This article was downloaded by: [Tehran University] On: 02 February 2012, At: 07:11 Publisher: Taylor &

Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Production Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

An examination of the influences of desired organisational capabilities in the preparation stage of business process re-engineering projects
B. Ostadi , M. Aghdasi & A. Alibabaei
a a a a

Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran Available online: 10 Dec 2010

To cite this article: B. Ostadi, M. Aghdasi & A. Alibabaei (2011): An examination of the influences of desired organisational capabilities in the preparation stage of business process re-engineering projects, International Journal of Production Research, 49:17, 5333-5354 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2010.501829

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

International Journal of Production Research Vol. 49, No. 17, 1 September 2011, 53335354

An examination of the influences of desired organisational capabilities in the preparation stage of business process re-engineering projects
B. Ostadi*, M. Aghdasi and A. Alibabaei
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran (Received 4 January 2010; final version received 12 June 2010)

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

To implement successful business process re-engineering (BPR) initiatives, several capabilities have been identified. Required capabilities before and during implementing of BPR projects have been introduced for achieving success. The literature has suggested various approaches to assessing readiness and implementation of BPR projects. However, lack of a practical measurement method is evident. Therefore, in this paper, a practical measurement tool for requiring capabilities is proposed to enhance the chances for successful implementation of BPR by mapping these capabilities on steps of BPR projects. In addition, the relations between these capabilities and BPR success barriers are identified. This tool includes a generic questionnaire that can be helpful for self-assessment of readiness based on the desired organisational capabilities (DOCs) in BPR efforts. In the questionnaire proposed in this paper, various indicators have been identified for assessing readiness in BPR implementation. These indicators include 21 categories based on DOCs. This report indicates the importance of each DOC in various steps and the influence of DOCs on different barriers of success. We report the results of a survey based on the questionnaire, which was conducted in four Iranian organisations. Based on the results gathered from this examination, the study offers several guidelines for increasing the points of success and decreasing the points of failure and, hence, increasing the rate of success before and during implementation. Keywords: business process re-engineering (BPR); desired organisational capabilities (DOCs); self-assessment; practical measurement method; BPR steps; BPR barriers

1. Introduction Business process re-engineering (BPR) began as a management technique to help organisations fundamentally rethink how they work to dramatically improve customer service, cut operational costs, and become world-class competitors. This technique was started primarily in private sector organisations (Dodaro and Crowley 1997). Nonetheless, organisations often fail to achieve re-engineering objectives because they trivialise the concept (Attaran 2004). BPR aims to improve business processes by substantially revising their structure and by dramatically changing how these processes are managed and implemented. This ordinarily greatly affects the people involved and their working practices as well as
*Corresponding author. Email: BOstadi@engmail.ut.ac.ir
ISSN 00207543 print/ISSN 1366588X online 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2010.501829 http://www.informaworld.com

5334

B. Ostadi et al.

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

supporting technologies, particularly information technologies. Before starting a BPR project, assessing organisation readiness can address strong points, weak points, and risks, and hence the degree of readiness to start a BPR project. In other words, when readiness is determined, a BPR project can be initiated if the organisation would be ready for it. Otherwise, implementation should be delayed to allow an organisation to prepare adequately. Readiness guarantees the success of BPR projects (Abdolvand et al. 2008). BPR definitions, planning, implementation, methodologies, identification of factors for critical success, and causes of failure have been widely addressed. In addition, comparing total quality management (TQM) and BPR, BPR best practices, and evaluation of BPR projects have been the subject of much research (Aghdasi et al. 2010). In addition, recently, some research has concentrated on business process maturity models such as a process and enterprise maturity model (PEMM) (Hammer 2007), BPM and organisation maturity, and a business process management maturity model (BPMM) (Rosemann and Bruin 2004). Most of these studies are predominantly focused on an overarching organisational level and do not explain elements and issues related to success at the level of individual projects (Alibabaei et al. 2009). Most research on this subject is either conceptual or consists of case studies (Ahadi 2004). Those case studies usually describe the critical success and failure factors of BPR efforts in specific situations. Capabilities that are created or exist in organisations are a good source for applying to other projects and programmes to achieve success in the project or programme. Identifying capabilities required by each project and developing a way to measure these capabilities are important in an organisation, and these efforts will help the organisation assess current conditions before implementation of the project. In order to assess the capabilities the selfassessment models can be useful. There are many definitions of self-assessment such as definitions which have been provided by Conti (1997) and Hillman (1994), etc., however, an all-encompassing definition is provided by the EFQM (1994): . Self-assessment is a comprehensive, systematic, and regular review of an organisations activities and results against a model of business excellence. . The self-assessment process allows the organisation to discern clearly its strengths and identify areas where improvements can be made, culminating in planned improvement actions that are monitored for progress. Self-assessment implies the use of a model on which to base evaluation and diagnostics. Self-assessment is carried out in organisations for a number of reasons for example, changes in the internal and external environments, changes in leadership and direction, a need to develop quality-based procedures, or as part of a continuous improvement strategy. An organisation needs to question why it uses self-assessment, what the gains are, and whether the organisation is being realistic in its expectations for the process (Ritchie and Dale 2000). Since using the organisational capabilities can affect BPR projects implementation the following questions should be considered: . What are the organisational capabilities that BPR projects seek? . How can the value of the mentioned capabilities in the organisation be measured/ assessed?

International Journal of Production Research

5335

. How can the results of assessments be used to strengthen these capabilities? . How can the capabilities that have low value in organisations be enhanced? Organisations can recognise and measure their capabilities and also know where these capabilities in BPR projects should be considered further to insure the success of these projects (Aghdasi et al. 2010). In the literature, authors such as Agdasi et al. (2010) and Ahadi (2004) have mentioned the issues of required capabilities and required resources for BPR projects. However, research has not considered an evaluation framework for special capabilities of BPR projects nor addressed the categorisation of these capabilities in the form of prioritising important stages before, during, and after implementing BPR. Hence, the focus for organisations should be on strengthening these capabilities to achieve success in BPR projects. Therefore, in this paper we introduce instruments for the analysis of organisational capabilities based on proposed DOCs for BPR projects that were developed by Aghdasi et al. (2010). Accordingly, the self-assessment framework is designed to help organisations: . Assess their present capabilities according to DOCs. . Understand what they need to do to become accredited as a highly capable organisation. . Develop a plan for moving toward accreditation as an organisation that has developed and sustained a DOC for BPR implementation. . Describe the relationship between DOCs and BPR barriers. . Describe the relationship between DOCs and BPR steps. . Rank DOCs into five levels considering DOC priorities. According to the above items, the structure of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, the relationship of DOC and BPR projects from the literature, the relationship of BPR steps and DOCs and the relation of BPR barriers and DOCs are discussed. The research methodology including a self-assessment framework for assessing DOCs in organisations is presented in Section 3. In addition, survey analysis and the results of the research are discussed in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 is devoted to concluding remarks, implications, and limitations.

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

2. DOCs for BPR projects Capabilities, thus, refer to an organisations ability to assemble, integrate, and deploy valued resources, usually in combination or co-existing (Amit and Schoemaker 1993, Schendel 1994, Russo and Fouts 1997, Teece 2007). Capabilities subsume the notion of organisational competencies (Prahalad and Hamel 1990, Teece, 2007) and are rooted in processes and business routines. Grant (1995) describes a hierarchy of organisational capabilities, where specialised capabilities are integrated into broader functional capabilities such as marketing, manufacturing, and information technology (IT). Functional capabilities in turn integrate to form cross-functional capabilities such as those related to new product development and customer support (Bharadwaj 2000). Four major problems that BPR efforts have encountered are financial issues, technical proficiency, human resources, and time limitations (Ahadi 2004). To face these problems and increase the possibility of successful implementation of BPR, suitable organisational capabilities for each of the above items are effective for reducing expected problems and the severity of those problems.

5336

B. Ostadi et al.

It is important for organisations to create an innovative environment to increase the chances of successfully implementing a BPR project. To do so, organisations must use a strong leadership style to create an environment where employees who are affected by the BPR project understand the projects objectives and are involved throughout the BPR process (Wells 2000). Without an effective approach to dealing with employees involved in the re-engineering effort, the implementation is certain to fail (Attaran and Wood 1999). It is more important in BPR that the objectives and desired changes be radical than that they be implemented within a short time frame (Stoddard and Jarvenpaa 1995). Siha and Saad (2008) have discussed the notion that the key drivers for re-engineering success comprise questioning the fundamental assumptions of a process, drastic improvement of this process, alignment with corporate strategy, and effective use of information and communication technologies. Love and Gunasekaran (1997) considered four enablers: IT, TQM, human resources, and organisation. Therefore, BPR efforts are met by the use of these capabilities throughout the organisation. Most researchers and practitioners have considered IT as a major tool and a fundamental enabler for BPR efforts. Attaran and Attaran (2004) believe that as we enter into the digital age, IT is playing a principal role in bringing process improvement to the forefront of business management consciousness. Also, Attaran (2004) argues that IT is the most effective enabling technology for BPR. It helps in meeting the objectives of re-engineering in three ways: by providing information across functional levels and establishing easy communication, improving the process performance and finally by helping the re-engineering effort by modelling, optimising and assessing its consequences. According to Al-Mashari and Zairi (2000a), effective implementation of an IT infrastructure requires development of a BPR strategy, IT strategic alignment, IT infrastructure development, IT sourcing, legacy systems re-engineering, information system (IS) integration, and IS function competence. IT is used as leverage to create and design new business processes, simplify work procedures, and manage coordination to achieve competitive advantage (Lee and Ahn 2008). Lack of leadership is a frequent cause for the high failure rate of BPR projects. According to Wu and Sutcliffe, BPR implementation requires a top-down, directive leadership style. Yet, it also requires the management of motivated, skilled, independent-thinking people doing non- programmable tasks for which a non-directive leadership style is most suited (Sutcliffe 1999, Wu 2003). Thus, implementing BPR requires the organisation to adopt strategies for change and ensure the dedication of individuals and teams to change the way they run the business (exemplifying leadership, planning, and implementation). These issues lie at the core of BPR success (Irani and Rausch 2000). Bashein et al. (1994) have concluded that BPR is not effective as a crisis deterrent because such a context promotes fear and panic, which are conditions that are not conducive to focused BPR success. Herzog et al. (2007) have identified seven critical areas such as top management commitment, education and training, teamwork, a project of BPR, employee co-operation, IT support, and various levels of results to achieve effective process re-engineering. Finally, Aghdasi et al. (2010) developed and proposed DOCs that affect the readiness and implementation of BPR. To develop these organisational capabilities that BPR projects seek, these researchers have established preliminary organisational capabilities based on a review of BPR project reports and events and actions that were happening during BPR efforts at successful firms. The 21 preliminary capabilities were refined and validated through interviews with BPR executives and experts and are called DOCs (Table 1).

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

International Journal of Production Research Table 1. Desirable organisational capabilities for BPR projects (Aghdasi et al. 2010). No. DOC-01 DOC-02 DOC-03 DOC-04 DOC-05 DOC-06 DOC-07 DOC-08 DOC-09 DOC-10 DOC-11 DOC-12 DOC-13 DOC-14 DOC-15 DOC-16 DOC-17 DOC-18 DOC-19 DOC-20 DOC-21 Desirable organisational capabilities (DOCs)

5337

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

Developing communication with the external environment Planning and monitoring of business plans Employees abilities to recognise and understand needs of customers and stakeholders Employees awareness and understanding of organisational processes Mental, perceptual, and working readiness of employees to changes Conclusive decision-making Transfer of managerial and working experience and knowledge Ability to manage organisations workflows well Fair division of tasks Teamwork The ability to use local networks The ability to use the Internet The ability to use the organisations application software The ability to use office or administrative software Workflow automation and Group Ware Electronic data interchange (EDI) Managers involvement in organisations changing process The ability to estimate the benefits and detriments of processes Loyalty to total organisational growth on the part of managers and staff The ability to agree on strategies and processes between middle managers and staff Knowledge about improvement and BPR projects

In this paper, a self-assessment framework and a required questionnaire are presented considering the DOCs for BPR.

2.1 BPR steps and DOCs Attaran (2000) asserts that implementing re-engineering is not a free-form exercise and there are specific steps to be performed in a particular order for the re-engineering efforts to be successful. He believes that organisations should adopt a suitable re-engineering methodology to serve as a management framework for implementation. As mentioned previously, a methodology is an organised set of methods, techniques, and tools that have been developed to guide the whole life-cycle of a process as it achieves its objectives. Many structure-based methodologies have been proposed for BPR implementation (Klein 1994, Kettinger et al. 1997). However, most have common elements and view BPR efforts as a top-down implementation project (Al-Mashari and Zairi 2000b). Despite the differences among these methodologies (some of them are in Table 2), Al-Mashari and Zairi (2000a) outlined the essential components, including: . . . . . . Strategies and goal setting. Feasibility analysis and visioning. Process analysis and visioning. Top management commitment and sponsorship. Undertaking of customer requirements and measurement of performance. Integration with total quality management (TQM) and benchmarking.

5338

B. Ostadi et al.

Table 2. Several BPR methodologies from the literature. Year 1990 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1996 1996 1996 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 2000 2002 2003 2003 2003 Presenter Davenport and Short Texas Instrument Consultancy Co. Hammer and Champy Guha Gohansson Davenport Harrison and Pratt Furey Barrett Coopers and Lybrand Ruessmann Obolenskei Manganelli and Klein Petrozzo and Stepper Andrews Galliers and Baker Fitzgerald and Murphy Alavi Yu Kettinger et al. Mayer and Dewitte Motwani, Kumar, Jiang, Youssef Muthu Valiris and Glykas Castano, Antonellis and Melchiori Vakola and Rezgui Mohammad Siroos Kaveh ProSci Paul Harmon Talib Damij, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Methodology Davenport/Short Texas Instrument Hammer/Champy GUHA GOHANSSON Davenport Harrison/Pratt Six Step Barrett SPARK RUESSMANN OBOLENSKEI RapidRe Successful Survival Socio-Technical Fitzgerald/Murphy ALAVI YU Kettinger Mayer/Dewitte Practical framework Muthu ARMA ARTEMIS CONDOR SURI ProSci Paul Harmon TAD No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

. . . .

Recognition of IT capabilities. Cross-functional teams and communication. Prototyping and process-mapping techniques. Organisational changes to reengineer management systems and organisations.

In this paper, these components are considered as different aspects of BPR methodologies. As mentioned, this paper is based on the research of Aghdasi et al. (2010), who have grouped the DOCs for BPR projects in the 21 main categories (Table 1). To demonstrate the effect and role of DOCs in aspects of BPR based on a literature review of BPR and interviews with 20 BPR consultants and experts, the relationship between DOCs and similar faces among various steps of BPR methodologies are shown in Table 3.

2.2 BPR barriers and DOCs Most project managers perceive risk management processes as requiring extra work and expense; thus, risk management processes are often skipped when the schedule for a

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

Table 3. The relation between DOCs and similar aspects among various steps of BPR methodologies. Similar aspects among various steps of BPR methodologies

Strategies and goal setting

Feasibility analysis andvisioning Process analysis and visioning

Top management commitment and sponsorship

Undertaking of customer requirements and performance measurement

Integration with TQM and benchmarking Recognition of IT capabilities

Cross-functional teams and communication

Prototyping and process mapping techniques

X X X X X X X X X

X X X

Desired organisational capabilities for BPR projects (Aghdasi et al. 2010) X X

International Journal of Production Research X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

DOC-01 DOC-02 DOC-03 DOC-04 DOC-05 DOC-06 DOC-07 DOC-08 DOC-09 DOC-10 DOC-11 DOC-12 DOC-13 DOC-14 DOC-15 DOC-16 DOC-17 DOC-18 DOC-19 DOC-20 DOC-21

X X X

Organisational change to reengineer managements systems and organisations X X X X X X

5339

5340

B. Ostadi et al.

project schedule (Aloini et al. 2007). To assist managers in presenting BPR projects to upper management before committing resources, a quantitative risk-assessment tool is needed (Crowe et al. 2002). However, BPR is risky and could be disastrous if not approached properly. To reduce the risks associated with BPR, enable sound BPR efforts, and increase the chances for success, it is essential to properly investigate, understand, and manage the various barriers to the process. Attaran and Wood (1999) have investigated barriers and obstacles to effective implementation of BPR as follows: . . . . . misunderstanding of the concept, misapplication of the term, lack of proper strategy, management failure to change, and failing to recognise the importance of people.

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

Also, Abdul-Hadi et al. (2005) presented 29 barriers, with their influence on the success of BPR initiatives. Since barriers increase the risk of project implementation, the authors of this paper believe that considering and sustaining DOCs can prevent the occurrence of barriers. Therefore, in Table 4 the relation between DOCs and barriers is presented.

3. Research methodology This research seeks to evaluate readiness for successful implementation of a BPR project in organisations A, B, C, and D. Companies A, B, and C are government organisations in the public sector operating in the area of sports and Company D is a private company in the area of training services. They have about 450, 150, 40, and 60 employees, respectively. Since Company A has no competitor, its customers have no choice except to work with them; their only motivation for going to BPR is the attitude of senior managers or advice from consultants. The service performance of Company B was less than 50% of their goal. The general manager was changed, and the new manager started to re-engineer the companys processes based on his ideas for overcoming the problems. Finally, Company C and D had been functioning poorly, and in an attempt to rescue the company, the CEO and board were changed and a BPR project started to help the company become more organised. Thus, BPR was considered as a solution for changing the traditional structure of organisation A. Organisations B, C, and D have also considered BPR as a solution for improving their performance. A questionnaire was considered to assess the companies readiness based on the effect of DOCs before and during BPR implementation. The structure of the questionnaire was based on self-assessment concepts. The questions were identified by considering goals of the events and actions mapped for each DOC by Aghdasi et al. (2010). Then, the questionnaire was completed by five BPR experts (supervisors and advisors of the author) in different universities to determine the validity of the questionnaire. As mentioned, a list of DOCs were extracted and mapped to the indicators in the hypotheses. In the same way, DOCs proposed by Aghdasi et al. (2010) were reviewed and considered based on their definitions and goals. Then each question was mapped to each measuring indicator based on the effect of DOCs before and during BPR implementation. The produced questionnaire is presented in Appendix 1. In the questionnaire, each indicator occupies a section, each section contains several questions related to the variables

International Journal of Production Research Table 4. The relation between DOCs and barriers. Proposed DOCs by Aghdasi et al. (2010) DOC-01 DOC-02 DOC-03 DOC-04 DOC-05                                                 

5341

Barriers to successful BPR efforts (Abdul-Hadi et al. 2005) Rapid change of external environment Weak infrastructure Limited vision of organisation Inappropriate benchmarking (goals) Lack of resources (time, money, staff, etc.) Believing that change does not add value for shareholders Undefined core processes Vertical structure of organisation Affected people not informed Culture of organisation Resistance by middle managers because of fear of losing their jobs Employees resistance to change External resistance Fear of losing job by employees Weak infrastructure Observing failure cases of other BPR efforts Laws and regulations Top management fear of empowered employees Unwillingness to share risk equitably External resistance Fear of failure by top management Top management fear of empowered employees Using external consultants in BPR effort Unwillingness to share risk equitably Bureaucracy Using inappropriate tools Inappropriate benchmarking (goals) Employees resistance to change Absence of amnesty Employees resistance to change Fear of failure by top management Absence of amnesty Lack of resources (time, money, staff, etc.) Weak infrastructure Absence of IT Weak infrastructure Absence of IT Weak infrastructure Absence of IT Absence of IT Using inappropriate tools Weak infrastructure Absence of IT Absence of IT Lack of commitment from top management Believing that change does not add value for shareholders Fear of failure by top management Difficulty of measuring benefits compared to BPR costs Employees resistance to change (continued )

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

DOC-06

DOC-07 DOC-08

DOC-09 DOC-10

DOC-11 DOC-12 DOC-13 DOC-14 DOC-15 DOC-16 DOC-17 DOC-18 DOC-19

5342 Table 4. Continued. Proposed DOCs by Aghdasi et al. (2010)       

B. Ostadi et al.

Barriers to successful BPR efforts (Abdul-Hadi et al. 2005) Top management fear of empowered employees Fear of losing jobs by employees Rapid change of external environment Lack of knowledge about BPR Affected people not informed Following inadequate approach Downsizing associated with BPR effort

DOC-20 DOC-21

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

of the indicators. Prior to using the self-assessment questionnaire, the assessment team should become familiar with descriptions of maturity levels (Appendix 2). When answering the questions in Appendix 1, the team should select the maturity level from Appendix 2 that best reflects the status of the organisation. Consensus should be sought whenever the status of the organisational maturity is inconsistently assessed. A midpoint score is assigned when the adjacent maturity levels appear to be equally appropriate. Taking time to develop familiarity with the descriptions of maturity levels, have discussions to arrive at a consensus, clarify meanings, and other evaluation concerns add value to the overall process. The questionnaire was administered in each organisation with 10, 8, 9, and 12 persons, respectively, who were consultants, senior and middle managers, and ordinary employees who were experts in the company processes. The questionnaire was sent out through the organisations internal mail system. Simple statistical calculations were used for evaluating the capabilities (indicators). Elements were scored in the range of five (always) to one (never). Each significant element had equal weight. Each capability was calculated by summing its sub-components and dividing by the number of questions. We can use Equation (1) to measure the BPR implementation and readiness within each organisation. Here W shows the weight of DOCs (Wd), the DOCd is the value of each DOCs, DOCd,i is average value (or maturity average) of each criteria for assessing dth DOC, and id is the number of criteria for assessing dth DOC. After calculating the above formula for each organisation, we have: DOCs assessment Where DOCd
id X i1 21 X d1

Wd DOCd

DOCd, i ;

for d 1, 2, 3, . . . , 21

4. Survey analysis In this survey, the 21 organisational capabilities for BPR projects (21 DOCs) are investigated. For each capability, the minimum value is one, and the maximum value is five. Results of these evaluations are shown in Table 5. Moreover, to map the level of BPR

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

Table 5. The result of DOCs self-assessment (evaluation of the organisation) form survey before implementing a BPR project. Statistics Company A Mean N 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1.3714 2.3333 2.5500 2.4667 2.0545 2.2667 2.3714 3.0286 1.9000 2.0000 3.2000 2.8000 1.8667 3.3000 2.2000 2.4000 1.4667 2.1000 2.0667 2.7333 2.7500 0.4902 0.9759 0.7143 0.9649 0.7557 0.6915 0.6456 0.5681 0.7379 0.6455 0.6761 1.0328 0.8338 0.6749 0.6324 0.5164 0.5164 1.0208 0.7988 0.5936 0.7164 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1.7429 1.8000 2.8250 3.0500 2.1273 2.0667 2.7143 3.3426 3.2000 3.0400 3.6000 3.9000 1.6667 2.8000 2.2000 2.0000 1.2670 3.0500 2.1333 2.7333 3.1500 0.7005 0.6761 0.6359 0.8321 0.7215 0.6915 0.6674 0.6391 0.9140 0.8406 0.6325 0.8756 0.4879 0.6325 0.6325 0.4714 0.4577 0.6863 0.7432 0.5936 0.6708 N 1.2857 2.1333 2.6250 2.2167 2.2546 2.6333 2.5428 2.8000 2.3000 2.4800 3.2000 3.6000 2.0667 3.3000 2.2000 2.6000 1.6667 2.1000 2.8000 3.2000 3.0000 0.4583 1.3558 0.8066 1.0907 0.9471 0.6688 0.9500 0.6324 0.4830 0.7703 0.6761 1.1738 1.0999 0.4830 0.7888 0.5164 0.4880 1.0208 1.0142 0.7746 0.6489 SD Mean SD Mean SD N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Company B Company C Company D Mean 1.8857 2.2000 3.0000 3.4000 2.2182 2.0333 2.8000 3.4571 3.0000 3.4400 3.8667 4.1000 3.2667 3.4000 2.1000 2.10000 2.6667 3.5500 2.6667 3.3333 3.6500 SD 0.6761 0.6761 0.5991 0.6938 0.6292 0.6149 0.6324 0.5606 0.8165 0.7118 0.5163 0.7379 0.5936 0.5164 0.5676 0.6324 0.4879 0.5104 0.4879 0.6172 0.5871 International Journal of Production Research

DOCs (indicators)

Number of questions

DOC-01 DOC-02 DOC-03 DOC-04 DOC-05 DOC-06 DOC-07 DOC-08 DOC-09 DOC-10 DOC-11 DOC-12 DOC-13 DOC-14 DOC-15 DOC-16 DOC-17 DOC-18 DOC-19 DOC-20 DOC-21

7 3 8 12 11 6 8 7 2 5 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 4

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Note: SD, standard deviation. 5343

5344

B. Ostadi et al.

capabilities (DOCs) in the companies accurately, the scores are ranked in five categories: Totally incapable, Incapable, Moderate, Capable and Absolutely capable for a range of 01, 1.012, 2.013, 3.014, and 4.015, respectively. These are shown in Table 6. In Figure 1, a radar chart is presented to show the position of Iranian companies in the preparation stage of a BPR project. The radar chart is a polygon with six vertices, each referring to one of the six DOCs. A vector is derived from the pentagon centroid if there is resistance to change. As shown in Figure 1 and Table 5, results of Company A represent moderate readiness for implementing the BPR project. We can see some evidence for the above result in Table 6. These results signify that all of the necessary capabilities for Company A before implementing the BPR project have moderate scores (i.e. necessary capabilities are moderate). Therefore, some related tools and techniques were used in Company A in the first stages of the BPR project to enhance the following DOCs: DOC-02, DOC-10, DOC19, DOC-03, DOC-18, and DOC-07. Consequently, this company is not ready to start the BPR project, although it cannot be considered unready. As mentioned above, the BPR team should conduct required programs to improve the value of required DOCs. Results for Companies B and C are interpreted the same as Company A. The degree of readiness for Company B is lower than for Company A. Because DOC10 is incapable, there is a need to conduct required programs to enhance its value. Moreover, results for Company C and D represent higher levels of readiness in two DOCs (DOC-10 and DOC-18 are capable and high priority) than for Companies A and B. But for Company C DOC-02 is incapable, thus required programs should be conducted to enhance its value. In Table 3, the relation between DOCs and different steps of the BPR is shown. During implementation, this should be considered before starting each step of the DOCs with lower level of capability, and high priority should be considered as well as capability before the step that is affected. For example, DOC-10, which is incapable in Company B, should be capable before starting the 8th step (cross-functional teams and communication). In part 4, we explored the relations between DOCs and BPR implementation barriers. Hence, based on the results regarding priority and level of capabilities of each DOC, which were obtained in each organisation, it is possible to identify more important barriers to be considered during the project implementation. For instance, Table 6 shows that Company A has some incapable and moderate capabilities that should be considered. On the other hand, some of these DOCs are ranked high in priority level, which means maturity averages are more important. DOC-02 is one that is based on Table 4; it is related to the following barriers: . Limited vision of the organisation. . Inappropriate benchmarking (goals). . Lack of resources (time, money, staff, etc.). Therefore, in implementing the project, Company A should pay attention to these barriers. Other results are interpreted the same as above.

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

5. Conclusions BPR has been addressed as a significant solution for radical improvement in businesses. However, the high failure rate of BPR projects means that organisations should consider

International Journal of Production Research

5345

Table 6. Ranking the results of the survey in five categories considering prioritisation of DOCs according to strength and value before BPR projects. Total incapable Company A High priority Absolutely capable

Incapable

Moderate DOC-02 DOC-10 DOC-19 DOC-03 DOC-18 DOC-07 DOC-08 DOC-13 DOC-21 DOC-04 DOC-05 DOC-06 DOC-16 DOC-09 DOC-15 DOC-02 DOC-19 DOC-03 DOC-18 DOC-07 DOC-21 DOC-04 DOC-05 DOC-06 DOC-20 DOC-12 DOC-16 DOC-15 DOC-19 DOC-03 DOC-07 DOC-14 DOC-05 DOC-06 DOC-20 DOC-15 DOC-03 DOC-07 DOC-19 DOC-02 DOC-17 DOC-05 DOC-06

Capable

Moderate priority

DOC-01 DOC-17

DOC-11 DOC-14

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

Low priority Company B High priority

DOC-10

DOC-20 DOC-12

Moderate priority

DOC-13 DOC-01 DOC-17 DOC-09

DOC-08 DOC-11 DOC-14

Low priority

Company C

High priority Moderate priority

DOC-02 DOC-13 DOC-01 DOC-17 DOC-16

DOC-10 DOC-18 DOC-08 DOC-11 DOC-21 DOC-04 DOC-09 DOC-12 DOC-18 DOC-10 DOC-11 DOC-21 DOC-08 DOC-14 DOC-04 DOC-13 DOC-20

Low priority Company D High priority

Moderate priority

DOC-01

Low priority

DOC-09 DOC-16 DOC-15

DOC-12

5346

B. Ostadi et al.

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

Figure 1. Radar chart for the high-priority DOCs to consider their value in Companies A, B, C, and D.

all aspects of the project meticulously. This research explores a new area of BPR readiness based on assessing capabilities, referred to as DOCs, for a BPR project. Since the existing DOCs can prevent the related barriers, if during the implementation process a company did not have to face a barrier, we can conclude that the related capability (or capabilities) would already exist in that organisation. The existing DOCs in related steps are necessary for the success of the steps implementation. If each of the steps during the implementation process occurs successfully, it indicates a high level of capability (or capabilities) of the related DOCs. Since the assessment framework has the ability to identify which DOCs are the most important and thus need to be capable, it can serve as a guideline for planning the implementation more accurately, resulting in a higher rate of success. In this research, first the capabilities (21 DOCs from Aghdasi et al. 2010) and their indicators were reviewed and 100 indicators for DOCs were extracted. Then the DOCs were mapped onto BPR steps and barriers. Finally, a self-assessment framework was introduced to assess the value of these capabilities. Following the completion of a selfassessment questionnaire, improvement opportunities for DOCs should be prioritised, providing an ongoing illustration of the organisations progress. To enhance the DOCs that have low value, we recommend that the organisation investigate further the available methods and tools and implement those that reflect the specific needs of the organisation. Figure 2 shows the overall framework for these issues.

International Journal of Production Research

5347

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

Figure 2. Generic representation of the overall framework.

This questionnaire and the framework, which is shown in Table 6, can be used by practitioners to evaluate an organisations capabilities before and during implementation of a project and indicate what tools and techniques will help the organisation enhance its capabilities. Four Iranian companies, which have been eager to try BPR, were evaluated to measure their level of readiness. The results imply that Companies A and B are not ready. In fact, these companies were placed in a moderate position. The results of Company C and D indicate a nearly ready situation. One of the reasons can be expressed for readiness of Company C and D that these companies are considering the implementation of quality engineering tools and techniques in the past. In other words, this company has been established and implemented subjects such as managing workforce, controlling process and managing process. Based on the assessment results (Tables 5 and 6), the Iranian organisations capabilities in some areas are better than in others; these areas include doing workflows, working with internet and local networks, and working with simple software (capable items). In some areas, there are clear weaknesses such as communication with the external environment, working with application software, and involvement of managers (incapable items). However, Table 6 shows that the distribution of DOCs and their priorities in organisations that have been studied are different. Generally, this paper presents the following implications for practice: . Six capabilities, as shown in Figure 3, are desired in the preparation stage of BPR projects, and they are of high priority to consider. . Results in Table 3 will help organisations in several ways. First, they will help determine what DOCs need to successfully implement each of the BPR steps; and

5348
Planning and monitoring of business plans

B. Ostadi et al.

Employees ability to recognise and understand needs of customers and stakeholders Transferring of managerial and working experience and knowledge Teamwork The ability to estimate the benefits and detriments of processes The preparation stage of BPR project

Loyalty to total organisational growth on the part of managers and people

Figure 3. DOCs with high priority at preparation stage of BPR project.

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

second, based on the self-assessment framework, the organisations status can be specified in relationship with any of the DOCs. . Table 4 will help organisations deal with the BPR barriers by recognising the relevant DOCs and assessing the organisations status. . Table 6 ranks the results of the assessment of each organisation into five levels with consideration of priorities.

5.1 Limitations While this work is one of the first attempts to assess DOCs in BPR projects, the authors acknowledge the limitations of the findings presented herein. The number of informed and expert responders was limited. (The 27 responders were not the sample size; these 27 people were the only responders who had the qualifications and the information needed to complete the questionnaire.) Furthermore, only the information about four companies was accessible, and all three companies were in the public sector, which limited the extension of the results to other industries. For future research, we propose to use this questionnaire in other industries with more responders and some studies can be conducted for identifying suitable tools and techniques for increasing capabilities that are in low range.

References
Abdolvand, N., Albadvi, A., and Ferdowsi, Z., 2008. Assessing readiness for business process re-engineering. Business Process Management Journal, 14 (4), 497511. Abdul-hadi, N., Al-sudairi, A., and Alqahtani, S., 2005. Prioritising barriers to successful business process re-engineering (BPR) efforts in Saudi Arabian construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 23 (3), 305315. Aghdasi, M., Albadvi, A., and Ostadi, B., 2010. Desired organisational capabilities (DOCs): Mapping in BPR context. International Journal of Production Research, 48 (7), 20292053. Ahadi, H.R., 2004. An examination of the role of organisational enablers in business process re-engineering and the impact of information technology. Information Resources Management Journal, 17 (4), 119.

International Journal of Production Research

5349

Alibabaei, A., Bandara, W., and Aghdasi, M., 2009. Means of achieving business process success factors. 4th Mediterranean conference on information systems, 2527 September, Athens, Greece. Athens: Athens University of Economics and Business, 13481363. Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M., 2000a. Creating a fit between BPR and IT infrastructure: A proposed framework for effective implementation. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 12 (4), 253274. Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M., 2000b. Revisiting BPR: A holistic review of practice and development. Business Process Management Journal, 6 (1), 2442. Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., and Mininno, V., 2007. Risk management in ERP project introduction: Review of the literature. Information & Management, 44, 547567. Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.H., 1993. Strategic assets and organisational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (1), 3346. Attaran, M. and Wood, G.G., 1999. How to succeed at re-engineering. Management Decision Journal, 37 (8), 752757. Attaran, M., 2000. Why does re-engineering fail? A practical guide for successful implementation. Journal of Management Development, 19 (9), 794801. Attaran, M., 2004. Exploring the relationship between information technology and business process re-engineering. Information & Management, 41, 585596. Attaran, M. and Attaran, S., 2004. The rebirth of re-engineering: X-engineering. Business Process Management Journal, 10 (4), 400414. Bashein, B.J., Markus, M.L., and Riley, P., 1994. Preconditions for BPR success and how to prevent failures. Information Systems Management, 11 (2), 713. Bharadwaj, A.S., 2000. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24 (1), 169196. Conti, T., 1997. Organisational self-assessment. London: Chapman and Hall. Crowe, T.J., Meghan Fong, P., and Bauman, T.A., 2002. Quantitative risk level estimation of business process re-engineering efforts. Business Process Management Journal, 8 (5), 490511. Dodaro, G.L. and Crowley, B.P., 1997. Business process re-engineering assessment guide. Accounting and Information Management Division, United States General Accounting Office, Version 3, GAO/AIMD.10.1.15. Grant, R.M., 1995. Contemporary strategy analysis. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Hammer, M. and Champy, J., 1993. Re-engineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. New York: HarperCollins. Hammer, M., 2007. The process audit. Harward Business Review, 85 (4), 111123. Herzog, N.V., Polajnar, A., and Tonchia, S., 2007. Development and validation of business process re-engineering (BPR) variables: A survey research in Slovenian companies. International Journal of Production Research, 45 (24), 58115834. Hillman, P.G., 1994. Making self-assessment successful. The TQM Magazine, 6 (3), 2931. Irani, Z. and Rausch, E., 2000. Empirical testing of a leadership and planning model for re-engineering business processes. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 12 (4), 341357. ISO 10014:2006. Quality management Guidelines for realising financial and economic benefits, ISO Publication, ISO 10014:2006(E). Johanssen, H.J., et al., 1994. Business process Re-engineering: Break point strategies for market dominance. New York: John Wiley. Kettinger, W.J., Teng, J.T.C., and Guha, S., 1997. Business process change: A study of methodologies, techniques, and tools. MIS Quarterly, 21 (1), 5580. King, W.R., 1994. Process re-engineering: The strategic dimensions. Information Systems Management, 11 (2), 7173. Klein, M., 1994. Re-engineering methodologies and tools. Journal of Information Systems Management, 11 (2), 3035. Lee, S. and Ahn, H., 2008. Assessment of process improvement from organisational change. Information & Management, 45, 270280.

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

5350

B. Ostadi et al.

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

Love, P.E.D. and Gunasekaran, A., 1997. Process re-engineering: A review of enablers. International Journal of Production Economics, 50 (2/3), 183197. Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G., 1990. The core competence of the organisation. Harvard Business Review, 68 (3), 7993. Ritchie, L. and Dale, B.G., 2000. Self-assessment using the business excellence model: A study of practice and process. International Journal of Production Economics, 66, 241254. Rosemann, M. and Bruin, T.d., 2004. A model for business process management maturity. 15th Australian conference in information systems (ACIS), 13 December 2004, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, Paper 6. Russo, M.V. and Fouts, P.A., 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (3), 534559. Siha, S. and Saad, G., 2008. Business process improvement: Empirical assessment and extensions. Business Process Management Journal, 14 (6), 778802. Stoddard, D.B. and Jarvenpaa, S.L., 1995. Business process redesign: Tactics for managing radical change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12 (1), 81107. Sutcliffe, N., 1999. Leadership behavior and business process re-engineering (BPR) outcomes: An empirical analysis of 30 BPR projects. Information & Management, 36 (5), 273286. Teece, D.J., 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of sustainable enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 13191350. Wells, M.G., 2000. Business process re-engineering implementations using Internet technology. Business Process Management Journal, 6 (2), 164184. Wu, I.-L., 2003. Understanding senior managements behavior in promoting the strategic role of IT in process re-engineering: Use of the theory of reasoned action. Information & Management, 41, 111.

Appendix 1: Questionnaire for self-assessment

Please evaluate the importance of the following domains, represented by the statements, when performing BPR in your company (1 very low; 2 low; 3 medium; 4 high; 5 very high). 1. DOC-1: Developing communication with the external environment Can the organisation demonstrate that: 1.1 It can distinguish among corporate efforts and those of others in increasing market share? 1.2 It has increased exports on condition that it follows a distinctive strategy, e.g. globalising? 1.3 Each business unit clearly defines the markets it wants to enter, the market share it wants in each product category, and then designs the marketing mix? 1.4 It can achieve the market share for globalising and necessity? 1.5 It can strengthen competitive position in the domestic market before launching an ambitious globalisation programme? 1.6 It has recognised and removed each potential problem and corrected insufficiency in design? 1.7 It can determine the amount of response to expectations and needs and control their implementation? 2. DOC-02: Planning and monitoring of business plans Can the organisation demonstrate that it can: 2.1 Redefined business planning workflows and schedule algorithms to produce the nextgeneration factory scheduling system? 2.2 Determine the companys strategies and operational programmes? 2.3 Replace benchmarks such as market share, sales, and profits? 3. DOC-03: Peoples abilities in recognising and understanding customer and stakeholder needs 3.1 Identify the customers needs even when they were not discussed. (continued )

International Journal of Production Research Appendix 1. Continued.

5351

3.2 Link breakthroughs in real-world customer solutions. 3.3 Consider the number of innovative ideas as positive factors for evaluation of personnel. 3.4 Design and build products that benefit customers and society in an ecologically friendly way and improve energy efficiency. 3.5 Identify the expectations, needs, and subjective image of organisations clientele and customers. 3.6 Identify peoples expectations and needs. 3.7 Determine the amount of response to expectations and needs and controlling their implementation. 3.8 Recognise and remove each potential problem and correct insufficiencies in design. 4. DOC-04: Peoples awareness and understanding of organisational processes 4.1 Conducting a program to improve peoples knowledge and level of understanding level about corporate processes and their roles in relation to organisational processes and efficiency. 4.2 Considering actions to address the readiness of people to accept changes and their continuous involvement in the BPR project. 4.3 Considering peoples attitude toward change in management. 4.4 Determining leadership for the future. 4.5 Ranking employees and examining and identifying corporate tendencies. 4.6 Making workers aware of jobs in other departments. 4.7 Ensuring that each worker in each department understands the process. 4.8 Enhancing total knowledge of the organisation. 4.9 Implementing the programme by ensuring that each person has clearly defined measures of performance and targets. 4.10 Helping provide the context for needed cultural change. 4.11 Understanding of the process by the team, including external consultants and the organisations internal managers. 4.12 Identifying key processes and interfaces within the organisation. 5. DOC-05: Mental, perceptual, and functional readiness of people for change 5.1 Conducting a programme to improve peoples levels of knowledge and understanding about processes and their roles in relation to organisational processes and efficiency. 5.2 Considering actions to address readiness of people to accept changes and their continuous involvement in a BPR project. 5.3 Considering peoples attitudes towards changes in management. 5.4 Determining leadership for the future. 5.5 Enhancing organisational culture. 5.6 Helping provide the context for needed cultural change. 5.7 Enhancing learning capacity. 5.8 Taking radical action to encourage a sense of ownership and motivation by people. 5.9 Introducing a new organisational model, in which various divisions and companies were regrouped into six distinct clusters of related business, each headed by a president. 5.10 Organisation has made employees familiar with conditions of change and its importance to organisation. 5.11 The organisation has determined the amount of response to expectations and needs and controls their implementation. 6. DOC-06: Conclusive decision-making 6.1 Restructuring such as massive dismissals, additional owners, and selling divisions that have low efficiency and profitability within the corporation. 6.2 In times of difficult decisions top managers have sufficient mastery of affairs. 6.3 Useful programmes for identifying areas of weakness and deficiency of information based on complaints from employees with less knowledge have been established. 6.4 One way to change the structure of the organisation is to remove middle managers when their presence is no longer necessary. (continued )

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

5352 Appendix 1. Continued.

B. Ostadi et al.

6.5 Managers use different styles of management to support their decisions. 6.6 When changing management, employee activities continue with the same efficiency as in the past. 7. DOC-07: Transferring managerial and working experience and knowledge within the organisation 7.1 When leaders are educated and trained for promotion to key posts in the future, they are selected from within the organisation. 7.2 Organisation leaders groom their deputies to become leaders in the future. 7.3 All those who work as managers have the ability, potential alternatives, and necessary awareness and skills for their position. 7.4 Part of an organisation leaders time is dedicated to research and training to acquire and transfer knowledge within the organisation. 7.5 To increase the level of knowledge of staff and training of new technologies, programmes are held for human resources personnel. 7.6 Managers of the organisation meet monthly. 7.7 To match processes with strategic programmes and receive comments it is important to interview middle managers. 8. DOC-08: Ability to manage organisations workflows well 8.1 To remove or reduce non-related value chain activities in the organisation, some activities have been outsourced. 8.2 Hire new employees to replace those who retire and who are dismissed to ensure that staff continues to be efficient. 8.3 Tools have been deployed to manage the organisation and evaluate processes. 8.4 A mechanism for identifying problems in basic processes is available. 8.5 Determine the amount of accountability that is expected and control implementation and identify and eliminate any forms of design effort and possible failure. 8.6 Useful action for improvement and standardisation of methods has been taken in the organisation. 8.7 Identify needs and expectations related to customer dissatisfaction, accountability, and respect for customers, and establish programmes within the organisation for accomplishing this. 9. DOC-09: Fair division of jobs 9.1 The improvement of human relations and increased efficiency within the organisation are the primary goals. 9.2 The majority of staff is assigned to duties for which they have been considered are relatively satisfied. 10. DOC-10: Teamwork 10.1 The power of supervisors to increase and decrease production is a traditional management structure. 10.2 Projects the organisation has outsourced are usually managed by project teams and executives. 10.3 Readiness of the employee to accept continuous change as a contribution to the improvement of their projects is important. 10.4 Preparation for management of employee attitudes towards change has been considered in the organisation. 10.5 Doing tasks as a group has greater effectiveness in the organisation. 11. DOC-11: The ability to use local networks 11.1 Organisations based on local networks are dependent on the activities of nearly the entire staff. 11.2 For the staff working with a network is difficult. (continued )

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

International Journal of Production Research Appendix 1. Continued.

5353

11.3 The computer network is used for connection of independent units with a central location to increase managers information and, as a result, give them more control over the network. 12. DOC-12: The ability to use the Internet 12.1 All of the staff has access to the Internet. 12.2 All of the staff has the ability to work on the Internet. 13. DOC-13: The ability to use the organisations software 13.1 Employees have the ability to work with the software used within the organisation. 13.2 Training programmes have been conducted to increase the ability to work with software. 13.3 Free software is used to manage flow processes or tasks to facilitate their display. 14. DOC-14: The ability to use office or administrative software 14.1 Employees have the ability to work with office or administrative software. 14.2 Training programmes have been conducted in the organisation to improve knowledge of administration software and ability to work with computers to perform daily activities. 15. DOC-15: Workflow automation and group ware 15.1 Programs for the automation of workflow have been implemented. 15.2 Company correspondence is conducted through the local network. 16. DOC-16: Electronic data interchange (EDI) 16.1 Software analysis and evaluation is used to transfer information to and from project units to monitor, assess performance, and prepare periodic reports. 16.2 Electronic data and information interchange is conducted in the organisation. 17. DOC-17: Managers involvement in the organisations changes 17.1 The organisation has used management practices to handle change. 17.2 Management is committed to training employees to make them familiar with the conditions of change and its importance to the organisation. 17.3 Managers are involved with the processes of change as well as various improvements. 18. DOC-18: The ability to estimate the gain and loss of processes 18.1 Examining the enormous indirect costs is important to recognise fundamental problems of the processes of the organisation. 18.2 The solution is explained widely throughout the company by the team. 18.3 The organisation determines the degree of response to expectations and needs, and controls them in implementation. 18.4 The organisation uses technical expert in cost accounting. 19. DOC-19: Loyalty to total organisational growth by managers and staff 19.1 Attempts are made to allow substantial autonomy in the various businesses. 19.2 The organisation has an ever-changing organisational culture to strengthen its presence. 19.3 Employees acknowledge this statement: The success of the organisation is for you. 20. DOC-20: The ability to reach agreement about strategies and processes between middle managers and staff 20.1 The management board meets once a month to discuss issues that affect the company as a whole. 20.2 The organisation has developed the company strategies and operational programmes. 20.3 The organisations strategies and processes are fully understood and agreed on by staff and middle management. (continued )

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

5354 Appendix 1. Continued.

B. Ostadi et al.

21. DOC-21: Recognising improvement and re-engineering projects 21.1 The organisation conducts related seminars to acquaint employees with projects. 21.2 Preparatory meetings with top, senior and middle management are held to receive comments and establish expectations for the BPR. 21.3 Useful actions for improvement and standardisation of methods have been established in the organisation. 21.4 In the past, the organisation has used outside consultants to establish organisational improvement projects.

Appendix 2. Brief description of maturity levels

Maturity level Brief descriptions                Yes/True everywhere, near or at 100% occurrence The practice is everywhere in the organisation, with virtually no exceptions Sustained evidence of improvement for at least 3 years Mostly true, approximately 75% occurrence The practice is very typical with only some exceptions Sustained evidence of improvement for at least 1 year Partly true, approximately 50% occurrence The practice is commonly found but not in the majority of areas Evidence of improvement visible Marginally true, approximately 25% occurrence Practice is only seen in some areas Evidence of implementation available No/Not true, 0% occurrence The practice is not found No evidence of implementation

Downloaded by [Tehran University] at 07:11 02 February 2012

5 4 3 2 1

Note: Adopted from ISO 10014:2006.