitudes and behaviours drive out also be considered as internal drivers (Plowman, 1995).Arco chemical substance (example 8) is one such company who reengineered to achieve dramatic company-wide improvements, increase organizational efficiencies, and reduce byput measure. Plowman (1995) views vocation transformation as a journey driven by a strategy that links short-term changes to capability in terms of attendes, skills and style, with long changes to position the business among its competitors and customers. Ryder System Inc (example 9). reengineering efforts began with a rethink of its view of the market and a readaption of the companys strategic focus.The following is a figure masking the result of survey (example 10) on the factors that trigger reengineering in the UK pic Figure 2 Factors driving reengineering (Tennant and Yi-Chieh, 2005) The following is a figure showing the result of survey (example 11) on the goal and butts meant to be achieved by dint of reengineering in the UK pic Figure 3 Goals and objectives of reengineering (Tennant and Yi-Chieh, 2005) 2. 4 What characterises reengineering Focus on business subprogrames Reengineering focuses on the core concept of business march or else than on function, product or service.As business dish upes are the personal manner in which work gets done within an organisation, they are a distinguishing diagnostic among organisations (Venkatraman, 1994), and thus a portentous factor stellar(a) to competitive edge (Hinterhuber, 1995). In addition, the elimination of operable bias can only be coveringper done by adop ting process orientation to lucre substantial business improvement (Andreu etal. , 1997). By focusing on core activities, Singapore Airlines (example 12) reengineered efforts are expect to help Singapore grow 8-10 er cent per year until the end of the decade. noneion of radicalness Reengineering involves radical and fundamental changes, and it evolves from the need to recognise that long- set up ways emphasising on figure and cost cutting are being replaced by organisational focus towards improving quality, the customer, and innovation, rather than (Hammer, 1990). Honey vigorous Inc (example 13) in order to keep up with the global competition reenginerined their process from being focused on efficiency to being focued on quality Use of ITHammer (1990) considers IT as a major tool and a fundamental enabler of reengineering efforts and emphasises the need to use modern IT to jut out for its carrying out. IT reshapes and creates new sound business processes in that it has the pot ential to drive on the flow of information betwixt globally-distributed processes, and ensures the availability of instant(prenominal) and consistent information across the business (Tapscott and Caston, 1993). Hesperian Provident (example 14) is a company which is spotted for protracted of engineering.Need for organisational change Reengineering results in change, and triumphful reengineering instruction execution requires fundamental organisational change in terms of organisational structure, burnish and heed processes (Davenport, 1993a). CIGNA engineering (example 15) Services went through a cultural change, from a focus on technology to one on processes and business performance. Change charge is a tool used to manage such a change. 2. 5 Reengineering approaches, methodologies, proficiencys and tools Reengineering approachesReengineering approaches can be viewed found on the different focuses that reengineering efforts may emphasise IT, strategy, quality vigilance, oper ations, and forgivingkind resources (Edwards and Peppard, 1994a). According to Klein (1994), Reengineering is considerationual and believes that having a unified approach to it is impossible. Reengineering methodologies Caterpillar (example 16) tied much of its cost saving success to its reengineering methodology (Paper and Dickinson, 1997). Its methodology is self-opinionated as it provides a disciplined problem-solving approach and acts as a rallying point for everyone involved along the process path.Many structure- base methodologies fork up been proposed for reengineering capital punishment. However, roughly befool common elements and view reengineering efforts as a top-down capital punishment project (Earl and Khan, 1994). Figure 4 summarises the major stages of eight object lesson reengineering methodologies. Figure 4 Reengineering methodologies pic (Kettinger et al. , 1997) Despite the differences among these methodologies, they all confirm that some essential fa ctors moldiness exist, such as strategies and goals cathode-ray oscilloscope feasibility abbreviation of a reengineering project process analysis and mountaining top management consignment and sponsorship fellow feeling of customer requirements and performance measurement integration with TQM and benchmarking recognition of IT capabilities cross-functional teams and intercourse prototyping and process purposeping techniques and organisational change to re-engineer management systems and organisation. Reengineering techniques Kettinger etal. (1997) show that at least 72 techniques are used to verbalize out ctivities related to reengineering projects. These techniques were al almost all developed in other contexts and imported to the reengineering field. Each technique is mapped to their associated stages in the reengineering fabric. and describe some as representative of distributively stage in the framework. pic Figure 5 Framework for Reengineering (Kettinger et a l. , 1997) Kettinger etal. (1997) also suggest an approach of selecting techniques for a specific reengineering project. This approach, however, presumes that a customised methodology has been developed in advance.Based on the objective of their activity, he range 11 groups under which a scrap of techniques are identified. pic Figure 6 Groups of reengineering technique (Kettinger et al. , 1997) 2. 6 system execution of instrument Bartlett and Ghoshal (1987, p. 12) noned that in all the companies they studied the issue was not a abject understanding of environmental forces or inappropriate strategic intent. Without exception, they knew what they had to do their difficulties lay in how to achieve the incumbent changes.Supporting this, Miller (2002) reports that organizations fail to implement more(prenominal) than than 70 percent of their new strategic initiatives. abandoned the import of this area, the focus in the field of strategic management has now shifted from the fo rmulation of strategy to its implementation (Hussey, 1998). There is no agreed-upon and dominant framework in strategy implementation. Concerning this, horse parsley (1991, p. 74) has stated that hotshot chance upon reason why implementation fails is that practicing executives, managers and supervisors do not have practical, yet theoretically sound, models to guide their actions during implementation.Without nice models, they try to implement strategies without a good understanding of the multiple factors that must be reference booked, often simultaneously, to soak up implementation work. Warid Telecom (example 17) precisely fail to their process for this reason when they started operation in Bangladesh According to Alexander (1985), the ten most frequently occurring strategy implementation problems include underestimating the time needed for implementation and major problems surfacing that had not been anticipated, in addition robustious factors in the external environment ha d an adverse impact.Beer and Eisenstat, (2000) states that top-down/laissez-faire senior management style unclear strategic intentions and conflicting priorities an ineffective senior management team poor vertical communication wanton co-ordination across functions, businesses or borders and inadequate down-the-line leadership skills development are also burning(prenominal) reasons for implementation failure . It is recognised that such change requires a share vision and consensus and failures of strategy implementation are essential if competency, coordination and commitment are lacking (Eisenstat, 1993).Biman Bangladesh Airlines (example 18) has been in totters for the last decade due to its poor strategy implementation which can be credited to the above reasons. majestic (1999b, p. 132) has further noted that There is a epoch-making need for detailed and comprehensive conceptual models related to strategy implementation. To date, implementation research has been fairly di sjointed due to a lack of clear models on which to build. There are important similarities between the front frameworks in terms of the attain factors forwarded and the assumptions made.Similarities between frameworks that former researchers have grouped the implementation factors into a pattern of categories as follows context, process and outcomes (Bryson and Bromiley, 1993) planning and design (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984) realizers and enablers (Miller, 1997) capacity, context and operation (Dawson, 1994) content, context, process and outcome (Pettigrew, 1987 Okumus, 2001) framework and process component part (Skivington and Daft, 1991) context and process (Schmelzer and Olsen, 1994) contextual, system and action levers (Miller and Dess, 1996). tetrad areas of groupings emerge from an analysis of the above categories. Considering the role and characteristics of each implementation factor, those 11 implementation factors identified in the first place can further be g rouped into iv categories strategic content, strategic context, process and outcome. Strategic content includes the development of strategy. Strategic context is further carve up into external and internal context. The former includes environmental scruple and the internal context includes organizational structure, finale and leadership. operative process includes operational planning, resource allocation, state, communication and control. take includes results of the implementation process. pic Figure 7 Framework for strategy implementation (Okumus, 2001) 2. 7 Factors related to implementing reengineering The following analyses the reengineering implementation process by reviewing the relevant literature on reengineering efforts. They are categorised into a number of subgroups representing various dimensions of change related to reengineering implementation. These dimensions areFactors relating to change management systems and burnish Change management, which involves al l human- and social-related changes and cultural adjustment techniques needed by management to facilitate the intro of newly-designed processes and structures into working practice and to push-down store effectively with resistance, is considered by many researchers to be a crucial component of any reengineering efforts (Carr, 1993). Effective communication throughout the change process at all levels and for all audiences, is considered a major key to successful reengineering -related change efforts (Davenport, 1993).Discontinues in leadership, and lack of communication modifyd the reengineering failure at Teleco (Example 19) As reengineering results in decisions being pushed down to lower levels, mandate of staff and teams to establish a culture in which staff at all levels feel more responsible and accountable and it promotes a self-management and collaborative teamwork culture is critical for successful reengineering (Mumford, 1995). Empowerment was at the sprightliness of r eengineering Honeywell (example 20) when they reengineered.Training and education in reengineering -related concept, skills, and techniques as well as interpersonal and IT skills, are an important component of successful reengineering implementation (Zairi and Sinclair, 1995). FixCo (example 21) carried out a number of workshops for training the staff about their reengineering process. Factors relating to management competence Sound management processes ensure that reengineering efforts will be implemented in the most effective manner (Bashein et al. , 1994). The most oticeable managerial practices that directly influence the success of reengineering implementation are top management support and commitment, championship and sponsorship, and effective management of risks. Organisational culture influences the organisations ability to adapt to change (Hammer and Champy, 1993). It helps in understanding and conforming to the new values, management processes, and the communication style s (Bruss and Roos, 1993).. Corporation ABC (example 22) needed to create an organizational culture ready to change as they had to redesign their quality systems.Commitment and leadership in the speed echelons of management are often cited as the most important factors of a successful reengineering project (Rastogi, 1994). equal authority and knowledge, and fit communication with all parts in the change process, are important in dealing with organisational resistance during reengineering implementation (Hammer and Champy, 1993). baksheesh level commitment was the key for successful implementation of reengineering in Blue Shield California (example 23)Factors relating to organisational structure As reengineering creates new processes that define jobs and responsibilities across the existing organisational functions (Davenport and Short, 1990), there is a clear need to create a new organisational structure which determines how reengineering teams are going to look, how human resour ces are integrated, and how the new jobs and responsibilities are going to be formalised. Mobil Oil (example 24) had a rethink of there organizational structure in their reengineering.Cross-functional reengineering teams are a critical component of successful reengineering implementation (Johansson et al. , 1993). Teams should be adequately composed (Hagel, 1993). Team members should be experienced in variety of techniques (Carr and Johansson, 1995). Teams should be made up of the great unwashed from both inside and outside the organisation (Hammer and Champy, 1993). self-sufficiency Mutual (Example 25) used cross-functional teams and loss prevention talented to implement the reengineering process Factors related to reengineering project management boffo reengineering implementation is highly dependent on an effective reengineering programme management which includes adequate strategic conjunction, effective planning and project management techniques, appellation of performance m easures, adequate resources, appropriate use of methodology, external orientation and learning, effective use of consultants, expression process vision, effective process redesign, integrating reengineering with other improvement techniques (Zairi and Sinclair, 1995), and adequate identification of the reengineering value (Guha et al. 1993). Honeywell (example 26) would be a prime example in their execution of redesigning their quality measures. As corporeal strategy determines objectives and guidance on how organisational capabilities can be best utilised to wee competitive position, reengineering strategy (Hammer, 1990). Therefore, a consideration of the strategic context of growth and expansion (Bashein et al. 1994), creating a top-level strategy to guide change (Carr, 1993), and careful alignment of corporate strategy with reengineering strategy (Jackson, 1997) are crucial to the success of reengineering efforts. Mitsibushi Electric Corp (example 27) took immense heed in this factor. Factors related to IT root Factors related to IT infrastructure have been increasingly considered by many researchers and practitioners as a vital component of successful reengineering efforts (Brancheau et al. 1996). Effective alignment of IT infrastructure and reengineering strategy, building an effective IT infrastructure, adequate IT infrastructure investment decision, adequate measurement of IT infrastructure effectiveness, straightlaced IS integration, effective re-engineering of legacy IS, increasing IT function competency, and effective use of software tools are the most important factors that contribute to the success of reengineering projects.Connecticut Mutual manners (example 28), reengineered their complete IT infrastructure in order to increase productivity. Figure 8 Factors related to the implementation of reengineering (Al-Mashari and Mohamed, 1999) 2. 8 Definition of furor solicitude crazes are defined as managerial interventions which appear to be in novative, rational, and functional and are aimed at encouraging better organizational performance. 2. 9 Characteristics of fadsCost/benefit analysis One moderator of fad evolution is the cost/benefit of the intervention, although these two variables may significantly differ depending upon whether the organization adopts a short-term or a long-term perspective (Laverty, 1996) as with a long-term perspective may be more apparent to sustain and draw a fad sufficient time to draw and quarter positive benefits, propelling it to trend or joint wisdom status. But short-term gains should also be evident to encourage the resilience needed for long-term rewards to be realized (Chaudron, 1996).Degree of difficulty in implementation Differences between expected ease of implementation and actual ease of implementation will contribute to an organizations desire to persist in the courses of action required by the fad. If a fads implementation process is no more difficult than expected, it is more likely to evolve into a trend. Effectiveness of the fad Effectiveness is measured in terms of realized improvement in operational performance. Following adoption of a fad, firms may chance themselves incapable, effective, efficient, best-in-class, or adult male class.Fads which assist organizations in moving upward on this continuum will likely become institutionalized and mature into a trend or collective wisdom. 2. 10 Life cycle of a fad A significant predictor of whether firms will likely adopt fads is the stage at which the intervention is set(p) in the life-cycle of fads. Fads typically progress through an established life-cycle (Ettorre, 1997), although the length of time required for progression to each of these stages varies (Crainer, 1996). offers significant benefits, in terms of both number and strength is adaptable to the specific needs of an organization addresses the underlying cause of a problem rather than a symptom fits with other common interventions a nd programs in place (for example 29, TQM and MBO programs are antithetical in that their basic tenets are contradictory) and is supported by key users and proponents, as well as by objective assessments of effectiveness 3. 0 Strategy implementation and reengineering in practice The case of Honeywells TotalPlantTM paradigm 3. 1 TotalPlantTM at Honeywell The Honeywell industrial automation and control (IAC) deeds designs world-class systems that enable process-control capability. In 1999, senior management decided to implement a solid ISO 9000-certified quality program in order to unify business and control information to enable global customer satisfaction. This program was named TotalPlantTM. Four critical principles The TotalPlantTM paradigm is based on four critical principles of success (1) outgrowth mapping. suffice mapping is crucial for employees to see the enceinte picture as opposed to focusing exclusively on their role within the procedure. It also creates a common la nguage for dealing with changes to business processes. (2) Fail-safing. season process mapping diagrams the entire flow of a business process, fail-safing is done to diagnose a reproach within the process. (3) Teamwork. Teamwork does not occur naturally. Honeywell encouraged teaming through special workshops, by creating a manufacturing vision that fostered teamwork and by endorsing cross-training. 4) Effective communication skills. Communication of the TotalPlantTM vision is paramount to success. Honeywell provided conflict resolution training to teams to help them deal with conflict in a positive way. (Paper et. al, 2001) 3. 2 Application of literature Honeywell learned a number of lessons as a result of their TotalPlantTM program, all of which have implications for any coming(prenominal) initiatives. They discovered that people are the key enablers of change you must question everything people need a systematic methodology to map processes creating eam ownership and a cul ture of dissatisfaction ensures more employee fight management attitude and behavior can vanquish projects bottom-up or empowered implementation is most effective reengineering must be business-driven and continuous setting stretch goals can facilitate greater employee effort implementation is the real difference between success and failure. Change is a fundamental aspect of reengineering. Top management needs to communicate to its people why the change is necessary and how it will impact everyones current job and future with the company.Sufficient time and resources is dedicated to ensuring that the organization as a hearty understood, wanted and supported change. 4. 0 Conclusion and pass Implying the term fad with reengineering is apparently a moot issue. If taken into context of the definition and characteristics a fad has, reengineering does hold a number of features that creates an aura which surrounds a fad. Its pledge of being strategy which improves performance by i mproving productivity and efficiency and its disguised genius of the ease of implementation does engender staggering delusion to that of a fad.Moreover, there are issues where reengineering would probably go past short when it comes to its exploitation as a trend. Reengineering unremarkably wouldnt fit into an organization culture, in contradictory the management is forced to create new culture where in order to adopt reengineering. Conversely, reengineering does also manipulate features that are a requisite for being a trend or wisdom. If implemented aptly, reengineering does provide significant benefits that simply cant be ignored. Its linkup with improvement in efficiency, productivity, and quality of product or service, is an asset that any company would desire to attain.Furthermore, reengineering does address the underlying cause of the problem and with the support and commitment of top management in its implementation process it can provide a lasting value to a business . Hallmarks, Hewlett-Packard (example 30) are to name a couple of companies who have benefited from reengineering. What really made the difference is proper implementation. As far as strategy implementation, consequently it has to be said that without strategy implementation a company wouldnt be moving forward. What is frigid is a framework that allows proper execution.Unilever Bangladesh (example 31) would be a ideal illustration of successful strategy implementation as for almost half a decade in an unstable economy where constant changes are required. Bibliography 1. Ackere, A. , Larsen, E. , Morecroft, J. (1993), Systems thinking and business process redesign an application to the beer game, European counseling Journal, Vol. 11 nary(prenominal) 4, pp. 412-23 2. Alter, A. (1990), The corporate make-over, CIO, Vol. 4 no(prenominal) 3, pp. 32-42. 3. Al-Mashari, Majed and Zairi, Mohamed (1999). BPR implementation process an analysis of key success and failure factors, contrast Process instruction Journal passel 5 Issue 1. 4. Andreu, R. , Ricart, J. , Valor, J. (1997), Process innovation changing boxes or revolutionizing organizations? , Knowledge and Process focussing, Vol. 4 none 2, pp. 114-25. 5. Arendt, C. , Landis, R. , Meister, T. (1995), The human side of change part 4, IIE Solutions, pp. 22-7. 6. Alexander, L. D. (1985), successfully implementing strategic decisions, Long Range Planning, Vol. 18 no(prenominal) 3, pp. 91-7 7. Alexander, L. D. 1991), Strategy implementation nature of the problem, in Hussey, D. (Eds),International Review of Strategic care, outhouse Wiley & Sons, Chichester/ tender York, NY, Vol. 2 none 1, pp. 73-96. 8. Bartlett, C. A. , Ghoshal, S. (1987), Managing across borders new strategic requirements, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 28 zero(prenominal) 2, pp. 7-17. 9. Barrett, J. (1994), Process visulization getting the vision right is key, entropy Systems Management, pp. 14-23. 10. Bashein, B. , Markus, M. , Riley, P. (1994), Precondition for BPR success and how to prevent failures, discipline Systems Management, pp. 7-13.. 11.Bhattacharya, A. , Gibbons, A. (1996), Strategy formulation focusing on core competencies and processes, championship Change & Re-engineering, Vol. 3 no. 1, pp. 47-55. 12. Bruss, L. , Roos, H. (1993), Operations, readiness and culture dont reengineer without considering them, Inform, pp. 57-64 13. Bryson, J. , Bromiley, P. (1993), Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation of major projects, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 no 2, pp. 319-37. 14. Carr, D. , Johansson (1995), high hat Practices in Re-engineering What organizes and What Doesnt in the Re-engineering Process, McGraw-Hill, untried York, NY 15.Chaudron, D. (1996), The battle of buzzwords, HRFocus, pp. 13-14. 16. Chu, W. , Lin, W. , Le, V. , Weicher, M. , Yu, D. (1996), concern process re-engineering analysis and recommendations, credit line enquiryers Interests (BRINT), BPR Papers, ht tp//www. netlib. com/bpr1. htmisit 17. Crainer, S. (1996), The rise of guru skepticism, Management immediately, pp. 48-53. 18. Davenport, T. (1993), Process Innovation Re-engineering Work through Information Technology, Harvard business line School Press, Boston, MA 19. Davenport, T. (1993), Need radical innovation and continuous improvement?Integrated process re-engineering and TQM, Planning Review, pp. 6-12 20. Davenport, T. (1994), The business change and re-engineering interview, production line Change & Re-engineering, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 2-6 21. Davenport, T. (1995), Business process reengineeering where its been, where its going, in Grover, V, Kettinger, W. (Eds),Business Process Change Re-engineering Concepts, Methods and Technologies, Idea Group Publishing, London, pp. 1-13 22. Davenport, T. , Short, J. (1990), The new industrial engineering information technology and business process redesign, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 11-27 23. Dawson, P. (1994), organis ational Change, A Processual Approach, Sage Publications, London 24. Deshpande, R. , Parasuraman, A. (1986), Linking Corporate goal to Strategic Planning, Business Horizons, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 28-37 25. Dickinson, B. (1997), Knowing that the project clothes have no emperor, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 261-7 26. Earl, M. , Khan, B. (1994), How new is business process redesign? , European Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 20-30.. 27. Edwards, C. , Peppard, J. (1994), Business process redesign hype, ope or hypocrisy? , Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 9 pp. 251-66 28. Edwards, C. , Peppard, J. (1994), Forging a link between business strategy and business re-engineering, European Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 407 16 29. Ettorre, B. (1997), Whats the near business buzzword? , Management Review, pp. 33-5 30. Grover, V. , Teng, J. , Fiedler, K. (1993), Information technology enabled business process redesign an integrated planning framework, O mega The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 433-47. 31. Guha, S. , Kettinger, W. , Teng, T. 1993), Business process re-engineering building a comprehensive methodology, Information Systems Management, pp. 13-22 32. Hagel, J. (1993), marrow squash process redesign keeping CPR on track, The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 1, pp. 59-72 33. Hall, J. , Rosenthal, J. , Wade, J. (1993), How to make re-engineering really work, Harvard Business Review, pp. 119-31. 34. Hammer, M. (1990), Re-engineering work Dont automate, deplete, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 104-12. 35. Hammer, M. , Champy, J. (1993), Re-engineering the Corporation A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Harper Business, naked York, NY 36.Hammer, M. (1993), Re-engineering, sell Business Review, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 10-19. 37. Hammer, M. , Stanton, S. (1995), The Re-engineering Revolution, Harper Collins, New York, NY 38. Harrington, H. (1991), Business Process Improvement, McGraw-Hill, Lond on 39. Harrison, D. , Pratt, M. (1993), A methodology for re-engineering businesses, Planning Review, pp. 6-11 40. Harvey, D. (1995), Re-engineering The Critical Success Factors, Management Today/Business Intelligence, London 41. Hinterhuber, H. (1995), Business process management the European approach, Business Change & Re-engineering, Vol. No. 4, pp. 63-73 42. Hrebiniak, L. , Joyce, W. (1984), Implementing Strategy, Macmillan, New York, NY, . 43. Hussey, D. (1998), Strategic management past experiences and future directions, in Hussey, D. (Eds),The Strategic Decision Challenge, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester/New York, NY, pp. 1-28 44. Jackson, N. (1997)), Business process re-engineering 96, Management Services, pp. 34-6 45. Johansson, H. , McHugh, P. , Pendlebury, J. , Wheeler, W. (1993), Business Process Re-engineering Break Point Strategies for Market Dominance, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester 46.Laverty, K. J. (1996), Economic short-termism the debate, the unresolved issues, and t he implications for management practice and research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 825-60. 47. Khong, Kok Wei and Richardson, Stanley (2003). Business peocess reengineering in Malaysian banks and finance companies. Managing Service Quality. Volume. 13, Number. 1, pp. 54 71. 48. Keen, P. (1991), Shaping the Future Business Design through Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. 49. Kettinger, W. , Teng, J. , Guha, S. 1997), Business process change a charter of methodologies, techniques, and tools, MIS Quarterly, pp. 55-80. 50. Klein, M. (1994), Re-engineering methodologies and tools a prescription medicine for enhancing success, Information Systems Management, pp. 30-5 51. Letscher, M. G. (1994), How to tell fads from trends, American Demographics, Vol. 16 No. 12, pp. 38-45 52. Miller, A. , Dess, G. (1996), Strategic Management, International ed. , McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 53. Miller, D. (2002), Successful change leaders what makes them? What do they do that is different? , Journal of Change Management, Vol. No. 4, pp. 359-68 54. Moad, J. (1993), Does Re-engineering Really Work? , Datamation, Vol. 39 No. 15, pp. 22-8. 55. Mumford, E. (1995), Creative chaos or constructive change business process re-engineering versus socio-technical design, in Burke, G. , Peppard, J. (Eds),Examining Business Process Re-engineering Current Perspectives and Research Directions, Kogan Page, New York, NY, pp. 192-216.. 56. Okumus, F. (2001), Towards a strategy implementation framework, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 327-38 57. Paper, David J. , Rodger, James A. and Pendharkar, Parag C. (2001). A BPR case study at Honeywell Business Process Management Journal. Volume 7 Number 2, pp 85-99. 58. Pettigrew, A. M. (1987), Context and action in the transformation of the firm, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 649-70. 59. Plowman, B. (1995), Corporate transformation means r e-engineering asset, The Strategic Planning Society NEWS, pp. 8-10. 60. Rastogi, P (1994), Nature, significance and rationale of business process reengineering, Productivity, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 467-76 61. Schnitt, D. (1993), Re-engineering the organisation using information echnology, Journal of Systems Management, pp. 14-20, 41-2 62. Schmelzer, C. , Olsen, M. (1994), A data-based strategy-implementing framework for companies in the restaurant sedulousness, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 347-59 63. Stewart, T. A. (1993), Reengineering The Hot New Managing Tool, Fortune, Vol. 128 No. 4, pp. 32-7. 64. Skivington, E. J. , Daft, L. R. (1991), A study of organizational framework and process modalities for the implementation of business level strategic decisions, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 45-68 65. Tennant, Charles and Wu, Yi-Chieh (2005), RESEARCH AND CONCEPTS The application of business process reengineering in the UK. The TQ M Magazine. Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 537-545 66. Venkatraman, N. (1993), IT-induced business reconfiguration, in Scott-Morton, M. (Eds),The Corporation of the 1990s Information Technology and Organisational Transformation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 122-58. 67. Venkatraman, N. (1994), IT-enabled business transformation from automation to business scope redefinition, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 73-87. 68. Wendel, C. B. , Svensson, E. (1995), Business Buzzwords, Amacom, New York, NY. , . 69. Zairi, M. (1992), Competitive Benchmarking An Executive Guide, Technical communications (Publishing), 70. Zairi, M. , 1995, Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 3-9. 71. Zairi, M. , Sinclair, D. (1995), Business process re-engineering and process management a survey of current practice and future trends in integrated management, Management Decision, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 3-16.