Talk:Business process re-engineering

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems High‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Enterprise modelling.

Older topics

Efficiency: How efficient is the company that is manufacturing the product before introducing it to the market to maximize costs? This is one of the key categories that I believe is more important than any others. If a manufacturing company can master the skill of being efficient then they can automatically be more customer friendly and effective. Efficiency is not just about being efficient at the production floor level but the management level also has to be efficient. An example of only the production floor being efficient and not the management level would be the Japanese manufacturing companies. Now they are going through turmoil to repair their problems.

Merging articles

I noted that the content of Business process design is minimal and that it is more or less a synonym of BPR (or at least so closely-related a cousin that the two topics are very similiar). But before I just went ahead and merged, them, I thought it would be good to see if anyone thinks there's a good reason to keep them as separate articles. What do you think? Fairsing 18:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so; Business Process Design is a Software development thing, not an Industrial Engineering thing

Hi, thanks for your comment. Can you provide a citation that BPD is a software development term? As it's defined in the current stub, it is defined as a synonym for BPR, and categorized as a Business Model, not a Software Development Process. Thanks. Fairsing 02:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BPR's something different from BPD. It has own literature and tools. See Champy books for more information. --217.219.164.6 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business process design is far different from business process re-engineering.Business process re-design is same as BPR.So, it doesn't make any sense in merging the BPD and BPR.

I completely agree that Reengineering is really talking about Business Process Reengineering. Both are dealing with a subject which is generally attributed to Michael Hammer in the 90's. Wikipedia would benefit by having a single page. Goflow6206 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Goflow6206[reply]

Hmmmmm, design vs reengineering, business process reengineering vs reengineering. I agree that all three articles would be better merged, but I think "design" is more general than "reengineering". A design can be for a new business process as well as an existing business process. Business process engineering seems to apply only to existing business processes. The page should be named "business process design", with business process reengineering directed to it. Once reengineering is merged with it, "reengineering" should be directed to engineering or a disambiguation page. Oicumayberight 07:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to direct "reengineering" to a disambiguation page that could contain at least three links: Business Process Reengineering, Software Reengineering, Reengineering as in mechanical engineering. However, business process design and bp reengineering should not be merged, since the former is generally related to software design and the latter to an organizational change concept. Kai A. Simon 15:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is right that article on re-eingineering suits this topic i.e. business process re-engineering, but the two topics are not same. A wrong article has been posted at Re-engineering. Re-engineering is a much broader terms that encompasses manufacturing, software and business process re-engineering

I agree strongly that 'reengineering' should be directed to a disambiguation page that offers Business Process Reengineering as an important and concrete term, as well as any other reengineering related terms. When does the decision stop getting talked about and get made? (just curious actually) and how does it physically take place? (Maybe I share this question with lots of wikipedians, or maybe i'm newer than most. thanks.) --Pointblankstare (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-engineering the article?

I am prepared to rewrite the BPR article, if you are interested. Subsequently, we might discuss the fine-tuning.
Note: I am not registered with the English Wikipedia yet, but you can find more information about me here. --194.120.17.193 14:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being back with real identity. I have re(written) a considerable portion. Please provide feedback. I also suggest to

merge the article with the BP Redesign article. A short note on the (admittedly minor) conceptual differences can be added.
remove the success story section and the Problems section and to join them into a short general pro and con discussion.
remove the Key Target section, since those are mainly covered by the definition.

Kai a simon 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikification

This might happen as part of re-engineering (above) but this page is also in desperate need of wikification (particularl adding internal wiki links) so I've added the tag Madmedea 12:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC) it is greeeeeeeet Reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and revolutionary redesigning of business process to acchieve dramatic success from critical performance .Amul Gawade baramati. Amulgawade (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Amulgawade (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram missing information

The diagram shows steps labeled "non-value added tasks" being removed from a process. Without knowing what those steps are, it's hard to say if those tasks do or don't add value to that process. To a BPR skeptic, it looks like carelessness rather than efficiency. Maybe more needs to be said about the steps that have been removed from the process in the caption of the diagram. Oicumayberight 17:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I created the diagram, I might also be the one replying to your comment: This high-level picture is meant to explain the basic concept. If you look at the methodology steps to its left, you will see a step 3.2 Uncover pathologies in existing processes. This is where you identify improvement potentials, such as removing tasks from a process that are no longer required. Let me use the clinical development process as an example. If you collect the clinical data from study centers by means of EDC (Electronic Data Capture), i.e. the data is entered directly into a web-based system instead of being written down on paper and then transcribed into a clinical database, you can remove the work step data transcription, since it no longer adds value to the process. Of course, you cannot always know if there any activities that can be obliterated, but this is, as mentioned above, part of the process analysis. Kai A. Simon 19:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking for speculators who may read too much into just the diagram or glance at it. Maybe it's a case of too much information for the example instead of a case of missing information that I mentioned above. Maybe the diagram should have more generic examples like "step 1, 2, 3" or "Department A, B, C" instead of "Discover, Pre-Clinical Research, ect". Then there would be no reason for people like myself to speculate on how important the tasks are or if they can afford to be removed. Oicumayberight 20:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, you may be right. :-) This diagram was a standard slide from one of my presentations. When I find the time, I will change it into a more generic diagram and replace it, even though I don't think it is a major problem, because the tasks as such are not labeled. And, let me assure that you will always find a task to obliterate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kai a simon (talk • contribs) 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

REBUS

it's REBUS APPROACH the same thing? http://www.citeulike.org/user/wigelius/article/1526778 --151.53.234.136 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article describes the phenomenon BPR as such, whereas as the article behind the above link describes a research approach used to analyze BPR projects. Kai A. Simon 20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest to move Section: BPR - a rebirth of scientific management?

In my opinion, the first 70-90% of what is written in this section should be summarized. The section should start off with, (i can't remember the exact terminology) "This section is a stub of a longer article", and be referenced to either Taylor and/or Scientific Management.

It gives too much background and historial information that is so off the point from BPR it gets the reader a bit lost. I read it twice just to figure out if i was i was actually reading something that was still very directly pertinent to BPR. I felt I should leave it to discussion and further suggestions / opinions. Thanks. --Pointblankstare (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the section would also fit into a discussion of Taylorism or Scientific Management. So would any other discussion of an organizational concept that relates to these topics. However, to understand my reason for putting it here, you need to consider the criticism against BPR that was brought forward around 12-15 years ago, when the concept was on top of the hype cycle. Back then, there was a strong opinion that BPR is merely more than a revival of Taylorism under a new label.

BTW, the section is not a part of another article and after having looked at the Scientific Managment article I am not sure, whether it would naturally fit in there.

Cheers, Kai A. Simon (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hammering Hammer

A year ago, I wrote an article titled "Hammering Hammer: A Critical Analysis of Process Enterprise," which was publised at RogueProjectLeader.com, a program management webzine. The webzine has since closed shop, but the article is still available at http://danwardonline.googlepages.com/rpl1hammeringhammer. However, since that is a googlepages site, Wikipedia will not allow anyone to link to it in the body of an article.

The article was very well recevied, and I wonder if there is any way to include a reference to it from this page?129.92.250.39 (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume from the fact that the author of the cited article appears to be Dan Ward, that the above entry was written by the same Dan Ward. Dan: if the article was published in a webzine that has since closed, why not revise the article and submit it to a wider publication or even a conference? Larger magazines will perform editorial review, and conferences will perform peer review, both of which increase the credibility (and editorial content) of your article. If you succeed in getting the article published through a citable source, there is no reason that we couldn't cite the article at that time. With respect. Nickmalik (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rife with uncited statements and claims

This article is truly amazing. While there are plenty of notes about "who said what," there are nearly no actual citations to where that person actually said the thing that they are attributed to say. There are also plenty of claims about the history, adoption, and use of business process engineering that are not substantiated. Cite Sources, people! In my edit, I added tags for required citations for the variety of claims.

I am also concerned about the reference to a set of white papers written by Kai Simon, Ph.D. and linked from the article. Those white papers, while likely authentic and earnest, are not published. They appear as pages on a blog. This violates the guideline on reliable sources. I didn't remove them (yet) but plan to when I return unless someone can show that this material was used by a notable or reliable source. No offense against Dr. Simon. Wikipedia is not a place to cite original research. Nickmalik (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

This entire article is a total mess -- it looks like more than one person just pasted in essays from other places. The entire overview was plagiarized from a GAO report. There's a lot of work left to do but I started by cleaning up what I could, adding in a bunch of citations, and removing a few very long-standing uncited claims:

The cross-functional team, for example, has become popular because of the desire to re-engineer separate functional tasks into complete cross-functional processes.^{[citation needed]} Also, many recent management information systems developments aim to integrate a wide number of business functions. Enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, knowledge management systems, groupware and collaborative systems, Human Resource Management Systems and customer relationship management.

There was considerable hype surrounding the introduction of Reengineering the Corporation (partially due to the fact that the authors of the book reportedly ^{[citation needed]} bought numbers of copies to promote it to the top of bestseller lists).

66.65.171.9 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I restored the overview section, you removed here. Just as Wikipedia can use images from US-Gov sources, NASA, NIST etc. it can incorporate text from these sources as well. -- Mdd (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Text moved here

I removed the following text added here a few days ago. Such text (if new) should be integrated in the existing structure. -- Mdd (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BPR is a concept that was proposed in 1990s by MIT professor Michael Hammer and Champy, Chairman of the CSC management consultancy company. In their book "Corporate Restructuring - Enterprise Revolution Declaration". They defined BPR as: "in order to take a leap to improve the cost, quality, service, speed and other operational foundation of the modern enterprise, enterprise should take fundamental rethinking and radical reform in business process." The basic idea is to take completely change the traditional way of working, that is to say, to change the fact that an integral work is divided into different parts, and are realized in an order by different and independent departments since the industrial revolution. The purpose of BPR is to make significant improvement in cost, quality, service and speed so that an enterprise can maximize the features of modern business environment such as customer, competition (Competition), and change. There are four key characteristics in BPR’s definition: dramatic, radical, processes and redesign". The BPR pursue a thorough reconstruction, rather than a continuous improvement. It requires a reflection on the meaning of the work people are engaged into and the way of doing it. This fundamental change in business operations is to pursuit of performance leap, rather than improvement.

Section deletes restored

On October 14, 2013, three edits were placed by the same unsigned user. The first of the edits was a reasonable re-editing for improving the content. The result of the remaining two edits was the deletion of substantial portions of the article.

As no attempt was made to discuss why these changes were necessary or to respond to criticism of the article, and as these changes were made by an individual that was not logged in, I will restore the sections deleted by the last two edits.

If the individual who made these changes decides that he or she wants to discuss why these changes were necessary, or how they improve the article, I would ask that individual to share their thoughts here. Nickmalik (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, I was wondering the same thing, and agree with your course of action. -- Mdd (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the references

A simple "Covert, 1997" or "Motwani 1998" is not useful. Please provide complete citations - title of paper, journal, URL etc., so that the reader can go to the original source for more information. Merely including an author's last name and year is worse than no citation at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakash Nadkarni (talk • contribs) 23:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Business process reengineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Business process reengineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140311194739/http://aaaipress.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/download/1113/1031 to http://aaaipress.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/download/1113/1031

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]