Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and ...
Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and ...
Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Available onl<strong>in</strong>e at www.sciencedirect.com<br />
Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306<br />
www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw<br />
<strong>Best</strong> <strong>practices</strong> <strong>in</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> <strong>redesign</strong>:<strong>an</strong> <strong>overview</strong> <strong>an</strong>d<br />
qualitative evaluation of successful <strong>redesign</strong> heuristics<br />
H.A. Reijers a;∗ , S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar b<br />
aDepartment of Information <strong>an</strong>d Technology, Faculty of Technology <strong>an</strong>d M<strong>an</strong>agement, E<strong>in</strong>dhoven University of Technology<br />
(PAV D14,) P.O. Box 513, E<strong>in</strong>dhoven, 5600 MB, Netherl<strong>an</strong>ds<br />
bDepartment of Comput<strong>in</strong>g, Communications Technology <strong>an</strong>d Mathematics, London Metropolit<strong>an</strong> University, 2-16 Eden Grove,<br />
London N7 8EA, UK<br />
Received 25 April 2002; accepted 23 April 2004<br />
Abstract<br />
To implement bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> <strong>redesign</strong> several best <strong>practices</strong> c<strong>an</strong> be dist<strong>in</strong>guished. This paper gives <strong>an</strong> <strong>overview</strong> of<br />
heuristic rules that c<strong>an</strong> support practitioners to develop a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> design that is a radical improvement of a current<br />
design. The emphasis is on the mech<strong>an</strong>ics of the <strong>process</strong>, rather th<strong>an</strong> on behavioral or ch<strong>an</strong>ge m<strong>an</strong>agement aspects. The various<br />
best <strong>practices</strong> are derived from a wide literature survey <strong>an</strong>d supplemented with experiences of the authors. To evaluate the<br />
impact of each best practice along the dimensions of cost, exibility, time <strong>an</strong>d quality, a conceptual framework is presented<br />
that synthesizes views from areas such as <strong>in</strong>formation systems development, enterprise model<strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong>d work ow m<strong>an</strong>agement.<br />
The best <strong>practices</strong> are thought to have a wide applicability across various <strong>in</strong>dustries <strong>an</strong>d bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>es. They c<strong>an</strong> be<br />
used as a “check list” for <strong>process</strong> <strong>redesign</strong> under the umbrella of diverse m<strong>an</strong>agement approaches such as Total Cycle Time<br />
compression, the Le<strong>an</strong> Enterprise <strong>an</strong>d Constra<strong>in</strong>ts M<strong>an</strong>agement.<br />
? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.<br />
Keywords: Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> <strong>redesign</strong>; Operations m<strong>an</strong>agement; MIS; Heuristics<br />
1. Introduction<br />
A bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> <strong>redesign</strong> (BPR) <strong>in</strong>itiative is commonly<br />
seen as a twofold challenge (e.g. [1–3]):<br />
• a technical challenge, which is due to the di culty of<br />
develop<strong>in</strong>g a <strong>process</strong> design that is a radical improvement<br />
of the current design,<br />
• <strong>an</strong>d a socio-cultural challenge, result<strong>in</strong>g from the severe<br />
org<strong>an</strong>izational e ects on the <strong>in</strong>volved people, which may<br />
lead them to react aga<strong>in</strong>st those ch<strong>an</strong>ges.<br />
Apart from these challenges, project m<strong>an</strong>agement of a BPR<br />
<strong>in</strong>itiative itself is also often named as a separate BPR challenge<br />
(e.g. [4]).<br />
∗ Tel.:+31-40-247-2290; fax:+31-40-243-2612.<br />
E-mail address: jreijers@w<strong>in</strong>.tue.nl (H.A. Reijers).<br />
0305-0483/$ - see front matter ? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.<br />
doi:10.1016/j.omega.2004.04.012<br />
M<strong>an</strong>y methodologies, techniques, <strong>an</strong>d tools have been<br />
proposed that face one or more of the mentioned challenges<br />
<strong>in</strong> a more or less <strong>in</strong>tegrated approach (for <strong>an</strong> <strong>overview</strong> see<br />
[5]). Prescriptive literature <strong>in</strong> the eld is sometimes advertised<br />
as “a step-by-step guide to bus<strong>in</strong>ess tr<strong>an</strong>sformation”<br />
(e.g. [1]) suggest<strong>in</strong>g a complete treatment of the org<strong>an</strong>izational<br />
<strong>an</strong>d technical issues <strong>in</strong>volved with BPR. However,<br />
work like this seems to be primarily aimed at impress<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
bus<strong>in</strong>ess audience. At best it gives some directions to m<strong>an</strong>age<br />
org<strong>an</strong>izational risk, but commonly lacks actual technical<br />
direction to (re)design a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>. Even the<br />
classic work of Hammer <strong>an</strong>d Champy [6] devotes only 14<br />
out of a total of over 250 pages to this issue, of which<br />
11 pages are used for the description of a case. Gerrits [7]<br />
mentions:“In the literature on BPR, examples of successful<br />
BPR implementations are given. Unfortunately, the literature<br />
restricts itself to descriptions of the ’situation before’<br />
<strong>an</strong>d the ’situation after’, giv<strong>in</strong>g very little <strong>in</strong>formation on the
284 H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306<br />
<strong>redesign</strong> <strong>process</strong> itself”. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Motw<strong>an</strong>i et al. [8], <strong>in</strong><br />
the me<strong>an</strong>while, research <strong>in</strong> BPR progressed slightly to also<br />
<strong>in</strong>clude the development of conceptual models for assess<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>an</strong>d execut<strong>in</strong>g BPR. However, the ma<strong>in</strong> criticism to these<br />
models/steps is that there has been little e ort to use the exist<strong>in</strong>g<br />
theory to develop a comprehensive <strong>in</strong>tegrated model<br />
on BPR. Valiris <strong>an</strong>d Glykas [9] also recognize as limitations<br />
of exist<strong>in</strong>g BPR methodologies that “there is a lack of a systematic<br />
approach that c<strong>an</strong> lead a <strong>process</strong> <strong>redesign</strong>er through<br />
a series of steps for the achievement of <strong>process</strong> <strong>redesign</strong>”.<br />
As Sharp <strong>an</strong>d McDermott [10] commented more recently:<br />
“How to get from the as-is to the to-be [<strong>in</strong> a BPR project]<br />
isn’t expla<strong>in</strong>ed, so we conclude that dur<strong>in</strong>g the break,<br />
the famous ATAMO procedure is <strong>in</strong>voked—And Then,<br />
A Miracle occurs”.<br />
In our research we are <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g a methodology<br />
for BPR implementation based not only <strong>in</strong> detail<strong>in</strong>g<br />
steps for BPR but also on guid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong>d support<strong>in</strong>g the BPR<br />
execution by me<strong>an</strong>s of techniques <strong>an</strong>d best <strong>practices</strong>.<br />
In this context our rst concern is to adopt (or de ne) <strong>an</strong><br />
exist<strong>in</strong>g framework for BPR. We will not try to present yet<br />
<strong>an</strong>other <strong>in</strong>tegrated BPR methodology, the framework should<br />
only allow the user of the BPR methodology to recognize the<br />
import<strong>an</strong>t topics <strong>an</strong>d their relationships. The second concern<br />
is to identify among the literature <strong>an</strong>d the successful execution<br />
of current BPR implementations the best <strong>practices</strong> that<br />
may/should be used for each topic of the framework. Br<strong>an</strong>d<br />
<strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> der Kolk’s [11] evaluation framework will be used<br />
to assess the (supposed) e ects of a best practice on cost,<br />
quality, time <strong>an</strong>d exibility. Our nal concern is to guide<br />
the users to when <strong>an</strong>d <strong>in</strong> which order to apply these best<br />
<strong>practices</strong>. This latter po<strong>in</strong>t also <strong>in</strong>cludes guid<strong>an</strong>ce towards<br />
the limits of these best <strong>practices</strong> <strong>an</strong>d their validity doma<strong>in</strong>.<br />
This <strong>in</strong>volves <strong>an</strong> extensive study of all the best <strong>practices</strong><br />
identi ed.<br />
In this paper, we will only focus on the rst <strong>an</strong>d second<br />
concern of our research, namely:<br />
• de n<strong>in</strong>g a framework for BPR implementation <strong>an</strong>d<br />
• identify<strong>in</strong>g the best <strong>practices</strong> <strong>in</strong> BPR implementation.<br />
The best <strong>practices</strong> which are identi ed should be seen as<br />
<strong>in</strong>dependent rules of thumb, each of which c<strong>an</strong> be of value<br />
to support practitioners <strong>in</strong> fac<strong>in</strong>g the technical challenge of<br />
a BPR project. Merely apply<strong>in</strong>g these rules, however, is<br />
unlikely to lead to susta<strong>in</strong>ed success.<br />
In the rst place, the BPR <strong>practices</strong> we will discuss focus<br />
on the mech<strong>an</strong>ics of the <strong>process</strong> <strong>an</strong>d do not cover how the<br />
behavior of people work<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> the <strong>process</strong> c<strong>an</strong> be <strong>in</strong> uenced.<br />
Anybody who conducted a BPR project realizes that<br />
the latter is a crucial factor <strong>in</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g a <strong>process</strong> tr<strong>an</strong>sformation<br />
successful.<br />
Secondly, the application of these various best <strong>practices</strong><br />
must be embedded with<strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong> overall vision on BPR that is<br />
adopted for the project. Several well-known m<strong>an</strong>agement<br />
philosophies exist that c<strong>an</strong> guide the overall course of a<br />
reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g project, such as Total Cycle Time Compression<br />
[12,13], the Le<strong>an</strong> Enterprise approach [14] <strong>an</strong>d Constra<strong>in</strong>ts<br />
M<strong>an</strong>agement [15,16]. Although a discussion of these<br />
various approaches is outside the scope of this paper, it is<br />
import<strong>an</strong>t to po<strong>in</strong>t out here that the best <strong>practices</strong> we discuss<br />
should be seen as be<strong>in</strong>g on a lower, more operational level<br />
th<strong>an</strong> these encompass<strong>in</strong>g approaches. M<strong>an</strong>y of the best <strong>practices</strong><br />
we mention do have a wide application across these<br />
approaches. For example, consider the case of the reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of a m<strong>an</strong>ufactur<strong>in</strong>g comp<strong>an</strong>y as <strong>in</strong> [17]. This BPR<br />
project was driven by a Total Cycle Time Compression approach<br />
<strong>in</strong> which several best <strong>practices</strong> we list <strong>in</strong> this paper<br />
were applied, such as empowerment <strong>an</strong>d the <strong>in</strong>troduction<br />
of <strong>process</strong>-wide technology. Another example is the task<br />
elim<strong>in</strong>ation best practice, which orig<strong>in</strong>ated from the same<br />
experiences with<strong>in</strong> the Toyota comp<strong>an</strong>y that shaped “le<strong>an</strong><br />
th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g” as <strong>an</strong> overall m<strong>an</strong>agement philosophy [18].<br />
In summary, we believe that adopt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong> overall m<strong>an</strong>agement<br />
vision on BPR is a necessary condition for mak<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
application of BPR best <strong>practices</strong> e ective <strong>an</strong>d to give direction<br />
to a BPR e ort. And <strong>in</strong> return, the implementation<br />
of such a BPR vision c<strong>an</strong> be helped by consider<strong>in</strong>g the best<br />
<strong>practices</strong> we present <strong>in</strong> the rest of this paper.<br />
The structure of the paper is now as follows. First we<br />
will present a framework for BPR implementation <strong>in</strong> Section<br />
2. It will serve as a guid<strong>an</strong>ce to which topics should be<br />
considered when implement<strong>in</strong>g BPR. Before we discuss the<br />
various best <strong>practices</strong>, we will describe a model <strong>in</strong> Section<br />
3 that serves as a frame of reference for their assessment.<br />
Next we will describe the BPR best <strong>practices</strong> <strong>in</strong> Section 4.<br />
For each best practice, we will present its general formulation,<br />
its potential e ects <strong>an</strong>d possible drawbacks. We will<br />
also <strong>in</strong>dicate similarities <strong>in</strong> best <strong>practices</strong>, provide references<br />
to their orig<strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong>d—if available—to known qu<strong>an</strong>titative or<br />
<strong>an</strong>alytic support. A summary of all contributions to the best<br />
<strong>practices</strong> will be <strong>an</strong>alyzed <strong>in</strong> Table 1. The paper ends with<br />
our conclusions <strong>an</strong>d future research.<br />
2. A bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> <strong>redesign</strong> framework<br />
In order to help the user <strong>in</strong> choos<strong>in</strong>g the correct best<br />
practice when deal<strong>in</strong>g with the implementation of BPR, it<br />
is import<strong>an</strong>t to de ne clearly a framework for it. The idea<br />
beh<strong>in</strong>d a framework is to help practitioners by identify<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the topics that should be considered <strong>an</strong>d how these topics<br />
are related [19]. In this perspective, the framework should<br />
identify clearly all views one should consider whenever apply<strong>in</strong>g<br />
a BPR implementation project. So, a framework is<br />
not a model of a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>. It is rather <strong>an</strong> explicit set<br />
of ideas that helps <strong>in</strong> th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g about the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
the context of reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
We will now explore <strong>an</strong>d discuss several frameworks <strong>an</strong>d<br />
bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> <strong>an</strong>alysis models that are available <strong>in</strong> the<br />
literature.
Table 1<br />
A survey of best <strong>practices</strong> <strong>in</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> <strong>redesign</strong><br />
Framework Rule Impact Limits Referred Technique Tool Application<br />
elements name on BP to by used availability examples<br />
Customers Control<br />
relocation<br />
Contact<br />
reduction<br />
↗ Quality,<br />
↗ cost<br />
↘ Time,<br />
↗ quality,<br />
↗ cost<br />
Integration ↘ Time,<br />
↘ exibility,<br />
↘ cost<br />
Unknown Kle<strong>in</strong> [35] Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Paci c Bell<br />
Unknown Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Champy [6]<br />
Buzacott [36] Conditions on<br />
when to reduce<br />
contact<br />
or not<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Ford’s accounts payable departments reduced number<br />
of clerk’s from 500 to 125 (from three po<strong>in</strong>ts<br />
of contact to two)<br />
Queu<strong>in</strong>g<br />
model<br />
None<br />
Unknown Kle<strong>in</strong> [35] Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Peppard <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32]<br />
Products None None None None None None None<br />
Operation<br />
view<br />
Order<br />
types<br />
Task elim<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
↘ Time,<br />
↘ quality,<br />
↘ cost,<br />
↘ exibility<br />
↘ Time,<br />
↘ exibility,<br />
↘ cost.<br />
None Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Champy [6]<br />
Rupp <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Russell [39]<br />
Peppard <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32]<br />
Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38]<br />
Unknown Peppard <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32]<br />
Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38]<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Individual (customers carry trays <strong>an</strong>d clear away<br />
<strong>in</strong> fast foods) or a customer org<strong>an</strong>ization (Baxter<br />
health-care <strong>in</strong>tegrated their org<strong>an</strong>ization with their<br />
customer by just-<strong>in</strong>-time provision of a hospital<br />
equipment)<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None IBM credit, three versions of the credit <strong>in</strong>sur<strong>an</strong>ce<br />
<strong>process</strong>:performed by computer, by a deal structurer,<br />
with support of specialist advisers<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e +<br />
notion of runners,<br />
repeaters<br />
None None<br />
<strong>an</strong>d str<strong>an</strong>gers<br />
to dist<strong>in</strong>guish<br />
<strong>process</strong><br />
<strong>an</strong>tsvari-<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Furniture factory dist<strong>in</strong>guishes separate support<strong>in</strong>g<br />
chair-mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>process</strong><br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>es None Tr<strong>an</strong>sportation, movement <strong>an</strong>d motion (a high-tech<br />
comp<strong>an</strong>y found out that its semi-conductors traveled<br />
150 000 miles dur<strong>in</strong>g their tr<strong>an</strong>sformation)<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Controls through which all orders pass, physical<br />
tr<strong>an</strong>sport of <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306 285
Table 1 (cont<strong>in</strong>ued)<br />
Framework Rule Impact Limits Referred Technique Tool Application<br />
elements name on BP to by used availability examples<br />
Order-based ↘ Time,<br />
work ↗ cost<br />
Triage ↗ Quality,<br />
↘ time,<br />
↘ cost,<br />
↘ exibility<br />
Task composition<br />
↘ Time,<br />
↗ quality,<br />
↘ cost,<br />
↘ exibility<br />
V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
<strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee<br />
[41]<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e +<br />
examples<br />
None Monitor<strong>in</strong>g tasks, iterations<br />
Buzacott [36] Illustration on Queu<strong>in</strong>g Illustration of the qu<strong>an</strong>titative e ect of elim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>an</strong> example. model<br />
iterations on a simple example<br />
Cast<strong>an</strong>o et al. Guidel<strong>in</strong>e + ARTEMIS Entity-based similarity coe cient to evaluate the<br />
[40]<br />
example + methodology degree of similarities between activities<br />
tool<br />
framework<br />
Unknown Own experi- Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Removal of batch <strong>process</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong>d periodic activities<br />
ence<br />
when possible<br />
Too much<br />
specialization<br />
may have <strong>in</strong>verted<br />
e ects<br />
Kle<strong>in</strong> [35] Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38]<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Example of triage <strong>in</strong> times of peak dem<strong>an</strong>d<br />
V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
<strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee<br />
[41]<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Zapf <strong>an</strong>d Speci c for Simulation Tests two “triage” con gurations to decide which<br />
He<strong>in</strong>zl [42] Call Center<br />
one results <strong>in</strong> better perform<strong>an</strong>ce results<br />
Org<strong>an</strong>izations.<br />
Dew<strong>an</strong> et al. An approach Extension of Applicable to adm<strong>in</strong>istrative <strong>process</strong>es with rela-<br />
[43]<br />
for the <strong>in</strong>tegra- PERT/CPM tively stable task structures, such as order ful lltion<br />
of tasks. approaches ment by mail order distributors, mortgage <strong>process</strong>-<br />
Discussion<br />
<strong>in</strong>g, medical bill<strong>in</strong>g or con guration m<strong>an</strong>agement <strong>in</strong><br />
of optimality<br />
large scale eng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g design projects<br />
of apply<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>tegration<br />
<strong>in</strong> a <strong>process</strong><br />
network on<br />
cycle-time <strong>an</strong>d<br />
cost. Model<br />
limited to<br />
xed delays<br />
Too large Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
between tasks<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None An electronic comp<strong>an</strong>y compressed responsibilities<br />
tasks may Champy [6]<br />
for the various steps or the order ful llment <strong>process</strong><br />
have <strong>in</strong>verted<br />
result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> tasks comb<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong>to one task executed<br />
results.<br />
by a so-called “customer service representative”<br />
286 H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 –306
Behavioral<br />
view<br />
Resequenc<strong>in</strong>g ↘ Time,<br />
↘ cost<br />
Parallelism ↘ Time, may<br />
↗ cost,<br />
↘ exibility,<br />
↘ quality<br />
Rupp <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Russell [39]<br />
Peppard <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32]<br />
Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38]<br />
Reijers <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Goverde [44]<br />
V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
[45]<br />
V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
<strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee<br />
[41]<br />
Buzacott [36] The desirability<br />
of comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
several<br />
tasks <strong>in</strong>to one,<br />
depends critically<br />
on the<br />
<strong>process</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
time variability<br />
<strong>an</strong>d on<br />
the arrival<br />
variability<br />
Seidm<strong>an</strong>n <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Sundararaj<strong>an</strong><br />
[43]<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Applicability:situations with large number of tasks<br />
<strong>an</strong>d limited need for adapt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation systems<br />
because of composition<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Conditions A heuristic None<br />
based on ratios<br />
to de ne<br />
when to comb<strong>in</strong>e<br />
two subsequent<br />
tasks<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guid<strong>an</strong>ce on<br />
the e ect of<br />
task asymmetry<br />
on the<br />
optimality of<br />
the <strong>process</strong><br />
<strong>redesign</strong><br />
Queu<strong>in</strong>g<br />
models<br />
Queu<strong>in</strong>g theory<br />
<strong>an</strong>d tendency<br />
graphs.<br />
Unknown Kle<strong>in</strong> [35] Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Automated kiosks <strong>in</strong> Disney theme parks<br />
Unknown Rupp <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Russell [39]<br />
Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38]<br />
None<br />
None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None In a stylized bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>. The end controls are<br />
parallelized<br />
H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306 287
Table 1 (cont<strong>in</strong>ued)<br />
Framework Rule Impact Limits Referred Technique Tool Application<br />
elements name on BP to by used availability examples<br />
Org<strong>an</strong>ization:<br />
structure<br />
Knock-out ↗ Time,<br />
↘ cost<br />
Exception ↘ Time,<br />
↗ quality,<br />
↘ exibility<br />
Order assignment<br />
↘ Time,<br />
↗ quality,<br />
↘ exibility<br />
V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
<strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee<br />
[41]<br />
Buzacott [36] Parallel <strong>process</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
is not<br />
necessarily<br />
clearly superior<br />
unless<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
jobs spend <strong>in</strong><br />
the system is<br />
the dom<strong>in</strong><strong>an</strong>t<br />
criterion<br />
V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
[45]<br />
V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
[45]<br />
Poyssick <strong>an</strong>d<br />
H<strong>an</strong>naford<br />
[46]<br />
Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Champy [6]<br />
Unknown Rupp <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Russell [44]<br />
Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Champy [6]<br />
Reijers <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Goverde [44]<br />
V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
<strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee<br />
[41]<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Queu<strong>in</strong>g<br />
models.<br />
None<br />
A set of con- A heuristic. None<br />
ditions under<br />
which putt<strong>in</strong>g<br />
two subsequent<br />
tasks <strong>in</strong><br />
parallel have a<br />
positive e ect<br />
Rules on A heuristic. None<br />
how to order<br />
tasks when<br />
knock-out<br />
<strong>process</strong>es<br />
considered<br />
are<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Bell Atl<strong>an</strong>tic assigned a case team to establish<br />
high-speed, digital circuits for bus<strong>in</strong>ess customers<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
288 H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 –306
Flexible<br />
assignment<br />
↘ Queue<br />
time,<br />
↗ quality,<br />
↘ exibility<br />
Centralization ↗ Flexibility,<br />
↘ time,<br />
↗ cost.<br />
Split responsibilities<br />
Customer<br />
teams<br />
Numerical<br />
<strong>in</strong>volvement<br />
Case<br />
m<strong>an</strong>ager<br />
↗ Time,<br />
↗ quality,<br />
↘ exibility<br />
↘ Cost,<br />
↘ time,<br />
↘ exibility,<br />
↘ quality<br />
↗ Time,<br />
↘ cost,<br />
↘ quality<br />
↗ Quality<br />
<strong>an</strong>d customer<br />
satisfaction,<br />
↗ cost<br />
V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
<strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee<br />
[41]<br />
Unknown V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
<strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee<br />
[38]<br />
Unknown Rupp <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Russell [39]<br />
Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38]<br />
Peppard <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32]<br />
Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Champy [6]<br />
Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38]<br />
Unknown Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Champy [6]<br />
Rupp <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Russell [39]<br />
Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38]<br />
Unknown Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Champy [6]<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e Work ow<br />
m<strong>an</strong>agement<br />
systems<br />
None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Microsoft (10 000 employees) still works <strong>in</strong> teams<br />
of no more th<strong>an</strong> 200 people despite <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
ow<strong>in</strong>g problems<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Hallmark, <strong>in</strong>tegrated teams for the development of<br />
a new l<strong>in</strong>e of cards<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Imag<strong>in</strong>e what<br />
happens if<br />
only one person<br />
makes<br />
the job <strong>an</strong>d<br />
add additional<br />
resources if<br />
appears necessary<br />
V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
<strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee<br />
[41]<br />
Buzacott [36] Provides conditions<br />
for<br />
which the role<br />
of the case<br />
m<strong>an</strong>ager<br />
justi ed<br />
is<br />
None Who is needed for the h<strong>an</strong>dl<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>sur<strong>an</strong>ce<br />
claim?<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Duke Power Comp<strong>an</strong>y (public utility) where case<br />
m<strong>an</strong>agers present customers with the useful ction<br />
of <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>tegrated customer service <strong>process</strong><br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Queu<strong>in</strong>g<br />
models<br />
None<br />
H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306 289
Table 1 (cont<strong>in</strong>ued)<br />
Framework Rule Impact Limits Referred Technique Tool Application<br />
elements name on BP to by used availability examples<br />
Org<strong>an</strong>ization:<br />
population<br />
Extra resources<br />
Specialist<br />
–generalist<br />
↘ Time,<br />
↗ exibility,<br />
↗ cost<br />
↘ Time<br />
(specialist),<br />
↗ exibility<br />
(generalist)<br />
Empower ↘ Time,<br />
↘ quality,<br />
↘ cost<br />
Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38]<br />
V<strong>an</strong> Hee et al.<br />
[47]<br />
Unknown Poyssick <strong>an</strong>d<br />
H<strong>an</strong>naford<br />
[38]<br />
Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38]<br />
Rupp <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Russell [39]<br />
Seidm<strong>an</strong>n <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Sundararaj<strong>an</strong><br />
[25]<br />
Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Champy [6]<br />
Increase ca- None None<br />
pacity if possible,<br />
but not if<br />
it only moves<br />
the bottleneck<br />
Discussion of Algorithms Example of a telephone operator comp<strong>an</strong>y<br />
the optimality<br />
of several<br />
strategies to<br />
optimally allocate<br />
additional<br />
resources <strong>in</strong><br />
a bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong><br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guid<strong>an</strong>ce on<br />
the e ect of<br />
knowledge <strong>in</strong>tensity<br />
on the<br />
optimality<br />
the <strong>process</strong><br />
<strong>redesign</strong><br />
of<br />
Buzacott [36] Provides<br />
guidel<strong>in</strong>es<br />
on e ciency<br />
of centralized/decentralized<br />
systems<br />
Poyssick<br />
H<strong>an</strong>naford<br />
[46]<br />
<strong>an</strong>d<br />
Queu<strong>in</strong>g systems<br />
<strong>an</strong>d tendency<br />
graphs<br />
None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None IBM credit. Specialist jobs such as credit checker<br />
<strong>an</strong>d pricer were comb<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong>to a s<strong>in</strong>gle position<br />
“deal structurer”<br />
Formal models<br />
of centralized/decentralized<br />
systems<br />
None<br />
290 H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 –306
Control<br />
addition<br />
↗ Time,<br />
↗ quality,<br />
↘ cost<br />
Information Bu er<strong>in</strong>g ↘ Time,<br />
↗ cost<br />
Technology Task au- ↘ Time,<br />
tomation ↗ quality,<br />
↘ exibility<br />
Integral<br />
Bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
Process<br />
Technology<br />
↗ Quality<br />
↘ cost,<br />
↘time<br />
Rupp <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Russell [39]<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Seidm<strong>an</strong>n <strong>an</strong>d Qualitative None None<br />
Sundararaj<strong>an</strong> discussion<br />
[25]<br />
on impact of<br />
control cost<br />
on delegat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Own<br />
enceexperi-<br />
work or not<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Unknown Poyssick<br />
H<strong>an</strong>naford<br />
[46]<br />
<strong>an</strong>d Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Buzacott [36] Rules on Queu<strong>in</strong>g None<br />
where it is model<br />
Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
best to check.<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Taco Bell elim<strong>in</strong>ated some supervisory layers to give<br />
Champy [6]<br />
more responsibility to restaur<strong>an</strong>ts m<strong>an</strong>agers lead<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to a new job category the Market m<strong>an</strong>ager<br />
Unknown Own<br />
enceexperi-<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Peppard <strong>an</strong>d Rules of<br />
Telephone-based bus<strong>in</strong>esses. Niss<strong>an</strong> uses a rule of<br />
Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32] thumb for<br />
thumb of not automat<strong>in</strong>g dirty, di cult or d<strong>an</strong>gerous<br />
greater success<br />
<strong>in</strong> automation.<br />
tasks<br />
Hammer <strong>an</strong>d Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Taco Bell:the Taco-mak<strong>in</strong>g mach<strong>in</strong>e<br />
Champy [6]<br />
Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38]<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Unknown Kle<strong>in</strong> [35] Guidel<strong>in</strong>e I & T Loews corporation (cha<strong>in</strong> of movie theatres) <strong>in</strong>troduced<br />
Tele lm <strong>an</strong>d Teleticket services<br />
Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Champy [6]<br />
Peppard <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32]<br />
Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38]<br />
V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
<strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee<br />
[41]<br />
A chapter with<br />
examples on<br />
the enabl<strong>in</strong>g<br />
role of IT<br />
I & T Shared databases, expert systems, telecommunications<br />
networks, etc.<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e i.e. work ow<br />
packages<br />
Computerization of documents<br />
H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306 291
292 H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306<br />
Table 1 (cont<strong>in</strong>ued)<br />
Framework Rule Impact Limits Referred Technique Tool Application<br />
elements name on BP to by used availability examples<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None The creditworth<strong>in</strong>ess of a customer<br />
Own experience<br />
↘ Cost,<br />
↘ time<br />
Trusted<br />
party<br />
External environment<br />
Kle<strong>in</strong> [35] Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Outsourc<strong>in</strong>g ↘ Cost,<br />
↘ Quality.<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None Taco Bell, the K-M<strong>in</strong>us system (Kitchenless<br />
restaur<strong>an</strong>t)<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e None None<br />
Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Champy [6]<br />
Poyssick <strong>an</strong>d<br />
H<strong>an</strong>naford<br />
[46]<br />
Poyssick <strong>an</strong>d<br />
H<strong>an</strong>naford<br />
[46]<br />
Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Champy [6]<br />
Interfac<strong>in</strong>g ↘ Cost,<br />
↗ quality,<br />
↘ time.<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e Technology Interactive videodisk may be as good contact with<br />
a potential buyer as <strong>an</strong>y personal contact<br />
Customers<br />
Products<br />
Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Process<br />
Particip<strong>an</strong>ts Information Technology<br />
Fig. 1. The WCA framework of Alter [19].<br />
CIMOSA, a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>-centered method for enterprise<br />
model<strong>in</strong>g dist<strong>in</strong>guishes three model<strong>in</strong>g levels [20]:<br />
• the requirements de nition level:to represent the voice<br />
of the users, i.e. what is needed as expressed <strong>in</strong> a detailed<br />
<strong>an</strong>d unambiguous way <strong>in</strong> user-oriented l<strong>an</strong>guage;<br />
• the design speci cation level:to formally de ne one or<br />
more solutions satisfy<strong>in</strong>g the set of requirements <strong>an</strong>d to<br />
<strong>an</strong>alyze their properties <strong>an</strong>d to select the “best” one;<br />
• the implementation description:to state <strong>in</strong> detail the<br />
implementation solution tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account technical<br />
physical constra<strong>in</strong>ts.<br />
It is clear, accord<strong>in</strong>g to this classi cation <strong>an</strong>d the nature of<br />
BPR, that the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> framework we need is on<br />
the design speci cation level. Alter [19] suggests the use of<br />
the so-called work-centered <strong>an</strong>alysis framework (WCA). It<br />
consists of six l<strong>in</strong>ked elements, the <strong>in</strong>ternal or external customers<br />
of the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>, the products (or services)<br />
generated by the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>, the steps <strong>in</strong> the bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong>, the particip<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>, the <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> uses or creates <strong>an</strong>d nally the<br />
technology the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> uses. Fig. 1 shows the l<strong>in</strong>ks<br />
between these elements.<br />
This framework appears to be relev<strong>an</strong>t for our purpose<br />
because it dissociates the structure of the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong><br />
from the other “components” of a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>:the particip<strong>an</strong>ts,<br />
the <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>an</strong>d the technology. Indeed, as<br />
stated by Gr<strong>an</strong>t [21] it is a narrow view to only consider <strong>process</strong>es<br />
when depict<strong>in</strong>g BPR; other import<strong>an</strong>t aspects of <strong>in</strong>stitutions<br />
are also org<strong>an</strong>izational structure, people, communication<br />
<strong>an</strong>d technology. The d<strong>an</strong>ger of adopt<strong>in</strong>g too narrow a<br />
view is that it misdirects developers to focus exclusively on<br />
<strong>process</strong>es while ignor<strong>in</strong>g a variety of other possible reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g<br />
opportunities that may result from a wider view.<br />
A second argument for the relev<strong>an</strong>ce of such a framework<br />
for our purpose is the emphasis on technology as a separate<br />
part of the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>. In their paper, Gunasekar<strong>an</strong><br />
<strong>an</strong>d Nath [22] describe the adv<strong>an</strong>tages of <strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g IT <strong>in</strong><br />
BPR to improve the perform<strong>an</strong>ce of m<strong>an</strong>ufactur<strong>in</strong>g/service
comp<strong>an</strong>ies. They also list suggestions on how technology<br />
could be used to reeng<strong>in</strong>eer the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>. Anyway,<br />
the fundamental idea here is that it is advised to keep <strong>in</strong><br />
m<strong>in</strong>d what k<strong>in</strong>d of IT is available <strong>an</strong>d <strong>in</strong> which way it could<br />
help improve the <strong>process</strong>.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, Alter’s framework is consistent with the<br />
CIMOSA st<strong>an</strong>dard enterprise model<strong>in</strong>g views:CIMOSA<br />
recommends to consider a function view that addresses the<br />
enterprise functionality (i.e. what has to be done) <strong>an</strong>d the<br />
enterprise behavior (i.e. <strong>in</strong> which order work has to be<br />
done), <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation view (i.e. what are the objects to be<br />
<strong>process</strong>ed to be used), a resource view (i.e. who /what does<br />
what) <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong> org<strong>an</strong>ization view (i.e. org<strong>an</strong>ization entities<br />
<strong>an</strong>d their relationships, who is responsible of what or whom,<br />
who has authority on what, people empowerment, etc.).<br />
Compared to Alter’s framework, it is clear that the di erence<br />
with CIMOSA views is <strong>in</strong> the “Technology” dimension,<br />
as it is not mentioned <strong>in</strong> CIMOSA.<br />
Another framework has been presented by Jablonski <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Bussler [23] <strong>in</strong> the context of work ow m<strong>an</strong>agement. V<strong>an</strong><br />
der Aalst <strong>an</strong>d Berens [24] see a work ow as a speci c type of<br />
bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>:it delivers services or <strong>in</strong>formational products.<br />
Jablonski <strong>an</strong>d Bussler provide the MOBILE model for<br />
work ows, which is split <strong>in</strong>to two categories of perspectives:<br />
the factual perspectives <strong>an</strong>d the systemic perspectives. The<br />
former determ<strong>in</strong>e the contents of a work ow model <strong>an</strong>d the<br />
latter the enactment of work ow descriptions. We are obviously<br />
<strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> the factual perspectives of the MO-<br />
BILE work ow model. Essentially ve perspectives are<br />
described:<br />
• the function perspective:what has to be executed?,<br />
• the operation perspective:how is a work ow operation<br />
implemented?,<br />
• the behavior perspective:when is a work ow executed?,<br />
• the <strong>in</strong>formation perspective:what data are consumed <strong>an</strong>d<br />
produced?.<br />
• the org<strong>an</strong>ization perspective:who has to execute a workow<br />
or a work ow application?<br />
The operation <strong>an</strong>d the behavior perspectives c<strong>an</strong> be considered<br />
as a more detailed view of the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> as it<br />
is de ned <strong>in</strong> Alter’s WCA framework. Moreover, the authors<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>guish <strong>in</strong> the org<strong>an</strong>ization perspective (comparable<br />
to “particip<strong>an</strong>ts”) two parts, the org<strong>an</strong>ization structure<br />
(elements:roles, users, groups, departments, etc.) <strong>an</strong>d<br />
the org<strong>an</strong>ization population (<strong>in</strong>dividuals:agents which c<strong>an</strong><br />
have tasks assigned for execution <strong>an</strong>d relationships between<br />
them), which clari es the particip<strong>an</strong>ts dimension.<br />
Seidm<strong>an</strong>n <strong>an</strong>d Sundaraj<strong>an</strong> [25] have worked on the e ects<br />
of some best <strong>practices</strong> on work ow <strong>redesign</strong>. In this context<br />
they have developed a <strong>process</strong> description based on four<br />
classes of parameters:<br />
• work system details, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the sequenc<strong>in</strong>g of tasks,<br />
the task consolidation <strong>an</strong>d the schedul<strong>in</strong>g of jobs.<br />
H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306 293<br />
Operation view i Behavioural i lview<br />
Org<strong>an</strong>isation<br />
-Structure<br />
-Population<br />
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT<br />
Customers<br />
Products<br />
Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong><br />
Information Technology<br />
Fig. 2. F<strong>in</strong>al framework for BPR.<br />
• job details, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the number of tasks <strong>in</strong> a job, the<br />
relative size of tasks, the nature of tasks <strong>an</strong>d the degree<br />
of customization.<br />
• adm<strong>in</strong>istrative variables, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the decision rights, the<br />
perform<strong>an</strong>ce measures <strong>an</strong>d the compensation schemes.<br />
• <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>an</strong>d technology variables, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
knowledge <strong>in</strong>tensity, the <strong>in</strong>formation symmetry <strong>an</strong>d the<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation shar<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
The rst two classes of parameters are sensibly close to the<br />
operation <strong>an</strong>d behavior perspectives described by Jablonski<br />
<strong>an</strong>d Bussler [23]. The third class is related to hum<strong>an</strong><br />
resources m<strong>an</strong>agement <strong>an</strong>d the last class is related to the<br />
technology dimension as mentioned <strong>in</strong> the WCA framework<br />
of Alter [19]. Seidm<strong>an</strong>n <strong>an</strong>d Sundaraj<strong>an</strong> [25] do not add<br />
<strong>an</strong>y new view to the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> <strong>redesign</strong> framework.<br />
However, they use <strong>an</strong>d describe detailed parameters that are<br />
worth to be considered <strong>in</strong> a BPR e ort.<br />
So nally, <strong>in</strong> the context of BPR, the extended framework<br />
of Fig. 2 is derived as a synthesis of the WCA framework<br />
[19], the MOBILE work ow model [23], the CIMOSA enterprise<br />
model<strong>in</strong>g views [20] <strong>an</strong>d the <strong>process</strong> description<br />
classes of Seidm<strong>an</strong>n <strong>an</strong>d Sundaraj<strong>an</strong> [25].<br />
In this framework, six elements are l<strong>in</strong>ked:<br />
• the <strong>in</strong>ternal or external customers of the bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong>,<br />
• the products (or services) generated by the bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong>,<br />
• the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> with two views,<br />
(a) the operation view:how is a work ow operation<br />
implemented? (number of tasks <strong>in</strong> a job, relative<br />
size of tasks, nature of tasks, degree of customization),<br />
<strong>an</strong>d
294 H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306<br />
(b) the behavior view:when is a work ow executed?<br />
(sequenc<strong>in</strong>g of tasks, task consolidation, schedul<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of jobs, etc.),<br />
• the particip<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> consider<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
(a) the org<strong>an</strong>ization structure (elements:roles, users,<br />
groups, departments, etc.) <strong>an</strong>d<br />
(b) the org<strong>an</strong>ization population (<strong>in</strong>dividuals:agents<br />
which c<strong>an</strong> have tasks assigned for execution <strong>an</strong>d<br />
relationships between them),<br />
• the <strong>in</strong>formation the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> uses or creates,<br />
• the technology the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> uses <strong>an</strong>d nally,<br />
• the external environment other th<strong>an</strong> the customers.<br />
This framework will be used to classify the best <strong>practices</strong><br />
for BPR that we will identify <strong>in</strong> Section four. But prior to<br />
that we present <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong> evaluation framework<br />
that helps assess<strong>in</strong>g the e ects of the best <strong>practices</strong> on the<br />
<strong>redesign</strong>ed bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>.<br />
3. Evaluation framework<br />
Br<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> der Kolk [11] dist<strong>in</strong>guish four ma<strong>in</strong> dimensions<br />
<strong>in</strong> the e ects of <strong>redesign</strong> measures:time, cost,<br />
quality <strong>an</strong>d exibility. Ideally, a <strong>redesign</strong> of a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong><br />
decreases the time required to h<strong>an</strong>dle <strong>an</strong> order, it decreases<br />
the required cost of execut<strong>in</strong>g the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>,<br />
it improves the quality of the service delivered <strong>an</strong>d<br />
it improves the ability of the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> to react to<br />
variation. The attractive property of their model is that, <strong>in</strong><br />
general, improv<strong>in</strong>g upon one dimension may have a weaken<strong>in</strong>g<br />
e ect on <strong>an</strong>other. For example, reconciliation tasks<br />
may be added <strong>in</strong> a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> to improve on the quality<br />
of the delivered service, but this may have a drawback<br />
on the timel<strong>in</strong>ess of the service delivery. To signify the difcult<br />
trade-o s that sometimes have to be made they refer<br />
to their model as the devil’s quadr<strong>an</strong>gle. It is depicted <strong>in</strong><br />
Fig. 3.<br />
Awareness of the trade-o that underlies a <strong>redesign</strong> measure<br />
is very import<strong>an</strong>t <strong>in</strong> the <strong>redesign</strong> of a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>.<br />
Sometimes, the e ect of a <strong>redesign</strong> measure may be that the<br />
result from some po<strong>in</strong>t of view is worse th<strong>an</strong> the exist<strong>in</strong>g<br />
bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>. Also, the application of several best <strong>practices</strong><br />
may result <strong>in</strong> the (partly) neutralization of the desired<br />
e ects of each of the s<strong>in</strong>gle measures.<br />
Each of the four dimensions of the devil’s quadr<strong>an</strong>gle may<br />
be made operational <strong>in</strong> di erent ways. For example, there<br />
are several types of cost <strong>an</strong>d even so m<strong>an</strong>y directions to focus<br />
on when attempt<strong>in</strong>g to decrease cost. The tr<strong>an</strong>slation of<br />
the general concepts time, cost, quality <strong>an</strong>d exibility to a<br />
more precise me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g is context sensitive. The key perform<strong>an</strong>ce<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicators of <strong>an</strong> org<strong>an</strong>ization or—more directly—the<br />
perform<strong>an</strong>ce targets formulated for a <strong>redesign</strong> e ort should<br />
ideally be formulated as much more precise applications of<br />
the four named dimensions.<br />
In our discussion of the e ects of <strong>redesign</strong> measures we<br />
will not try to assess their e ectiveness <strong>in</strong> every th<strong>in</strong>kable<br />
Cost<br />
Quality<br />
Flixibility<br />
Fig. 3. The devil’s quadr<strong>an</strong>gle.<br />
Time<br />
aspect of each of the four dimensions. We will focus on<br />
some common <strong>an</strong>d straightforward <strong>in</strong>terpretations.<br />
4. <strong>Best</strong> <strong>practices</strong><br />
Over the last 20 years, best <strong>practices</strong> have been collected<br />
<strong>an</strong>d applied <strong>in</strong> various areas, such as bus<strong>in</strong>ess pl<strong>an</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
healthcare, m<strong>an</strong>ufactur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong>d the software development<br />
<strong>process</strong> (e.g. [26–29]). Although <strong>an</strong> ideal best practice<br />
prescribes the best way to treat a particular problem that c<strong>an</strong><br />
be replicated <strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong>y situation or sett<strong>in</strong>g, it is more fruitful to<br />
see it as someth<strong>in</strong>g that “needs to be adapted <strong>in</strong> skilfull ways<br />
<strong>in</strong> response to prevail<strong>in</strong>g conditions” [27]. In this section<br />
we describe such best <strong>practices</strong>, which c<strong>an</strong> actually support<br />
the <strong>redesign</strong>er of a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> <strong>in</strong> fac<strong>in</strong>g the technical<br />
BPR challenge:the implementation of <strong>an</strong> improved <strong>process</strong><br />
design. The presentation of these best <strong>practices</strong> especially<br />
aims at BPR e orts where <strong>an</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> is<br />
taken as basis for its <strong>redesign</strong>. A best practice c<strong>an</strong> then<br />
be applied locally to boost the overall perform<strong>an</strong>ce. Tak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>process</strong> as start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t contrasts sharply with<br />
the so-called cle<strong>an</strong>-sheet approaches, i.e., where the <strong>process</strong><br />
is designed from scratch. There is considerable discussion<br />
<strong>in</strong> literature on the choice between these alternatives<br />
(see, e.g. [30]), but tak<strong>in</strong>g the exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>process</strong> as a start<strong>in</strong>g<br />
po<strong>in</strong>t is <strong>in</strong> practice the most common way of develop<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
new bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>, as observed e.g. by Aldowais<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Gaafar [31].<br />
The presented best <strong>practices</strong> <strong>in</strong> this paper are often derived<br />
from experience ga<strong>in</strong>ed with<strong>in</strong> large comp<strong>an</strong>ies or by<br />
consult<strong>an</strong>cy rms <strong>in</strong> BPR engagements. For example, the
est <strong>practices</strong> as proposed by Peppard <strong>an</strong>d Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32] are<br />
derived from experiences of the Toyota comp<strong>an</strong>y. It should<br />
be noted that m<strong>an</strong>y of the best <strong>practices</strong> lack <strong>an</strong> adequate<br />
(qu<strong>an</strong>titative) support, as observed by, e.g. V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
[33]. Not every best practice that we encountered <strong>in</strong> our literature<br />
survey is <strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong> this <strong>overview</strong>. Some of them<br />
proved to be more on the strategic level, e.g. on the selection<br />
of products to be o ered by a comp<strong>an</strong>y, or were thought to<br />
be of very limited general application, e.g. they were speci<br />
c for a certa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dustry. The presented best <strong>practices</strong> are<br />
universal <strong>in</strong> the sense that they are applicable with<strong>in</strong> the<br />
context of <strong>an</strong>y bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>, regardless of the product<br />
or service delivered.<br />
Improv<strong>in</strong>g a <strong>process</strong> c<strong>an</strong> concern <strong>an</strong>y of the components<br />
of the framework we adopted <strong>in</strong> Section 2. Thus, we classify<br />
the best <strong>practices</strong> <strong>in</strong> a way that respects the framework we<br />
have adopted. We identify best <strong>practices</strong> that are oriented<br />
towards:<br />
• Customers, which focus on improv<strong>in</strong>g contacts with customers.<br />
• Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> operation, which focus on how to implement<br />
the work ow,<br />
• Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> behavior, which focus on when the<br />
work ow is executed,<br />
• Org<strong>an</strong>ization, which considers both the structure of the<br />
org<strong>an</strong>ization (mostly the allocation of resources) <strong>an</strong>d the<br />
resources <strong>in</strong>volved (types <strong>an</strong>d number).<br />
• Information, which describes best <strong>practices</strong> related to the<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> uses, creates, may use<br />
or may create.<br />
• Technology, which describes best <strong>practices</strong> related to the<br />
technology the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> uses or may use.<br />
• External environment, which try to improve upon<br />
the collaboration <strong>an</strong>d communication with the third<br />
parties<br />
Note that this dist<strong>in</strong>ction is not mutually exclusive. Therefore,<br />
some best <strong>practices</strong> could have been assigned to more<br />
th<strong>an</strong> one of these classes.<br />
From this classi cation it is clear that product-oriented<br />
best <strong>practices</strong> are not taken <strong>in</strong>to account. This is related<br />
to the fact that a <strong>redesign</strong> focuses on already exist<strong>in</strong>g<br />
bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>es <strong>an</strong>d not on the product to be <strong>process</strong>ed.<br />
We believe that the early design of the <strong>process</strong><br />
is strongly connected to the product, see our earlier paper<br />
[34]. Essentially, the paper describes a formal method<br />
for deriv<strong>in</strong>g a work ow consider<strong>in</strong>g the structure of the<br />
product. The method is applied <strong>in</strong> the context of <strong>process</strong><br />
design based on a cle<strong>an</strong>-sheet approach, where the<br />
prior <strong>process</strong> is not taken <strong>in</strong>to account. In the case of<br />
a <strong>redesign</strong>, the derived work ow c<strong>an</strong> be considered as<br />
a rst rough <strong>process</strong> to which the follow<strong>in</strong>g best <strong>practices</strong><br />
c<strong>an</strong> be further applied, thus allow<strong>in</strong>g to take <strong>in</strong>to<br />
consideration the lessons learnt form the past <strong>in</strong> the<br />
org<strong>an</strong>ization.<br />
H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306 295<br />
4.1. Customer<br />
4.1.1. Control relocation: ‘move controls towards the<br />
customer’<br />
Di erent checks <strong>an</strong>d reconciliation operations that are part<br />
of a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> may be moved towards the customer.<br />
Kle<strong>in</strong> [35] gives the example of Paci c Bell that moved its<br />
bill<strong>in</strong>g controls towards its customers elim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> this way<br />
the bulk of its bill<strong>in</strong>g errors. It also improved customer’s<br />
satisfaction. A disadv<strong>an</strong>tage of mov<strong>in</strong>g a control towards<br />
a customer is higher probability of fraud, result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> less<br />
yield.<br />
This best practice is named by Kle<strong>in</strong> [35].<br />
4.1.2. Contact reduction: ‘reduce the number of contacts<br />
with customers <strong>an</strong>d third parties’<br />
The exch<strong>an</strong>ge of <strong>in</strong>formation with a customer or third<br />
party is always time-consum<strong>in</strong>g. Especially when <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
exch<strong>an</strong>ges take place by regular mail, subst<strong>an</strong>tial wait<br />
times may be <strong>in</strong>volved. Also, each contact <strong>in</strong>troduces the<br />
possibility of <strong>in</strong>trud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong> error. Hammer <strong>an</strong>d Champy [6]<br />
describe a case where the multitude of bills, <strong>in</strong>voices <strong>an</strong>d<br />
receipts creates a heavy reconciliation burden. Reduc<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
number of contacts may therefore decrease throughput time<br />
<strong>an</strong>d boost quality. Note that it is not always necessary to<br />
skip certa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation exch<strong>an</strong>ges, but that it is possible to<br />
comb<strong>in</strong>e them with limited extra cost. A disadv<strong>an</strong>tage of a<br />
smaller number of contacts might be the loss of essential<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation, which is a quality issue. Comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g contacts<br />
may result <strong>in</strong> the delivery or receipt of too much data, which<br />
<strong>in</strong>volves cost.<br />
This best practice is mentioned by Hammer <strong>an</strong>d Champy<br />
[6]. Buzacott [7] has <strong>in</strong>vestigated this best practice<br />
qu<strong>an</strong>titatively.<br />
4.1.3. Integration: ‘consider the <strong>in</strong>tegration with a<br />
bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> of the customer or a supplier’<br />
This best practice c<strong>an</strong> be seen as exploit<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
supply-cha<strong>in</strong> concept known <strong>in</strong> production [37]. The actual<br />
application of this best practice may take on di erent<br />
forms. For example, when two parties have to agree upon<br />
a product they jo<strong>in</strong>tly produce, it may be more e cient to<br />
perform several <strong>in</strong>termediate reviews th<strong>an</strong> perform<strong>in</strong>g one<br />
large review after both parties have completed their part.<br />
In general, <strong>in</strong>tegrated bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>es should render a<br />
more e cient execution, both from a time <strong>an</strong>d cost perspective.<br />
The drawback of <strong>in</strong>tegration is that mutual dependence<br />
grows <strong>an</strong>d, therefore, exibility may decrease.<br />
Both Kle<strong>in</strong> [35] <strong>an</strong>d Peppard <strong>an</strong>d Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32] mention<br />
this best practice (Fig. 4).<br />
4.1.4. Evaluation<br />
Us<strong>in</strong>g the evaluation framework as <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>in</strong><br />
Section 3, a summary of the general e ects of the three<br />
customer best <strong>practices</strong> c<strong>an</strong> be seen <strong>in</strong> Fig. 5.
296 H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306<br />
Cost<br />
1<br />
1<br />
Control relocation<br />
Contact reduction<br />
Integration<br />
Internal <strong>process</strong><br />
2<br />
2<br />
Client/supplier<br />
Fig. 4. Integration.<br />
Quality<br />
Flexibility<br />
Fig. 5. Evaluation of customer best <strong>practices</strong>.<br />
3<br />
3<br />
Time<br />
The gray square represents a neutral e ect on all four<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>guished dimensions. The e ects of a best practice are<br />
represented by the other polygons. A positive (negative) effect<br />
of a best practice on a speci c dimension is signi ed<br />
by its corner extend<strong>in</strong>g beyond (stay<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong>) the neutral<br />
square. For example, the <strong>in</strong>tegration best practice has positive<br />
e ects on the cost <strong>an</strong>d time dimensions (i.e. it reduces<br />
cost <strong>an</strong>d time), a negative e ect on the exibility (i.e. it<br />
reduces exibility) <strong>an</strong>d a neutral e ect on the quality. All<br />
depicted e ects are scored on a relative scale.<br />
4.2. Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> operation<br />
4.2.1. Order types: ‘determ<strong>in</strong>e whether tasks are related<br />
to the same type of order <strong>an</strong>d, if necessary, dist<strong>in</strong>guish<br />
new bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>es’<br />
Especially Berg <strong>an</strong>d Pottjewijd [38] conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>gly warn<br />
for parts of bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>es that are not speci c for the<br />
1 2 3<br />
Fig. 6. Task elim<strong>in</strong>ation.<br />
bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> they are part of. Ignor<strong>in</strong>g this phenomenon<br />
may result <strong>in</strong> a less e ective m<strong>an</strong>agement of this ’sub ow’<br />
<strong>an</strong>d a lower e ciency. Apply<strong>in</strong>g this best practice may yield<br />
faster <strong>process</strong><strong>in</strong>g times <strong>an</strong>d less cost. Also, dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g<br />
common sub ows of m<strong>an</strong>y di erent ows may yield e -<br />
ciency ga<strong>in</strong>s. Yet, it may also result <strong>in</strong> more coord<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
problems between the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> (quality) <strong>an</strong>d less<br />
possibilities for rearr<strong>an</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> as a whole<br />
( exibility).<br />
This best practice has been mentioned <strong>in</strong> one form<br />
or <strong>an</strong>other by Hammer <strong>an</strong>d Champy [6], Rupp <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Russell [39], Peppard <strong>an</strong>d Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32] <strong>an</strong>d Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38].<br />
4.2.2. Task elim<strong>in</strong>ation: ‘elim<strong>in</strong>ate unnecessary tasks<br />
from a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>’<br />
A common way of regard<strong>in</strong>g a task as unnecessary is<br />
when it adds no value from a customer’s po<strong>in</strong>t of view. Typically,<br />
control tasks <strong>in</strong> a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> do not do this; they<br />
are <strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong> the model to x problems created (or<br />
not elevated) <strong>in</strong> earlier steps. Control tasks are often identi<br />
ed by iterations. Tasks redund<strong>an</strong>cy c<strong>an</strong> also be considered<br />
as a speci c case of task elim<strong>in</strong>ation (Fig. 6). In order<br />
to identify redund<strong>an</strong>t tasks, Cast<strong>an</strong>o et al. [40] have developed<br />
entity-based similarity coe cients. They help automatically<br />
check<strong>in</strong>g the degree of similarities between tasks (or<br />
activities).<br />
The aims of this best practice are to <strong>in</strong>crease the speed of<br />
<strong>process</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong>d to reduce the cost of h<strong>an</strong>dl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong> order. An<br />
import<strong>an</strong>t drawback may be that the quality of the service<br />
deteriorates.<br />
This best practice is widespread <strong>in</strong> literature, for example,<br />
see Peppard <strong>an</strong>d Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32] Berg <strong>an</strong>d Pottjewijd [38] <strong>an</strong>d<br />
V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee [41]. Buzacott [36] illustrates the<br />
qu<strong>an</strong>titative e ects of elim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g iterations with a simple<br />
model.<br />
4.2.3. Order-based work: ‘consider remov<strong>in</strong>g<br />
batch-<strong>process</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong>d periodic activities from a bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong>’<br />
Some notable examples of disturb<strong>an</strong>ces <strong>in</strong> h<strong>an</strong>dl<strong>in</strong>g a s<strong>in</strong>gle<br />
order are:(a) its pil<strong>in</strong>g up <strong>in</strong> a batch <strong>an</strong>d (b) periodic<br />
activities, e.g. because <strong>process</strong><strong>in</strong>g depends on a computer<br />
system that is only available at speci c times. Gett<strong>in</strong>g rid<br />
of these constra<strong>in</strong>ts may signi c<strong>an</strong>tly speed up the h<strong>an</strong>dl<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of <strong>in</strong>dividual orders. On the other h<strong>an</strong>d, e ciencies of scale<br />
c<strong>an</strong> be reached by batch <strong>process</strong><strong>in</strong>g. Also, the cost of mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation systems perm<strong>an</strong>ently available may be costly.
1<br />
2<br />
H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306 297<br />
3<br />
Fig. 7. Triage.<br />
This best practice results from our own reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g<br />
experience.<br />
4.2.4. Triage: ‘consider the division of a general task <strong>in</strong>to<br />
two or more alternative tasks’ or ‘consider the <strong>in</strong>tegration<br />
of two or more alternative tasks <strong>in</strong>to one general task’<br />
When apply<strong>in</strong>g this best practice <strong>in</strong> its rst <strong>an</strong>d most popular<br />
form, it is possible to design tasks that are better aligned<br />
with the capabilities of resources <strong>an</strong>d the characteristics of<br />
the orders be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>process</strong>ed (Fig. 7). Both <strong>in</strong>terpretations improve<br />
upon the quality of the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>. Dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g<br />
alternative tasks also facilitates a better utilization of resources,<br />
with obvious cost <strong>an</strong>d time adv<strong>an</strong>tages. On the other<br />
h<strong>an</strong>d, too much specialization c<strong>an</strong> make <strong>process</strong>es become<br />
less exible, less e cient, <strong>an</strong>d cause monotonous work with<br />
repercussions for quality.<br />
An alternative form of the triage best practice is to divide<br />
a task <strong>in</strong>to similar <strong>in</strong>stead of alternative tasks for di erent<br />
subcategories of the orders be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>process</strong>ed. For example,<br />
a special cash desk may be set up for customers with <strong>an</strong><br />
expected low <strong>process</strong><strong>in</strong>g time.<br />
Note that this best practice is <strong>in</strong> some sense similar to the<br />
order types best practice we mentioned <strong>in</strong> this section. The<br />
ma<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the triage concept c<strong>an</strong> be seen as a<br />
tr<strong>an</strong>slation of the order type best practice on a task level.<br />
The triage concept is mentioned by Kle<strong>in</strong> [35], Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38] <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee [41]. Zapf<br />
<strong>an</strong>d He<strong>in</strong>zl [42] show the positive e ects of triage with<strong>in</strong><br />
the sett<strong>in</strong>g of a call center. Dew<strong>an</strong> et al. [43] study the impact<br />
of the triage on the org<strong>an</strong>ization <strong>in</strong> terms of cycle-time<br />
reduction.<br />
4.2.5. Task composition: ‘comb<strong>in</strong>e small tasks <strong>in</strong>to<br />
composite tasks <strong>an</strong>d divide large tasks <strong>in</strong>to workable<br />
smaller tasks’<br />
Comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g tasks should result <strong>in</strong> the reduction of setup<br />
times, i.e., the time that is spent by a resource to become<br />
familiar with the speci cs of a order. By execut<strong>in</strong>g a large<br />
task which used to consist of several smaller ones, some<br />
positive e ect may also be expected on the quality of the<br />
delivered work. On the other h<strong>an</strong>d, mak<strong>in</strong>g tasks too large<br />
may result <strong>in</strong> (a) smaller run-time exibility <strong>an</strong>d (b) lower<br />
quality as tasks become unworkable. Both e ects are exactly<br />
countered by divid<strong>in</strong>g tasks <strong>in</strong>to smaller ones. Obviously,<br />
smaller tasks may also result <strong>in</strong> longer setup times (Fig. 8).<br />
Cost<br />
Case types<br />
Task elim<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
1 + 2 3<br />
Fig. 8. Task composition.<br />
Case-based work<br />
Quality<br />
Flexibility<br />
Time<br />
Fig. 9. Evaluation of bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> operation best <strong>practices</strong> (I).<br />
This best practice is related to the triage best practice <strong>in</strong><br />
the sense that they both are concerned with the division <strong>an</strong>d<br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ation of tasks.<br />
It is probably the most cited best practice, mentioned by<br />
Hammer <strong>an</strong>d Champy [6], Rupp <strong>an</strong>d Russell [39], Peppard<br />
<strong>an</strong>d Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32], Berg <strong>an</strong>d Pottjewijd [38], Seidm<strong>an</strong>n <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Sundararaj<strong>an</strong> [25], Reijers <strong>an</strong>d Goverde [44], V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst<br />
[45] <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee [41]. Some of these<br />
authors only consider one part of this best practice, e.g. comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
smaller tasks <strong>in</strong>to one. Buzacott [36], Seidm<strong>an</strong>n <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Sundararaj<strong>an</strong> [25] <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst [45] provide qu<strong>an</strong>titative<br />
support for the optimality of this best practice for simple<br />
models.<br />
4.2.6. Evaluation<br />
The assessment of the best <strong>practices</strong> that aim at the bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong> operation is summarized <strong>in</strong> Figs. 9 <strong>an</strong>d 10.<br />
The me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the shapes <strong>in</strong> these gures is similar to<br />
that of the shapes <strong>in</strong> Fig. 5.<br />
4.3. Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> behavior<br />
4.3.1. Resequenc<strong>in</strong>g: ‘move tasks to more appropriate<br />
places’<br />
In exist<strong>in</strong>g bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>es, actual tasks order<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
do not reveal the necessary dependencies between tasks
298 H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283–306<br />
Cost<br />
Triage<br />
Task composition<br />
(larger tasks)<br />
Quality<br />
Flexibility<br />
Time<br />
Fig. 10. Evaluation of bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> operation best <strong>practices</strong><br />
(II).<br />
3 1 2<br />
Fig. 11. Resequenc<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
(Fig. 11). Sometimes it is better to postpone a task if it is<br />
not required for immediately follow<strong>in</strong>g tasks, so that perhaps<br />
its execution may prove to become super uous. This<br />
saves cost. Also, a task may be moved <strong>in</strong>to the proximity<br />
of a similar task, <strong>in</strong> this way dim<strong>in</strong>ish<strong>in</strong>g setup times.<br />
The resequenc<strong>in</strong>g best practice is mentioned as such by<br />
Kle<strong>in</strong> [35]. It is also known as ’<strong>process</strong> order optimization’.<br />
4.3.2. Knock-out: ‘order knock-outs <strong>in</strong> a decreas<strong>in</strong>g<br />
order of e ort <strong>an</strong>d <strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g order of term<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
probability’<br />
A typical part of a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> is the check<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
various conditions that must be satis ed to deliver a positive<br />
end result. Any condition that is not met may lead to a term<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
of that part of the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>:the knock-out<br />
(Fig. 12). If there is freedom <strong>in</strong> choos<strong>in</strong>g the order <strong>in</strong> which<br />
the various conditions are checked, the condition that has<br />
the most favorable ratio of expected knock-out probability<br />
versus the expected e ort to check the condition should<br />
be pursued. Next, the second best condition, etc. This way<br />
of order<strong>in</strong>g checks yields on average the least costly bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong> execution. There is no obvious drawback on<br />
this best practice, although it may not always be possible to<br />
freely order these k<strong>in</strong>ds of checks. Also, implement<strong>in</strong>g this<br />
best practice may result <strong>in</strong> a (part of a) bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> that<br />
1 2<br />
3<br />
Fig. 12. Knock-out.<br />
1<br />
3<br />
2<br />
Fig. 13. Parallelism.<br />
takes a longer throughput time th<strong>an</strong> a full parallel check<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of all conditions.<br />
The knock-out best practice is a speci c form of the<br />
resequenc<strong>in</strong>g best practice. V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst [45] mentions<br />
this best practice <strong>an</strong>d also gives qu<strong>an</strong>titative support for its<br />
optimality.<br />
4.3.3. Parallelism: ‘consider whether tasks may be<br />
executed <strong>in</strong> parallel’<br />
The obvious e ect of putt<strong>in</strong>g tasks <strong>in</strong> parallel is that the<br />
throughput time may be considerably reduced (Fig. 13).<br />
The applicability of this best practice <strong>in</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong><br />
<strong>redesign</strong> is large. In practical experiences we have had with<br />
<strong>an</strong>alyz<strong>in</strong>g exist<strong>in</strong>g bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>, tasks were mostly ordered<br />
sequentially without the existence of hard logical restrictions<br />
prescrib<strong>in</strong>g such <strong>an</strong> order.<br />
A drawback of <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g more parallelism <strong>in</strong> a bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong> that <strong>in</strong>corporates possibilities of knock-outs is that<br />
the cost of bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> execution may <strong>in</strong>crease. Also,<br />
the m<strong>an</strong>agement of bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>es with concurrent behavior<br />
c<strong>an</strong> become more complex, which may <strong>in</strong>troduce errors<br />
(quality) or restrict run-time adaptations ( exibility).<br />
The parallelism best practice is a speci c form of the<br />
resequenc<strong>in</strong>g best practice we mentioned at the start of this<br />
section. It is mentioned by Rupp <strong>an</strong>d Russell [39], Buzacott<br />
[36], Berg <strong>an</strong>d Pottjewijd [38] <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong><br />
Hee [41]. V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst [45] provides qu<strong>an</strong>titative support<br />
for this best practice.<br />
4.3.4. Exception: ‘design bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>es for typical<br />
orders <strong>an</strong>d isolate exceptional orders from normal ow’<br />
Exceptions may seriously disturb normal operations. An<br />
exception, will require workers to get acqua<strong>in</strong>ted with the<br />
speci cs of the exception, although they may not be able to<br />
h<strong>an</strong>dle it. Setup times are then wasted. Isolat<strong>in</strong>g exceptions,<br />
for example by a triage, will make the h<strong>an</strong>dl<strong>in</strong>g of normal<br />
orders more e cient. Isolat<strong>in</strong>g exceptions may possibly <strong>in</strong>crease<br />
the overall perform<strong>an</strong>ce as speci c expertise c<strong>an</strong> be
Cost<br />
Resequenc<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Parellellism<br />
Knock-out<br />
Exception<br />
Quality<br />
H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306 299<br />
Flexibility<br />
Time<br />
Fig. 14. Evaluation of bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> behavior best <strong>practices</strong>.<br />
1<br />
2<br />
Fig. 15. Order assignment.<br />
build up by workers work<strong>in</strong>g on the exceptions. The price<br />
paid is that the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> will become more complex,<br />
possibly decreas<strong>in</strong>g its exibility. Also, if no special<br />
knowledge is developed to h<strong>an</strong>dle the exceptions (which is<br />
costly) no major improvements are likely to occur.<br />
This best practice is mentioned by Poyssick <strong>an</strong>d H<strong>an</strong>naford<br />
[46] <strong>an</strong>d Hammer <strong>an</strong>d Champy [6].<br />
4.3.5. Evaluation<br />
The assessment of the best <strong>practices</strong> that target the behavior<br />
of the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> c<strong>an</strong> be seen <strong>in</strong> Fig. 14.<br />
The me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the shapes <strong>in</strong> these gures is similar to<br />
that of the shapes <strong>in</strong> Fig. 5.<br />
4.4. Org<strong>an</strong>ization<br />
4.4.1. Structure<br />
4.4.1.1. Order assignment: ‘let workers perform as m<strong>an</strong>y<br />
steps as possible for s<strong>in</strong>gle orders’ (see Fig. 15). By us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
order assignment <strong>in</strong> the most extreme form, for each task<br />
execution the resource is selected from the ones capable<br />
of perform<strong>in</strong>g it that has worked on the order before—if<br />
<strong>an</strong>y. The obvious adv<strong>an</strong>tage of this best practice is that this<br />
person will get acqua<strong>in</strong>ted with the case <strong>an</strong>d will need less<br />
setup time. An additional bene t may be that the quality of<br />
service is <strong>in</strong>creased. On the negative side, the exibility of<br />
3<br />
resource allocation is seriously reduced. The execution of<br />
<strong>an</strong> order may experience subst<strong>an</strong>tial queue time when the<br />
person to whom it is assigned is not available.<br />
The order assignment best practice is described by Rupp<br />
<strong>an</strong>d Russell [39], Hammer <strong>an</strong>d Champy [6], Reijers <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Goverde [44] <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee [41].<br />
4.4.1.2. Flexible assignment: ‘assign resources <strong>in</strong> such a<br />
way that maximal exibility is preserved for the near future’.<br />
For example, if a task c<strong>an</strong> be executed by either of<br />
two available resources, assign it to the most specialized resource.<br />
In this way, the possibilities to have the free, more<br />
general resource execute <strong>an</strong>other task are maximal.<br />
The adv<strong>an</strong>tage of this best practice is that the overall<br />
queue time is reduced:it is less probable that the execution<br />
of <strong>an</strong> order has to await the availability of a speci c resource.<br />
Another adv<strong>an</strong>tage is that the workers with the highest specialization<br />
c<strong>an</strong> be expected to take on most of the work,<br />
which may result <strong>in</strong> a higher quality. The disadv<strong>an</strong>tages of<br />
this best practice c<strong>an</strong> be diverse. For example, work load<br />
may become unbal<strong>an</strong>ced result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> less job satisfaction.<br />
Also, possibilities for specialists to evolve <strong>in</strong>to generalists<br />
are reduced.<br />
This best practice is mentioned by V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst <strong>an</strong>d<br />
V<strong>an</strong> Hee [41].<br />
4.4.1.3. Centralization: ‘treat geographically dispersed<br />
resources as if they are centralized’. This best practice is<br />
explicitly aimed at exploit<strong>in</strong>g the bene ts of a Work ow<br />
M<strong>an</strong>agement System or WfMS for short [23]. After all,<br />
when a WfMS takes care of assign<strong>in</strong>g work to resources it<br />
has become less relev<strong>an</strong>t where these resources are located<br />
geographically. In this sense, this best practice is a special<br />
form of the <strong>in</strong>tegral technology best practice (see Section<br />
4.6). The speci c adv<strong>an</strong>tage of this measure is that resources<br />
c<strong>an</strong> be committed more exibly, which gives a better utilization<br />
<strong>an</strong>d possibly a better throughput time. The disadv<strong>an</strong>tages<br />
are similar to that of the <strong>in</strong>tegral technology best<br />
practice.<br />
This best practice is mentioned by V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong><br />
Hee [41].<br />
4.4.1.4. Split responsibilities: ‘avoid assignment of task responsibilities<br />
to people from di erent functional units’ (see<br />
Fig. 16). The idea beh<strong>in</strong>d this best practice is that tasks for<br />
which di erent departments share responsibility are more<br />
likely to be a source of neglect <strong>an</strong>d con ict. Reduc<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
overlap <strong>in</strong> responsibilities should lead to a better quality<br />
of task execution. Also, a higher responsiveness to available<br />
work may be developed so that customers are served<br />
quicker. On the other h<strong>an</strong>d, reduc<strong>in</strong>g the e ective number<br />
of resources that is available for a work item may have a<br />
negative e ect on its throughput time, as more queu<strong>in</strong>g may<br />
occur.<br />
This speci c best practice is mentioned by Rupp <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Russell [39] <strong>an</strong>d Berg <strong>an</strong>d Pottjewijd [38].
300 H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
Fig. 16. Split responsibilities.<br />
2<br />
Fig. 17. Numerical <strong>in</strong>volvement.<br />
4.4.1.5. Customer teams: ‘consider assign<strong>in</strong>g teams out of<br />
di erent departmental workers that will take care of the<br />
complete h<strong>an</strong>dl<strong>in</strong>g of speci c sorts of orders ′ . This best<br />
practice is a variation of the order assignment best practice.<br />
Depend<strong>in</strong>g on its exact desired form, the customer<br />
team best practice may be implemented by the order assignment<br />
best practice. Also, a customer team may <strong>in</strong>volve<br />
more workers with the same quali cations, <strong>in</strong> this way relax<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the strict requirements of the order assignment best<br />
practice.<br />
Adv<strong>an</strong>tages <strong>an</strong>d disadv<strong>an</strong>tages are similar to those of the<br />
order assignment best <strong>practices</strong>. In addition, work as a team<br />
may improve the attractiveness of the work <strong>an</strong>d a better<br />
underst<strong>an</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g, which are both quality aspects.<br />
This best practice is mentioned by Peppard <strong>an</strong>d Rowl<strong>an</strong>d<br />
[32], Hammer <strong>an</strong>d Champy [6] <strong>an</strong>d Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38].<br />
4.4.1.6. Numerical <strong>in</strong>volvement: ‘m<strong>in</strong>imize the number of<br />
departments, groups <strong>an</strong>d persons <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> a bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong>’ (see Fig. 17). Apply<strong>in</strong>g this best practice should<br />
lead to less coord<strong>in</strong>ation problems. Less time spent of coord<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
makes more time available for the <strong>process</strong><strong>in</strong>g of<br />
orders. Reduc<strong>in</strong>g the number of departments may lead to<br />
less split responsibilities, with similar pros <strong>an</strong>d cons as the<br />
split responsibilities best practice. In addition, smaller numbers<br />
of specialized units may prohibit the build of expertise<br />
(a quality issue) <strong>an</strong>d rout<strong>in</strong>e (a cost issue).<br />
This best practice is described by Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Champy [6], Rupp <strong>an</strong>d Russell [39] <strong>an</strong>d Berg <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Pottjewijd [38].<br />
4.4.1.7. Case m<strong>an</strong>ager: ‘appo<strong>in</strong>t one person as responsible<br />
for the h<strong>an</strong>dl<strong>in</strong>g of each type of order, the case m<strong>an</strong>ager’.<br />
The case m<strong>an</strong>ager is responsible for a speci c order or customer,<br />
but he or she is not necessarily the (only) resource<br />
3<br />
3<br />
that will work on it. The di erence with the order assignment<br />
practice is that the emphasis is on m<strong>an</strong>agement of the<br />
<strong>process</strong> <strong>an</strong>d not on its execution.<br />
The most import<strong>an</strong>t aim of the best practice is to improve<br />
upon the external quality of a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>. The bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong> will become more tr<strong>an</strong>sparent from the viewpo<strong>in</strong>t<br />
of a customer as the case m<strong>an</strong>ager provides a s<strong>in</strong>gle po<strong>in</strong>t<br />
of contact. This positively a ects customer satisfaction. It<br />
may also have a positive e ect on the <strong>in</strong>ternal quality of the<br />
bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>, as someone is accountable for correct<strong>in</strong>g<br />
mistakes. Obviously, the assignment of a case m<strong>an</strong>ager has<br />
n<strong>an</strong>cial consequences as capacity must be devoted to this<br />
job.<br />
This best practice is mentioned by Hammer <strong>an</strong>d Champy<br />
[6] <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee [41]. Buzacott [36] has<br />
provided some qu<strong>an</strong>titative support for a speci c <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of this best practice.<br />
4.4.1.8. Evaluation. The assessment of the best <strong>practices</strong><br />
for the structure of the org<strong>an</strong>ization is depicted <strong>in</strong> Figs. 18<br />
<strong>an</strong>d 19.<br />
4.4.2. Population<br />
Extra resources: ‘if capacity is not su cient, consider<br />
<strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g the number of resources ′ (see Fig. 20). This<br />
straightforward best practice speaks for itself. The obvious<br />
e ect of extra resources is that there is more capacity for<br />
h<strong>an</strong>dl<strong>in</strong>g orders, <strong>in</strong> this way reduc<strong>in</strong>g queue time. It may<br />
also help to implement a more exible assignment policy.<br />
Of course, hir<strong>in</strong>g or buy<strong>in</strong>g extra resources has its cost.<br />
Note the contrast of this best practice with the numerical<br />
<strong>in</strong>volvement best practice.<br />
This best practice is mentioned by Berg <strong>an</strong>d Pottjewijd<br />
[38]. V<strong>an</strong> Hee et al. [47] discuss the optimality of several<br />
strategies to optimally allocate additional resources <strong>in</strong> a bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong>.<br />
4.4.2.1. Specialist-generalist: ‘consider to make resources<br />
more specialized or more generalist’ (see Fig. 21). Resources<br />
may be turned from specialists <strong>in</strong>to generalists or<br />
the other way round. A specialist resource c<strong>an</strong> be tra<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
for other quali cations; a generalist may be assigned to the<br />
same type of work for a longer period of time, so that his<br />
other quali cations become obsolete. When the <strong>redesign</strong> of<br />
a new bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> is considered, application of this best<br />
practice comes down to consider<strong>in</strong>g the specialist–generalist<br />
ratio of new hires.<br />
A specialist builds up rout<strong>in</strong>e more quickly <strong>an</strong>d may have<br />
a more profound knowledge th<strong>an</strong> a generalist. As a result<br />
he or she works quicker <strong>an</strong>d delivers higher quality. On the<br />
other h<strong>an</strong>d, the availability of generalists adds more exibility<br />
to the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> <strong>an</strong>d c<strong>an</strong> lead to a better utilization<br />
of resources. Depend<strong>in</strong>g on the degree of specialization<br />
or generalization, either type of resource may be more<br />
costly.
Cost<br />
Case assignment<br />
Flexible assignment<br />
Centralization<br />
Split responsibilities<br />
Quality<br />
H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306 301<br />
Flexibility<br />
Time<br />
Fig. 18. Evaluation of org<strong>an</strong>ization structure best <strong>practices</strong> (I).<br />
Cost<br />
Customer teams<br />
Numerical<br />
<strong>in</strong>volvement<br />
Case m<strong>an</strong>ager<br />
Quality<br />
Flexibility<br />
Time<br />
Fig. 19. Evaluation of org<strong>an</strong>ization structure best <strong>practices</strong> (II).<br />
1<br />
2<br />
Fig. 20. Extra resources.<br />
Note that this best practice di ers from the triage concept<br />
<strong>in</strong> the sense that the focus is not on the division of<br />
tasks.<br />
3<br />
Fig. 21. Specialist-generalist.<br />
Fig. 22. Empower.<br />
Poyssick <strong>an</strong>d H<strong>an</strong>naford [4] <strong>an</strong>d Berg <strong>an</strong>d Pottjewijd [38]<br />
stress the adv<strong>an</strong>tages of generalists. Rupp <strong>an</strong>d Russell [39],<br />
Seidm<strong>an</strong>n <strong>an</strong>d Sundararaj<strong>an</strong> [25] mention both specialists<br />
<strong>an</strong>d generalists.<br />
4.4.2.2. Empower: ‘give workers most of the decisionmak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
authority <strong>an</strong>d reduce middle m<strong>an</strong>agement’. In<br />
traditional bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>es, subst<strong>an</strong>tial time may be spent<br />
on authoriz<strong>in</strong>g work that has been done by others. When<br />
workers are empowered to take decisions <strong>in</strong>dependently,<br />
it may result <strong>in</strong> smoother operations with lower throughput<br />
times. The reduction of middle m<strong>an</strong>agement from the<br />
bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> also reduces the labor cost spent on the<br />
<strong>process</strong><strong>in</strong>g of orders. A drawback may be that the quality of<br />
the decisions is lower <strong>an</strong>d that obvious errors are no longer<br />
found. If bad decisions or errors result <strong>in</strong> rework, the cost<br />
of h<strong>an</strong>dl<strong>in</strong>g a order may actually <strong>in</strong>crease compared to the<br />
orig<strong>in</strong>al situation (Fig. 22).<br />
This best practice is named by Hammer <strong>an</strong>d Champy [6],<br />
Rupp <strong>an</strong>d Russell [39], Seidm<strong>an</strong>n <strong>an</strong>d Sundaraj<strong>an</strong> [25] <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Poyssick <strong>an</strong>d H<strong>an</strong>naford [4]. Buzacott [36] shows with a<br />
simple qu<strong>an</strong>titative model that this best practice may <strong>in</strong>deed<br />
<strong>in</strong>crease perform<strong>an</strong>ce.<br />
4.4.2.3. Evaluation. The assessment of the best <strong>practices</strong><br />
for the org<strong>an</strong>ization population is given <strong>in</strong> Fig. 23.<br />
Note that only one of the two <strong>in</strong>terpretations of the specialist–generalist<br />
best practice is shown <strong>in</strong> Fig. 23.<br />
4.5. Information<br />
4.5.1. Control addition: ‘check the completeness <strong>an</strong>d<br />
correctness of <strong>in</strong>com<strong>in</strong>g materials <strong>an</strong>d check the output<br />
before it is send to customers’<br />
This best practice promotes the addition of controls to<br />
a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>. It may lead to a higher quality of the<br />
bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> execution <strong>an</strong>d, as a result, to less required<br />
rework (Fig. 24). Obviously, <strong>an</strong> additional control will require<br />
time <strong>an</strong>d will absorb resources. Note the contrast of<br />
the <strong>in</strong>tent of this best practice with that of the task elimi-
302 H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306<br />
Cost<br />
Extra resources<br />
Specialist-generalist<br />
(more specialists)<br />
Empower<br />
Quality<br />
Flexibility<br />
Time<br />
Fig. 23. Evaluation of org<strong>an</strong>ization population best <strong>practices</strong>.<br />
1 2<br />
Fig. 24. Control addition.<br />
Fig. 25. Bu er<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
nation best practice, which is a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> operation<br />
best practice (see Section 4.2).<br />
This best practice is mentioned by Poyssick <strong>an</strong>d H<strong>an</strong>naford<br />
[4], Hammer <strong>an</strong>d Champy [6] <strong>an</strong>d Buzacott [36].<br />
4.5.2. Bu er<strong>in</strong>g: ‘<strong>in</strong>stead of request<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation from<br />
<strong>an</strong> external source, bu er it by subscrib<strong>in</strong>g to updates’<br />
Obta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation from other parties is a major<br />
time-consum<strong>in</strong>g part <strong>in</strong> m<strong>an</strong>y bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> (Fig. 25).<br />
By hav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation directly available when it is required,<br />
throughput times may be subst<strong>an</strong>tially reduced.<br />
This best practice c<strong>an</strong> be compared to the cach<strong>in</strong>g pr<strong>in</strong>ciple<br />
micro<strong>process</strong>ors apply. Of course, the subscription fee for<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation updates may be rather costly. This is especially<br />
so when we consider <strong>in</strong>formation sources that conta<strong>in</strong> far<br />
more <strong>in</strong>formation th<strong>an</strong> is ever used. Subst<strong>an</strong>tial cost may<br />
also be <strong>in</strong>volved with stor<strong>in</strong>g all the <strong>in</strong>formation.<br />
Note that this best practice is a weak form of the <strong>in</strong>tegration<br />
best practice (see Section 4.1). Instead of direct access<br />
to the orig<strong>in</strong>al source of <strong>in</strong>formation—which the <strong>in</strong>te-<br />
Cost<br />
Control addition<br />
Buffer<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Quality<br />
Flexibility<br />
Fig. 26. Evaluation of <strong>in</strong>formation best <strong>practices</strong>.<br />
Time<br />
gration with a third party may come down to—a copy is<br />
ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed.<br />
This best practice follows from our own reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g<br />
experience.<br />
4.5.2.1. Evaluation. A summary of the e ects of the <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
best <strong>practices</strong> is given <strong>in</strong> Fig. 26.<br />
4.6. Technology<br />
4.6.1. Task automation: ‘consider automat<strong>in</strong>g tasks’<br />
A particular positive result of automat<strong>in</strong>g tasks may be<br />
that tasks c<strong>an</strong> be executed faster, with less cost, <strong>an</strong>d with a<br />
better result. An obvious disadv<strong>an</strong>tage is that the development<br />
of a system that performs a task may be very costly.<br />
Generally speak<strong>in</strong>g, a system perform<strong>in</strong>g a task is also less<br />
exible <strong>in</strong> h<strong>an</strong>dl<strong>in</strong>g variations th<strong>an</strong> a hum<strong>an</strong> resource. Instead<br />
of fully automat<strong>in</strong>g a task, <strong>an</strong> automated support of<br />
the resource execut<strong>in</strong>g the task may also be considered. A<br />
signi c<strong>an</strong>t application of the task automation best practice<br />
is the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> perspective of e-commerce:As cited<br />
by Gunasekar<strong>an</strong> et al. [48] <strong>an</strong>d de ned by Kalakota <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Wh<strong>in</strong>ston [49] e-commerce c<strong>an</strong> be seen as the application of<br />
technology towards the automation of bus<strong>in</strong>ess tr<strong>an</strong>sactions<br />
<strong>an</strong>d work ows.<br />
This best practice is speci cally mentioned as a <strong>redesign</strong><br />
measure by Peppard <strong>an</strong>d Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32], Hammer <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Champy [6] <strong>an</strong>d Berg <strong>an</strong>d Pottjewijd [38].<br />
4.6.2. Integral technology: ‘try to elevate physical<br />
constra<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> by apply<strong>in</strong>g new<br />
technology’<br />
In general, new technology c<strong>an</strong> o er all k<strong>in</strong>ds of positive<br />
e ects. For example, the application of a WfMS may
Cost<br />
Task automation<br />
Integral technology<br />
(WfMS)<br />
Quality<br />
H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306 303<br />
Flexibility<br />
Fig. 27. Evaluation of technology best <strong>practices</strong>.<br />
Time<br />
result <strong>in</strong> less time that is spend on logistical tasks. A Document<br />
M<strong>an</strong>agement System will open up the <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
available on orders to all particip<strong>an</strong>ts, which may result <strong>in</strong><br />
a better quality of service. New technology c<strong>an</strong> also ch<strong>an</strong>ge<br />
the traditional way of do<strong>in</strong>g bus<strong>in</strong>ess by giv<strong>in</strong>g particip<strong>an</strong>ts<br />
completely new possibilities.<br />
The purchase, development, implementation, tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>an</strong>d ma<strong>in</strong>ten<strong>an</strong>ce e orts related to technology are obviously<br />
costly. In addition, new technology may arouse fear with<br />
workers or may result <strong>in</strong> other subjective e ects; this may<br />
decrease the quality of the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>.<br />
This best practice is mentioned by Kle<strong>in</strong> [35], Peppard<br />
<strong>an</strong>d Rowl<strong>an</strong>d [32], Berg <strong>an</strong>d Pottjewijd [38] <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> der<br />
Aalst <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> Hee [41].<br />
4.6.3. Evaluation<br />
The discussed e ects of both technology best <strong>practices</strong><br />
c<strong>an</strong> be seen <strong>in</strong> Fig. 27.<br />
Note that to give <strong>an</strong> idea of the diverse e ects of the best<br />
practice, the e ects of a WfMS have been depicted as <strong>an</strong><br />
example.<br />
4.7. External environment<br />
4.7.1. Trusted party: ‘<strong>in</strong>stead of determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
oneself, use results of a trusted party’<br />
Some decisions or assessments that are made with<strong>in</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong> are not speci c for the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> they<br />
are part of. Other parties may have determ<strong>in</strong>ed the same<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong>other context, which—if it were known<br />
—could replace the decision or assessment. An example is<br />
the creditworth<strong>in</strong>ess of a customer that b<strong>an</strong>k A w<strong>an</strong>ts to establish.<br />
If a customer c<strong>an</strong> present a recent creditworth<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
certi cate of b<strong>an</strong>k B, then b<strong>an</strong>k A will accept it. Obviously,<br />
Fig. 28. Interfac<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
the trusted party best practice reduces cost <strong>an</strong>d may even<br />
cut back throughput time. On the other h<strong>an</strong>d, the quality of<br />
the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> becomes dependent upon the quality<br />
of some other party’s work. Some coord<strong>in</strong>ation e ort with<br />
trusted parties is also likely to be required, which dim<strong>in</strong>ishes<br />
exibility.<br />
This best practice is di erent from the bu er<strong>in</strong>g best practice<br />
(see Section 4.5), because the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> owner<br />
is not the one obta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>formation.<br />
This best practice results from our own reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g<br />
experience.<br />
4.7.2. Outsourc<strong>in</strong>g: ‘consider outsourc<strong>in</strong>g a bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong> <strong>in</strong> whole or parts of it’<br />
Another party may be more e cient <strong>in</strong> perform<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
same work, so it might as well perform it for one’s own<br />
bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>.<br />
The obvious aim of outsourc<strong>in</strong>g work is that it will<br />
generate less cost. A drawback may be that quality<br />
decreases. Outsourc<strong>in</strong>g also requires more coord<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
e orts <strong>an</strong>d will make the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> more<br />
complex.<br />
Note that this best practice di ers from the trusted party<br />
best practice. When outsourc<strong>in</strong>g, a task is executed at run<br />
time by <strong>an</strong>other party. The trusted party best practice allows<br />
for the use of a result <strong>in</strong> the (recent) past.<br />
This best practice is mentioned by Kle<strong>in</strong> [35], Hammer<br />
<strong>an</strong>d Champy [6] <strong>an</strong>d Poyssick <strong>an</strong>d H<strong>an</strong>naford [4].<br />
4.7.3. Interfac<strong>in</strong>g: ‘consider a st<strong>an</strong>dardized <strong>in</strong>terface with<br />
customers <strong>an</strong>d partners’<br />
The idea beh<strong>in</strong>d this best practice is that a st<strong>an</strong>dardized<br />
<strong>in</strong>terface will dim<strong>in</strong>ish the probability of mistakes, <strong>in</strong>complete<br />
applications, un<strong>in</strong>telligible communications, etc. (Fig.<br />
28). A st<strong>an</strong>dardized <strong>in</strong>terface may result <strong>in</strong> less errors (quality),<br />
faster <strong>process</strong><strong>in</strong>g (time) <strong>an</strong>d less rework (cost).<br />
The <strong>in</strong>terfac<strong>in</strong>g best practice c<strong>an</strong> be seen a speci c <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of the <strong>in</strong>tegration best practice, although it is not<br />
speci cally aimed at customers.<br />
This best practice is mentioned by Hammer <strong>an</strong>d Champy<br />
[6] <strong>an</strong>d Poyssick <strong>an</strong>d H<strong>an</strong>naford [4].<br />
4.7.4. Evaluation<br />
The discussed e ects of the external party best <strong>practices</strong><br />
c<strong>an</strong> be seen <strong>in</strong> Fig. 29.
304 H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306<br />
Cost<br />
Trusted party<br />
Outsourc<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Interfac<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Quality<br />
Flexibility<br />
Time<br />
Fig. 29. Evaluation of external party best <strong>practices</strong>.<br />
5. Conclusion<br />
In this paper we have dealt with the best <strong>practices</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
implement<strong>in</strong>g BPR. A framework for classify<strong>in</strong>g the best<br />
<strong>practices</strong> was given. It is the result of the experience of other<br />
authors mixed with our own experience. It helps structur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the implementation of a BPR <strong>in</strong>itiative. In this framework we<br />
have described 29 best <strong>practices</strong> <strong>an</strong>d evaluated qualitatively<br />
their impact on the cost, quality, exibility <strong>an</strong>d time criteria<br />
as de ned by Br<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>d v<strong>an</strong> der Kolk [11].<br />
In Table 1 we summarize with<strong>in</strong> our framework for BPR<br />
the best <strong>practices</strong>’ impact <strong>an</strong>d authors’ contribution to their<br />
application. Examples from real cases are also given if available.<br />
The table shows that the best <strong>practices</strong> have been applied<br />
to several types of <strong>in</strong>dustries, r<strong>an</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g from the accounts’<br />
department at Ford <strong>in</strong>dustries to Fast foods, health<br />
sector org<strong>an</strong>izations (Baxter health care), some m<strong>an</strong>ufactur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>process</strong>es (Toyota, a furniture factory, a semi-conductors<br />
m<strong>an</strong>ufacturer), IBM credit <strong>in</strong>sur<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>process</strong>es <strong>an</strong>d various<br />
other adm<strong>in</strong>istrative <strong>process</strong>es. Despite this wide r<strong>an</strong>ge of<br />
applications, <strong>an</strong>d our personal experience <strong>in</strong> apply<strong>in</strong>g these<br />
rules <strong>in</strong> service contexts (i.e. <strong>in</strong>voice <strong>process</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong>d purchas<strong>in</strong>g),<br />
we believe there is still a need to further <strong>in</strong>vestigate<br />
the impact <strong>an</strong>d relev<strong>an</strong>ce of each best practice to speci<br />
c <strong>in</strong>dustrial segments. One recent approach <strong>in</strong> this area is<br />
by MacIntosh [50], who compares private <strong>an</strong>d public sector<br />
BPR applications. These applications cover some of the best<br />
<strong>practices</strong> we discussed <strong>in</strong> this paper (<strong>in</strong>tegral bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong><br />
technology, task automation, contact reduction, etc.).<br />
MacIntosh [50] does not question the appropriateness of the<br />
solutions <strong>in</strong> the separate <strong>in</strong>dustrial segments, but stresses<br />
di erences with respect to behavioral issues.<br />
On <strong>an</strong>other level, Table 1 clearly shows that—except for<br />
the contributions of Buzacott [36], Seidm<strong>an</strong>n <strong>an</strong>d Sundara-<br />
j<strong>an</strong> [25], Dew<strong>an</strong> et al. [43] <strong>an</strong>d V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst [45] to some<br />
best <strong>practices</strong>—most of the best <strong>practices</strong> lack the support<br />
of <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>alytical or empirical study. Additional work should<br />
po<strong>in</strong>t out the conditions or doma<strong>in</strong> validity where a best<br />
practice would give the expected results <strong>in</strong> terms of cost/time<br />
reduction or quality/ exibility improvement.<br />
This <strong>in</strong>troduces the future research directions for this<br />
paper, which are:<br />
• At rst, to further validate our BPR framework <strong>an</strong>d set<br />
of best <strong>practices</strong> through <strong>an</strong> extensive survey amongst<br />
consult<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d through real case studies. The survey aims<br />
at further identify<strong>in</strong>g the most used best <strong>practices</strong> <strong>an</strong>d<br />
the framework’s elements that are crucial for BPR. Case<br />
studies would give further <strong>in</strong>sight <strong>in</strong>to how the framework<br />
c<strong>an</strong> be used dur<strong>in</strong>g a BPR implementation.<br />
• Then to <strong>in</strong>vestigate for all best <strong>practices</strong> when, where <strong>an</strong>d<br />
how to apply or not apply them. This part is concerned<br />
with giv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dications to the size of the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong><br />
or the tasks <strong>in</strong>volved. Also, it should study the relative<br />
impact of best <strong>practices</strong> on a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong>. In this<br />
area, Foster [51] assessed the impact of BPR (essentially<br />
org<strong>an</strong>izational automation impacts) <strong>in</strong> a hospital us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
base l<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g. Also, Seidm<strong>an</strong>n <strong>an</strong>d Sundaraj<strong>an</strong> [52] studied<br />
the popular comb<strong>in</strong>ation of the empower <strong>an</strong>d the triage<br />
best <strong>practices</strong> (lead<strong>in</strong>g to decentralization <strong>an</strong>d task consolidation).<br />
They proved, us<strong>in</strong>g mathematical models, that<br />
this comb<strong>in</strong>ation is sub-optimal <strong>in</strong> m<strong>an</strong>y cases.<br />
• At last, to provide users with a methodology <strong>in</strong> apply<strong>in</strong>g<br />
best <strong>practices</strong>. This <strong>in</strong>cludes the classi cation of the best<br />
<strong>practices</strong> with<strong>in</strong> the framework for BPR implementation<br />
as a basis (which was one of the purposes of this paper)<br />
<strong>an</strong>d as a guidel<strong>in</strong>e to the order/conditions <strong>in</strong> which the<br />
best <strong>practices</strong> should be implemented. Of course, several<br />
authors have already <strong>in</strong>vestigated this area. Harr<strong>in</strong>gton<br />
[53] provided a streaml<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g of bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> <strong>redesign</strong><br />
rules. Kett<strong>in</strong>ger <strong>an</strong>d Teng [54] provide a framework<br />
for <strong>an</strong>alyz<strong>in</strong>g BPR <strong>in</strong> conjunction with several strategic<br />
dimensions. However, these approaches lack the set of<br />
measures <strong>an</strong>d guidel<strong>in</strong>es to the application of the best<br />
<strong>practices</strong>.<br />
We believe that <strong>in</strong> present<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> this paper the best <strong>practices</strong><br />
together with their qualitative assessments we provide support<br />
to the practitioner of BPR deal<strong>in</strong>g with the mech<strong>an</strong>ics<br />
of the <strong>process</strong>. The best <strong>practices</strong> may be used as a checklist<br />
with (limited) additional guid<strong>an</strong>ce for the application<br />
of each of these, so that a favorable <strong>redesign</strong> of a bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong> becomes feasible. The checklist should be <strong>in</strong>corporated<br />
with<strong>in</strong> a BPR methodology that addresses m<strong>an</strong>agerial<br />
aspects as well. One suggestion would be to use the ve<br />
themes listed by Maull et al. [55] that lead to e ective BPR<br />
implementation:<strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g the bus<strong>in</strong>ess strategy, <strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
perform<strong>an</strong>ce measurement, creat<strong>in</strong>g bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> architectures,<br />
<strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g hum<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d org<strong>an</strong>izational factors <strong>an</strong>d<br />
identify<strong>in</strong>g the role of <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>an</strong>d technology.
References<br />
[1] M<strong>an</strong>g<strong>an</strong>elli R, Kle<strong>in</strong> M. The reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g h<strong>an</strong>dbook:a<br />
step-by-step guide to bus<strong>in</strong>ess tr<strong>an</strong>sformation. New York:<br />
Americ<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>agement Association; 1994.<br />
[2] Carr D, Joh<strong>an</strong>sson H. <strong>Best</strong> <strong>practices</strong> <strong>in</strong> reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g. New<br />
York:McGraw-Hill Editions; 1995.<br />
[3] Galliers R. Aga<strong>in</strong>st obliteration:reduc<strong>in</strong>g risk <strong>in</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong> ch<strong>an</strong>ge. In:Sauer C, Yetton P, editors. Steps to<br />
the future:fresh th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g on the m<strong>an</strong>agement of IT-based<br />
org<strong>an</strong>izational tr<strong>an</strong>sformation. S<strong>an</strong> Fr<strong>an</strong>cisco:Jossey-Bass;<br />
1997. p. 169–86.<br />
[4] Grover V, Jeong SR, Kett<strong>in</strong>ger WJ, Teng JTC. The<br />
implementation of bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g. Journal of<br />
M<strong>an</strong>agement Information Systems 1995;12(1):109–44.<br />
[5] Kett<strong>in</strong>ger WJ, Teng JTC, Guha S. Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> ch<strong>an</strong>ge:a<br />
study of methodologies, techniques, <strong>an</strong>d tools. MIS Quarterly<br />
1997;21(1):55–80.<br />
[6] Hammer M, Champy J. Reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g the corporation:a<br />
m<strong>an</strong>ifesto for bus<strong>in</strong>ess revolution. New York:Harper Bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
Editions; 1993.<br />
[7] Gerrits H. Bus<strong>in</strong>ess model<strong>in</strong>g based on logistics to support<br />
bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> re-eng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g. In:Glasson BC et al.,<br />
editors. Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> re-eng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g:<strong>in</strong>formation systems<br />
opportunities <strong>an</strong>d challenges. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science;<br />
1994. p. 279–88.<br />
[8] Motw<strong>an</strong>i J, Kumar A, Ji<strong>an</strong>g J. Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong><br />
reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g:a theoretical framework <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>tegrated<br />
model. International Journal of Operations & Production<br />
M<strong>an</strong>agement 1998;18(9/10):964–77.<br />
[9] Valiris G, Glykas M. Critical review of exist<strong>in</strong>g BPR<br />
methodologies. Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Process M<strong>an</strong>agement Journal<br />
1999;5(1):65–86.<br />
[10] Sharp A, McDermott P. Work ow model<strong>in</strong>g:tools for <strong>process</strong><br />
improvement <strong>an</strong>d application development. Boston:Artech<br />
House Publishers; 2001.<br />
[11] Br<strong>an</strong>d N, v<strong>an</strong> der Kolk H. Work ow <strong>an</strong>alysis <strong>an</strong>d design.<br />
Deventer:Kluwer Bedrijfswetenschappen, 1995 [<strong>in</strong> Dutch].<br />
[12] Schonberger RJ. World class m<strong>an</strong>ufactur<strong>in</strong>g:the lessons of<br />
simplicity applied. New York:Free Press; 1986.<br />
[13] Stalk GH, Hout TM. Compet<strong>in</strong>g aga<strong>in</strong>st time:how time based<br />
competition is re-shap<strong>in</strong>g global markets. New York:Free<br />
Press; 1990.<br />
[14] Womack JP, Jones DT. Le<strong>an</strong> th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g:b<strong>an</strong>ish waste <strong>an</strong>d create<br />
wealth <strong>in</strong> your corporation. New York:Simon <strong>an</strong>d Schuster;<br />
1996.<br />
[15] Goldratt EM. What is this th<strong>in</strong>g called theory of constra<strong>in</strong>ts<br />
<strong>an</strong>d how should it be implemented?. New York:North River<br />
Press; 1990.<br />
[16] Goldratt EM, Cox J. The goal. New York:North River Press;<br />
1992.<br />
[17] Goldm<strong>an</strong> SL, Nagel RN, Preiss K. Agile competitors <strong>an</strong>d<br />
virtual org<strong>an</strong>isations. New York:V<strong>an</strong> Nostr<strong>an</strong>d Re<strong>in</strong>hold;<br />
1995.<br />
[18] Jones C, Medlen N, Merlo C, Robertson M, Shepherdson<br />
J. The le<strong>an</strong> enterprise. BT Technology Journal 1999;17(4):<br />
15–22.<br />
[19] Alter S. Information systems:a m<strong>an</strong>agement perspective.<br />
Amsterdam:Addison Wesley; 1999.<br />
[20] Berio G, Vernadat F. Enterprise model<strong>in</strong>g with CIMOSA:<br />
functional <strong>an</strong>d org<strong>an</strong>izational aspects. Production Pl<strong>an</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g &<br />
Control 2001;12(2):128–36.<br />
H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306 305<br />
[21] Gr<strong>an</strong>t D. A wider view of bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Communications of the ACM 2002;45(2):85–90.<br />
[22] Gunasekar<strong>an</strong> A, Nath B. The role of <strong>in</strong>formation technology<br />
<strong>in</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g. International Journal of<br />
Production Economics 1997;50(1/2):91–104.<br />
[23] Jablonski S, Bussler C. Work ow m<strong>an</strong>agement:<br />
model<strong>in</strong>g concepts, architecture <strong>an</strong>d implementation. London:<br />
International Thomson Computer Press; 1996.<br />
[24] V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst WMP, Berens PJS. Beyond work ow<br />
m<strong>an</strong>agement:product-driven case h<strong>an</strong>dl<strong>in</strong>g. In:Ellis S et<br />
al., editors. International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on<br />
Support<strong>in</strong>g Group Work (GROUP 2001). New York:ACM<br />
Press; 2001. p. p42–51.<br />
[25] Seidm<strong>an</strong>n A, Sundararaj<strong>an</strong> A. The e ects of task <strong>an</strong>d<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation asymmetry on bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> <strong>redesign</strong>. International<br />
Journal of Production Economics 1997;50(2/3):<br />
117–28.<br />
[26] Mart<strong>in</strong> J. The best practice of bus<strong>in</strong>ess. London:John Mart<strong>in</strong><br />
Publish<strong>in</strong>g; 1978.<br />
[27] Butler P. A strategic framework for health promotion<br />
<strong>in</strong> Dareb<strong>in</strong>. A report to the East Preston <strong>an</strong>d Northcote<br />
community health centers by the center for development <strong>an</strong>d<br />
<strong>in</strong>novation <strong>in</strong> health, center for development <strong>an</strong>d <strong>in</strong>novation<br />
<strong>in</strong> health, Melbourne, Australia, March 1996.<br />
[28] Golov<strong>in</strong> J. Achiev<strong>in</strong>g stretch goals:best <strong>practices</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
m<strong>an</strong>ufactur<strong>in</strong>g for the new millennium. New York:<br />
Prentice-Hall Editions; 1997.<br />
[29] Software Program M<strong>an</strong>agers Network (SPMN).<br />
Sixteen critical software <strong>practices</strong> for perform<strong>an</strong>ce-based<br />
m<strong>an</strong>agement, 1999. hhtp://www.spmn.com/critical software<br />
<strong>practices</strong>.html.<br />
[30] O’Neill P, Sohal AS. Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g:a review<br />
of recent literature. Technovation 1999;19(9):571–81.<br />
[31] Aldowais<strong>an</strong> TA, Gaafar LK. Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
<strong>an</strong> approach for <strong>process</strong> mapp<strong>in</strong>g. Omega 1999;27(5):<br />
515–24.<br />
[32] Peppard J, Rowl<strong>an</strong>d P. The essence of bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong><br />
reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g. New York:Prentice-Hall Editions; 1995.<br />
[33] V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst WMP. Work ow veri cation: nd<strong>in</strong>g<br />
control- ow errors us<strong>in</strong>g Petri-net-based techniques. In:V<strong>an</strong><br />
der Aalst WMP et al., editors. Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> m<strong>an</strong>agement:<br />
models, techniques, <strong>an</strong>d empirical studies. Lecture notes<br />
<strong>in</strong> computer science, vol. 1806. Berl<strong>in</strong>:Spr<strong>in</strong>ger; 2000.<br />
p. p161–83.<br />
[34] Reijers HA, Limam S, V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst WMP. Product-based<br />
work ow design. Journal of M<strong>an</strong>agement Information<br />
Systems 2003;20(1):229–62.<br />
[35] Kle<strong>in</strong> M. 10 pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g. Executive Excellence<br />
1995;12(2):20.<br />
[36] Buzacott JA. Commonalities <strong>in</strong> reeng<strong>in</strong>eered bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
<strong>process</strong>es:models <strong>an</strong>d issues. M<strong>an</strong>agement Science<br />
1996;42(5):768–82.<br />
[37] Oliver RK, Webber MD, Supply-cha<strong>in</strong> m<strong>an</strong>agement:logistics<br />
catches up with strategy. In:Christopher M. editor. Logistics:<br />
the strategic issues. London:Chapm<strong>an</strong> & Hall; 1982.<br />
p. 63–75.<br />
[38] Berg A, Pottjewijd P. Work ow:cont<strong>in</strong>uous improvement<br />
by <strong>in</strong>tegral <strong>process</strong> m<strong>an</strong>agement. Schoonhoven:Academic<br />
Service; 1997 [<strong>in</strong> Dutch].<br />
[39] Rupp RO, Russell JR. The golden rules of <strong>process</strong> <strong>redesign</strong>.<br />
Quality Progress 1994;27(12):85–92.
306 H.A. Reijers, S. Lim<strong>an</strong> M<strong>an</strong>sar / Omega 33 (2005) 283 – 306<br />
[40] Cast<strong>an</strong>o S, de Antonellis V, Melchiori M. A methodology <strong>an</strong>d<br />
tool environment for <strong>process</strong> <strong>an</strong>alysis <strong>an</strong>d reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g. Data<br />
& Knowledge Eng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g 1999;31:253–78.<br />
[41] V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst WMP, V<strong>an</strong> Hee KM. Work ow m<strong>an</strong>agement:<br />
models, methods, <strong>an</strong>d systems. Cambridge:MIT Press<br />
Editions; 2002.<br />
[42] Zapf M, He<strong>in</strong>zl A. Evaluation of generic <strong>process</strong> design<br />
patterns:<strong>an</strong> experimental study. In:V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst WMP et<br />
al., editors. Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> m<strong>an</strong>agement. Lecture notes <strong>in</strong><br />
computer science, vol. 1806. Berl<strong>in</strong>:Spr<strong>in</strong>ger; 2000. p. 83–98.<br />
[43] Dew<strong>an</strong> R, Seidm<strong>an</strong>n A, Zhip<strong>in</strong>g W. Work ow optimization<br />
through task <strong>redesign</strong> <strong>in</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>process</strong>es. In:<br />
Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of the Thirty-First Annual Hawaii International<br />
Conference on System Sciences. Wash<strong>in</strong>gton:IEEE 1998;<br />
p. 240–53.<br />
[44] Reijers HA, Goverde RHJJM. Resource m<strong>an</strong>agement:<br />
a clear-headed approach to ensure e ciency. Work ow<br />
Magaz<strong>in</strong>e 1998;4(6):26–8. [<strong>in</strong> Dutch].<br />
[45] V<strong>an</strong> der Aalst WMP. Reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g knock-out <strong>process</strong>es.<br />
Decision Support Systems 2000;30(4):451–68.<br />
[46] Poyssick G, H<strong>an</strong>naford S. Work ow reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g. Mounta<strong>in</strong><br />
View:Adobe Press Editions; 1996.<br />
[47] V<strong>an</strong> Hee KM, Reijers HA, Verbeek HMW, Zergu<strong>in</strong>i L. On<br />
the optimal allocation of resources <strong>in</strong> stochastic work ow<br />
nets. In:Djemame K, Kara M, editors. Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of the<br />
Seventeenth UK Perform<strong>an</strong>ce Eng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g Workshop. Leeds:<br />
Pr<strong>in</strong>t Services University of Leeds; 2001. p. 23–34.<br />
[48] Gunasekar<strong>an</strong> A, Marri HB, McGaughey RE, Nebhw<strong>an</strong>i MD.<br />
E-commerce <strong>an</strong>d its impact on operations m<strong>an</strong>agement.<br />
International Journal of Production Economics 2002;75:<br />
185–97.<br />
[49] Kalakota R, Wh<strong>in</strong>ston AB. Electronic commerce:a m<strong>an</strong>ager’s<br />
guide. Read<strong>in</strong>g:Addison-Wesley; 1997.<br />
[50] MacIntosh R. BPR:alive <strong>an</strong>d well <strong>in</strong> the public sector.<br />
International Journal of Operations & Production M<strong>an</strong>agement<br />
2003;23(3):327–44.<br />
[51] Foster Jr. ST. Assess<strong>in</strong>g <strong>process</strong> reeng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g impacts<br />
through base l<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g. Benchmark<strong>in</strong>g for Quality M<strong>an</strong>agement<br />
& Technology 1995;2(3):4–19.<br />
[52] Seidm<strong>an</strong>n A, Sundararaj<strong>an</strong> A. Compet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation-<strong>in</strong>tensive<br />
services:<strong>an</strong>alyz<strong>in</strong>g the impact of<br />
task consolidation <strong>an</strong>d employee empowerment. Journal<br />
of M<strong>an</strong>agement Information Systems Fall 1997;4(2):<br />
33–56.<br />
[53] Harr<strong>in</strong>gton HJ. Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>process</strong> improvement:the<br />
breakthrough strategy for total quality, productivity, <strong>an</strong>d<br />
competitiveness. New York:McGraw-Hill; 1991.<br />
[54] Kett<strong>in</strong>ger WJ, Teng TC. Align<strong>in</strong>g BPR to strategy:a<br />
framework for <strong>an</strong>alysis. Long R<strong>an</strong>ge Pl<strong>an</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g 1998;31(1):<br />
93–107.<br />
[55] Maull RS, Tr<strong>an</strong> eld DR, Maull W. Factors characteris<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the maturity of BPR programmes. International Journal<br />
of Operations & Production M<strong>an</strong>agement 2003;23(6):<br />
596–624.