Application of Business Process Reengineering in Higher Institutions: a Case Study of the Registrar’s Office, American University of Nigeria
Chapter One
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
- To identify the CSFs necessary for successful implementation of BPR projects
- To analyze the processes in the Registrar’s office using BPR techniques and identify the problems
- To redesign the processes so as to improve them
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this chapter is to analyze the different categories identified from the literature such as the history of BPR, project success, critical success factors in projects, BPR systems implementation and critical success factors.
HISTORY OF BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING
Despite its short existence, business process re-engineering has gained a lot of attention. Janson (2005), in his article, stated that BPR is a major dimension of organizational change that most organizations are deploying to renew their devotion to customers. Reengineering is a reversal of industrial revolution, which is the movement where machines change the way of life of people and the methods of production (Hammer & Champy, 1993).
BPR came into existence due to the economic crisis and the recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Butler (1980), describes the 1980s as a time of financial re- engineering, while the 1990s as a time of technological re-engineering. Hammer (1993),suggested that BPR is capable of helping organizations get out of crisis situations by being able to adapt to market conditions and also by being customer focused and innovative.
Prior to the emergence of BPR, industries and business enterprises accepted that work should be broken down into smaller tasks, which will make the structure hierarchical so that assigned tasks can be managed effectively. However, organizations that adopted this hierarchical structure encountered pitfalls when their environments changed from what they used to know to what they could not recognize. Based on Hammer (1993), most problems faced by many organizations today in the global environment is that the desire of customers is becoming very complex and in order to survive this competition, the use of computers alone is not sufficient. In fact, redesigning of the core business processes is apt (Hammer 1990). BPR provides an avenue to proact to the changes that fit the competitive environment in ways that enable organizations to align themselves to the industrial age.
In 1776, Adam Smith published an article on “The Wealth of Nations”, and it says “no matter how technologically refined a company’s products and services are or their national origin and nature of their business, their work styles and organizational pedigree can be traced back to the prototypical pin factory”. M. Hammer argued that the development of most industrial nations has been the type where modern business bureaucracies have expanded the organizing principles to the offices and corporate headquarters (Hammer, 1993). This has been propelled by incessant demand where producers take over the market. However, with the growth of competition across the world between old and newly industrializing nations, customers have overtaken the market. Old ways of manufacturing have proved that they are unequal to the task. At the time, customers were consumers who were last in the chain production, where poor services and trashy goods were accepted.
Now, customers have dominated the system, thus making it impossible for manufacturers to produce unacceptable goods, with the aim of not being responsible to any customer. The current customer’s requests for quality and responsibility of goods and services be considered.
Business process reengineers see that the operational divisions that once worked successfully, in reality, prevent firms from reacting to changes in the operations. It has been argued that re-engineering is needed to reduce the time it takes to manufacture and distribute products, which in turn reduces the inventory time and cost of quality of products in the market (Ligus, 2000).
Hammer and Champy (1993) defined BPR as “the rethinking and radical redesign of business activities in order to achieve a more improved result while cutting down on costs while improving quality as well as service and speed”. Davenport (1993), described BPR as the evaluation and plan of the workflow and the procedures embedded among organizations. Business activities should not only be viewed as a collection of individual or purposeful tasks but should be split into smaller tasks so as to achieve maximum effectiveness in service and manufacturing environment.
PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA
The success of a project is not dependent on cost, time and quality, which, according to (Atkinson, 1999), is the “iron triangle” and that the success of any project is not determined at the end of the project, but on the outcome throughout all stages.
Kloppenborg and Opfer’s (2002) study on project management reveals that several tools and methods that were used in the 1970s were related to cost and schedule control (CSC), performance measurement, program evaluation and review of techniques (PERT), work breakdown structure (WBS) and life-cycle management (Kloppenborg & Opfer,2002). In the 1980s, research was centered on design-to-cost and life-cycle costing.
On the other hand, in the 1990s, a more refined process ensued focusing on leadership, motivation, communication and team building. Project Management Information (PMI) states that when good practices on tools, skills, and methodologies are rightly applied, the chances of a project’s success are higher (PMI, 2004). Also, management of daily activities alone does not guarantee success.
Getting Stakeholders into the Picture
Frame (1994) discussed the importance of a holistic approach in communicating across all stakeholders of a well-defined life cycle, as it will help in aligning project activities with business processes, thereby reducing chaos. The overall perception of the stakeholders and project managers is very crucial. In fact, ignoring stakeholders at all stages and not supporting their expectation as well as need can lead to significant gaps (Deane, Clark,and Young, 1997). There must be shared comprehension of conditions for success between stakeholders for successful projects (Wateridge, 1998). Stakeholders’ identification, requirement, and understanding can lead to successful projects (PMI, 2004).
Turner, (2004), on summarizing the work of (Wateridge 1995 and Muller 2003), provides the conditions for successful project execution: agreement of success criteria with stakeholders before project initiation and during the project execution, owners of the project should be interested in the performance of the project.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The BPRM framework was developed as an outcome and has served as a basis for the research proposition. It will be put to test through a structured research methodology. The aim of this chapter is to describe the methodology used in the research project.
Philosophical Assumptions
There must be a philosophical basis of the assumption of a research be it qualitative or quantitative (Myers, 1997). In qualitative research, a number of philosophical assumptions are present and they include interpretive, constructivist/transformative knowledge, positivism and critical studies (Orlikowski,W.J., & Baroudi, J.J, 1991).
The interpretive study assumes that meaning of situations or issues that occur in the world is based on how participants perceive the happenings and not the already available realities (Myers, 1997).
The positivist study assumes the presence of relationships as well as reality within a given context, which is measurable using some attributes that are self-reliant of the researcher (Orlikowski,W.J., & Baroudi, J.J, 1991). The objective of the research can be achieved using structured instrumentation as well as having a broader view of the setting from one step to another so as to have an in-depth knowledge of other settings. The criteria for positivist study include several steps; First of all, the investigation should be done from the participant’s viewpoint without the interference of the researcher. Secondly, there should not be an addition to the understanding of the situation. That is to say, it must be carried out in its natural setting. Lastly, the understanding between the researcher and the participants should be in a cultural and contextual situation (Chen, 2014).
CHAPTER FOUR-RESULTS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the collected data from the semi-structured interviews and their analysis in order to reach the conclusion of the study. BPRM framework was adopted to support the analysis. The research questions were used to guide the data analysis. The critical areas include having the stakeholders in the picture as well as the critical success factors in BPR implementation projects in institutions of higher learning. According to the literature review, the iron triangle and the critical success factors as prepared by previous researchers was targeted at a much narrower focus, whether they are applicable to the registrar’s office at the American University of Nigeria.
CHAPTER FIVE-DISCUSSION
Critical Success Factors from Case Study
Change Management/ Culture
Presence of change management program with an emphasis on training and education was discussed. This was further highlighted that this process should start at the very initial commencement of the process. One of the shortfalls of this was resistance to change. Where change management program is planned and successfully executed, there will be minimal resistance.
Organizational Structure
The synergy among teams was critical to the framework discussed; teams were rated high in terms of business process knowledge, despite being at different locations, teamwork was remarkable when team members were not carrying out duties assigned due to other assignments, and more time was allocated to increase collaboration. There is lack of effective communication between the senate, curriculum committee and the registrar’s office.
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
Looking at the educational sector within the context of this research, much of IT technology has not been used nor BPR systems/processes. Some BPR implementation has failed in the business world and this has led researchers to study the critical success factors. The aim of this research was to identify the critical success factors in BPR systems implementation in higher institutions of learning.
The literature review helped to explain in detail the research done on critical success factors. A research question was formed, qualitative approach was used for data collection and analysis, and data collection was done using a semi-structured interview. The result of the study is presented in the next section, with implications for practitioners and the academia, the study’s strengths and weaknesses and recommendation for future research.
Answering the Research Questions
What are the critical success factors in implementing projects
Are the identified critical success factors from the literature review relevant for the successful implementation of BPR projects in institutions of higher learning in Nigeria.
Sub-questions were developed and the following conclusions were drawn:
This sub question explains the BPRM framework developed in the literature review. A list of CSFs was developed from previous researchers, and its applicability in the registrar’s office at the American University of Nigeria was examined using data collection and analysis. The set of CSFs was affirmed as crucial for a successful implementation of BPR.
BPRM Implications
From the literature review, it can be deduced that there has not been a research stream on BPR implementation in institutions of higher learning in Nigeria. The drive for this research was to provide the first step in expanding the existing research on BPR implementation projects to include the educational sector in Nigeria. In order to expand research on this specific topic, it will be needful to put the existing framework to test, to ascertain its applicability with the assistance of other studies of interpretive character.
Practical Implication
The result of this study can provide important insights to practitioners involved in BPR implementation. Key issues that should be addressed as a result of this research include the following:
- Change management program. In addition, BPR should be well defined and implemented at the very beginning of the project and involve all users so as to achieve optimum
- Top management’s support for the project at the very beginning is required as an effortto keep them abreast and raise their commitment as well as interest in the project is very crucial for the successful implementation. When this is done, it can save the project a lot of trouble and raise the motivation in the organization.
Strengths and Weaknesses
This research study was based on the literature review so as to build a theoretical background on the relevant issues. Due to lack of research work on this topic, there was a limitation on articles used on BPR implementation CSFs. A more detailed framework could have been developed but time constraints made it impossible to achieve.
This case study could have included other institutions with an existing BPR system so as to increase validity but due to time constraint it was difficult to achieve. Another drawback was that the project team members that participated in the interview were from different levels. It would have been more focused and more valuable had they all been at the level to respond to the research question from a stakeholder’s viewpoint.
Future Research Suggestion
Suggestions would be that there be an expansion of the present study in terms of data collection and analysis. The study could be developed further to have data from other sources such as questionnaires, project documentation, further interviews, surveys etc. This can provide the research with a much stronger supported statement and validated result (Sofronis, 2009).
The applicability and role of the CSFs in BPR implementation as discussed in the literature review should be discussed at the different stages of BPR project lifecycle and from the viewpoint of the stakeholder. This will provide a narrower focus so as to address the specific audience in the academic and practitioners’ world.
REFERENCES
- Alter, A. (December 1990). The Corporate make-over. CIO, Vol.4 No.3, 32-42.
- Andrew C Boynthon & Robert W Zmud. (1984). An Assessment of Critical Success Factors. Sloan Management Review, 17.
- Arendt,C.,Landis, R. and Meister, T. (1995). The human side of change-part 4. IIE Solutions, 22-27. Atkinson, R. (1999). Project Management:Cost,Time,and Quality, Two Best Guesses and a Phenomenon,
- Its Time to Accept other Success Criteria. International Journal of Project Management, Vol 17/6, pp.337-342.
- Attaran, M. (2004). Exploring the relationship between information technology and business process reengineering. Information & Management, 585-596.
- Baker, J. (2012). “The Technology – Organization – Environment Framework,” in: Information Systems:Explaining and Predicting Our Digital Society. Y. Dwivedi, M. Wade and S.Schneberger (eds.). New York, NY: Springer.
- Bashein, B.,Markus,M and Riley, P. (Spring 1994). Precondition for BPR success and how to prevent failures. Information Systems Management, 7-13.
- Benbasat, I.,Goldstein, D.K., & Mead,M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3).
