The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm

IJPPM
68,6 A process for successfully
implementing BPR projects
M.F.F. Fasna and Sachie Gunatilake
Department of Building Economics, University of Moratuwa,
1102 Colombo, Sri Lanka
Received 16 September 2018
Revised 14 January 2019 Abstract
Accepted 30 January 2019
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the business process reengineering (BPR) implementation
process adopted by organisations grounded in the actual project-level realities. The findings are used
to propose a BPR implementation process that can be adopted by organisations to effectively reengineer
their processes.
Design/methodology/approach – A thorough literature review was used to first develop a conceptual
BPR implementation process comprising three key phases and five steps. Then, four case studies
were conducted in organisations that have successfully undertaken BPR projects to explore the actual
project-level implementation processes. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with respondents who
have been actively involved in the different steps of the BPR implementation processes to collect data
within the selected organisations.
Findings – Altogether 30 activities which are to be carried out throughout the BPR implementation process
were identified. Findings disclosed that the minor differences in the activities being performed throughout the
BPR implementation process are due to the lack of homogenous characteristics, i.e. type of the process
reengineered, form of reengineering and approach for implementing BPR projects.
Originality/value – This paper puts forward a comprehensive view on the BPR implementation process
including the key phases, steps and the sequence of activities to be followed. In doing so, the paper addresses
a clear gap in literature that calls for a comprehensive model to assist during the BPR implementation to
achieve the desired results.
Keywords Case studies, Business process reengineering, Implementation process
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The design and implementation of sound business processes have become vital for
organisations to achieve required levels of business performance in the rapidly changing
business environments with high consumer expectations (Altinkemer et al., 2011;
Kohlbacher and Gruenwald, 2011; Low et al., 2015; Sehgal et al., 2006). Business process
reengineering (BPR) is a technique that can be used for analysing an organisation’s
business processes and suggesting required alterations to attain strategic goals (Aikins,
1993) and improve performance (MacBryde et al., 2012). So far, BPR applications have
been adopted by organisations of various sizes in different industries (Grant, 2016;
Guimaraes and Paranjape, 2011).
BPR can contribute to reducing the cost of activities via the analysis and redesign of
workflows and processes of organisations. Hence, in the current competitive market, it is
considered as an effective managerial tool to cope with technological and marketing changes
(Omidi and Khoshtinat, 2016).
Sikdar and Payyazhi (2014) have specified BPR implementation as a consecutive
process encompassing key activities that are needed to redesign the business processes.
The real success of BPR projects often depends on their implementation (Clegg, 2000).
International Journal of Indeed, simple differences in BPR processes may have significant impacts on project
Productivity and Performance
Management success (Zigiaris, 2000). According to Habib (2013), typically around 70 per cent of
Vol. 68 No. 6, 2019
pp. 1102-1119
reengineering projects fail in action. “Lack of proper implementation methodology” has
© Emerald Publishing Limited been identified as one of the main reasons for this high failure rate of BPR projects
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-09-2018-0331 (Abdul‐Hadi et al., 2005). Thus, some studies posit that organisations should not attempt
to undertake BPR before a fastidious analysis of all phases and stages of the project Implementing
(Dennis et al., 2003; Schniederjans and Kim, 2003). BPR projects
Despite the major advances in BPR concept, none of the organisations that have begun its
implementation have attained a model that can help them achieve their desired results (Omidi
and Khoshtinat, 2016). Similarly, a number of researchers have addressed how some of the
identified BPR models have failed in practice. Although several authors have proposed detailed
models/steps, only little effort has been taken to use existing theory to develop a comprehensive 1103
model for BPR implementation incorporating all the vital activities to be performed under
different steps. This paper uses case studies to analyse the BPR implementation process
adopted by organisations grounded in the actual project-level realities. The findings are used to
propose a BPR implementation process that can be adopted by organisations to effectively
reengineer their processes.

2. Literature review
2.1 Overview of BPR
Hammer and Champy (1993) have defined BPR as “fundamental rethinking and radical
redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical contemporary
measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service, and speed” (p. 32).
Mainly three different forms of BPR can be identified from literature, i.e. process
improvement, evolutionary BPR and revolutionary BPR (Lu and Yeh, 1998). Even though many
authors allude to this distinction when specifying their approach to BPR (Childe et al., 1994), no
single author has discussed and differentiated these three forms in detail. Hence, in this study an
attempt was made to identify the key differences of the forms of BPR as presented in Table I.

Form of BPR Definition Characteristics Proponent

Process A systematic methodologyGradual and incremental approach, i.e. use Harrington

improvement developed to assist an conservative approach to make incremental (1992, as
(known as organisation to make changes to existing systems cited in
Japanese way of considerable A variant of TQM Maull and
change improvements in the way Less IT dominated Childe, 1994)
management) in which its business Low risk and easy to manage
processes operate Less disruptive in the short run
Requires very little financial outlay
Based on the belief that sustained effort leads
to greater overall impact
As changes happens very slowly, cannot
reach goals and final target is achieved after
a long period of time
Evolutionary BPR A potentially radical Incremental approach, i.e. radical
(known as change through improvement via incremental steps
European way of incremental steps as A variant of TQM
change similar to process In this way, the company is changed entirely
management) improvement and not just few processes
Revolutionary A clean slate approach Radical approach Hammer
BPR (known as which employs a one-time Believe that the only way to change the (1993, as
American way of process innovation to status quo in the organisation is by cited in
change achieve a radical and subjecting it into intense period of disruption Maull and
management) dramatic business Require heavy financial commitment Childe, 1994)
improvement Results in greater improvements in
performance or changes Table I.
Leads to issues with employees and trade Forms of BPR and
unions due to fear of losing jobs their characteristics
IJPPM Among the above identified forms of BPR, it appears that revolutionary BPR is almost in
68,6 line with the definition of BPR provided by Hammer and Champy (1993), and represents the
true version of BPR with radical change, whereas other two forms are variants of total
quality management with an incremental approach.

2.2 Approaches for implementing BPR projects: use of in-house teams vs BPR consultants
1104 One of the most popular trends in BPR is the use of outside consulting firms for
reengineering (Akhavan et al., 2006). Crowe et al. (2002) divulged that most of the BPR
efforts had external assistance from the consultants throughout the entire reengineering
process or at certain part of the process. Similarly, several surveys have also disclosed the
crucial role of consultants in the BPR process (Zigiaris, 2000). Geisler (1996) has revealed
that generally organisations that do not have a clear vision on BPR tend to delegate their
reengineering efforts to BPR consultants. According to Ovenden (1994), a high-level
in-house team working together with experienced consultants will have the ability to deliver
the required expertise. Hence, it is clear that reengineering efforts can either be executed
entirely by in-house teams or by in-house teams with the aid and guidance of BPR
consultants. Moreover, according to Zigiaris (2000), choosing a specific approach for
implementing BPR projects is a crucial decision to be taken by organisations.

2.3 Implementation process of BPR projects

The first complete “pattern” to implement BPR has been proposed by Hammer and Champy
(1993) and since then, numerous structured-based methodologies have been proposed for
BPR implementation (refer Davenport, 1993; Hammer and Champy, 1993; Hesson et al., 2007;
Kettinger et al., 1997; Manganelli and Klein, 1994).
Khodambashi (2013) has identified five BPR implementation steps as follows: defining the
vision, identifying the process, understanding the existing process, defining the methodology
and preparing a prototype, whereas an eight-step model for BPR implementation has been
proposed by Vakola et al. (2000). Conversely, some authors (i.e. Maull et al., 1994; Muthu et al.,
1999) have summarised the BPR methodologies described in the literature under five key
steps, namely, preparing for reengineering; mapping and analysing the AS IS process (i.e.
current process); design the TO BE process; implement the reengineered process; and
improving continuously (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Muthu et al., 2006). In contrast,
Radhakrishnan and Balasubramanian (2008) have classified BPR methodologies into three
main phases: i.e. pre-BPR implementation, BPR implementation and post-BPR implementation
phase. Review of these classifications revealed that it is possible to organise the five BPR steps
identified by various authors into the three BPR implementation phases identified by
Radhakrishnan and Balasubramanian (2008). Accordingly, the pre-BPR implementation
phase can be considered as consisting the steps “preparing for reengineering” and “mapping
and analysing the AS IS process”, whereas BPR implementation phase includes “design of
the TO BE processes”, and “implement the reengineered processes”. Similarly, the key
step to be performed in post-BPR implementation phase is “improving continuously”
(refer Emerie-Kassahun and Molla, 2013). This modified conceptual process for BPR
implementation is presented in Figure 1.
Under each step depicted in Figure 1, certain key activities should be performed. These
key activities were derived for this study from a number of different sources such as
Al‐Mashari and Zairi (1999), Caldwell (1994), Davenport (1993), Emerie-Kassahun and
Molla (2013), Guimaraes and Paranjape (2013), Hammer and Champy (1993), Kettinger
et al. (1997), Khodambashi (2013), Malhotra (1998), Misra et al. (2006), Rinaldi et al. (2015)
and Vakola et al. (2000).
Although, Figure 1 presents a theoretical modelling of the BPR implementation process
based on the available literature, a question remains as to the practical relevance of this
 BPR IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS Implementing
BPR projects
Preparing for Mapping and analysing Design of the TO BE Implement the
Improving continuously
reengineering the AS IS process process reengineering process

• Discover reengineering • Identify the processes • Identify change levers • Communicate changes • Integrate the BPR with
opportunities • Understand the existing with stakeholders organisational strategy
• Define methodology
• Develop and define processes • Develop a detailed plan • Make new process • Establish and deploy
vision and objectives • Map the current process operational new process
for implementation
• Determine project scope
• Determine internal and
• Analyse the mapped
processes
• Prepare a prototype • Determine the impact of
changes to the way of
measurement and
management system
• Empower process
1105
external actors • work
Identify and select the owners and process teams
° Establish • Managing change with knowledge, skill and
steering process for redesign
teams decision making power
• Craft and put in place a
° Establish new system for reward,
reengineering
promotion and hiring
teams

Pre-BPR implementation phase BPR implementation phase Post-BPR implementation

phase

Enumerate major Determine process Assess the strategic Render high-level judgements Qualify the culture and
processes boundaries relevance of each process of the health of each process politics of each process

Figure 1.
Conceptual BPR
Process boundary implementation
Key phases in a BPR implementation process process
Key steps come under each reengineering phase

developed approach. Indeed, even simple alterations in the BPR process may have
significant impacts on reengineering project success (Zigiaris, 2000). Thus, the remaining
sections of this paper discuss how the authors have used case study research to address the
aforementioned gap and propose a more comprehensive BPR implementation process based
on actual organisational-level realities.

3. Research methodology
The study used a “case study” strategy as it allowed the researchers to focus on
investigating a modern phenomenon within its real-life context (Yin, 2009).
Four organisations that have undertaken BPR projects were selected as cases allowing for
more varied evidence, while facilitating cross-case comparison. Use of purposive sampling
enabled the researcher to use personal judgement to select cases that can best meet the research
objectives (Saunders et al., 2007). As discussed in Section 2.2, organisations reengineer their
business processes either with the assistance of in-house BPR teams or with the assistance of
BPR consultants. So, in order to replicate the true nature of BPR implementation, both types of
cases were selected for empirical investigation. In addition, concern was given towards
selecting cases to represent both core- and non-core process-related reengineering efforts.
Moreover, the selected cases represent the different forms of BPR identified in literature as well
(refer Section 2.1). Brief description of the selected cases is presented in Table II.
Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data within the cases. Respondents were
those who have been actively involved in the different steps of the BPR implementation
processes in the selected organisations. At first, interviews were conducted with a top-level
employee of each case who was involved mainly in coordinating all the activities relating to
the particular BPR project. Through this discussion, the different roles of parties were
identified, based on which the suitable respondents for the case study were selected. In
total, 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders until the point of
data saturation was reached in selected organisations. Table III provides details of
these respondents.
Content analysis was used to analyse the gathered data. The different activities, steps
and phases of the BPR implementation process identified through the literature (as shown in
IJPPM Reengineered Reengineered
68,6 Case Description by process Business sector Form of BPR

A Leading apparel solutions In-house Core process Apparel industry Process

company in country with 42 BPR team improvement
manufacturing locations in
India and Bangladesh
1106 B Market leader in the apparel In-house Core process Apparel industry Revolutionary
industry and has 38 production BPR team BPR
facilities across Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh, Vietnam, Ethiopia
C Leading telecommunication In-house BPR Core and non- Telecommunication Evolutionary
service provider in the team core process sector BPR
country and considered as the
national ICT solutions
provider, and leading
broadband and backbone
infrastructure service
provider in Sri Lanka
D Offers wide range of services BPR Core and non- Manufacturing Revolutionary
to the industry including consultant core process sector BPR
designing and manufacturing
of furniture, space planning,
interior design, etc., and has a
total workforce of 100
Table II. employees with an annual
Case description turnover of 450m

Number of Years of
Case respondents Respondent Profile of the respondent Roles played experience

A 3 A1 Manager – projects and Process owner, steering 13

automation committee member
A2 Technician – electrical Reengineering team member 5
A3 Technician – mechanical Reengineering team member 14
B 4 B1 Divisional head – Reengineering czar, steering 16
maintenance committee member
B2 Executive – operational Reengineering team member 5
system
B3 Manager – operations Team captain 20
B4 Production executive Reengineering team member 13
C 4 C1 Deputy general manager Steering committee member 14
– BPR
C2 Engineer – BPR Team captain, reengineering 8
team member
C3 Engineer – BPR Reengineering team member 13
C4 Engineer and product Process owner, reengineering 11
manager czar
D 3 D1 Managing director and Leader, steering committee 36
senior consultant member
Table III. D2 Accountant and assistant Team captain, reengineering 4
Details of consultant team member
the respondents D3 Financial controller Reengineering czar 15
Figure 1) provided a set of deductive codes to begin the coding process during data analysis. Implementing
However, the researchers were careful to keep an open mind to identify and code any new BPR projects
ideas captured through the interviews as well. QSR.NVivo (2011) software was used to help
the data analysis process.

4. Case study analysis

Through case study analysis, altogether 28 activities which are to be carried out throughout 1107
the BPR implementation process have been ascertained. The most number of activities (i.e. 16)
were identified in the pre-BPR implementation phase, while s7 and 5 activities each were
identified in BPR implementation phase and post-BPR implementation phase, respectively.
Table IV highlights the main findings with respect to the activities to be performed in each
phase of the BPR implementation process, organised in chronological sequence.
The activities to be performed under each phase are discussed in the following sections.

4.1 Activities to be performed in Pre-BPR implementation phase

“Discover and evaluate the reengineering opportunities” was identified as the initial activity
to be performed in the pre-BPR implementation phase. To evaluate the identified
reengineering opportunities, each case has adopted their own tactics as depicted in Figure 3.

Table IV.
Activities to be
performed in each
phase of the
BPR project
IJPPM The next important activity identified in this phase was “explaining to top management the
68,6 necessity to commit to BPR project”. In Cases A–C, no attempts had been taken by the
project teams to specifically explain to top management the necessity to commit to the BPR
project. In Case A, the project team did not see this as a necessity since in their organisation,
the commitment and support of top management was always there for this kind of effort.
However, both Cases B and C had to deal with many commitment issues throughout their
1108 BPR projects due to their failure to perform this particular activity. In contrast to these three
cases, Case D which was using outside consultants in reengineering their processes had
explained to top management the necessity to commit to the BPR project in this phase. This
has been mainly done since the top management of this organisation is not familiar with the
concept of reengineering and its benefits.
“Determining the participants for the BPR project together with their roles” was the
subsequent activity to be performed in this phase. Among these cases, Case A is focussed on
reengineering all of its processes time to time and all the participants who should get
involved in this kind of reengineering effort together with their roles were already
determined. Thus, it was not required for them to determine the project participants, after
undertaking their reengineering project. However, if it is not already determined, in a BPR
project it is essential to determine the participants for this project with their roles in this
step. Besides, respondents from Case D had divulged that since the in-house staff attached
to the client organisation was not very much familiar with BPR and its implementation
procedure, they found difficulties in finding BPR team members who have required skills
and knowledge. Hence, they had “conducted workshops for the project participants” with
the intention of providing required knowledge for them.
“Identifying the business processes with potential for reengineering” was another crucial
activity to be performed in this phase, to determine most suitable processes for redesign and
was highlighted by Cases A–C. But, it was not needed for Case D to “identify the processes
with potential for reengineering” since in Case D all the processes are targeted for redesign
under their particular BPR project.
Once business processes with reengineering potential have been identified, it is
important to “understand these processes” in order to “map the existing state of the
processes”. Although seemingly a vital activity, only the respondents from Cases B and D
had identified this as an activity in this phase. The main reason for this would be integration
of this activity with its preceding and succeeding activities. That means if the reengineering
team members want to identify and map the processes, of course they must understand
the processes.
To select the most suitable process for reengineering, the “analysis of the mapped
processes” is vital, since it may assist in identifying the gaps or inefficiencies in the
processes in a more vivid manner and thereby assures that inefficiencies in the current
processes are not repeated in the new process. However, this was only identified as an
activity in Cases C and D. This might be due to the reason that while mapping the processes
itself the most of the inefficiencies in the processes will be identified and it might not be
needed to analyse them again. However, to identify the pain points in the existing processes,
proper analysis of mapped processes is vital. Supporting this view, Harrison and
Pratt (1993) have disclosed that after mapping and measuring the existing process, it is
essential to analyse the existing process. However, these activities were not relevant to Case
A, which had commenced their BPR project once the inefficiencies in the particular existing
process were identified by their dedicated in-house teams who are responsible for
identifying the inefficiencies in the existing processes and thereby to raise the request to
reengineer the processes.
After selecting the most suitable process for redesign, all the four cases have “defined
objectives for the selected processes” and “determined project scope”.
 “Collect ideas for redesign”, “define the methodology” and “design the new process based Implementing
on the characteristics that serve the organisational goals” were the key activities performed BPR projects
by the selected cases under this phase after determining the project scope. However, since
Case A’s reengineering project was a process improvement attempt, only minor alterations
were done to the process and the project team had not “design the new process”.
Normally for BPR projects which are large in nature, it is vital to “develop project
proposals and get it approved” to further proceed with the project. Since, this activity is not 1109
a unique activity for BPR projects, the respondents from Cases B–D might have ignored this
activity. However, the respondents from Case A had specified it. Moreover, in Case D the
reengineering team did not “develop any prototype” for their processes as well, since most of
their processes are complete start overs and automation was done only for integrating
different processes.

4.2 Activities to be performed in BPR implementation phase

“Testing the prototype” is the first activity performed in this phase. Among the selected
cases, only in Case A the reengineering team had tested the prototype as in this case the
automated machine had been developed by their reengineering team. However, since Case B
had obtained the machines required for the redesigned process via a well-reputed machine
supplier, they did not test the prototype. In Case C, actually they developed a sample model
for the new process and it was not needed for them to test it.
Afterwards, all the four cases had “communicated the changes with the stakeholders”. In
addition, in Case D after communicating the changes brought by this project to the
stakeholders, they had “emphasised the workers that working under the old process is not
acceptable”. However, none of the other cases had performed this activity. This, in turn,
gives rise to a good practice adopted by the consultants in reengineering their processes.
The next important activities performed by the selected cases under this phase were
“implementing the new process” and “making new process operational”. After making the
new process operational, all the selected organisations had “determined the impact of
changes to the way of work” and took necessary actions to “manage the change”.

4.3 Activities to be performed in Post-BPR implementation phase

“Integrating the BPR with organisational strategy” was the initial activity identified in this
phase. As per case study analysis, except Case C, all others had integrated BPR with their
organisational strategy. As per Case C respondents, they had already established a system
to centrally measure all the processes in terms of process performance and customer
satisfaction and thereby to ultimately identify the needs for reengineering, which could be
the possible reason for not integrating BPR with their organisational strategy.
The next key activity ascertained in this phase was “establishing and deploying a new
process measurement and management system”. In this phase, except Case B, all the other
cases had established and deployed a new process measurement and management system
with the aim of making modifications to the reengineered process time to time. The reason
for not establishing such a system by Case B could be mainly due to lack of knowledge and
experience of the particular facility with BPR projects.
Afterwards, all the four cases had “empowered different persons” in this phase to take
care of the continuous improvement of their reengineered process. As per Case A
respondents, they had deployed a trouble shooting team to actively involve in the new
process and thereby to resolve issues time to time. However, in Cases B and C, the project
leader had assigned “divisional manager – operational system” and “product manager”,
respectively, as the process owners of the new process of each case and made them
responsible for the method improvement of the redesigned process. Conversely, Case D
which reengineered its processes with the assistance of BPR consultants had empowered
IJPPM their employees with enough knowledge and power to identify the inefficiencies in the
68,6 reengineered process and thereby to raise requirements to make modifications to the
reengineered process.
Then, in this phase a “new system for reward” was being put up by all the cases except
Case C to ensure that the staff are working in the new way rather than in the old way. This
appeared to be consistent with Walston et al. (2000) who have divulged that reconsidering
1110 the reward system as crucial to keeping the reengineered organisation moving forward and
instil the willingness of workers to work under the reengineered process. Since the end users
are the ones who really affected by the redesigned process of Case C, it was not essentially
needed for them to establish a new reward system for the reengineered process. However, to
ensure the continuous operation of the redesigned process, in this level they had “conducted
training and awareness programme for the users based upon their requests” and thereby
distinguished itself from other cases.
In the following section, key findings of the case study analysis are discussed further by
putting them within the context of available knowledge.

5. Discussion of the findings

Authors such as Alter (1994) and Chan and Choi (1997) have viewed repeated failures of
BPR as a reflection of the executives’ failure to implement it properly mainly owing to their
lack of understanding of BPR implementation. Further, lack of appropriate BPR
implementation methodology is identified as one of the main issues faced by the
organisations throughout their reengineering effort (Abdul‐Hadi et al., 2005; Grover et al.,
1995). Similarly, particularly in Case B, the success of the BPR project had been hindered by
the failure to adopt a proper methodology for the project. Respondent B1 asserted that “the
expected results from this project were not achieved to a greater extent due to our failure to
adopt a proper methodology in the early phase of the project”. However, the other three
cases had adopted a planned BPR methodology and thereby managed to reengineer their
processes successfully. Therefore, parallel to what has been done in these three cases,
adopting a proper BPR implementation methodology may assist the practitioners in
smoothly proceeding with their reengineering projects. This further insists and indicates the
importance of this study.
Case study findings revealed key activities to be performed under each phase of the BPR
implementation process (refer Table IV ), which could be classified under the key steps
identified through the literature (refer Figure 1). During the attempt of classifying the
activities under the respective steps, several discrepancies were identified.
According to Emerie-Kassahun and Molla (2013), the pre-BPR implementation phase covers
envisioning (planning), initiating (establishing steering teams, select projects and teams) and
diagnosing (mapping and analysing existing processes). This implies that the main steps
falling under pre-BPR implementation phase would be “preparing for reengineering” and
“mapping and analysing the AS IS processes”. However, case study analysis revealed that
“design of the TO BE process” which falls under the BPR implementation phase according to
the literature is also normally performed in the pre-BPR implementation phase.
Since BPR implementation phase should include redesigning processes, prototyping,
implementing and managing the redesigned processes (Emerie-Kassahun and Molla, 2013), it is
possible to infer that the main implementation steps that come under this phase are “design of
the TO BE processes” and “implement the reengineered processes”. Nonetheless, in practice all
the four cases had redesigned their new process prior to commencing physical implementation.
Thereby, the findings revealed that the BPR implementation phase comprises merely the
physical implementation of the reengineered process (i.e. “implement the reengineered process”).
Emerie-Kassahun and Molla (2013) have stated that the post-BPR implementation phase
involves ongoing activity of process adaptation, acceptance, routinisation, alignment of
information systems with the information needs of the redesigned processes and the Implementing
management support system. Hence, it is clear that the key step to be focussed in this phase BPR projects
is “improving continuously”, and case study findings further confirmed this.

5.1 Pre-BPR implementation phase

Preparing for reengineering. This is the first step to be performed in pre-BPR
implementation phase under which the initiatives for reengineering are taken. 1111
Rinaldi et al. (2015) have highlighted that this step includes some initial activities
undertaken with the purpose of identifying the opportunity for proceeding with a BPR,
setting up and managing the whole BPR. Additionally, it has been ascertained that in this
step, the objective of BPR (Malhotra, 1998), scope of the project (Misra et al., 2006), and
internal and external actors (Guimaraes and Paranjape, 2013; Misra et al., 2006) have to be
determined. However, the case study findings disclosed that “discovering and evaluating
the reengineering opportunities”, “explain to top management the necessity to commit to
BPR project”, “determine the participants for this projects along with the roles” and
“conduct workshops for the project participants” are the activities to be performed in this
step, in which explaining to top management the necessity to commit to BPR and
conducting workshops for the project participants are the activities elicited from the case
studies only. Besides, though discovering and evaluating the reengineering opportunities is
an activity emphasised by the case study respondents in this step, in the literature only the
discovering of the reengineering opportunities is mentioned. Conversely, though in
literature defining objectives and scope of the project are identified as activities to be
performed under this step, in practice, the objectives and scope of the project had been
defined after selecting the most suitable process for redesign.
As a whole, among these derived four activities to be performed under this step, two
activities are purely elicited through the case studies, while rest of the two activities are
slightly modified based on case study findings (refer Table IV ).
Mapping and analysing the AS IS processes. This is the second main step to be performed
in pre-BPR implementation phase where the potential processes for reengineering are
selected and analysed to determine the most suitable process for redesign.
Case study findings disclosed that prior to the selection of most suitable process for
redesign and design those processes to better serve the organisational goals, organisation
should first identify the processes which have the potential to be reengineered; understand
those processes; map the existing state of those processes; and should analyse the mapped
processes. This view was parallel to Caldwell (1994) and Guimaraes and Paranjape (2013),
who have stressed that prior to the development of a new process, the existing process and
the interactions among them must be understood clearly. This could be due to the reason
that mapping the AS IS process helps to grasp the efficiency and quality of current
operations and its performance, offers a baseline for further enhancements (Khodambashi,
2013) and prevents old repetitive mistakes (Khodambashi, 2013; Vakola et al., 2000).
It is clear from the findings that organisations have selected the most suitable process for
redesign based upon the mapping and analysis of the AS IS process, which is in line with
Hammer and Champy (1993) and Rinaldi et al. (2015), who have divulged that based upon
the mapping of AS IS processes, the critical process to be investigated and redesigned needs
to be identified.
As already discussed, the general view in the existing literature is that objectives for the
selected process and project scope are established during the preparation stage of a BPR project,
which is not consistent with the case study findings (refer Figure 1 and Table IV ). Rather, it has
been ascertained through the case studies that in practice the organisation used to set their
objectives and define their scope, after selecting the most suitable process for redesign.
IJPPM Davenport and Short (1990) have identified the key activities for identifying the most
68,6 suitable process for redesign as enumerate major processes; determine process boundaries;
assess strategic relevance of each process; render high-level judgements of the health of each
process; and qualify the culture and politics of each process (refer Figure 1). However, through
the case study analysis slightly different activities performed by the organisation to select the
most suitable process for redesign have been elicited and are depicted in the refined BPR
1112 implementation process (i.e. Figure 2).
In brief, a total of seven activities were identified in this step in which four activities are
modified depending on case study findings (refer Table IV ). Besides, these seven activities
include two activities which are being insisted by the authors as the activities to be
performed in the step of “Preparing for reengineering” (refer Figure 1).
Design of the TO BE processes. Design of the TO BE process is the third main step to be
performed in pre-BPR implementation phase wherein the selected most suitable processes
for reengineering are redesigned. As per Rinaldi et al. (2015), in this step the new operating
process should be suggested based on the results of the previous steps.
Review of literature disclosed that the selected existing process for reengineering should
be redesigned based on the results of the process analysis (Guimaraes and Paranjape, 2013).
However, case study findings revealed that organisations had redesigned the process not
only based on the process analysis conducted in the previous step but also by collecting
ideas for redesign from the stakeholders involved in the project.
A proper methodology should be selected to re-design the process (Khodambashi, 2013).
Afterwards, a prototype of future process ought to be designed prior to the implementation
(Malhotra, 1998). Hence, it is clear that among the ascertained activities that need to be
performed in this step defining the methodology and preparing the prototype are the
activities in line with the activities identified through the literature.
Though it is a well-known fact that “identifying the change levers” is one of the main
activities to be performed under this step and being emphasised by researchers like

BPR IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

Preparing for Mapping and analysing the Design of the TO BE Implement the reengineering Improving continuously
reengineering AS IS process process process

• Discover and evaluate • Identify the processes which • Collect or produce ideas for • Test the prototype • Integrate the BPR with
reengineering opportunities have the potential to be redesign • Communicate changes with organisational strategy
• Explain to top management reengineered • Identify change levers stakeholders • Establish and deploy new
the necessity to commit to • Understand those processes • Define methodology • Emphasise the workers that process measurement and
the BPR project • Map the existing state of • Design the new process working under old process is management system
• Determine participants for those processes based on the characteristics not acceptable • Empower process owners and
the BPR project together • Analyse the mapped that serve the organisational • Implement the new process process teams with
with their roles processes goals • Make new process operational knowledge, skill and
◦ Establish steering • Develop the project proposal • Determine the impact of decision-making power
• Select the most suitable
committee and get it approved changes to the way of work • Craft and put in place a new
process for redesign
◦ Establish • Develop a detailed plan for together with any attempts of system for reward,
reengineering • Define objectives for the implementation resistance to change promotion and hiring
teams selected process • Managing change • Conduct training and
• Prepare a prototype for the
• Conduct workshops for the • Determine project scope process as per the designed ◦ Provide training for awareness programmes
project participants clearly and in an TO BE process the personnel in the based upon the obtained
understandable manner operation of new requests
process
◦ Decide the ways to
Assess the strategic Render high level judgement Select the most suitable
relevance of each selected on health of each process process for redesign based
deal with any non-
process in terms of, based upon, upon, conformities in the
• Consistency of • Reduced revenue Prioritized the • Possible avenues to new process
orders generation processes based upon increase efficiency and
its criticality
◦ Make the employees
• Major impact on • Delays in the process profitability to understand the
customer service • Poor customer • Feasibility for change
need for change and
• Importance to satisfaction determined by
• Reduced performance conducting brainstorming expected benefits
achieve
organisational goals level sessions among project
• Vulnerability to frauds, team members
errors and weaknesses

Pre-BPR implementation phase BPR implementation phase Post-BPR implementation phase

Figure 2.
Refined BPR
implementation Process boundary
Pre-BPR implementation phase
process BPR implementation phase
Post-BPR implementation phase
Davenport (1993) and Vakola et al. (2000), this activity did not emerge as a finding from any Implementing
of the cases. Likewise, Guimaraes and Paranjape (2013) have highlighted the vitality of BPR projects
developing a detailed plan for implementation incorporating all requirements such as
human resources, tools, software, procedures and maintenance prior to the implementation
phase. However, none of the selected cases had the practice of developing such a plan.
Nevertheless, these two activities can be considered as best practices and hence have been
included in the refined BPR implementation process (refer Figure 2). 1113
In summary, case study findings revealed five activities under this step in which
two activities are in line with the literature findings, while rest emerged from the case
study findings.

5.2 BPR implementation phase

Implement the reengineered process. As implementation is a vital phase which determines
the success of the whole BPR effort, the implementation process should be carefully planned
(Vakola et al., 2000). It was noticeable that all the four cases had reported “communicating
changes with the stakeholders”, “determining the impact of changes to the way of work”
and “managing changes” as important to the successful implementation of the reengineered
process. This view was parallel to Kettinger et al. (1997) who discussed that communicating
changes and determining the impact of the changes to the way of work are integral part of
the implementation of newly designed process. Besides, the significance of assessing the
results of the project mainly in terms of its impacts to way of work was also highlighted by
Guimaraes and Paranjape (2013). All the four cases had adopted different methods to
manage the change as shown in Figure 3.
In addition, in this step, Case D which was reengineered by BPR consultants had taken
steps to emphasise to the workers that “working under old process is not acceptable” in

Key activities Case A Case B Case C Case D Discussion

Discovering opportunities: Discovering opportunities: Discovering opportunities: Discovering and evaluating Thus, it is vivid that via SWOT
Discover and Opportunities are discovered by Opportunities are identified by Opportunities are discovered by opportunities: analysis as well as by conducting
evaluate CEO CEO via foreign visits their own process development Conducted a SWOT analysis to literature review for analysing all
reengineering Evaluating opportunities: Evaluating opportunities: model determine whether their the available methods, it is
Evaluated by R&D team with the Evaluated by conducting SWOT Evaluating opportunities: organisation has enough possible to discover and evaluate
opportunities assistance of financial team analysis Evaluated by means of conducting capability to reengineer together the BPR opportunities properly
literature search with sufficient resources

Identify the Identify potential processes: Identify potential processes: Identify potential processes: Identify potential processes: Hence, the potential processes for
Pre-BPR implementation phase

processes with By establishing some teams Based upon certain criteria, i.e. Based upon customers’ requests Since all the processes targeted BPR can be identified using
potential for within the organisation main processes which have to reengineer, it was not needed to certain criteria or based upon the
consistent orders identify the potential processes requests made by in-house staff or
reengineering
customers
Analyse the processes: Thus, it is vivid that processes can
Analyse the Processes are analysed via gap be analysed via gap analysis or by
mapped processes analysis, and interrogating the interrogating the process
employees employees

Select most suitable process: Select most suitable process: Select most suitable process: Select most suitable process: To select the most suitable
Prioritise the processes based Identify the main processes with Identify the process with reduced Prioritise the processes based process for redesign, each case
upon cost benefit analysis consistent orders in which the performance level and poor upon the vulnerability to frauds, has taken their own perspectives
Select the most Conduct brainstorming sessions profit margin is started to customer satisfaction errors and weaknesses based upon their business needs
suitable process among the project team members decrease dramatically Prioritise them based upon Identify possible avenue to Since in Case D all the processes
for redesign to determine the feasibility of criticality such as major impact on increase efficiency and were targeted for reengineering,
each option customer service, reduced revenue profitability priority order of the processes is
Steering committee select the generation and process delays Order the processes based upon needed to reengineer the
most suitable process Select the most critical process their criticality processes one by one
Gather ideas: Gather ideas: Gather ideas: Gather ideas: Thus, it is vivid that to redesign
From R&D team and the project By conducting meetings among Collect through brainstorming Ideas are produced and assessed the process in a proper manner, it
Collect ideas for
team which is responsible for the team members which is sessions conducted among the in terms of feasibility by is vital to collect ideas from
redesign reengineering the process responsible for reengineering reengineering team members reengineering team various project stakeholders by
any means
Communicate changes: Communicate changes: Communicate changes: Communicate changes: Hence, it is clear that there are no
Changes are communicated to the Awareness programmes and Changes are communicated to Changes are communicated to the any hard and fast rules in
Communicate the
stakeholders via progress review coaching sessions are used to stakeholders including end-users stakeholders via awareness selecting the suitable
changes with the
BPR implementation phase

meetings make employees aware while via alert mails and awareness programmes communication channel and the
stakeholders review meetings used for key programmes organisation can choose any
stakeholders method that will suit them best
Determine impacts of changes: Determine impacts of changes: Determine impacts of changes: Determine impacts of changes: Each case has used its own
Determining the
impact of changes
Based upon the time it took to
attach a tag under the new
Based upon productivity, process
cycle time, employee resistance,
Based upon user friendliness,
process cycle time and customer
Based upon process cycle time,
hardships the employees faced in
criteria to determine the impact
caused by BPR project to the
Figure 3.
to the way of
work
process quality of the output, operator
safety and organisational safety
involvement the new process, employee
resistance and employee
working pattern while
highlighting the process cycle
Tactics adopted
involvement time as a major criterion
by the selected
Manage changes: Manage changes: Manage changes: Manage changes: It can be derived that
Managing By providing required training to By conducting training By providing required training, By providing sufficient training understanding and assessing cases to perform
the workers to properly handle programmes to train the workers conducting awareness and establishing some strategies individual reasons for resistance
change the new automated machines to efficiently operate under the programmes and preparing user to deal with non-conformities will pave the way to better certain activities
new process guides manage change
IJPPM order to prevent them moving back to the old process. Therefore, parallel to what has been
68,6 done in Case D, it is possible to believe that after communicating changes with the
stakeholders, “emphasising the workers that working under old process is not acceptable”
may help in ensuring the project success.
Altogether, the outcomes of the interviews revealed seven activities under this step as
shown in Table IV, in which two activities such as “test the prototype” and “emphasise the
1114 workers that working under old process is not acceptable” are the activities elicited only
from the case studies and thereby dictate the good practices adopted by the organisations
in practice. Rest of the activities are similar to the activities identified through the
literature and declared by all 14 respondents who insisted the vitality of performing such
activities in this step.

5.3 Post-BPR implementation phase

Improving continuously. As a whole, these four cases shared the belief that integrating BPR
with their organisational strategy; establishing and deploying a new process
measurement and management system; empowering the process owners and process
team with knowledge, skills and decision-making power; crafting and putting in place a
new system for reward, promotion and hiring; and providing training and awareness
based on the obtained requests enable the organisations to sustain and continuously
improve reengineered process. Similarly, via the reviewed literature, it has been
ascertained that during the post-BPR implementation phase, the top management needs to
integrate the BPR with organisational strategy (Thong et al., 2000); establish and deploy
new process measurement and management systems that go with the reengineered
business process (Abdolvand et al., 2008); empower process owners and process teams
with knowledge, skill and decision-making power (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Herzog
et al., 2007; Sia and Neo, 2008); and craft and put in place a new system for reward,
promotion and hiring (Emerie-Kassahun and Molla, 2013; Homa, 1995; Walston et al.,
2000). This makes it clear that in practice organisations perform all the key activities to be
performed in this step.
Further, it has been ascertained that based on the persons who are affected by the
reengineered process, i.e. staff or customers, organisation might either need to establish new
system for reward or should provide training and awareness.
Case study findings resulted in altogether five key activities in this step, in which
“provision of training and conductance of awareness programme” was the activity
identified in addition to the literature findings.
As a whole, based on the case study findings, it is appropriate to posit that BPR
implementation process consists of five key steps, which seems to be in line with the steps
identified by Hammer and Champy (1993) and Muthu et al. (2006). Further, as discussed
above, these five steps of BPR implementation process could be categorised into three
phases such as pre-BPR implementation phase, BPR implementation phase and post-BPR
implementation phase.
In summary, from the above discussions, it is clear that the selected cases had the
practice of performing almost all the key activities identified through the literature. This
appears to be contradicting with the findings of Guimaraes and Paranjape (2011), who
have disclosed that in practice many companies are not performing the vital activities
recommended in the BPR literature. Besides, from the findings it emerged that despite the
type of process selected for reengineering (i.e. core or non-core process), as a whole all
the cases have adopted a similar process to reengineer their processes. This is in line with
the views of Vakola et al. (2000), who have stated that though different BPR approaches
and methodologies are prevailing, most pursue a path which is almost similar and reveal Implementing
recurring themes in main areas. BPR projects
Besides, it could be argued that BPR implementation process is influenced by the
approach adopted by the organisations to reengineer their processes, i.e. reengineered by
in-house team or BPR consultants. Further, the process is in turn influenced by the extent to
which the existing process is being changed (i.e. form of reengineering). Moreover, as per the
results of the analysis, it could be realised that the developed BPR implementation process 1115
needs to be refined based upon the case study findings in order to replicate the practice in
the industry.

6. Refinement of the conceptual BPR implementation process

To bridge the gap between BPR theory and evidence-based practice, the conceptual BPR
implementation process presented in Figure 1 needs to be refined. Figure 2 presents the
refined BPR implementation process incorporating the case study findings, which
provides in a snapshot all the activities to be carried out under respective steps of BPR
implementation process.
Findings revealed that in practice project scope and objectives are determined after
selecting the most suitable process for redesign. Hence, the refined BPR implementation
process presented in Figure 2 reflects this practice.
Further, it emerged that even though the activities undertaken by all four cases seems to
be same, each case has adopted their own tactics to perform each activity in a better way.
Considering those tactics in detail may also be useful in finding the most suitable means of
ensuring the successful performance of each activity. Tactics adopted by each case to
execute certain activities in all three phases are depicted in Figure 3.

7. Conclusions and directions for further academic research

Lack of a proper implementation methodology has been identified as one of the main
reasons for high failure rates of BPR projects. Hence, this research was aimed at proposing a
BPR implementation process that can be adopted by organisations to effectively reengineer
their processes.
The derived BPR implementation process comprises of five key steps that are classified
into three key phases: pre-BPR implementation phase, BPR implementation phase and
post-BPR implementation phase. This developed BPR implementation process includes
28 activities which are derived through case study analysis and 2 best practice activities
identified through the literature review. Among these 28 activities identified through case
study analysis, 14 activities were similar to the activities specified in the conceptual BPR
implementation process, whereas other 6 activities in the conceptual process had to be
further refined (refer Figures 1 and 2). Remaining 8 activities were purely elicited from case
study findings. These newly identified activities dictate the good practices adopted by
organisations in reengineering their processes.
In addition, the findings further revealed that, as a whole, organisations adopt almost
similar processes in reengineering their processes. However, there are minor differences in
the activities performed by different organisations which could be attributed to the
differences in type of the process reengineered, form of reengineering and approach for
implementing BPR projects.
Moreover, though BPR has been identified as one of the key techniques used by the
organisations to alter their business processes, still the knowledge of reengineering appears
to rest mostly with BPR consultants, leading market leaders and multinational companies.
These market leaders and multinational companies tend to reengineer their processes with
the assistance of their in-house team who are specifically assigned for such purposes.
IJPPM However, small to medium organisations are not affording to do so and they are having the
68,6 practice of using BPR consultants to reengineer their processes.
This research has made its major contribution to the knowledge by eliciting an approach
that should be adopted when reengineering the business processes. It is hoped that the
proposed BPR implementation process can be used as a best practice guide by industry
practitioners in successfully reengineering their business processes.
1116 Despite the useful findings of this research, it has number of limitations that need to be
highlighted to enable the reader to understand the context of the research. The number of
interviews conducted within each case was limited to three to four stakeholders due to
unavailability of respective stakeholders as well as time constraints. Further, the selected
cases were all from the western province of Sri Lanka. However, it could be argued that the
findings may be applicable to other similar contexts.
Findings of the study revealed several areas that are worthy for further research. From
the literature review as well as case study analysis, it has been ascertained that there are
certain critical factors and BPR implementation issues which may significantly affect
the success of BPR projects. Hence, further research works are needed to focus on the areas
like BPR implementation issues and critical factors in implementing BPR projects.
Furthermore, empirical studies on the proposed BPR implementation process could be
carried out to ascertain the validity of the proposed implementation model.

References
Abdolvand, N., Albadvi, A. and Ferdowsi, Z. (2008), “Assessing readiness for business process
reengineering”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 497-511.
Abdul‐Hadi, N., Al‐Sudairi, A. and Alqahtani, S. (2005), “Prioritizing barriers to successful business
process re-engineering (BPR) efforts in Saudi Arabian construction industry”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 305-315.
Aikins, J. (1993), “Business process reengineering: where do knowledge-based systems fit?”, IEEE
Expert, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 2.
Akhavan, P., Jafari, M. and Ali‐Ahmadi, A.R. (2006), “Exploring the interdependency between
reengineering and information technology by developing a conceptual model”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 517-534.
Al‐Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (1999), “BPR implementation process: an analysis of key success and
failure factors”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 87-112.
Alter, A. (1994), “Re-engineering tops list again”, Computerworld, Vol. 28 No. 5, p. 8.
Altinkemer, K., Ozcelik, Y. and Ozdemir, Z.D. (2011), “Productivity and performance effects of business
process reengineering: a firm-level analysis”, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 129-162.
Caldwell, B. (1994), “Missteps, miscues, business reengineering failures”, Information Week, Vol. 20,
pp. 50-60.
Chan, S.L. and Choi, C.F. (1997), “A conceptual and analytical framework for business
process reengineering”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 50 Nos 2/3,
pp. 211-223.
Childe, S.J., Maull, R.S. and Bennett, J. (1994), “Frameworks for understanding business process
re-engineering”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 12,
pp. 22-34.
Clegg, D. (2000), “Applying the Designer/2000 Process Modeller for business process reengineering”,
Oracle Corporation, Reading, MA.
Crowe, T.J., Fong, P.M., Bauman, T.A. and Zayas‐Castro, J.L. (2002), “Quantitative risk level estimation
of business process reengineering efforts”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 5,
pp. 490-511.
Davenport, T. (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology, Implementing
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. BPR projects
Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. (1990), “The new industrial engineering: information technology and
business process redesign”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 11-27.
Dennis, A.R., Carte, T.A. and Kelly, G.G. (2003), “Breaking the rules: success and failure in groupware-
supported business process reengineering”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 31-47.
Emerie-Kassahun, A. and Molla, A. (2013), “BPR complementary competence: definition, model and 1117
measurement”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 575-596.
Geisler, E. (1996), “Cleaning up after reengineering”, Business Horizons, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 71-78.
Grant, D. (2016), “Business analysis techniques in business reengineering”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 75-88.
Grover, V., Jeong, S.R., Kettinger, W.J. and Teng, J.T. (1995), “The implementation of business process
reengineering”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 109-144.
Guimaraes, T. and Paranjape, K. (2011), “Success factors for manufacturing process reengineering
projects”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Research, Vol. 3 Nos 3/4, p. 183.
Guimaraes, T. and Paranjape, K. (2013), “Testing success factors for manufacturing BPR project
phases”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 68 Nos 9/12,
pp. 1937-1947.
Habib, M.N. (2013), “Understanding critical success and failure factors of business process reengineering”,
International Review of Management and Business Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Revolution, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Harrison, D.B. and Pratt, M.D. (1993), “A methodology for reengineering businesses”, Planning Review,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 6-11.
Herzog, N.V., Polajnar, A. and Tonchia, S. (2007), “Development and validation of business process
reengineering (BPR) variables: a survey research in Slovenian companies”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 24, pp. 5811-5834.
Hesson, M., Al‐Ameed, H. and Samaka, M. (2007), “Business process reengineering in UAE public
sector: a town planning case study”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 348-378.
Homa, P. (1995), “Business process re-engineering”, Business Process Re-engineering & Management
Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 10-30.
Kettinger, W.J., Teng, J.T. and Guha, S. (1997), “Business process change: a study of methodologies,
techniques, and tools”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 55-80.
Khodambashi, S. (2013), “Business process re-engineering application in healthcare in a relation to
health information systems”, Procedia Technology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 949-957.
Kohlbacher, M. and Gruenwald, S. (2011), “Process ownership, process performance measurement and
firm performance”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60
No. 7, pp. 709-720.
Low, S., Kamaruddin, S. and Azid, I.A. (2015), “Improvement process selection framework for the
formation of improvement solution alternatives”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 702-722.
Lu, H. and Yeh, D. (1998), “Enterprises’ perceptions on business process re-engineering: a path analytic
model”, Omega, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 17-27.
MacBryde, J., Paton, S., Grant, N. and Bayliss, M. (2012), “Performance measurement driving change: a
case from the defence sector”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 462-482.
Malhotra, Y. (1998), “Business process redesign: an overview”, IEEE Engineering Management Review,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 27-31.
IJPPM Manganelli, R.L. and Klein, M.M. (1994), The Reengineering Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Business
68,6 Transformation, American Management Association (AMACOM), New York, NY.
Maull, R. and Childe, S. (1994), “Business Process Re-engineering”, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 26-34.
Maull, R.S., Weaver, A.M., Childe, S.J. and Bennett, J. (1994), “State of the art in business process
re-engineering in UK manufacturing companies”, 1st European OMA Conference, Cambridge,
27–29 June.
1118
Misra, S.C., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2006), “An actor-dependency technique for analyzing and
modeling early-phase requirements of organizational change management due to information
systems adoption”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 215-231.
Muthu, S., Whitman, L. and Cheraghi, S.H. (2006), “Business process reengineering: a consolidated
methodology”, Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering
Theory, Applications and Practice, US Department of the Interior – Enterprise Architecture,
Washington, DC.
Muthu, S., Whitman, L. and Hossein, S.C. (1999), “Business process reengineering: a consolidated
methodology”, Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering
Theory, Applications, and Practice, San Antonio, TX, 17–20 November.
Omidi, A. and Khoshtinat, B. (2016), “Factors affecting the implementation of business process
reengineering: taking into account the moderating role of organizational culture (case study:
Iran Air)”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 36, pp. 425-432.
Ovenden, T.R. (1994), “Business process re-engineering: definitely worth considering”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 56-61.
Radhakrishnan, R. and Balasubramanian, S. (2008), Business Process Reengineering: Text and Cases,
PHI Learning, New Delhi.
Rinaldi, M., Montanari, R. and Bottani, E. (2015), “Improving the efficiency of public administrations
through business process reengineering and simulation”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 419-462.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods for Business Students, 4th ed.,
Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Schniederjans, M.J. and Kim, G.C. (2003), “Implementing enterprise resource planning systems with
total quality control and business process reengineering”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 418-429.
Sehgal, S., Sahay, B.S. and Goyal, S.K. (2006), “Reengineering the supply chain in a paint
company”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 No. 8,
pp. 655-670.
Sia, S. and Neo, B. (2008), “Business process reengineering, empowerment and work monitoring”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 609-628.
Sikdar, A. and Payyazhi, J. (2014), “A process model of managing organizational change during
business process redesign”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 971-998.
Thong, J.Y., Yap, C.S. and Seah, K.L. (2000), “Business process reengineering in the public sector: the
case of the housing development board in Singapore”, Journal of Management Information
System, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 245-270.
Vakola, M., Rezgui, Y. and Wood‐Harper, T. (2000), “The Condor business process re-engineering
model”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 15 Nos 1/2, pp. 42-46.
Walston, S.L., Burns, L.R. and Kimberly, J.R. (2000), “Does reengineering really work? An examination
of the context and outcomes of hospital reengineering initiatives”, Health Services Research,
Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1363-1388.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed., Sage Publications, New York, NY.
Zigiaris, S. (2000), “Business process re-engineering (BPR)”, available at: www.academia.edu/14273758/
Report_produced_for_the_EC_funded_project_INNOREGIO_dissemination_of_innovation_
and_knowledge_management_techniques (accessed 3 July 2018).
About the authors Implementing
M.F.F. Fasna is Research Assistant in the Department of Building Economics, University of BPR projects
Moratuwa and currently pursuing Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). She has received BSc (Hons) Degree
in Facilities Management from the Department of Building Economics, University of Moratuwa. Her
research interests are business process reengineering (BPR), energy retrofitting, stakeholder
involvement, sustainability, etc. M.F.F. Fasna is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
fasna.fm2013@gmail.com
Dr Sachie Gunatilake is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Building Economics, University of 1119
Moratuwa. She received BSc (Hons) Degree in Quantity Surveying from the Department of Building
Economics, University of Moratuwa in 2007 and PhD Degree from the School of Built and Natural
Environment, University of Central Lancashire, UK in 2013. Her research interests include sustainable
construction, integrated procurement systems, stakeholder involvement, etc.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com