Anda di halaman 1dari 36

SWP 3197

A CRITICAL ISSUE IN BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING: FOCUSING THE INITIATIVE

PROFESSOR CHRIS EDWARDS and JOE PEPPARD


Information Systems Research Centre
Cranfield School of Management
Cranfield University
Cranfield
Bedfordshire MK43 OAL
Tel:
Fax:
Email:

+44(0)1234 751122
+44(0)1234751806

j.peppard@cranfield.ac.uk

The Cranfield School of Management Working Papers Series has been running since 1987, with
approximately 430 papers so far from the nine academic groups of the School: Economics;
Enterprise; Finance and Accounting; Human Resources; Information Systems; Logistics and
Transportation; Marketing; Operations Management; and Strategic Management. Since 1992,
papers have been reviewed by senior members offaculty before acceptance into the Series. A list
since 1992 is included at the back of this paper.
For copies of papers (up to two free, then Z.5.00 per copy, cheques to be made payable to the
Cranjield University), please contact Wayne Bulbrook, Research Administrator, at the address
on the back of this booklet.

0 All Rights Reserved. Cranfield School of Management, Edwards & Peppard, 1997
lSBN1859050972

A CRITICAL ISSUE IN BUSINESS PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING:


FOCUSING THE INITIATIVE

C Edwards, J Peppard
Crunfield School of Management
Cranjeld Bedford MK43 OAL
Tel.:+44 1234 75 1122
Fax: +44 1234 75 1806
Email: j.peppard@Cranfield.ac.uk

The application of business process re-engineering in organisations


continues unabated

A central issue that has not been sufficiently

considered is the method of identi@ng and choosing the processes to


re-engineer.

If

the claimed benefits of substantial performance

improvement are to be secured, it is vital that a classification

of

process exists to facilitate selection of those most likely to deliver such


beneJits. This article considers the need for such a class@ation and
the responses presently available in the literature and concludes that
this is both a critical and a neglected matter. A classification scheme
explicitly linking processes to business strategy is presented.

The

paper concludes by illustrating how the scheme was employed by one


organisation during their re-engineering initiative to yield sign#cant
benefit.

Please do not quote without permission. Comments welcome.

2911II96

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

The interest in, and applicationof, businessprocessre-engineeringcontinuesunabated.


Organisationsof all types and in all industries are looking towards the re-engineering
of their processesto dramaticallyimprove their performancewith researchcontinuing
to illustrate that re-engineeringis high on the corporate agenda.
Yet despitethe popularity of re-engineering,the indicationsare that the failure rate for
those seeking to redesign their businessprocessesis high.2 This is perhaps to be
expected, given the significant improvement in performance demanded by such
programmes and the relative newness of the concept. A reason for failure may be
associatedwith the poor state of some organisationsbeginning such a programme in
the first instance. A further reason is perhapsdue to the tremendouschangewhich is
inevitably required to migrate from a traditional functional-basedorganisationtowards
one with a process orientation. A significant issue is what actually constitutes failure.
The rhetoric of process redesign advocates the setting of stretch targets, yet
achieving a 20% improvement in performancewhen a 80% level was targeted might
will be interpreted as failure: however perhaps 20% improvement was all that is
possible.
The early literature on BPR is generallydescriptive,focusing on what BPR is and why
it is necessary rather than expressly considering the broader organisational
implications.3 This is to be expected, especiallygiven its origins in observationsof
how some leading corporationswere implementingIT in innovative ways.4 The cases
described in the early literature, for example Ford, Rank Xerox, American Express,
and Hewlett Packard independently recognised the need to focus on processes in
leveraging benefits from IT. Attaching a label businessprocess re-engineering5to
these observationsmade the phenomenonavailableto a wider audience. Add to this
the subsequentevangelical rhetoric which resulted in the end result becoming an
instant objective for many more organisations. We now have the benefit of these
organisationsexperiencein undertaking BPR as they sought to move towards this
utopia.6
2

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

As our understandingof re-engineeringimproves, guidelinesto support organisations


in re-engineeringare becoming readily available. Guidancefor successand pitfalls to
avoid have been developed: for example, top managementcommitment, changing
mindsets,the criticality of communication,aiming for quick hits, etc. are just some of
the prescriptionswhich have been proposed. However, despite following this advice,
in our researchand consulting we observethat many organisationsare not translating
performanceimprovementas a result of redesigningprocessesinto bottom-line results.
Evidence suggeststhat many organisationsare re-engineeringprocesseswhich make
little contribution to businesssuccessas a whole, even if the processesselected are
successfullyredesigned.
This paradox has been addressedin some way by the suggestionthat two factors breadth

of process in crossing organisational boundaries and the depth of

organisationalissuesconsidered- are critical in translating short-term, narrow-focus


processimprovementsinto long-term profits. Performanceimprovementsreported in
the literature are very often expressedrelative to the process being re-designedrather
than the businessunit as a whole. While such results may look impressive in the
context of the process, in reality they have little impact on the organisations
profitability.

The central messageis to connect an organisationsprocess redesign

initiative to its strategicbusinessdirection.


In this article, we present a classification of business processes which we have
developedfrom our researchand consulting which assistsin understandingthe role of
various processesin delivering the businessstrategy and hence in identifying priorities
for re-engineering. This framework provides an explicit connection between an
organisations strategy and its processes. To this end we articulate an approach to
align strategy and customer expectationswith processes. As a result of our research
we have developed generic strategiesto provide guidance in managing the different
categories of processes and highlight how, over time, processes migrate and can
become more or less important to the business. We conclude by illustrating how one
3

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

organisationhas successfullyused this classificationschemeto enableit to identify its


processesand provide focus to their re-engineeringinitiative.

Contrasting business transformation and business process re-design


Researchand company experiencewith process redesign clearly highlights that such
initiatives should underpin the strategicdirection of the organisation.Yet even where
an organisation recognises the criticality of this link they experience tremendous
problems in operationalisingit. In order to begin to develop this connection we first
make a clear distinction between business process redesign and business
transfomation.

The majority of writers use either one term or the other or, more

commonly, use them interchangeably. We try to be somewhat more precise in our


usage and advocate making a clearer distinction. This is not merely a semantic
distinction but one which has great implications for those engagingin a re-engineering
initiative.
We use the term businesstransformation (BT) to refer to the total re-engineeringof a
businessunit. This is very much a top down activity, beginning with the business
strategy and identifying the processeswhich deliver that strategy. It involves the
development of an organisationalarchitecture and entails identifying and linking the
strategy of the businesswith the required organisationalprocessesto ensure that this
strategy is actually delivered, both today and in the future. Figure 1 illustrates how
one company has looked towards articulating a process architecture to underpin the
delivery of its businessstrategy.

The critical issue ilr HPR:,focrrsing tire irritiafive

- ~-~.----~.~_~_._ bsaness
__
Mdel Tetscan Lad. Toy hd

PROCESS

wXs7-

oelwered
OUal,h/

Producl

Dellery
PWlOlllMCL?
Sales 10 Budget
C*tOlW~
S.3lS,%3,0
cuslmer
Cu*tomer

HMWEL

tDW.+ENT

WMBER

Et.4000321
COPYRlGHT

CHANGE LEVEL

PAGE I OF 1 fnfo Control ISD,,.Z ,y,p,ova,

Feemack
Retenllon
8 Da,e

IF402
1999. MITEL TELECOM

LTD. AU

RIGHTS RESERVED

Figure 1 Processunderpinningbusinessstrategy at Mite1 Telecommunications.


In contrast, we treat businessprocessredesign (BPR) as the redesignof a particular
organisational process. The identification of a process to be redesigned may be
derived as a result of businesstransformation (and we strongly recommend that it
should be) or it may be any existing organisationaltask selectedby managementas
deservingof attention. In short, BT is concernedwith understandingthe relationship
between organisational processesand the business strategy to identify underlying
processes;BPR involves the actual redesignand implementationof a processor set of
processes. Indeed, much of the writings on BPR uses the rhetoric of BT yet the
examplesthey quote relate to only a part of a businessunit and then often the part is of
minor importance. The essenceof this distinction lies in the scope of the project at
origination. The redesign of a business unit, or at least identifying the process
architecture,equatesto BT. Redesigninga particular processwithin a businessunit is
BPR. The focus of BT is therefore to identify processesand then to select candidates
5

7&e critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

for redesign;hence BT can lead to the re-engineeringof some or all processesfor that
businessunit.
The selectionof those processesto redesignraisesinterestingdiscussionquestionsbut
management often explain the choice in terms of their existing organisational
understandingand the strongly desiredimprovementsexpressedby their customers. In
some situationsthe very selectionof the processto redesignprovided the beginningsof
failure; some organisationschooseto redesignaround existing organisationalactivities
and whilst this may display apparently significant cost reduction, it may make little
contribution to profits. For example, consider Fords much publicised reductions in
accountspayable staff numbers due to redesigningthe accountspayableprocess; did
the 75% headcount reduction in this functional area contribute very significantly to
Fords world-wide profit? We would argue that the actual redesignwas successtil and
exhibited all the halhnarksof BPR but delivered little tangible monetary benefits in the
context of the whole Ford organisation.

Defining process and activities


Before beginning to explain the nature of process classification, it is worthwhile
understandingwhat is being classified:namelywhat we meanby a process. We view a
process as an organisationalmechanismthat exists to satisfy one or a collection of
stakeholdersexpectationsfrom the organisation. Processesare a logical construction,
as opposed to their physical manifestationwhich translatesthe what defined at the
processlevel into action; thesewe term activities. This distinction between logical and
physicalis familiar to those engagedin the design of databases,but we have also found
it useful in understandingprocesses. The processes(i.e. the logical view) provides the
conceptualbasis for defining the activities (i.e. the physical view) which will deliver a
particular outcome. For example, an organisation may have an acquiring customer
processwhich may consist of activities such as market research activity, customer
credit evaluationactivity, and a direct mail activity.

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

We use the word stakeholderintentionally. It is a popular dictum today for


organisationsto seek to become customer focusedand indeed many BT initiatives
are centred around this objective. However, too strong a focus on the customer is to
neglect the complex web of relationships that make possible the operation of an
organisation. We prefer the broader term stakeholderand define them in the
conventionalway, as anyonewho can significantly influence the successor otherwise
of the organisation. Exampleswould be customers,suppliers,shareholders,employees
and government.
Expectations are identified by questioningthe stakeholdersthrough a variety of
mechanisms.It is useful, for later classification,not only to identify what stakeholders
expect from the organisation but also what would delight them if it were made
available. This solicitation task can be time consumingbut is a vital ingredient . If
expectationsare missedor inappropriate expectationsare selectedthen the whole of
the transformed organisation will be mis-aligned. Usually, much of the information
already exists to support this task, such as market researchreports, customer focus
interviews and such. It is very likely that a certain level of conflict will exist between
stakeholdersexpectations(e.g. that between sellingprice and profit) but such conflict
is healthy if it leads to debate and consensus. However, if it is not dealt with at an
early stageit can lead to mixed objectivesfor the resultant processesto satisfy.
BT is often seenas involving breaking the china and of challengingevery concept,
assumption,purpose and principle underlying the design of a process. It is equally
important to surface and examine the assumptions which underlie stakeholder
expectations. In particular, whether these assumptionsare valid in relation to the
current businessstrategy.

A critical question is whether the organisation has any

desire to satisfy these expectations because if not, stakeholderswill exercise their


power over the organisation,for examplecustomersmay chooseto defect.
We have found that companiesoften find it difficult to articulate the link between
strategy and processdirectly. Indeed, in his recent book Hammer recognisesthis fact
7

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

acknowledging that process identification is almost certainty the most intellectually


challengingcomponent of the entire transformed enterprise. Unfortunately, he offers
little by way of guidance. We have found that those chargedwith identifj4ng processes
from strategy often find it easierto go through stakeholdersand their expectationsas
the first passand then examinethe resultantprocessesin relation to the strategy.
Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between strategy, stakeholders,expectations and
process. In this model, the interplay between strategy and stakeholdersis crucial;
strategy defines some stakeholdersand the expectations of these stakeholdersthen
shapethe strategy. Indeed, the organisationmay seekto manipulatethese expectations
through marketing. When consolidated, expectations define the organisations
processes. It is the execution of the activities which constitute the processeswith
deliver these expectationsand in turn satisfj stakeholders. In effect, this approachis
defining the organisations processes but indirectly via stakeholders and their
expectationsrather than defining processesdirectly fkom strategy.

shapes

defines
//

encapsulated

in

delivers
\

z-?te

Figure 2 Strategy, stakeholders,expectationsand processes.


The consolidation of stakeholder expectations and restatement into organisational
processes is undertaken in a particular way but involves much management
consideration and discussion. The method employed is to select each stakeholder
expectationin turn and ask ifan alreadyidentified processwill be tasked to satisfy that
expectation. For example,with the first expectation a processwill need to be created
(as by definition no process can yet have been created) and this will take the form to
8

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

verb HOW; an example of this may be to educate visitors which results from an

expectationon the part of visitors to a zoo to be educated. For a secondexpectation,


managementneed to decideifit is to be met by the existing processor if a new process
needsto be originated. This decision involves consideringif an existing process fully
meetsthe expectationbeing classifiedand the degreeof importanceof that stakeholder
and that expectationto the organisation.If no existing processcan be tasked to deliver
the expectation then a new process is originated. If an existing process only partly
includesthe expectationand if satisfyingthe expectationis critical to our organisation
then a second process will be created; otherwise it will be subsumedinto the first
process. Each time an expectation is subsumedinto a process, or a new process is
originated, the list of performancemeasuresfor that processwill be updated to reflect
the enlarged scope of the process or the slightly amendedprocess focus. The link
betweenexpectationand processshouldbe documentedfor later consideration.
To reiterate, processesare seen as consolidations of stakeholder expectations and
reflect what the organisation will do (i.e. the logical view). It does not include an
indication of how it will be undertaken or who is to do it; this is determined by the
transformationprocess. In this regard, activities are organisationalresponsesto make
processeshappen (i.e. the physical view); they do not of themselves satisfy any
stakeholderbut a co-ordinated collection of activities, namely a process,does. As we
have already seen, processesthemselvesdo not actually do anything: they exist to
provide focus for achievinga desiredoutcome (i.e. an expectation). They are a device
which enablesa grouping of the activitieswhich will be required to be performed, if the
outcome is to be achieved. In other words a collection of activities is the physical
manifestationof a process.
In developing activities from processes organisations typically adopt one of two
approaches.12The first, is to examinethe current organisationalactivities undertaken
to satisfy expectationsand then to look at ways that non-value addingaspectscan be
eliminated, closely related activities combined, where appropriate new activities
originated, or where new technology permits new ways of working. The second
9

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

demandsmuch more of a creative approach and permits out of the box thinking in
relation to the possible ways the process could be operationalised. The existing
activities are ignored and possibleways of meetingthe expectationdeveloped,through
the use of brainstorming,benchmarkingor other creativetechniques.Existing activities
can then be comparedto those resulting Ii-om the brainstormingto reveal the extent of
the transformation.

Selecting processes for redesign


From our researchand consulting,there is evidencethat all organisationalprocessesdo
not contribute equally to the delivery of the business strategy. Consequently, and
obviously, organisationsshould seek to select those processesto redesign that are
likely to provide substantialbenefits. Much practical activity and research effort is
concernedwith individual processimprovementand subsequentimplementationbut, of
course, improving non-critical processesseldomyields substantialbenefit!
Consider an organisationthat has identified its process as outlined above and is about
to begin a detailed transformation project. It soon realises that the task it has
undertaken is enormous and that just to understand all of its processesin detail will
take many months. However the directive has come from the Board, so somethinghas
to be done. Analysisteams form; middle managementbecome interested,as they can
see the potential benefits; charts of processesbegin to appear on walls; every activity
appearsto be related to everything else. Soon, computer based drawing tools are
required to capture the richnessof processes;pilots are undertaken to determine the
appropriate methods for portraying processes. Time passes, complexity increases,
consultantsarrive to assist,whilst internal managementturn their attention to running
the business. Eventually, managementinterest wanes and the central issue becomes
that of how to stop all of this effort without losing face!
Another possibility for this all too true scenariois that after processesare identified, a
focusing tool is employedto determine which processesdeserve immediate attention,
10

The critical issue in BPR:,focusing the initiative

which can be left for a while and which do not merit redesign attention. Such focus
not only provides an invaluabledirection for redesigningparticular activities but also
for the ongoing managementof the emergentprocesses. Some processespresumably
are critically important and deserve ongoing senior managementattention, whereas
others can be more sensibly delegated, and maybe some are more appropriately
outsourcedfor others to perform.13

Categorizing business processes


Processesare not homogeneous and this has been highlighted by a number of
researchers. This literature can be divided into two broad areas: those that suggest
generic processesand those that suggest classification schemes. Generic processes
include, new product development and launch, managing customer relationships,
supply chain and operations, customer order mlfihnent and managementplanning and
resource allocation l4 Whilst such processesmay well exist in all organisations,it is
surely the importance attached to each and the method by which each is
operationalisedthat differentiates the organisation and provides the benefits. Some
processesmay well exist in all organisationsbut what does this tell managementabout
which deservetheir attention for redesign?
A number of classificationschemeshave been developed. One proposesthe distinction
between operationaland managementprocesses. Yet does not every processneed to
be managed (i.e. have a managementaspect) and does not every process need to
achievesomething(i.e. it has operationalaspect)?Surely then, all processescontain an
operationaland a managementaspectand the two are intimately intertwined and hence
our research found this distinction intellectually appealing but lacking in practical
application. A more useful classificationdistinguishesbetween core processes,support
processes,business network processes and managementprocesses.16 The earlier
commentsrelated to managementprocessesapply here too but, importantly, it would
seem additionally that for some firms, businessnetwork processesmay well be core
processes.Classificationsin which an item is multiplied classifiedcan causeconfusion.
11

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

The Process Triangle


Whilst some of these classificationsmay be useful in creating a conceptualframework
or assistin identifying processes,they give little indication of the importance of that
processin achievingthe businessstrategy and how the process should subsequentlybe
managed. The schemeproposed here is an attempt to classifythe contribution of the
processto delivery of the strategy. It is not intended to be merely a conceptual tool
but a practical instrument that is capable of immediate employment in ongoing BT
projects. (Seetable 1 for the intellectualinheritanceof the ProcessTriangle).
Organisations have processesthat directly relate to their chosen area of current
competitiveness and the outcome of these processesis recognised and valued by

customers. The emphasisof these processesis on delivering value to customersand


the focus of the processis on satisfyingcustomerrequirements.17This first category of
processwe term competitive processes. The delightspreviously identified from the
stakeholderanalysiswill be helpful in locating such processes. For example, if a car
manufacturer is competing on the choice available to customers, the customisation
processwould form the organisationscompetitive process. If we desire to compete
on cost, then those processesin which we intend to be very significantly lower cost
than our competitorswill form the competitiveprocesses. Some organisationsclaim to
be significantly lower cost for all processesbut, firstly, this seems an unattainable
objective and, secondly,if true would mean that all processesdeserveto be classified
as competitive: not impossiblebut unrealistic.
However, arguably sustainable competitive advantage does not exist; rather,
competitivenessappearsto require a continuous process of innovation. Therefore, in
the long run competitive processeswill become obsolete, and will no longer provide
advantagemaybe as competitorsbegin to copy them. Any organisationmust therefore
have the ability to continually regenerateand renew itself in the face of ever changing
customerrequirementsand technologicalchanges.A category of processesis therefore
12

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

required to addressthis need. Transformation processes are those that create the
capability to operate effectively in the firms chosen industry in the future.

Such

processesdevelop the capability (the combinationof people, process,and technology)


that will deliver tomorrows businessstrategy.
This notion of tomorrow and the future will depend upon the planning cycle and
horizon of the businessunit in questionbut, for many units, this could be consideredto
be an 18-24 month period. Customersmay not even recognise nor presently desire
these capabilitiesbut, if the organisationsbusinessstrategy is correct the need will
emergethrough time, perhapswith a little assistancefrom marketing focused activities.
Capabilitiesmay well not be directly recognisedby competitors and certainly are not
easilyor quickly created and, hence,they are the longer term competitive attributes of
the business. For example,Motorola believesthat long term competitivenessin their
industry dependsupon responsiveness,adaptability and creativity. To develop these
organisational attributes, Motorola has put in place transformation processes to
generatethese qualities. Usually such processesare termed managementdevelopment
and training programmes but we see these as activities supporting transformation
processes.
A further classof processeswe term qualzfiing processes. These are processeswhose
output is valued by stakeholdersbut are not an area in which we aim to compete.
Inadequate performance in these areaswould create organisationaldisadvantageand
so a performance level at least equal to the average of competitors is desirablebut
performanceat a standardabove this level is wasteful of resource, as it is not a chosen
area for competition.

Notice that this category can include any stakeholders

expectations and hence processes that directly contribute towards satisfying


employees,shareholdersor any other stakeholdersexpectationsmay be here classified.
Such processes are important to the business and will likely justify a strong coordination of the activities constituting the process.

13

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

For example,quality was a competitive imperativein the auto industriesin the 70s and
80s when UK domestic production was sometimesinferior to imports but in the 90s
this is much less so. Customers expect quality and to be told it is the major selling
point of a car is usually insufficient on its own to stimulate sales. Hence the quality
process is no longer a competitive process but still requires active managementand
hencefor most car manufacturersit would today be seenas a qual@ing process.
The remaining class of processes,we term underpinning processesas these are not

directly recognisedby stakeholdersbut provide an underpinning that facilitates the


operation of the three other kinds of processes. In reality, such processesare not
really processesat all, by our earlier definition, but are collections of similar activities
that are grouped together and are operationalisedjointly. For example, a number of
processeswill require the hiring of clerical and support staff and to satisfy this a single
underpinningprocesswill be developed. It may be that this single process does not
meet the exact requirementsof any of its customerprocessesbut this loss should be
more than recouped by the efficiency benefits gained. These underpinningprocesses
are the legacy of a functional structure that the organisationdoes not desire to treat as
a process usually becauseof efficiency or political reasons. It would be difficult to
imagine an organisationthat would not organise some of its activities in this way, as
the disadvantage of multiple similar activities embedded in other qualifying,
competitive and transformationprocessescould potentially be extremelyexpensive.

14

The critical issue in BPR:.focusing the initiative

Die Process Tiianali


Those processes with which
the organisation intend to

Those proceeees that


orovide the future

are
necessay to exist in the
chosen industry and are
to be organised
on a communal basis

Those processeathat
are neceseay to exi5t
:n the crcsen industry
and are to be uniquely organised
The Strategic

Diamond

Figure 3 The ProcessTriangle.


Figure 3 portrays the various types of process and displays these in the form of a
triangle. The reason for this shape is that the centre, namely the transformation
processes,provides the capabilities (people, technology and process) for all other
processes.The output of a transformation processthrough time migrates outwards to
the other three classesof process.
Within our framework, we term the combination of transformation processes and
competitive processesas the strategic diamond, as these are the very two groups of
processesthat directly contribute towards businessstrategy. Competitive processes
deliver todays businessstrategy and transformation processescreate the capability for
future competitiveness.
Users of the triangle are often concernedabout applying the classificationin practice.
Figure 4 portrays the questionsto be consideredin classifyingprocessesin this way. It
15

The critical issue in BPR:,focusing the initiative

should be borne in mind that the actual classificationof a process is often achieved
after much senior managerdebate and much referenceto the written and unofficial
businessstrategy. In fact, such a discussionamongst senior mangers is often very
productive in clarifying the businessstrategy itself

Ruitioning Processes
Does this process relate to
creating a capability
1111)
that wilb~~;;;~i;e;
future YE5

Transformation
Process

NO

+
15 the process one which
is intended to provide
us with advantage?

: NO

III*
YES

Competitive
Process

+
1s the process one which
is necessary to operate in our industry
and is of sufficient importance
to organise on a process basis

lye*

Do we really need to
operate this process?

zYE5

Question
1!1*

the

process

NO

: YE5
+

Underpinning
Process

Qualifying
Process

Figure 4 Positioningprocesses.
As simple as it sounds, organisationshave strategieswith no obvious process to turn
them into actions. For example,a large law firm had a clear strategy focused on being
competitive by better matching a clients needs to the servicesit offered than any of
its competitors. The actual legal servicesoffered were not intended to be any better
than the competitors; the matching process was to be a competitive process and the
provision of various legal serviceswere, for them qualitying process. Considerable
investment was made telling potential clients of the benefits of the organisations
capability in matching their needsto service offerings but the nearest senior managers
16

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

could come to identifying a process to ensure this actually happenedwas that of the
receptionist. This organisationsstrategywas deliveredby the receptionist and security
staff during the receptionistslunch period!

While this might seem a very extreme

example it highlights the consequencesof the lack appropriate processes to


operational&e strategy.

Further, the managementof competitive processesis not

always entrusted to the level of seniority that one might expect. Could this be a
contributory factor to explain why some businessstrategies remain as desires and
visions and seldombecomereality?

Processcategory
Competitive

Defining characteristics
Processesfocusedon delivering value to the customerin excessof that
deliveredby competitors,and thus have an emphasison customer
requirements.Antecedentsin Michael Porters competitivestrategyand
positioning the firm in responseto industry conditions. Kenichi Ohmae
writes aboutthe importanceof ..serving customersreal needs.

Transformation

Processesclearly focusedon creatingfuture capabilities. Emphasison


learning and improvementfor continuedcompetitiveness. Corporate
renewalis a key theme. Draws inspiration from the work of Gary Hamel
and CK Prahaladin creating the futureand Peter Sengeswork on the
learning organisation.

Qualibing

Processfocus on delivery of minimum requirementsto be a player in the


industry. Antecedentsin the discipline of operationsmanagement,where
such factors are often referredto as hygienefactors.

Underpinning

Processesfocusedon providing supportfor other three processcategories.


Antecedentsin functional managementand Taylorism where efficiency is

Box 1 The intellectual inheritanceof The ProcessTriangle.

Migration of processes
A processis of a particular classat a particular point in time: but processescan change
their classificationthrough time. In our researchwe have identified five observable
movements.

17

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

First, a transformationprocessmay have servedits purpose, in that it has created some


desired capability or enhancedan already existing capability. The process element
createdmoves into the appropriatecategory and that particular transformationprocess
is dissolved;its purpose in life is complete. The process for the ongoing maintenance
of the capability will have been created as part of the transformation process. This
movementof the results of an transformationprocessto another process could also be
similarly exemplified by movement to a qualifying process or to an nnderpinning
process.
Second, through time, if an organisation is gaining advantage from applying a
competitive process eventually the competition will copy it and maybe even improve
upon the process or customerrequirementsmay change. If the organisationis unable
to further improve the process to sustain the advantage,then the process should be
reclassified as a qualifying process. This process must continue, as the output is
recognised and expected and stopping it would create a disadvantage. However, it
should no longer continue as a competitive process as it now does not support the
chosenbasisof competition.
Third, an organisation may have an existing qualifying process that it feels could be
significantly improved to provide competitive advantage as customers would be
delightedby this process. If we intend to implement the improvement to provide
advantage,then the processshouldbe reclassifiedas a competitive process.
The final two movementsare special cases. The migration of processesfrom any of
the other classesto the underpinning class is an instancewhere a whole process does
not migrate, as in the secondscenarioabove nor do the results of processes,as in the
first scenario above. Rather it is similar activities which are currently undertaken in
two or more separate processes which the organisation decides could be better
undertaken together and are combined into a single new underpinning process. The
purpose of so doing is to gain efficiency benefits without loosing functionality to the
original processes.
18

The critical issue in BPR:,focusing the initiative

Finally, an underpinningprocess,if it is badly operationalisedfor a significant period,


may become visible to a customer through its total inadequacy or its inability to
integrate with other activities that form part of the process. An attempt must be made
to improve the performanceof this processand failing this it should be dis-assembled
and the componentactivitiesrelocatedas part of the original process.

Benefits of this classification


The benefits associatedwith understandingan organisationsprocessesare manifold:
some arise from the action of discussingand agreeingwhereas others originate ti-om
the techniquesemployed. The focus here is upon the classificationtool and hence the
benefits are restricted to those resulting from using the ProcessTriangle. However,
the point shouldnot be lost that the discussionsof what constitutesa stakeholder,their
expectations,the assumptionswhich underlay these expectations, and the resultant
processes,and how all of this is acting in support of the businessstrategy is of itself
very valuable.
Classifying and communally agreeing a classification facilitates the allocation of
organisationresourcesin accordancewith the processs importance. For example, a
UK textile manufacturersought to achieveworld classexcellencein its manufacturing
facility. However, a brief conversationwith its customersclearly revealedthat it was
the quality of its designswhich was crucial in winning orders. Analysing this situation
revealedthat excellencein manufacturingis irrelevant if orders are not being received.
The companywas treating design as a qualifying process,whereas,in reality, it was a
competitive process and should therefore have received significantly more resources
and managementattention. In the manufacturingprocess,the companyneededto be
at least as good as others in the industry, and it should therefore be classified as a
qualifying process. However, if the firm can combine averagecost manufacturing,i.e.

19

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

the qualifying process,with superior design, i.e., the competitive process,then it has
potential to createa very significantcompetitive advantage.
A further benefit of classifyingprocessis as a meansto focus a re-engineeringeffort.
Initial thoughts are often to focus upon competitive processes to gain current
competitiveness and then to turn to the transformation processes to form the
foundation for the M.n-e. However, beware, as it would be somewhat fruitless to
ignore current areasof stakeholderdissatisfaction. For example,what is the point in a
car manufacturerhaving superb design studios that visualisecars which are attractive
to customers,if the inbound logistics process is effectively delaying the building of
these vehicles. This logistics process may be a qualifying process but it cannot be
allowed to be performed unsatisfactory. In summary, the triangle provides the
classification but individual organisational circumstancesdetermine the particular
priorities for redesign and as these circumstanceschange through time, so will an
organisationsredesignpriorities.
The triangle also provides guidelines for the ongoing managementof processesin
addition to focusing redesign effort.

Competitive processes and transformation

processesdeserve senior managementattention; maybe a director should become the


process owner. Qualifying processesand to a greater extent underpinning processes
are candidatesfor outsourcing;why divert managementattention to such matters when
they could be focusing upon the strategic diamond? Outsourcing, however, is not
suited to the strategic diamond processes,as it is difficult to imagine that using an
agencycould make us the leader in the industry, as if they did, they could presumably
do the same for our competitors quite soon afterwards and hence the advantages
would be short lived. However it may be most .appropriateto outsource activities that
comprise any process but refrain from outsourcing all the activities associated with
transformation or competitive processes.

Even when organisationshave identified and positioned their processesthey are often
unsure of which particular processesto re-engineerfirst. We have found it useful to
20

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

ask companiesto examinetheir processesvis-a-vis competitors. Plotting processes


against performanceas illustrated in figure 5 permits the organisationto immediately
identify and prioritise actions. The matrix can also be used to obtain customer
feedback and it is interesting to contrast the data obtained Ii-om an organisationwith
that obtainedfrom its customers.

Competitive

Redesign to

Proceases

I
/

Maintain

superior

performsance
Transformation

Qualifying

Ucderpinning

Processes

Restrict spending
to reallign with

Procease

Restrict spending
urgently

Processes

Low

Worse then
competitors
Performance

3imuar to
competitor5
vi+a-vi5

Better
then
competitor5

High

competitors

Figure 5 The process-performancematrix.

Applying The Process Triangle: The case of NatWest Group


During 1994 the IT Operations unit of NatWest Group, one of Europes largest
financial institutions, began a programme to evaluate and understand its operations
with a view towards possiblere-engineering. This was againsta background of having
undergone much re-organisation and restructuring in the way it achieved its mission
over the previous years. What was different about this initiative was that it sought for
the first time to look towards processas a meansof understandingitself particularly
in the face of mounting customer dissatisfaction and the continued threat of
outsourcing. The motivations of individual IT Operationss board members were
varied, which is understandable,but it was generally agreed that a single high-level
processmodel of how the businessoperatedwas highly desirableand that if they were
to continue to exist they would need to work together towards that end.

21

7lie critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

IT Operation was responsiblefor the operational elementof the banks computers and
communicationsystems. It is large by virtually any standards,employing at the time
1,300 staff and having an annualrun rate budget of E240 million. Through the years a
very complex technicalinfrastructurehad grown consistingof equipmentTom virtually
every major vendor. A sister unit of the one in question was responsible for
applicationsdevelopmentand was structured according to the businessit served. For
example,it had analystsand developmentstaff dedicatedto the mortgage businessand
others focusing upon the retail banking business.The relationship with this sister unit
was complex as all contact with the businesswas supposedto be through this sister
unit but of course the businesscustomerssoon recognisedthat some of their requests
were performed quicker by going directly to the operationsgroup.
IT Operations,the subject of the case,operated like any other businessunit having its
own controlling board, a vision statement,a strategy and customers.The vision of the
operations unit was to provide quality services at competitive prices adding value in
first choice partnerships, based on trust and opennessthrough first

class people

passionately committed to the success of clients [the italics are theirs]. It competed

to a limited extent for part of its businessin that some of its customershad sufficient
autonomy to use any supplier they wished, however this was a very limited group of
customers,most were tied to using the operations service. In reality the unit had a
significantcompetitor in the outsourcing companieswho were constantly attempting to
securea large contract by targeting individual parts of the businessand demonstrating
their competence. Given the world-wide trend in outsourcing, the business was
concernedthat they might be consideredas a potential candidate,whether for full or
partial outsourcing. This IT Operations unit was a distinct businessunit within the
group and the businesstransformationinitiative focusesexclusivelyon this unit.
Deciding an approach to the problem
An overview workshop was conductedby one of the authors, which introduced to the
Board the subjectmatter of this article. It was also explainedto them the principles to
be employed,the benefitsthat could be expectedand in particular the commitmentthat
22

The critical issue in BPR:,focusing the initiative

would be required if they decided to proceed. With customer dissatisfactionhigh and


the threat of outsourcing looming on the horizon, the Board took these principles and
deviseda nine stageapproachto operationalisethem. This approachwas:
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l

Identify stakeholders
Identify and verify stakeholdersexpectations
Form the processesto meet the expectations
Allocate Board membersto be processowners
Categoriseprocessesusing the triangle
For eachprocessidentify highest level activities and allocateowners
Determinethe degreeof effort required to createor improve eachactivity
Determinethe improvementprogrammesthat are to be pursued
Allocate improvementprogrammesto particular Board members

Identifying the stakeholders and their expectations


The Board identified the stakeholdersto be as follows:
Clients
The sisterdevelopmentunit
The clientswith purchasingautonomy
The executivesof the various front line businessunits
The front line consumers/usersof the service
Operationsstaff
Staff
Line Management
The OperationsBoard
Suppliers
The Group Main Board
For each stakeholderthe IT Operationsboard developeda seriesof expectationsand
delights. In order to undertake this task, board memberswere allocated a stakeholder
group and each undertook to visit a number of representativesfrom their allocated
group and verify the expectations/delightsand to allocate a ranking of importance of
the expectations to the stakeholder. The ranking was a crude assessmentof high
importance,medium importance and low importancebut critically it reflected the views
of the stakeholders. It is important to note that the low categorisationwas in the
context of the other expectationsand the fact that it received a mention was indicative
of its importance. This relatively simple task in itself proved to hold benefits in that it

23

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

provided a platform to discussstakeholderexpectationswithout the recriminationsof


day to day problems,
Some sixty-eight expectationswere identified and table 1 presentsan exampleof three
of these.For each of these expectationsa paragraphor so was developedto reflect the
sentimentof the stated expectationand measuresof successwere discussedas a means
of further refining the expectation. These sixty-eight expectationswere subsequently
classifiedas per table 2.
Expectation

Descriptions

Priority

(High,Mediumor LOW)
High availability. reliability,
and integrity of operational
service

Delivery in a consistentway: i.e., the


(W
specificationof servicesover time, and
client confidencethat this will be
sustained.
Effective problemmanagement Fast. sensitiveand accurateresolution @I
of client problemsensuringroot causes
are resolved.
Effective delivery of technology. Delivery. installation and effective
(HI
new or rationalised.
functioning of, and ongoing support
accountabilityfor, new technology

Table 1 Exampleof the Banks Front Line Consumerexpectations

Stakeholdergroup
High
The sister developmentunit and clients with purchasingautonomy
7
(combinedas very similar)
Managersof the front line businessunits
f3*
Consumers/users
of the IT servicein the front line businessunits
3
6
Operationsstaff
6
Operationsline management
5
OperationsBoard
1
Suppliers
5
Group Main Board
* Two of theseexpectationwere categorisedas of superhigh importance.

Medium
9

Low
3

1
0
2
3
3
2
2

0
0
0
0
1
1
0

Table 2 Classificationof stakeholderexpectations.


Forming the processes
The sixty-eight expectationswere examinedindividually and an initial analysisrevealed
a number of repeated expectationsalbeit using slightly different words. For example,
24

73e critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

the desireto contain or reduce costs was a common theme. These common items were
consolidated. Every expectation on the resulting list was then examined and the
question was asked have we yet developed a process to deliver this expectation?: if
yesthe expectationwas consolidatedinto that process and a measure(s)was added
to the existing process successmeasures:if no a new processwas originated and a
measure(s)devised. This brief description does not reflect in any way the amount of
effort and debatethat was provoked by this task. Even after a list was produced later
stagesprovoked a fine tuning of this list of processes.The resultant list comprised
twelve processes(seetable 3).
Process
ManageFinances
ManageServiceDelivery
ManageRelationships
ManageProgrammesand
Projects
DevelopOrganisation
ManageCoxnmunications
DevelopServices
ManageWorldlow
ManageSuppliers
ManageProfessionalBusiness
ManageRisk and Reputation
Provision Suuplv

Competitive

Transformation

Qualifying
*

Underpinning

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*

Table 3 Processesmappedagainstthe processclassificationscheme.


A cross referencingschemewas developedto ensurethat theseprocesseswould in fact
address stakeholders expectations. Each process was defined and had an agreed
owner. Box 2 outlines a brief description of theseprocesses.
..~

Manage Finances
Manage all IT operationsfinances professionallyto the required standardof the Group. Provide the
required level of financial information to support market comparisons,negotiations with Group
Board supplier negotiationsand to satisfy clients as to IT operationscompetence.
Manage Service
25

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

The delivery and managementof IT operationsservicesto the agreedlevel of performanceand quality


as detailedin the servicelevel agreementsnegotiatedwith the client. The also include fault resolution
and changemanagement.
1
Manage Relationships
Developand maintain mutually beneficial relationship with the sister systemsdevelopmentunit, FM
clients and the main board at all levels, basedon trust and understandingof their requirementsand
impeccabledelivery of their needs.
Manage Programmes and Projects
To deliver projects to a best of breed standard of excellencethat results in IT Operationsbeing
recognisedas having a market leadingdistinctive capability in programmeand project management.
Develop Organisation
The definition and implementationof the shapeand content (in terms of skills, competencies,roles
and headcount.culture, structure)the organisationneedsto meet its objectives. It also inputs to and
influenceskey factors such as pay and rewardwhich are not within the IT Operationsmandate.
Manage Communications
To improve the understandingand awarenessof the IT Operationsvision, business strategy, and
performanceamong stakeholdersthrough a structuredcommunicationprocesstailored to stakeholder
needs.
Develop Services
To createand maintain the servicedevelopmentplan which encompasses
the portfolio of servicesthat
IT operationsdoes,and will, offer in meeting clients needs,also defining the meansof delivery.
Manage WorMow
Manage and monitor the state of all items of work being performed in support of IT Operations
clients, including the bid process,in order to ensureclear client interfacesexist, progressis tracked
and escalationtakesplacewhen exceptionsoccur.
Manage Suppliers
Managethe performanceof IT Operationssuppliersto ensurethat clients, and taking a wider view of
the Group, enjoy maximum benefits from the relationship. Communicate IT Operations broader
objectives to suppliers to encouragethem to add value and in particular solicit suggestionsfor
continual serviceimprovements.
Manage Professional Business
Whereby IT Operationsdefines its strategy and objectives,defines and implements a businessplan,
captures and uses management information to measure progress against objectives and takes
corrective action when required. Through this process the IT Operations board will be able to
measurebusinessprogressagainstthe balancedbusinessscorecardand any other measuresin place.
Manage Risks and Reputation
Managing effectively, to Group Risk and Policy standards,the environmentin which client business
applications operate,in a manner which ensuresintegrity and protects the reputation of the Group
whilst still allowing businessflexibility.
Provision Supply
To analysethe supply side of productsand servicesthat underpin IT Operations,by: assessingmarket
position, current industry trends, determining acquisition and disposalstrategies.
I

26

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

I Box 2 Description of consolidatedprocesses.

A crucial concern at this stagerelates to process validation. How could management


be sure that these were the correct processes
? By examining strategy, identifying
stakeholders,defining expectationsand communally identifying processes,it can be
sure it has identified a set of processesthat for now all of the board memberswill work
towards operationalising. Correctnessis in the eyesof those that are tasked to manage
the unit!
Classifying the processes
A half day meeting was devoted to classifyingthe processes.The resultant output is
depicted in table 3. As before, this classificationrepresentsthe Boards agreedview of
processes:for the sameunit in another bank or even for this unit at a different time in
its evolutionary cycle this classification may well be different. A quote from the
companyreport adds insight, [tlhis initial analysishas led to the conclusionthat many
of the identified processes have no formal recognition or framework to operate
within.. ... ... In short, the processesnecessaryto deliver customer satisfaction were
not recognised and therefore not owned and the resultant activities were not coordinatedto ensuredelivery to expectations.
The Board identified three processwhich were crucial to the successof the business:
the management and delivery of IT services, project and programme management,

and managing the relationship with customers (see Table 3). They recognisedthat
they needed to improve performance in these processes in order to counteract
competitive threats. The transformational processes of organisation and service
development would create the basis of future competitiveness, creating new

competencies.
Focusing the initiative

27

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

Having identified and classifiedits processesthe Board had to decide where to begin.
The competitive processeswere obvious choices, but for further analysis, the 12
processeswere mapped onto the process-performancematrix. While this would give
further clarity to the initiative, it would also require that some benchmarking be
undertaken. Slowly one began to see a consensusemerging amongstthe Board as to
what processesto focus upon in the near and medium term future and who was to be
responsible for action. Relationshipsbetween the various departments within the
business unit became clearer and clarity between organisational boundaries was
highlighted. As a result of this exercise,two processeswere selectedas candidatesfor
redesign,and consultantswere hired in order to help in the redesignof these particular
processes.
Benefits of the initiative
The generalbenefits of applying the ProcessTriangle have been discussedearlier and
so this particular sectionrestricts itself to the particular benefits to this organisation.It
is alwaysdifficult to measurethe benefits of a singleproject such as this, as many other
initiatives are ongoing in the organisationas a whole which could impact this project.
However as a short term measurethe Board believed that the analysishad revealed a
new perspectivewhich would aid them in focusing many ongoing initiatives; it would
delay some initiatives to devote extra resources on others. The project certainly
provided a framework in which to constrainthe consultantshired to redesignparticular
the two particular processes.As ever the discussionswhich were necessaryto use the
classificationtool were acknowledgedto be insightful. One major sidebenefit was that
it helped to bind together what was a fairly new (to each other) top team.
The redesignand implementationof these new processblueprints is not the subject of
this article, but the bank clearly recognisedthe importance of managingthe migration
from the old process design to the new. During 1995, the IT Operationsunit took in
excessof their target of &40m out of the annual run budget and have the sametarget
for 1996 which, although it looks stretching, is seenas being achievable. There was a
28

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

similar story with servicequality which also improved strongly and similar targets are
being set for 1996.

Closing remarks
An organisation should understand its processes, their classification and clearly
develop and agree guidelines for the managementof each process. The Process
Triangle is a meansto classify the processesof an organisationto provide sufficient
understandingto selectparticular processesfor detailedredesignand additionally it can
provide guidelines for the ongoing managementof processes. It builds upon the
experiencesof others and has been deployed in a variety of organisational forms.
Interestingly it has been employed with a variety of IT units requiring to undergo
transformation and the processesdevelopedhave been essentiallysimilar, however the
classification of these processeshas varied considerably. Benchmarking, usually a
difficult task to apply in functionally basedorganisations,is much easierto apply when
processesare well understood. The Triangle becomes invaluable in process based
benchmarkingas it begins to explain why a particular organisation is striving to be
superior or content to be averagein relation to a particular process.

29

The critical issue in BPR: focusing the initiative

References

See for instance CSC Index survey which reported that 69% of US companiesand 75% of
Europeancompanieshave at least one re-engineeringinitiative active. CSC Index, The State of
Re-engineering, 1994.

A figure of 70% is often quotedand attributedto Hammer and Champy. However,Hammer has
assertedthat this figure was descriptivereflecting his experience. M. Hammer and J. Champy,
Re-engineering the Corporation: A Mantfesto For Business Revolution, Nicholas Brealey
Publishing, London. M. Hammer, Hammer defends re-engineering, The Economist, 5th
November, 1994, p. 96; M. Hammer and S. Stanton, No need for excuses, Financial Times,
October5, p. 14.
SeeJ. Peppard,Broadeningvisions of businessprocessre-engineering,OMEGA, International
Journal of Management Science, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1996.
See for example, M. Hammer, Reengineeringwork: dont automate - obliterate, Harvard
Business Review, July-August,pp. 104-I 12 and M.S. Scott Morton, editor, The Corporation of
the 1990s: Information Technology and Organisational Transformation, Oxford University
Press,New York, 1991.
In fact BPR was initially labelled businessprocessredesign. See T. Davenport and J. Short,
The new industrial engineering:information technologyand businessprocessredesign, Sloan
Management Review, Summer, 1990,pp. 1 l-27.
Keith Grint has arguedthat BPR might be better configuredas a Utopia and that it embodiesthe
samekind of possibilitiesand problemsthat Utopiasthroughouthistory have manifested. SeeK.
Grint, Utopian Re-engineexingin
, G. Burke and J. Pappard,Examining Business Process Reengineering: Current Perspectives and Research Directions, Kogan Page,London, 1995,pp. 82106.
G. Hall, J. Rosenthaland J. Wade, How to make re-engineeringreally work, Harvard Business
Review, November-December,
1993, pp. 119-131.
Seefor example,A. Ascari, M. Rock and S. Dutta, Reengineeringand organisationalchange:
lessonsfrom a comparativeanalysisof companyexperiences,European Management Journal,
Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. l-30, 1995; and C. Edwardsand J. Peppard,Forging a link betweenbusiness
strategyand businessre-engineering,European Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 407416.

10

11

This exampleis describedby Hammer. SeeM. Hammer, Re-engineeringwork: dont automate


- obliterateHarvard Business Review, July-August, 1990, pp. 104-112.
KJ. Johansson, P. McHugh, J. Pendlebuny, and W.A. Wheeler, Business process
Reengineering: Breakpoint Strategies for Market Dominance, John Wiley, 1993.
Michael Hammer and Steven A. Stanton, 7he Reengineering Revolution: A Handbook,
HarperCollins, 1995.

12

13
14

15
16

17

I8

For an elaborationof these two approaches,see J. Peppardand P. Rowland, The Essence of


Business Process Re-engineering, Prentice-HallInternational, 1995.
Referencerecent EIU report on outsourcingfinancial processes.
SeeJ. Rockart and J. Short, IT in the 1990s:managingorganisationalinterdependencies
Sloan
,
Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. pp. 7-17; and P.E. Centre for ManagementResearch,
The Role qf IS in Business Process Reengineering, London, 1993.
T.H. Davenport,Process Innovation, Harvard BusinessSchoolPress,Boston, 1993.
M. Earl and B. Khan, How new is business processredesign?European Management Journal,
Vol. 12, No. 1, 1994,pp. 20-30.
Ken&i Ohmae mgues strongly that in making strategypainstaking attention to the needsof
customerscomesfirst. See Getting Back to Strategy, Harvard Business Review, NovemberDecember,1988,pp. 149-156.
Motorola: training for a millennium, Business Week, March 28th, 1994,pp. 58-60.
30

CRANFIELD SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT


WORKING PAPER SERIES
List No 6, 1992

SWP 11/92RobertBrown & Philip Poh


Aniko JewellersPrivate Limited - CaseStudy
and TeachingNotes

SWP 1192Mike Sweeuey


How to Perform SimultaneousProcess
Engineering

SWP IS/92 Mark Jenkins& Gerry Johnson


RepresentingManagerial Cognition: The Case
for an IntegratedApproach

SWP 2/92 Paul Burns


The Managementof GeneralPractice

SWP 16/92Paul Burns


Training acrossEurope: A Surveyof Small
and Medium-SizedCompaniesin Five
EuropeanComitries

SWP 3/92 Paul Burns


Managementin GeneralPractice:A Sclectiou
of Articles
SWP 4/92 Simon Knox & David Walker
ConsmnerInvolvementwith GroceryBrands
SWP 5/92 DeborahHelnla~~Rr Adrian Payne
Internal Marketing: Myth versusReality?
SWP 6/92 Leslie de Cheruatony& Simon Ibox
Brand Price Recall and the Implications for
Pricing Research
SWF7/92 Shai Vyakarnam
Social Responsibilityin the UK Top 100
Companies
SWP 8/92 Susan Baker, Simou Knos & Leslie de
Chernatouy
Product Attributes aud PersonalValues:A
Review of Means-EndTheory and Consumer
Behaviour
SWP 9/92 Mark Jenkins
Making Senseof Markets: A Proposed
ResearchAgenda
SWP lo/92 Mike Sweeney& Iau Oram
Information Technologyfor Ma~~agcmcn~
Education: The Benefits aud Barriers
SWP 1l/92 Keith Tl~ompso~~
(SilsoeCollege)
International Compctiti\cncss and Brilish
Industry post-1992.With SpecialRcfcrenccto
the Food Industry
SWP 12/92Keith Tliompso~~(Silsoc Collcgc)
The Responseof British Supcrlu;lrkct
Companiesto the Intenlationalisalionof the
Retail GroceryIndustry
SWP 13/92Richard Kay
The Metaphorsof the Voluntar)/Non-Prorrt
SectorOrganising

SWP 17192Chris Brewster & Henrik Holt Larsen


Human ResourceManagementin EuropeEvidencefrom Ten Countries
SWP 1X/92 LawrenceCummings
CustomerDemandfor Total Logistics
Management- Myth or Reality?
SWP 19/92Ariane Hegewisch& Irene Bruegel
Flcsibilisation and Part-time Work in Europe
SWP 20/92 Kevin Daniels RLAndrew Guppy
Control. Information SeekingPreference,
OccupationalStressorsand Psychological
Well-being
SWP 2 l/92 Kevin Daniels & Andrew Guppy
Stressand Well-Being in British University
Stafr

SWP 22/92 Colin Armistead & GrahamClark


The Value Chain in ServiceOperations
Strategy
SWP 23/92 David Parker
Nationalisation.Privatisation, and Agency
Statuswithin Government:Testing for the
Importanceof Ownership
SWP 2-1/92John Ward
Asscssiagand Managing the Risks of IS/IT
Investments
SWP 25102RobertBrown
StaplefordPark: CaseStudy and Teaching
Notes
SWP 26/92 Paul Burns Rr.Jean Harrison
Managementin GeneralPractice- 2
SWP 27/92 Paul Burns & JeanHarrison
Managementin GeneralPractice- 3

SWP 28/92 Kevin Dattiels, Leslie de Chcrnatotty &


Gerry Johnson
Theoretical and Methodological Issues
concerning ManagersMental Models of
Competitive Industry Stntcntres
SWP 29/92 Malcoltn Harper & Alison Rieplc
Es-Offenders and Enterprise
SWP 30/92 Colin Armistead & Grahattt Clark
Service Quality: The Role of Capacity
Management
SWP 3 l/92 Kevin Daniels & Andrew Guppy
Stress, Social Support and Psychological
Well-Being in British Chartered Accountants
SWP 32/92 Kevin Daniels & Andrew Guppy
The Dimensionality and Well-Being
Correlatesof Work Locus of Conlrol
SWP 33/92 David Ballanlyne. Martin Christopher.
Adrian Payneand Moira Clark
The Changing Face of Sen?ceQttalil)
Management
SWP 34/92 Chris Brewster
Choosing lo Ad-just:UK and Swedish
Espatriates in Swedenand Ihc UK
SWP 35192Robert Brown
Goldsmiths Fine Foods - CaseStudy and
Teaching No&s
SWP 36192Mike Sweeney
Strategic Manufacturing MattagctttCttl:
Restructuring Wastefttl Production to World

SWP 42/92 SusanSegal-Horn


The Logic of International Growth for Service
Firms
SWP 43192Mike Sweeney
Benchmarking for Strategic Manufacturing
Manngetnent
SWP 44/92 Paul Burns
Financing SMEs in Europe: A Five Country
Shtdy
SWP 45192Robert Brown
The Graduate Enterprise Programme - Has it
been Worthwhile?
CRANFIELD WORKING PAPERS
List No 7, 1993

SWP l/93 John Mapes


The Effect of Litnited Production Capacity on
Safety Stock Requiretnentsfor Periodic Review
Ittveti~ory Systems
SWP 2/93 Shai Vyakarnant & Alisott Rieple
Corporate Entrepreneurship:A Review
SWP 3/93 Cliff Bowtnan & David Faulkner
Pushing 011a String: Uncertain Outcomes
from Intcndcd Competitive Strategies
SWP -t/93 Susan Baker & Mark Jenkins
The Role of Values in the Design and
Conduct of Managetttettt Research:
PerspectivesOII Managerial and Consumer
Cognition

Class

SWP 37/92 Andy Bailey & Gerry Jolmso~~


An Integrated Esploration of Strategic
Decision-Making

SWP 5/93 Kevin Daniels. Leslie de Chernatony&


Gerry Jolmot~
Validating a Method for Mapping Managers
Mental Models of Competitive Industry
Structures

SWP 38/92 Chris Brewster


European Human ResourceMattagetttcnt:
Reflection of, or Challenge to. the Atncrican
Concept

SWP 6/93 Kevin Daniels & Andrew Guppy


Occupational Stress,Social Support, Job
Control and PsychologicalWell-Being

SWP 39/92 Ute Hanel. Kurt Volker. Arianc Hcgcwisch


& Chris Brewster
PersonnelManagementin East Gcrmatt~~

SWP 7/93 Colin Fletcher, Ruth Higginbotham & Peter


Norris
The Inter-Relationshipsof ManagersWork
Time and PersonalTittte

SWP 40/92 Lawrence Cummings

Logistics goes Global - The Role of Pro\idcrs


and Users
SWP 41/92 Roger Seaton& Martin Cordcy-Hayes
Interactive Models of Industrial Technology
Transfer: A ProcessApproach

SWP 8193Mike Sweeney


A Framework for the Strategic Management
of both Service and Manufacturittg Operations

SWP 9/93 Colin Armistcad & Graham Clark


The CopingCapacity M:tn:tgctncnt Slralcgj
in Servicesand the lnlluencc on Qttalil?
Petfortttance

SWP 22/93 Kevin Daniels. Gerry Johttson& Leslie de


Clicrttatotty
Diffcrcnces in Cognitive Models of Buyers
and Sellers

SWP IO/93 Ariatte Hegewisch


Equal Opportunities Policies and
Developmentsin Human Resource
Management: A ComparativeEuropcatt
Analysis

SWP 23193Peter Boey & Richard Saw


Evaluation of Automated Warehousing
Policies: Total SystemsApproach

SWP 1l/93 Paula Stanley


Service to the Courts: The Oflizndcrs
Perspective
SWP 12/93 Mark Jenkins
Thinking about Gro\\Ih: A Cogttiti\,c
Mapping Approach to Understanding Small
BusinessDeveloptnenl
SWP 13/93 Mike Clarke
Metro-Freight: The Autontalion of Frcighl
Transportation
SWP 14/93 John Hailey
Growing Competitivenessof Corporalions
frottt the Developing World: Eviclcnccfrottt lltc
Soutlt

SWP 15/93 NoeleenDoherty. SharmTyson & Claire


Viney
A Positive Policy?CorporatePerspccli\rcsOII
Redundancyand Outplacetttettt
SWP 16/93 Shai Vyakarnam
BnsinessPlans or Plans for Business
SWP 17/93 Mark Jenkins. Eric lc Ccrf Kr.Thomas Colt
Defining the Market: An Esploratiott 01
Marketing Managers Cogniti\c Fratttcworks
SWP 18/93 John Hailey
Localisation and Espatriation: The
Contimting Role of Espatriatcs in Dcvcloping
Comttries
SWP 19/93 Kevin Daniels & Andrew Guppy
Reversing the Occupational StressProcess:
Some Conseqnenccsof Employee
PsychologicalWell-Being
SWP 20/93 Paul Burns. Andrew Myers Kr Andy Bailq
Cultural Stereotypesand Barriers to lhc
Sittgle Market
SWP 21/93 Terry Lockhart RLAndrew Myers
The Social Charter: Implications for
PersonnelManagers

SWP 24/93 John Hailey


Training for Entrepreneurs:International
Perspectiveson the Design of Enterprise
DevelopmentProgrammes
SWP 25/93 Tim Denison & Sitnon Knox
Pocketing the Changefrotn Loyal Shoppers:
The Double lndcmttity Effect
SWP 26/93 Sitnon Knos
Consumersand Grocery Brands: Searching
for Attitudes - Behaviour Correspondenceat
the Catcgoty Level
SWP 27/93 Simon Knos
Processingldcas for Innovation: The Benefits
of a Market-Facing Approach
SWP 28/93 Joe Nellis
The Changing Structure and Role of Building
Societiesin the UK Financial ServicesSector
SWP 29/93 Kevitt Daniels, Gerry Johnson& Leslie de
Cltertiatotty
Sitttilarity or Understanding: Differences in
the Cognitive Models of Buyers and Sellers. A
Paperoutlining Issues in Mappittg attd
Homogcncity
SWP XI/93 Habte Selassie& Roy Hill
The Joint Venture Formation Environment in
a Sub-SaharanAfrican Country: A CaseStudy
of GovernmentPolicy and Host Partner
Capability
SWP 3 l/93 Colin Armistead, Grahatn Clark and Paula
Stanley
Managing ServiceRecovery
SWP 32/93 Mike Sweeney
The Strategic Managementof lttternational
Manufacturing and Sourcing
SWP 33/93 Julia Newton
An Integrated Perspectiveon Strategic
Change
SWP 3-l/93 Robert Brown
The GraduateEntcrprisc Programme:
Attempting to Measure the Effectivenessof
S~tl:~ll Rllsinrcc

Tminincr

CRANFIELD WORKING PAPERS


List No 8, 1994

SWP l/94 Keith Goflitt


RepertoryGrids in Market Rcscarch:An
Exatnple
SWP 2194Mark Jenkins
A Methodologyfor Creatingand Cotttparing
StrategicCausalMaps
SWP 3194Sitnon Knox
Re-engineeringthe Brand
SWP 4/94 Robert Brown
EttcottragittgRural Enterprisein Great Britain
- Britains VenturecashCotttpctilion
SWP 5/94 Andy Bytheway.BernardDyer KcAshlq
Bragattza
Beyondthe Value Chain: A New Framework
for BusinessModelling
SWP 6194Joe Nellis
Challengesand Prospectsfor the Ettropcan
Fittancial ServicesIndustry
SWP 7194Keith Tl~ot~~psot~,
PanagiotisAlckos &
Nikolaos Haziris
ReasonedAction Theory appliedto rhc
Prediction of Olive Oil Usage

SWP 15/9-lChris Edwards& Joe Peppard


Forging a Link betweenBusinessStrategyand
BusinessRe-engineering
SWP 16194Andrew Myers, Andrew K<akabadse,
Colin
Gordon & SiobhanAlderson
Effcctivettessof Frettch Managetnent:
Analysis of the Behaviour,Attitudes and
BusinessImpact of Top Managers
SWP 1719-lMalcolm Harper
Micro-Credit - The Benign Paradox
CRANFIELD WORKING PAPERS
List No 9, 1995

SWP l/95 Andy Bytheway


Information in the Supply Chain: Measuring
Snpply Cltaitt Perforttiattce
SWP 2/95 John Ward & JoePeppard
Reconciling the IT/BusinessRelationship:A
Trottblcd Marriage in Need of Guidance
SWP 3/95 Kevin Dattiels. Gerry Johnson,& Leslie de
Clicrnatony
Collective Framesof Reference,Recognition,
and ManagersMental Models of Competition:
A Test of Two Industries

SWP S/94 SanjoyMukherjee& Ashlcy Braganza


Core ProcessRedesignin tltc Public Sector

SWP -1195Alison Rieple


Stafling as a Lever of StrategicChange- The
lttllncnce of ManagerialExperience,Behaviour
and Values

SWP 9/94 Mike Sweeney


A Methodologyfor the StrategicManagctncnt
of International Manufacturing and Sourcing

SWP 5195Grafton Wltyte & Andy Bytheway


Factors Affecting lnfortnation Systems
sllcccss"

SWP lo/94 Arinne Hegewisch& Hcnrik Holt Larsen


Ewopcatt Developmentsin Public Sector
Human ResourceMattagetnettt

SWP 6/95 Andy Bailey & Gerry Johnson


The Processesof StrategyDevelopment

SWP 1l/94 Valerie Bence


Telepoittt: Lessonsin High Technology
ProductMarketing

SWP 7195Valerie Bence


The ChangingMarket for Distribution:
Itttplications for Esel Logistics

SWP 12194Andy Bytheway


Seeking Businessltttproventcnt: A Systctttittic
Approach

SWP IV95 Valerie Bence


The Evolution of a Distribution Brand: The
Cast of Esel Logistics

SWP 13/94 Chris Edwards8r.Ashley Braganza


Classifying and Planning BPR Initiati\,cs: The
BPR Web

SWP 9/95 Andy Bythcway


A Reviewof ED1 Research

SWP 14194Mark Jenkins& Malcolttt McDonald


Defining and SegmentingMark&:
Archetypesand ResearchAgendas

SWP IO/95 Andy Bytheway


A Review of Current Logistics Practice
SWP I II95 Jot Peppard
BroadeningVisions of BPR: The Imperative
of

Str:jtrvir

Tntptrratinn

SWP 12195Simon Knos & David Walker


Empirical Developmentsin the Mcasurcmcm
of Involvement. Brand Loyalty and their
Structural Rclatiottships in Grocery Markets

SWP 3196Kiln James,Michael Jarrett & Donna Lucas


Psychological Dynamics and Organisational
Learning: from the Dysfunctional Organisation
to the Healthy Organisation

SWP 13195Ashley Braganza & Andrew,Myers


Issues and Dilemmas Facing Public and
Private SectorOrganisationsin the Effcctivc
Itttpletttctttation of BPR

SWP 4196Mike Sweeney& Marek Szwejczewski


The Searchfor Generic Manufacturing
Strategiesin the UK Engineering Industry

SWP 14195John Mapes


Compatibility and Trade-Off Bctwcctt
Performance:An Altcrnativc Vic\v

SWP 5196John Baker


Agility and Flesibility: Whats the
Difference

SWP 1519.5Mike Sweeney& Marek Szvvcjczcwski


Manufacturing Standardsof Pcrfortnattccfor
Success

SWP 6196StephenAdatttson, NoeleenDoherty & Claire


Viney
30 Years Ott - What Have We Learned About
Careers!

SWP 16195Keitlt Thott~psot~.Nicholas Tltotttpsott Rr


Roy Hill
The Role of Attitudinal. Normative and
Cotttrol Beliefs in Drink Choice Bch;t\iour

SWP 7196Keith Goffitt. Marek Szwejczewski& Colin


NW
Supplier BaseManagement: An Empirical
Ittvcstigatioti

SWP 17195Andy Bythcway


lnfortttatiott Modelling for M;tttagctncttt

SWP X/O6Keith GofIin


Operations ManagementTeaching on
EuropeanMBA Programmes

SWP lSl9.5 Mike Sweency& Marck Szwcjczcwski


Manufacturing Strategyand Pcrformancc: A
Study of the UK Engineering Ittdusrty*
SWP 19195Valerie Bencc
St.JamessHospital and Lucas Engineering
SystemsLtd - A Public/Privxtc Sector
Collaboration in BPR Prqjcct A - Elcctivc
Admissions
SWP 20195Valerie Bence
St.JamessHospital and Lucas Engineering
SystemsLtd - A Public/Privxtc Sector
Collaboration in BPR Prqjccl B - The RcOrganisatiott of Purchasingancl Supplies
SWP 21195Simon Knos & David Walker
New Empirical Perspcctivcson Brand
Loyally: ltnplications for Segttictitation
Strategy attd Equity
CRANFIELD

WORKING

PAPERS

List No 10, 1996


SWP l/96 Andy Bailey & Gerry Johnson
Pattents of Strarcgy Dc\cloptncnt
SWP 2196Sitnott Knos & David Walker
Understanding ConsumerDecision Making in
Grocery Markets: New Evidence from the
Fishbein Model

SWP 9/96 Janet Price. Ashley Braganza & Oscar Weiss


The Change Initiative Diamond: A
Framework to Balance BusinessProcess
Rcdcsignwith other Change Initiatives
CRANFIELD

WORKING

PAPERS

List No 11,1997
SWP II97 Hclcn Peck
Towards A Framework of Relationship
Marketing: A ResearchMethodology
SWP 2197Hclctt Peek
Towards A Fratnework of Relationship
Marketing: An Initial CaseStudy
SWP 3197Chris Edwards & Joe Peppard
A Critical Issue in BusinessProcessReEngineering: Focusing the Initiative

Anda mungkin juga menyukai