best practices in business process redesign:an …is.ieis.tue.nl/education/bpmcourse/papers/reijers...

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Omega 33 (2005) 283–306www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Best practices in business process redesign: an overview andqualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics

H.A. Reijersa ;∗, S. Liman Mansarb

aDepartment of Information and Technology, Faculty of Technology and Management, Eindhoven University of Technology(PAV D14,) P.O. Box 513, Eindhoven, 5600 MB, Netherlands

bDepartment of Computing, Communications Technology and Mathematics, London Metropolitan University, 2-16 Eden Grove,London N7 8EA, UK

Received 25 April 2002; accepted 23 April 2004

Abstract

To implement business process redesign several best practices can be distinguished. This paper gives an overview ofheuristic rules that can support practitioners to develop a business process design that is a radical improvement of a currentdesign. The emphasis is on the mechanics of the process, rather than on behavioral or change management aspects. The variousbest practices are derived from a wide literature survey and supplemented with experiences of the authors. To evaluate theimpact of each best practice along the dimensions of cost, 1exibility, time and quality, a conceptual framework is presentedthat synthesizes views from areas such as information systems development, enterprise modeling and work1ow management.The best practices are thought to have a wide applicability across various industries and business processes. They can beused as a “check list” for process redesign under the umbrella of diverse management approaches such as Total Cycle Timecompression, the Lean Enterprise and Constraints Management.? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Business process redesign; Operations management; MIS; Heuristics

1. Introduction

A business process redesign (BPR) initiative is commonlyseen as a twofold challenge (e.g. [1–3]):

• a technical challenge, which is due to the di=culty ofdeveloping a process design that is a radical improvementof the current design,

• and a socio-cultural challenge, resulting from the severeorganizational e>ects on the involved people, which maylead them to react against those changes.

Apart from these challenges, project management of a BPRinitiative itself is also often named as a separate BPR chal-lenge (e.g. [4]).

∗ Tel.: +31-40-247-2290; fax: +31-40-243-2612.E-mail address: [email protected] (H.A. Reijers).

Many methodologies, techniques, and tools have beenproposed that face one or more of the mentioned challengesin a more or less integrated approach (for an overview see[5]). Prescriptive literature in the Deld is sometimes adver-tised as “a step-by-step guide to business transformation”(e.g. [1]) suggesting a complete treatment of the organiza-tional and technical issues involved with BPR. However,work like this seems to be primarily aimed at impressing abusiness audience. At best it gives some directions to man-age organizational risk, but commonly lacks actual tech-nical direction to (re)design a business process. Even theclassic work of Hammer and Champy [6] devotes only 14out of a total of over 250 pages to this issue, of which11 pages are used for the description of a case. Gerrits [7]mentions: “In the literature on BPR, examples of successfulBPR implementations are given. Unfortunately, the litera-ture restricts itself to descriptions of the ’situation before’and the ’situation after’, giving very little information on the

0305-0483/$ - see front matter ? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.omega.2004.04.012

mailto:[email protected]

284 H.A. Reijers, S. Liman Mansar /Omega 33 (2005) 283–306

redesign process itself”. According to Motwani et al. [8], inthe meanwhile, research in BPR progressed slightly to alsoinclude the development of conceptual models for assessingand executing BPR. However, the main criticism to thesemodels/steps is that there has been little e>ort to use the ex-isting theory to develop a comprehensive integrated modelon BPR. Valiris and Glykas [9] also recognize as limitationsof existing BPR methodologies that “there is a lack of a sys-tematic approach that can lead a process redesigner througha series of steps for the achievement of process redesign”.As Sharp and McDermott [10] commented more recently:“How to get from the as-is to the to-be [in a BPR project]isn’t explained, so we conclude that during the break,the famous ATAMO procedure is invoked—And Then,A Miracle occurs”.

In our research we are interested in developing a method-ology for BPR implementation based not only in detailingsteps for BPR but also on guiding and supporting the BPRexecution by means of techniques and best practices.

In this context our Drst concern is to adopt (or deDne) anexisting framework for BPR. We will not try to present yetanother integrated BPR methodology, the framework shouldonly allow the user of the BPR methodology to recognize theimportant topics and their relationships. The second concernis to identify among the literature and the successful execu-tion of current BPR implementations the best practices thatmay/should be used for each topic of the framework. Brandand Van der Kolk’s [11] evaluation framework will be usedto assess the (supposed) e>ects of a best practice on cost,quality, time and 1exibility. Our Dnal concern is to guidethe users to when and in which order to apply these bestpractices. This latter point also includes guidance towardsthe limits of these best practices and their validity domain.This involves an extensive study of all the best practicesidentiDed.

In this paper, we will only focus on the Drst and secondconcern of our research, namely:

• deDning a framework for BPR implementation and• identifying the best practices in BPR implementation.

The best practices which are identiDed should be seen asindependent rules of thumb, each of which can be of valueto support practitioners in facing the technical challenge ofa BPR project. Merely applying these rules, however, isunlikely to lead to sustained success.

In the Drst place, the BPR practices we will discuss focuson the mechanics of the process and do not cover how thebehavior of people working within the process can be in1u-enced. Anybody who conducted a BPR project realizes thatthe latter is a crucial factor in making a process transforma-tion successful.

Secondly, the application of these various best practicesmust be embedded within an overall vision on BPR that isadopted for the project. Several well-known managementphilosophies exist that can guide the overall course of a

reengineering project, such as Total Cycle Time Compres-sion [12,13], the Lean Enterprise approach [14] and Con-straints Management [15,16]. Although a discussion of thesevarious approaches is outside the scope of this paper, it isimportant to point out here that the best practices we discussshould be seen as being on a lower, more operational levelthan these encompassing approaches. Many of the best prac-tices we mention do have a wide application across theseapproaches. For example, consider the case of the reengi-neering of a manufacturing company as in [17]. This BPRproject was driven by a Total Cycle Time Compression ap-proach in which several best practices we list in this paperwere applied, such as empowerment and the introductionof process-wide technology. Another example is the taskelimination best practice, which originated from the sameexperiences within the Toyota company that shaped “leanthinking” as an overall management philosophy [18].

In summary, we believe that adopting an overall manage-ment vision on BPR is a necessary condition for making theapplication of BPR best practices e>ective and to give di-rection to a BPR e>ort. And in return, the implementationof such a BPR vision can be helped by considering the bestpractices we present in the rest of this paper.

The structure of the paper is now as follows. First wewill present a framework for BPR implementation in Sec-tion 2. It will serve as a guidance to which topics should beconsidered when implementing BPR. Before we discuss thevarious best practices, we will describe a model in Section3 that serves as a frame of reference for their assessment.Next we will describe the BPR best practices in Section 4.For each best practice, we will present its general formula-tion, its potential e>ects and possible drawbacks. We willalso indicate similarities in best practices, provide referencesto their origin and—if available—to known quantitative oranalytic support. A summary of all contributions to the bestpractices will be analyzed in Table 1. The paper ends withour conclusions and future research.

2. A business process redesign framework

In order to help the user in choosing the correct bestpractice when dealing with the implementation of BPR, itis important to deDne clearly a framework for it. The ideabehind a framework is to help practitioners by identifyingthe topics that should be considered and how these topicsare related [19]. In this perspective, the framework shouldidentify clearly all views one should consider whenever ap-plying a BPR implementation project. So, a framework isnot a model of a business process. It is rather an explicit setof ideas that helps in thinking about the business process inthe context of reengineering.

We will now explore and discuss several frameworks andbusiness process analysis models that are available in theliterature.

H.A.Reijers,

S.Lim

anMansar/O

mega

33(2005)

283–306

285Table 1A survey of best practices in business process redesign

Framework Rule Impact Limits Referred Technique Tool Applicationelements name on BP to by used availability examples

Customers Controlrelocation

↗ Quality,↗ cost

Unknown Klein [35] Guideline None PaciDc Bell

Contactreduction

↘ Time,↗ quality,↗ cost

Unknown Hammer andChampy [6]

Guideline None Ford’s accounts payable departments reduced num-ber of clerk’s from 500 to 125 (from three pointsof contact to two)

Buzacott [36] Conditions onwhen to re-duce contactor not

Queuingmodel

None

Integration ↘ Time,↘ 1exibility,↘ cost

Unknown Klein [35] Guideline None None

Peppard andRowland [32]

Guideline None Individual (customers carry trays and clear awayin fast foods) or a customer organization (Baxterhealth-care integrated their organization with theircustomer by just-in-time provision of a hospitalequipment)

Products None None None None None None NoneOperationview

Ordertypes

↘ Time,↘ quality,↘ cost,↘ 1exibility

None Hammer andChampy [6]

Guideline None IBM credit, three versions of the credit insuranceprocess: performed by computer, by a deal struc-turer, with support of specialist advisers

Rupp andRussell [39]

Guideline None None


Guideline +notion of run-ners, repeatersand strangersto distinguishprocess vari-ants

None None

Berg andPottjewijd [38]

Guideline None Furniture factory distinguishes separate supportingchair-making process

Task elim-ination

↘ Time,↘ 1exibility,↘ cost.

Unknown Peppard andRowland [32]

Guidelines None Transportation, movement and motion (a high-techcompany found out that its semi-conductors traveled150 000 miles during their transformation)


Guideline None Controls through which all orders pass, physicaltransport of information

286H.A.Reijers,

S.Lim

anMansar/O

mega

33(2005)

283–306

Table 1 (continued)


Van der Aalstand Van Hee[41]

Guideline +examples

None Monitoring tasks, iterations

Buzacott [36] Illustration onan example.

Queuingmodel

Illustration of the quantitative e>ect of eliminatingiterations on a simple example

Castano et al.[40]

Guideline +example +tool

ARTEMISmethodologyframework

Entity-based similarity coe=cient to evaluate thedegree of similarities between activities

Order-basedwork

↘ Time,↗ cost

Unknown Own experi-ence

Guideline None Removal of batch processing and periodic activitieswhen possible

Triage ↗ Quality,↘ time,↘ cost,↘ 1exibility

Too muchspecializationmay have in-verted e>ects

Klein [35] Guideline None None


Guideline None Example of triage in times of peak demand


Guideline None None

Zapf andHeinzl [42]

SpeciDc forCall CenterOrganizations.

Simulation Tests two “triage” conDgurations to decide whichone results in better performance results

Dewan et al.[43]

An approachfor the integra-tion of tasks.Discussionof optimalityof applyingintegrationin a processnetwork oncycle-time andcost. Modellimited toDxed delaysbetween tasks

Extension ofPERT/CPMapproaches

Applicable to administrative processes with rela-tively stable task structures, such as order fulDll-ment by mail order distributors, mortgage process-ing, medical billing or conDguration management inlarge scale engineering design projects

Task com-position

↘ Time,↗ quality,↘ cost,↘ 1exibility

Too largetasks mayhave invertedresults.

Hammer andChampy [6]

Guideline None An electronic company compressed responsibilitiesfor the various steps or the order fulDllment processresulting in tasks combined into one task executedby a so-called “customer service representative”

H.A.Reijers,

S.Lim

anMansar/O

mega

33(2005)

283–306

287Rupp andRussell [39]

Guideline None None


Guideline None None


Guideline None Applicability: situations with large number of tasksand limited need for adapting information systemsbecause of composition

Reijers andGoverde [44]

Guideline None None

Van der Aalst[45]

Conditionsbased on ra-tios to deDnewhen to com-bine two sub-sequent tasks

A heuristic None


Guideline None None

Buzacott [36] The desirabil-ity of com-bining severaltasks into one,depends crit-ically on theprocessingtime variabil-ity and onthe arrivalvariability

Queuingmodels

None

Seidmann andSundararajan[43]

Guidance onthe e>ect oftask asym-metry on theoptimality ofthe processredesign

Queuing the-ory and ten-dency graphs.

None

Behavioralview

Resequencing ↘ Time,↘ cost

Unknown Klein [35] Guideline None Automated kiosks in Disney theme parks

Parallelism ↘ Time, may↗ cost,↘ 1exibility,↘ quality

Unknown Rupp andRussell [39]

Guideline None None


Guideline None In a stylized business process. The end controls areparallelized

288H.A.Reijers,

S.Lim

anMansar/O

mega

33(2005)

283–306

Table 1 (continued)



Guideline None None

Buzacott [36] Parallel pro-cessing is notnecessarilyclearly supe-rior unlessindividualjobs spend inthe system isthe dominantcriterion

Queuingmodels.

None

Van der Aalst[45]

A set of con-ditions underwhich puttingtwo subse-quent tasks inparallel have apositive e>ect

A heuristic. None

Knock-out ↗ Time,↘ cost

Van der Aalst[45]

Rules onhow to ordertasks whenknock-outprocesses areconsidered

A heuristic. None

Exception ↘ Time,↗ quality,↘ 1exibility

Poyssick andHannaford[46]

Guideline None None


Guideline None None

Organization:structure

Order as-signment

↘ Time,↗ quality,↘ 1exibility


Guideline None None


Guideline None Bell Atlantic assigned a case team to establishhigh-speed, digital circuits for business customers

Reijers andGoverde [44]

Guideline None None


Guideline None None

H.A.Reijers,

S.Lim

anMansar/O

mega

33(2005)

283–306

289Flexibleassign-ment

↘ Queuetime,↗ quality,↘ 1exibility


Guideline None None

Centralization ↗ Flexibility,↘ time,↗ cost.

Unknown Van der Aalstand Van Hee[38]

Guideline Work1owmanagementsystems

None

Split re-sponsibili-ties

↗ Time,↗ quality,↘ 1exibility


Guideline None None


Guideline None None

Customerteams

↘ Cost,↘ time,↘ 1exibility,↘ quality


Guideline None Microsoft (10 000 employees) still works in teamsof no more than 200 people despite information1owing problems


Guideline None Hallmark, integrated teams for the development ofa new line of cards


Guideline None None

Numericalinvolve-ment

↗ Time,↘ cost,↘ quality


Imagine whathappens ifonly one per-son makesthe job andadd additionalresources ifappears neces-sary

None Who is needed for the handling of an insuranceclaim?


Guideline None None


Guideline None None

Casemanager

↗ Qualityand customersatisfaction,↗ cost


Guideline None Duke Power Company (public utility) where casemanagers present customers with the useful Dctionof an integrated customer service process


Guideline None None

Buzacott [36] Provides con-ditions forwhich the roleof the casemanager isjustiDed

Queuingmodels

None

290H.A.Reijers,

S.Lim

anMansar/O

mega

33(2005)

283–306

Table 1 (continued)


Organization:population

Extra re-sources

↘ Time,↗ 1exibility,↗ cost


Increase ca-pacity if possi-ble, but not ifit only movesthe bottleneck

None None

Van Hee et al.[47]

Discussion ofthe optimal-ity of severalstrategies tooptimally allo-cate additionalresources ina businessprocess

Algorithms Example of a telephone operator company

Specialist–general-ist

↘ Time(specialist),↗ 1exibility(generalist)

Unknown Poyssick andHannaford[38]

Guideline None None


Guideline None None


Guideline None None


Guidance onthe e>ect ofknowledge in-tensity on theoptimality ofthe processredesign

Queuing sys-tems and ten-dency graphs

None

Empower ↘ Time,↘ quality,↘ cost


Guideline None IBM credit. Specialist jobs such as credit checkerand pricer were combined into a single position“deal structurer”

Buzacott [36] Providesguidelineson e=ciencyof central-ized/decentralizedsystems

Formal mod-elsof central-ized/decentralizedsystems

None

Poyssick andHannaford[46]

H.A.Reijers,

S.Lim

anMansar/O

mega

33(2005)

283–306

291Rupp andRussell [39]

Guideline None None


Qualitativediscussionon impact ofcontrol coston delegatingwork or not

None None

Own experi-ence

Guideline None None

Controladdition

↗ Time,↗ quality,↘ cost

Unknown Poyssick andHannaford[46]

Guideline None None

Buzacott [36] Rules onwhere it isbest to check.

Queuingmodel

None


Guideline None Taco Bell eliminated some supervisory layers to givemore responsibility to restaurants managers leadingto a new job category the Market manager

Information Bu>ering ↘ Time,↗ cost

Unknown Own experi-ence

Guideline None None

Technology Task au-tomation

↘ Time,↗ quality,↘ 1exibility


Rules ofthumb forgreater successin automation.

Telephone-based businesses. Nissan uses a rule ofthumb of not automating dirty, di=cult or dangeroustasks


Guideline None Taco Bell: the Taco-making machine


Guideline None None

IntegralBusinessProcessTechnol-ogy

↗ Quality↘ cost,↘time

Unknown Klein [35] Guideline I & T Loews corporation (chain of movie theatres) intro-duced TeleDlm and Teleticket services


A chapter withexamples onthe enablingrole of IT

I & T Shared databases, expert systems, telecommunica-tions networks, etc.


Guideline None None


Guideline None None


Guideline i.e. work1owpackages

Computerization of documents

292 H.A. Reijers, S. Liman Mansar /Omega 33 (2005) 283–306T

able

1(con

tinu

ed)

Fram

ewor

kR

ule

Impa

ctL

imits

Ref

erre

dT

echn

ique

Too

lA

pplic

atio

nel

emen

tsna

me

onB

Pto

byus

edav

aila

bilit

yex

ampl

es

Ext

erna

len

vi-

ronm

ent

Tru

sted

part

y↘

Cos

t,↘

time

Ow

nex

peri

-en

ceG

uide

line

Non

eT

hecr

editw

orth

ines

sof

acu

stom

er

Out

sour

cing

↘C

ost,

↘Q

ualit

y.K

lein

[35]

Gui

delin

eN

one

Non

e

Ham

mer

and

Cha

mpy

[6]

Gui

delin

eN

one

Tac

oB

ell,

the

K-M

inus

syst

em(K

itche

nles

sre

stau

rant

)Po

yssi

ckan

dH

anna

ford

[46]

Gui

delin

eN

one

Non

e

Inte

rfac

ing

↘C

ost,

↗qu

ality

,↘

time.

Poys

sick

and

Han

nafo

rd[4

6]

Gui

delin

eN

one

Non

e

Ham

mer

and

Cha

mpy

[6]

Gui

delin

eT

echn

olog

yIn

tera

ctiv

evi

deod

isk

may

beas

good

cont

act

with

apo

tent

ial

buye

ras

any

pers

onal

cont

act

Customers

Products

Business Process

Participants Information Technology

Fig. 1. The WCA framework of Alter [19].

CIMOSA, a business process-centered method for enter-prise modeling distinguishes three modeling levels [20]:

• the requirements deDnition level: to represent the voiceof the users, i.e. what is needed as expressed in a detailedand unambiguous way in user-oriented language;

• the design speciDcation level: to formally deDne one ormore solutions satisfying the set of requirements and toanalyze their properties and to select the “best” one;

• the implementation description: to state in detail theimplementation solution taking into account technicalphysical constraints.

It is clear, according to this classiDcation and the nature ofBPR, that the business process framework we need is onthe design speciDcation level. Alter [19] suggests the use ofthe so-called work-centered analysis framework (WCA). Itconsists of six linked elements, the internal or external cus-tomers of the business process, the products (or services)generated by the business process, the steps in the businessprocess, the participants in the business process, the infor-mation the business process uses or creates and Dnally thetechnology the business process uses. Fig. 1 shows the linksbetween these elements.

This framework appears to be relevant for our purposebecause it dissociates the structure of the business processfrom the other “components” of a business process: the par-ticipants, the information and the technology. Indeed, asstated by Grant [21] it is a narrow view to only consider pro-cesses when depicting BPR; other important aspects of insti-tutions are also organizational structure, people, communi-cation and technology. The danger of adopting too narrow aview is that it misdirects developers to focus exclusively onprocesses while ignoring a variety of other possible reengi-neering opportunities that may result from a wider view.

A second argument for the relevance of such a frameworkfor our purpose is the emphasis on technology as a separatepart of the business process. In their paper, Gunasekaranand Nath [22] describe the advantages of integrating IT inBPR to improve the performance of manufacturing/service

H.A. Reijers, S. Liman Mansar /Omega 33 (2005) 283–306 293

companies. They also list suggestions on how technologycould be used to reengineer the business process. Anyway,the fundamental idea here is that it is advised to keep inmind what kind of IT is available and in which way it couldhelp improve the process.

Finally, Alter’s framework is consistent with theCIMOSA standard enterprise modeling views: CIMOSArecommends to consider a function view that addresses theenterprise functionality (i.e. what has to be done) and theenterprise behavior (i.e. in which order work has to bedone), an information view (i.e. what are the objects to beprocessed to be used), a resource view (i.e. who /what doeswhat) and an organization view (i.e. organization entitiesand their relationships, who is responsible of what or whom,who has authority on what, people empowerment, etc.).

Compared to Alter’s framework, it is clear that the di>er-ence with CIMOSA views is in the “Technology” dimen-sion, as it is not mentioned in CIMOSA.

Another framework has been presented by Jablonski andBussler [23] in the context of work1ow management. Vander Aalst and Berens [24] see awork@ow as a speciDc type ofbusiness process: it delivers services or informational prod-ucts. Jablonski and Bussler provide the MOBILE model forwork1ows, which is split into two categories of perspectives:the factual perspectives and the systemic perspectives. Theformer determine the contents of a work1ow model and thelatter the enactment of work1ow descriptions. We are ob-viously interested in the factual perspectives of the MO-BILE work1ow model. Essentially Dve perspectives aredescribed:

• the function perspective: what has to be executed?,• the operation perspective: how is a work1ow operation

implemented?,• the behavior perspective: when is a work1ow executed?,• the information perspective: what data are consumed and

produced?.• the organization perspective: who has to execute a work-

1ow or a work1ow application?

The operation and the behavior perspectives can be consid-ered as a more detailed view of the business process as itis deDned in Alter’s WCA framework. Moreover, the au-thors distinguish in the organization perspective (compa-rable to “participants”) two parts, the organization struc-ture (elements: roles, users, groups, departments, etc.) andthe organization population (individuals: agents which canhave tasks assigned for execution and relationships betweenthem), which clariDes the participants dimension.

Seidmann and Sundarajan [25] have worked on the e>ectsof some best practices on work1ow redesign. In this contextthey have developed a process description based on fourclasses of parameters:

• work system details, including the sequencing of tasks,the task consolidation and the scheduling of jobs.

Organisation-Structure-Population

Information Technology

i i l

Customers

Products

Organisation-Structure-Population

Information TechnologyTechnology

EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

Operation view

Business process

Behavioural view

Fig. 2. Final framework for BPR.

• job details, including the number of tasks in a job, therelative size of tasks, the nature of tasks and the degreeof customization.

• administrative variables, including the decision rights, theperformance measures and the compensation schemes.

• information and technology variables, including theknowledge intensity, the information symmetry and theinformation sharing.

The Drst two classes of parameters are sensibly close to theoperation and behavior perspectives described by Jablon-ski and Bussler [23]. The third class is related to humanresources management and the last class is related to thetechnology dimension as mentioned in the WCA frameworkof Alter [19]. Seidmann and Sundarajan [25] do not addany new view to the business process redesign framework.However, they use and describe detailed parameters that areworth to be considered in a BPR e>ort.

So Dnally, in the context of BPR, the extended frameworkof Fig. 2 is derived as a synthesis of the WCA framework[19], the MOBILE work1ow model [23], the CIMOSA en-terprise modeling views [20] and the process descriptionclasses of Seidmann and Sundarajan [25].

In this framework, six elements are linked:

• the internal or external customers of the businessprocess,

• the products (or services) generated by the businessprocess,

• the business process with two views,(a) the operation view: how is a work1ow operation

implemented? (number of tasks in a job, relativesize of tasks, nature of tasks, degree of customiza-tion), and


(b) the behavior view: when is a work1ow executed?(sequencing of tasks, task consolidation, schedul-ing of jobs, etc.),

• the participants in the business process considering:(a) the organization structure (elements: roles, users,

groups, departments, etc.) and(b) the organization population (individuals: agents

which can have tasks assigned for execution andrelationships between them),

• the information the business process uses or creates,• the technology the business process uses and Dnally,• the external environment other than the customers.

This framework will be used to classify the best practicesfor BPR that we will identify in Section four. But prior tothat we present in the following an evaluation frameworkthat helps assessing the e>ects of the best practices on theredesigned business process.

3. Evaluation framework

Brand and Van der Kolk [11] distinguish four main di-mensions in the e>ects of redesign measures: time, cost,quality and 1exibility. Ideally, a redesign of a business pro-cess decreases the time required to handle an order, it de-creases the required cost of executing the business pro-cess, it improves the quality of the service delivered andit improves the ability of the business process to react tovariation. The attractive property of their model is that, ingeneral, improving upon one dimension may have a weak-ening e>ect on another. For example, reconciliation tasksmay be added in a business process to improve on the qual-ity of the delivered service, but this may have a drawbackon the timeliness of the service delivery. To signify the dif-Dcult trade-o>s that sometimes have to be made they referto their model as the devil’s quadrangle. It is depicted inFig. 3.

Awareness of the trade-o> that underlies a redesign mea-sure is very important in the redesign of a business process.Sometimes, the e>ect of a redesign measure may be that theresult from some point of view is worse than the existingbusiness process. Also, the application of several best prac-tices may result in the (partly) neutralization of the desirede>ects of each of the single measures.

Each of the four dimensions of the devil’s quadrangle maybe made operational in di>erent ways. For example, thereare several types of cost and even so many directions to fo-cus on when attempting to decrease cost. The translation ofthe general concepts time, cost, quality and 1exibility to amore precise meaning is context sensitive. The key perfor-mance indicators of an organization or—more directly—theperformance targets formulated for a redesign e>ort shouldideally be formulated as much more precise applications ofthe four named dimensions.

In our discussion of the e>ects of redesign measures wewill not try to assess their e>ectiveness in every thinkable

Quality

Time

Flixibility

Cost

Fig. 3. The devil’s quadrangle.

aspect of each of the four dimensions. We will focus onsome common and straightforward interpretations.

4. Best practices

Over the last 20 years, best practices have been col-lected and applied in various areas, such as business plan-ning, healthcare, manufacturing and the software develop-ment process (e.g. [26–29]). Although an ideal best practiceprescribes the best way to treat a particular problem that canbe replicated in any situation or setting, it is more fruitful tosee it as something that “needs to be adapted in skilfull waysin response to prevailing conditions” [27]. In this sectionwe describe such best practices, which can actually supportthe redesigner of a business process in facing the technicalBPR challenge: the implementation of an improved processdesign. The presentation of these best practices especiallyaims at BPR e>orts where an existing business process istaken as basis for its redesign. A best practice can thenbe applied locally to boost the overall performance. Takingthe existing process as starting point contrasts sharply withthe so-called clean-sheet approaches, i.e., where the pro-cess is designed from scratch. There is considerable discus-sion in literature on the choice between these alternatives(see, e.g. [30]), but taking the existing process as a startingpoint is in practice the most common way of developing anew business process, as observed e.g. by Aldowaisan andGaafar [31].

The presented best practices in this paper are often de-rived from experience gained within large companies or byconsultancy Drms in BPR engagements. For example, the


best practices as proposed by Peppard and Rowland [32] arederived from experiences of the Toyota company. It shouldbe noted that many of the best practices lack an adequate(quantitative) support, as observed by, e.g. Van der Aalst[33]. Not every best practice that we encountered in our liter-ature survey is incorporated in this overview. Some of themproved to be more on the strategic level, e.g. on the selectionof products to be o>ered by a company, or were thought tobe of very limited general application, e.g. they were spe-ciDc for a certain industry. The presented best practices areuniversal in the sense that they are applicable within thecontext of any business process, regardless of the productor service delivered.

Improving a process can concern any of the componentsof the framework we adopted in Section 2. Thus, we classifythe best practices in a way that respects the framework wehave adopted. We identify best practices that are orientedtowards:

• Customers, which focus on improving contacts with cus-tomers.

• Business process operation, which focus on how to im-plement the work1ow,

• Business process behavior, which focus on when thework1ow is executed,

• Organization, which considers both the structure of theorganization (mostly the allocation of resources) and theresources involved (types and number).

• Information, which describes best practices related to theinformation the business process uses, creates, may useor may create.

• Technology, which describes best practices related to thetechnology the business process uses or may use.

• External environment, which try to improve uponthe collaboration and communication with the thirdparties

Note that this distinction is not mutually exclusive. There-fore, some best practices could have been assigned to morethan one of these classes.

From this classiDcation it is clear that product-orientedbest practices are not taken into account. This is relatedto the fact that a redesign focuses on already existingbusiness processes and not on the product to be pro-cessed. We believe that the early design of the processis strongly connected to the product, see our earlier pa-per [34]. Essentially, the paper describes a formal methodfor deriving a work1ow considering the structure of theproduct. The method is applied in the context of pro-cess design based on a clean-sheet approach, where theprior process is not taken into account. In the case ofa redesign, the derived work1ow can be considered asa Drst rough process to which the following best prac-tices can be further applied, thus allowing to take intoconsideration the lessons learnt form the past in theorganization.

4.1. Customer

4.1.1. Control relocation: ‘move controls towards thecustomer’

Di>erent checks and reconciliation operations that are partof a business process may be moved towards the customer.Klein [35] gives the example of PaciDc Bell that moved itsbilling controls towards its customers eliminating in this waythe bulk of its billing errors. It also improved customer’ssatisfaction. A disadvantage of moving a control towardsa customer is higher probability of fraud, resulting in lessyield.

This best practice is named by Klein [35].

4.1.2. Contact reduction: ‘reduce the number of contactswith customers and third parties’

The exchange of information with a customer or thirdparty is always time-consuming. Especially when informa-tion exchanges take place by regular mail, substantial waittimes may be involved. Also, each contact introduces thepossibility of intruding an error. Hammer and Champy [6]describe a case where the multitude of bills, invoices andreceipts creates a heavy reconciliation burden. Reducing thenumber of contacts may therefore decrease throughput timeand boost quality. Note that it is not always necessary toskip certain information exchanges, but that it is possible tocombine them with limited extra cost. A disadvantage of asmaller number of contacts might be the loss of essentialinformation, which is a quality issue. Combining contactsmay result in the delivery or receipt of too much data, whichinvolves cost.

This best practice is mentioned by Hammer and Champy[6]. Buzacott [7] has investigated this best practicequantitatively.

4.1.3. Integration: ‘consider the integration with abusiness process of the customer or a supplier’

This best practice can be seen as exploiting thesupply-chain concept known in production [37]. The ac-tual application of this best practice may take on di>erentforms. For example, when two parties have to agree upona product they jointly produce, it may be more e=cient toperform several intermediate reviews than performing onelarge review after both parties have completed their part.

In general, integrated business processes should render amore e=cient execution, both from a time and cost perspec-tive. The drawback of integration is that mutual dependencegrows and, therefore, 1exibility may decrease.

Both Klein [35] and Peppard and Rowland [32] mentionthis best practice (Fig. 4).

4.1.4. EvaluationUsing the evaluation framework as introduced in

Section 3, a summary of the general e>ects of the threecustomer best practices can be seen in Fig. 5.


321

321

Internal process

Client/supplier

Fig. 4. Integration.

TimeCost

Quality

Flexibility

Control relocation

Contact reduction

Integration

Fig. 5. Evaluation of customer best practices.

The gray square represents a neutral e>ect on all fourdistinguished dimensions. The e>ects of a best practice arerepresented by the other polygons. A positive (negative) ef-fect of a best practice on a speciDc dimension is signiDedby its corner extending beyond (staying within) the neutralsquare. For example, the integration best practice has posi-tive e>ects on the cost and time dimensions (i.e. it reducescost and time), a negative e>ect on the 1exibility (i.e. itreduces 1exibility) and a neutral e>ect on the quality. Alldepicted e>ects are scored on a relative scale.

4.2. Business process operation

4.2.1. Order types: ‘determine whether tasks are relatedto the same type of order and, if necessary, distinguishnew business processes’

Especially Berg and Pottjewijd [38] convincingly warnfor parts of business processes that are not speciDc for the

1 2 3

Fig. 6. Task elimination.

business process they are part of. Ignoring this phenomenonmay result in a less e>ective management of this ’sub1ow’and a lower e=ciency. Applying this best practice may yieldfaster processing times and less cost. Also, distinguishingcommon sub1ows of many di>erent 1ows may yield e=-ciency gains. Yet, it may also result in more coordinationproblems between the business process (quality) and lesspossibilities for rearranging the business process as a whole(1exibility).

This best practice has been mentioned in one formor another by Hammer and Champy [6], Rupp andRussell [39], Peppard and Rowland [32] and Berg andPottjewijd [38].

4.2.2. Task elimination: ‘eliminate unnecessary tasksfrom a business process’

A common way of regarding a task as unnecessary iswhen it adds no value from a customer’s point of view. Typ-ically, control tasks in a business process do not do this; theyare incorporated in the model to Dx problems created (ornot elevated) in earlier steps. Control tasks are often iden-tiDed by iterations. Tasks redundancy can also be consid-ered as a speciDc case of task elimination (Fig. 6). In orderto identify redundant tasks, Castano et al. [40] have devel-oped entity-based similarity coe=cients. They help automat-ically checking the degree of similarities between tasks (oractivities).

The aims of this best practice are to increase the speed ofprocessing and to reduce the cost of handling an order. Animportant drawback may be that the quality of the servicedeteriorates.

This best practice is widespread in literature, for example,see Peppard and Rowland [32] Berg and Pottjewijd [38] andVan der Aalst and Van Hee [41]. Buzacott [36] illustrates thequantitative e>ects of eliminating iterations with a simplemodel.

4.2.3. Order-based work: ‘consider removingbatch-processing and periodic activities from a businessprocess’

Some notable examples of disturbances in handling a sin-gle order are: (a) its piling up in a batch and (b) periodicactivities, e.g. because processing depends on a computersystem that is only available at speciDc times. Getting ridof these constraints may signiDcantly speed up the handlingof individual orders. On the other hand, e=ciencies of scalecan be reached by batch processing. Also, the cost of makinginformation systems permanently available may be costly.


1

2

3

Fig. 7. Triage.

This best practice results from our own reengineeringexperience.

4.2.4. Triage: ‘consider the division of a general task intotwo or more alternative tasks’ or ‘consider the integrationof two or more alternative tasks into one general task’

When applying this best practice in its Drst and most pop-ular form, it is possible to design tasks that are better alignedwith the capabilities of resources and the characteristics ofthe orders being processed (Fig. 7). Both interpretations im-prove upon the quality of the business process. Distinguish-ing alternative tasks also facilitates a better utilization of re-sources, with obvious cost and time advantages. On the otherhand, too much specialization can make processes becomeless 1exible, less e=cient, and cause monotonous work withrepercussions for quality.

An alternative form of the triage best practice is to dividea task into similar instead of alternative tasks for di>erentsubcategories of the orders being processed. For example,a special cash desk may be set up for customers with anexpected low processing time.

Note that this best practice is in some sense similar to theorder types best practice we mentioned in this section. Themain interpretation of the triage concept can be seen as atranslation of the order type best practice on a task level.

The triage concept is mentioned by Klein [35], Berg andPottjewijd [38] and Van der Aalst and Van Hee [41]. Zapfand Heinzl [42] show the positive e>ects of triage withinthe setting of a call center. Dewan et al. [43] study the im-pact of the triage on the organization in terms of cycle-timereduction.

4.2.5. Task composition: ‘combine small tasks intocomposite tasks and divide large tasks into workablesmaller tasks’

Combining tasks should result in the reduction of setuptimes, i.e., the time that is spent by a resource to becomefamiliar with the speciDcs of a order. By executing a largetask which used to consist of several smaller ones, somepositive e>ect may also be expected on the quality of thedelivered work. On the other hand, making tasks too largemay result in (a) smaller run-time 1exibility and (b) lowerquality as tasks become unworkable. Both e>ects are exactlycountered by dividing tasks into smaller ones. Obviously,smaller tasks may also result in longer setup times (Fig. 8).

1 + 2 3

Fig. 8. Task composition.

TimeCost

Quality

Flexibility

Case types

Task elimination

Case-based work

Fig. 9. Evaluation of business process operation best practices (I).

This best practice is related to the triage best practice inthe sense that they both are concerned with the division andcombination of tasks.

It is probably the most cited best practice, mentioned byHammer and Champy [6], Rupp and Russell [39], Peppardand Rowland [32], Berg and Pottjewijd [38], Seidmann andSundararajan [25], Reijers and Goverde [44], Van der Aalst[45] and Van der Aalst and Van Hee [41]. Some of theseauthors only consider one part of this best practice, e.g. com-bining smaller tasks into one. Buzacott [36], Seidmann andSundararajan [25] and Van der Aalst [45] provide quantita-tive support for the optimality of this best practice for simplemodels.

4.2.6. EvaluationThe assessment of the best practices that aim at the busi-

ness process operation is summarized in Figs. 9 and 10.The meaning of the shapes in these Dgures is similar to

that of the shapes in Fig. 5.

4.3. Business process behavior

4.3.1. Resequencing: ‘move tasks to more appropriateplaces’

In existing business processes, actual tasks orderingsdo not reveal the necessary dependencies between tasks


TimeCost

Quality

Flexibility

Triage

Task composition(larger tasks)

Fig. 10. Evaluation of business process operation best practices(II).

3 1 2

Fig. 11. Resequencing.

(Fig. 11). Sometimes it is better to postpone a task if it isnot required for immediately following tasks, so that per-haps its execution may prove to become super1uous. Thissaves cost. Also, a task may be moved into the proximityof a similar task, in this way diminishing setup times.

The resequencing best practice is mentioned as such byKlein [35]. It is also known as ’process order optimization’.

4.3.2. Knock-out: ‘order knock-outs in a decreasingorder of eCort and in an increasing order of terminationprobability’

A typical part of a business process is the checking ofvarious conditions that must be satisDed to deliver a positiveend result. Any condition that is not met may lead to a ter-mination of that part of the business process: the knock-out(Fig. 12). If there is freedom in choosing the order in whichthe various conditions are checked, the condition that hasthe most favorable ratio of expected knock-out probabil-ity versus the expected e>ort to check the condition shouldbe pursued. Next, the second best condition, etc. This wayof ordering checks yields on average the least costly busi-ness process execution. There is no obvious drawback onthis best practice, although it may not always be possible tofreely order these kinds of checks. Also, implementing thisbest practice may result in a (part of a) business process that

21 3

Fig. 12. Knock-out.

1

2

3

Fig. 13. Parallelism.

takes a longer throughput time than a full parallel checkingof all conditions.

The knock-out best practice is a speciDc form of theresequencing best practice. Van der Aalst [45] mentionsthis best practice and also gives quantitative support for itsoptimality.

4.3.3. Parallelism: ‘consider whether tasks may beexecuted in parallel’

The obvious e>ect of putting tasks in parallel is that thethroughput time may be considerably reduced (Fig. 13).The applicability of this best practice in business processredesign is large. In practical experiences we have had withanalyzing existing business process, tasks were mostly or-dered sequentially without the existence of hard logical re-strictions prescribing such an order.

A drawback of introducing more parallelism in a businessprocess that incorporates possibilities of knock-outs is thatthe cost of business process execution may increase. Also,the management of business processes with concurrent be-havior can become more complex, which may introduce er-rors (quality) or restrict run-time adaptations (1exibility).

The parallelism best practice is a speciDc form of theresequencing best practice we mentioned at the start of thissection. It is mentioned by Rupp and Russell [39], Buzacott[36], Berg and Pottjewijd [38] and Van der Aalst and VanHee [41]. Van der Aalst [45] provides quantitative supportfor this best practice.

4.3.4. Exception: ‘design business processes for typicalorders and isolate exceptional orders from normal @ow’

Exceptions may seriously disturb normal operations. Anexception, will require workers to get acquainted with thespeciDcs of the exception, although they may not be able tohandle it. Setup times are then wasted. Isolating exceptions,for example by a triage, will make the handling of normalorders more e=cient. Isolating exceptions may possibly in-crease the overall performance as speciDc expertise can be

hreijers

Text Box

4.3.2. Knock-out: ‘order knock-outs in an increasing order of effort and in a decreasing order of termination probability'


TimeCost

Quality

Flexibility

Resequencing

Parellellism

Knock-out

Exception

Fig. 14. Evaluation of business process behavior best practices.

321

Fig. 15. Order assignment.

build up by workers working on the exceptions. The pricepaid is that the business process will become more com-plex, possibly decreasing its 1exibility. Also, if no specialknowledge is developed to handle the exceptions (which iscostly) no major improvements are likely to occur.

This best practice is mentioned by Poyssick and Han-naford [46] and Hammer and Champy [6].

4.3.5. EvaluationThe assessment of the best practices that target the be-

havior of the business process can be seen in Fig. 14.The meaning of the shapes in these Dgures is similar to

that of the shapes in Fig. 5.

4.4. Organization

4.4.1. Structure4.4.1.1. Order assignment: ‘let workers perform as manysteps as possible for single orders’ (see Fig. 15). By usingorder assignment in the most extreme form, for each taskexecution the resource is selected from the ones capableof performing it that has worked on the order before—ifany. The obvious advantage of this best practice is that thisperson will get acquainted with the case and will need lesssetup time. An additional beneDt may be that the quality ofservice is increased. On the negative side, the 1exibility of

resource allocation is seriously reduced. The execution ofan order may experience substantial queue time when theperson to whom it is assigned is not available.

The order assignment best practice is described by Ruppand Russell [39], Hammer and Champy [6], Reijers andGoverde [44] and Van der Aalst and Van Hee [41].

4.4.1.2. Flexible assignment: ‘assign resources in such away that maximal @exibility is preserved for the near fu-ture’. For example, if a task can be executed by either oftwo available resources, assign it to the most specialized re-source. In this way, the possibilities to have the free, moregeneral resource execute another task are maximal.

The advantage of this best practice is that the overallqueue time is reduced: it is less probable that the executionof an order has to await the availability of a speciDc resource.Another advantage is that the workers with the highest spe-cialization can be expected to take on most of the work,which may result in a higher quality. The disadvantages ofthis best practice can be diverse. For example, work loadmay become unbalanced resulting in less job satisfaction.Also, possibilities for specialists to evolve into generalistsare reduced.

This best practice is mentioned by Van der Aalst andVan Hee [41].

4.4.1.3. Centralization: ‘treat geographically dispersedresources as if they are centralized’. This best practice isexplicitly aimed at exploiting the beneDts of a Work1owManagement System or WfMS for short [23]. After all,when a WfMS takes care of assigning work to resources ithas become less relevant where these resources are locatedgeographically. In this sense, this best practice is a specialform of the integral technology best practice (see Section4.6). The speciDc advantage of this measure is that resourcescan be committed more 1exibly, which gives a better uti-lization and possibly a better throughput time. The disad-vantages are similar to that of the integral technology bestpractice.

This best practice is mentioned by Van der Aalst and VanHee [41].

4.4.1.4. Split responsibilities: ‘avoid assignment of task re-sponsibilities to people from diCerent functional units’ (seeFig. 16). The idea behind this best practice is that tasks forwhich di>erent departments share responsibility are morelikely to be a source of neglect and con1ict. Reducing theoverlap in responsibilities should lead to a better qualityof task execution. Also, a higher responsiveness to avail-able work may be developed so that customers are servedquicker. On the other hand, reducing the e>ective numberof resources that is available for a work item may have anegative e>ect on its throughput time, as more queuing mayoccur.

This speciDc best practice is mentioned by Rupp andRussell [39] and Berg and Pottjewijd [38].


321

Fig. 16. Split responsibilities.

321

Fig. 17. Numerical involvement.

4.4.1.5. Customer teams: ‘consider assigning teams out ofdiCerent departmental workers that will take care of thecomplete handling of speciDc sorts of orders′. This bestpractice is a variation of the order assignment best prac-tice. Depending on its exact desired form, the customerteam best practice may be implemented by the order as-signment best practice. Also, a customer team may involvemore workers with the same qualiDcations, in this way re-laxing the strict requirements of the order assignment bestpractice.

Advantages and disadvantages are similar to those of theorder assignment best practices. In addition, work as a teammay improve the attractiveness of the work and a betterunderstanding, which are both quality aspects.

This best practice is mentioned by Peppard and Row-land [32], Hammer and Champy [6] and Berg andPottjewijd [38].

4.4.1.6. Numerical involvement: ‘minimize the number ofdepartments, groups and persons involved in a businessprocess’ (see Fig. 17). Applying this best practice shouldlead to less coordination problems. Less time spent of co-ordination makes more time available for the processing oforders. Reducing the number of departments may lead toless split responsibilities, with similar pros and cons as thesplit responsibilities best practice. In addition, smaller num-bers of specialized units may prohibit the build of expertise(a quality issue) and routine (a cost issue).

This best practice is described by Hammer andChampy [6], Rupp and Russell [39] and Berg andPottjewijd [38].

4.4.1.7. Case manager: ‘appoint one person as responsiblefor the handling of each type of order, the case manager’.The case manager is responsible for a speciDc order or cus-tomer, but he or she is not necessarily the (only) resource

that will work on it. The di>erence with the order assign-ment practice is that the emphasis is on management of theprocess and not on its execution.

The most important aim of the best practice is to improveupon the external quality of a business process. The businessprocess will become more transparent from the viewpointof a customer as the case manager provides a single pointof contact. This positively a>ects customer satisfaction. Itmay also have a positive e>ect on the internal quality of thebusiness process, as someone is accountable for correctingmistakes. Obviously, the assignment of a case manager hasDnancial consequences as capacity must be devoted to thisjob.

This best practice is mentioned by Hammer and Champy[6] and Van der Aalst and Van Hee [41]. Buzacott [36] hasprovided some quantitative support for a speciDc interpre-tation of this best practice.

4.4.1.8. Evaluation. The assessment of the best practicesfor the structure of the organization is depicted in Figs. 18and 19.

4.4.2. PopulationExtra resources: ‘if capacity is not suEcient, consider

increasing the number of resources′ (see Fig. 20). Thisstraightforward best practice speaks for itself. The obviouse>ect of extra resources is that there is more capacity forhandling orders, in this way reducing queue time. It mayalso help to implement a more 1exible assignment policy.Of course, hiring or buying extra resources has its cost.Note the contrast of this best practice with the numericalinvolvement best practice.

This best practice is mentioned by Berg and Pottjewijd[38]. Van Hee et al. [47] discuss the optimality of severalstrategies to optimally allocate additional resources in a busi-ness process.

4.4.2.1. Specialist-generalist: ‘consider to make resourcesmore specialized or more generalist’ (see Fig. 21). Re-sources may be turned from specialists into generalists orthe other way round. A specialist resource can be trainedfor other qualiDcations; a generalist may be assigned to thesame type of work for a longer period of time, so that hisother qualiDcations become obsolete. When the redesign ofa new business process is considered, application of this bestpractice comes down to considering the specialist–general-ist ratio of new hires.

A specialist builds up routine more quickly and may havea more profound knowledge than a generalist. As a resulthe or she works quicker and delivers higher quality. On theother hand, the availability of generalists adds more 1exi-bility to the business process and can lead to a better utiliza-tion of resources. Depending on the degree of specializa-tion or generalization, either type of resource may be morecostly.


TimeCost

Quality

Flexibility

Case assignment

Flexible assignment

Centralization

Split responsibilities

Fig. 18. Evaluation of organization structure best practices (I).

TimeCost

Quality

Flexibility

Customer teams

Numericalinvolvement

Case manager

Fig. 19. Evaluation of organization structure best practices (II).

321

Fig. 20. Extra resources.

Note that this best practice di>ers from the triage con-cept in the sense that the focus is not on the division oftasks.

Fig. 21. Specialist-generalist.

Fig. 22. Empower.

Poyssick and Hannaford [4] and Berg and Pottjewijd [38]stress the advantages of generalists. Rupp and Russell [39],Seidmann and Sundararajan [25] mention both specialistsand generalists.

4.4.2.2. Empower: ‘give workers most of the decision-making authority and reduce middle management’. Intraditional business processes, substantial time may be spenton authorizing work that has been done by others. Whenworkers are empowered to take decisions independently,it may result in smoother operations with lower through-put times. The reduction of middle management from thebusiness process also reduces the labor cost spent on theprocessing of orders. A drawback may be that the quality ofthe decisions is lower and that obvious errors are no longerfound. If bad decisions or errors result in rework, the costof handling a order may actually increase compared to theoriginal situation (Fig. 22).

This best practice is named by Hammer and Champy [6],Rupp and Russell [39], Seidmann and Sundarajan [25] andPoyssick and Hannaford [4]. Buzacott [36] shows with asimple quantitative model that this best practice may indeedincrease performance.

4.4.2.3. Evaluation. The assessment of the best practicesfor the organization population is given in Fig. 23.

Note that only one of the two interpretations of the spe-cialist–generalist best practice is shown in Fig. 23.

4.5. Information

4.5.1. Control addition: ‘check the completeness andcorrectness of incoming materials and check the outputbefore it is send to customers’

This best practice promotes the addition of controls toa business process. It may lead to a higher quality of thebusiness process execution and, as a result, to less requiredrework (Fig. 24). Obviously, an additional control will re-quire time and will absorb resources. Note the contrast ofthe intent of this best practice with that of the task elimi-


TimeCost

Quality

Flexibility

Extra resources

Specialist-generalist(more specialists)

Empower

Fig. 23. Evaluation of organization population best practices.

1 2

Fig. 24. Control addition.

Fig. 25. Bu>ering.

nation best practice, which is a business process operationbest practice (see Section 4.2).

This best practice is mentioned by Poyssick and Han-naford [4], Hammer and Champy [6] and Buzacott [36].

4.5.2. BuCering: ‘instead of requesting information froman external source, buCer it by subscribing to updates’

Obtaining information from other parties is a majortime-consuming part in many business process (Fig. 25).By having information directly available when it is re-quired, throughput times may be substantially reduced.This best practice can be compared to the caching principlemicroprocessors apply. Of course, the subscription fee forinformation updates may be rather costly. This is especiallyso when we consider information sources that contain farmore information than is ever used. Substantial cost mayalso be involved with storing all the information.

Note that this best practice is a weak form of the inte-gration best practice (see Section 4.1). Instead of direct ac-cess to the original source of information—which the inte-

TimeCost

Quality

Flexibility

Control addition

Buffering

Fig. 26. Evaluation of information best practices.

gration with a third party may come down to—a copy ismaintained.

This best practice follows from our own reengineeringexperience.

4.5.2.1. Evaluation. A summary of the e>ects of the in-formation best practices is given in Fig. 26.

4.6. Technology

4.6.1. Task automation: ‘consider automating tasks’A particular positive result of automating tasks may be

that tasks can be executed faster, with less cost, and with abetter result. An obvious disadvantage is that the develop-ment of a system that performs a task may be very costly.Generally speaking, a system performing a task is also less1exible in handling variations than a human resource. In-stead of fully automating a task, an automated support ofthe resource executing the task may also be considered. AsigniDcant application of the task automation best practiceis the business process perspective of e-commerce: As citedby Gunasekaran et al. [48] and deDned by Kalakota andWhinston [49] e-commerce can be seen as the application oftechnology towards the automation of business transactionsand work1ows.

This best practice is speciDcally mentioned as a redesignmeasure by Peppard and Rowland [32], Hammer andChampy [6] and Berg and Pottjewijd [38].

4.6.2. Integral technology: ‘try to elevate physicalconstraints in a business process by applying newtechnology’

In general, new technology can o>er all kinds of posi-tive e>ects. For example, the application of a WfMS may


TimeCost

Quality

Flexibility

Task automation

Integral technology(WfMS)

Fig. 27. Evaluation of technology best practices.

result in less time that is spend on logistical tasks. A Doc-ument Management System will open up the informationavailable on orders to all participants, which may result ina better quality of service. New technology can also changethe traditional way of doing business by giving participantscompletely new possibilities.

The purchase, development, implementation, trainingand maintenance e>orts related to technology are obviouslycostly. In addition, new technology may arouse fear withworkers or may result in other subjective e>ects; this maydecrease the quality of the business process.

This best practice is mentioned by Klein [35], Peppardand Rowland [32], Berg and Pottjewijd [38] and Van derAalst and Van Hee [41].

4.6.3. EvaluationThe discussed e>ects of both technology best practices

can be seen in Fig. 27.Note that to give an idea of the diverse e>ects of the best

practice, the e>ects of a WfMS have been depicted as anexample.

4.7. External environment

4.7.1. Trusted party: ‘instead of determining informationoneself, use results of a trusted party’

Some decisions or assessments that are made within busi-ness process are not speciDc for the business process theyare part of. Other parties may have determined the sameinformation in another context, which—if it were known—could replace the decision or assessment. An example isthe creditworthiness of a customer that bank A wants to es-tablish. If a customer can present a recent creditworthinesscertiDcate of bank B, then bank A will accept it. Obviously,

Fig. 28. Interfacing.

the trusted party best practice reduces cost and may evencut back throughput time. On the other hand, the quality ofthe business process becomes dependent upon the qualityof some other party’s work. Some coordination e>ort withtrusted parties is also likely to be required, which diminishes1exibility.

This best practice is di>erent from the bu>ering best prac-tice (see Section 4.5), because the business process owneris not the one obtaining the information.

This best practice results from our own reengineeringexperience.

4.7.2. Outsourcing: ‘consider outsourcing a businessprocess in whole or parts of it’

Another party may be more e=cient in performing thesame work, so it might as well perform it for one’s ownbusiness process.

The obvious aim of outsourcing work is that it willgenerate less cost. A drawback may be that qualitydecreases. Outsourcing also requires more coordina-tion e>orts and will make the business process morecomplex.

Note that this best practice di>ers from the trusted partybest practice. When outsourcing, a task is executed at runtime by another party. The trusted party best practice allowsfor the use of a result in the (recent) past.

This best practice is mentioned by Klein [35], Hammerand Champy [6] and Poyssick and Hannaford [4].

4.7.3. Interfacing: ‘consider a standardized interface withcustomers and partners’

The idea behind this best practice is that a standardizedinterface will diminish the probability of mistakes, incom-plete applications, unintelligible communications, etc. (Fig.28). A standardized interface may result in less errors (qual-ity), faster processing (time) and less rework (cost).

The interfacing best practice can be seen a speciDc inter-pretation of the integration best practice, although it is notspeciDcally aimed at customers.

This best practice is mentioned by Hammer and Champy[6] and Poyssick and Hannaford [4].

4.7.4. EvaluationThe discussed e>ects of the external party best practices

can be seen in Fig. 29.


TimeCost

Quality

Flexibility

Trusted party

Outsourcing

Interfacing

Fig. 29. Evaluation of external party best practices.

5. Conclusion

In this paper we have dealt with the best practices inimplementing BPR. A framework for classifying the bestpractices was given. It is the result of the experience of otherauthors mixed with our own experience. It helps structuringthe implementation of a BPR initiative. In this framework wehave described 29 best practices and evaluated qualitativelytheir impact on the cost, quality, 1exibility and time criteriaas deDned by Brand and van der Kolk [11].

In Table 1 we summarize within our framework for BPRthe best practices’ impact and authors’ contribution to theirapplication. Examples from real cases are also given if avail-able. The table shows that the best practices have been ap-plied to several types of industries, ranging from the ac-counts’ department at Ford industries to Fast foods, healthsector organizations (Baxter health care), some manufactur-ing processes (Toyota, a furniture factory, a semi-conductorsmanufacturer), IBM credit insurance processes and variousother administrative processes. Despite this wide range ofapplications, and our personal experience in applying theserules in service contexts (i.e. invoice processing and pur-chasing), we believe there is still a need to further investi-gate the impact and relevance of each best practice to spe-ciDc industrial segments. One recent approach in this area isby MacIntosh [50], who compares private and public sectorBPR applications. These applications cover some of the bestpractices we discussed in this paper (integral business pro-cess technology, task automation, contact reduction, etc.).MacIntosh [50] does not question the appropriateness of thesolutions in the separate industrial segments, but stressesdi>erences with respect to behavioral issues.

On another level, Table 1 clearly shows that—except forthe contributions of Buzacott [36], Seidmann and Sundara-

jan [25], Dewan et al. [43] and Van der Aalst [45] to somebest practices—most of the best practices lack the supportof an analytical or empirical study. Additional work shouldpoint out the conditions or domain validity where a bestpractice would give the expected results in terms of cost/timereduction or quality/1exibility improvement.

This introduces the future research directions for thispaper, which are:

• At Drst, to further validate our BPR framework and setof best practices through an extensive survey amongstconsultants and through real case studies. The survey aimsat further identifying the most used best practices andthe framework’s elements that are crucial for BPR. Casestudies would give further insight into how the frameworkcan be used during a BPR implementation.

• Then to investigate for all best practices when, where andhow to apply or not apply them. This part is concernedwith giving indications to the size of the business processor the tasks involved. Also, it should study the relativeimpact of best practices on a business process. In thisarea, Foster [51] assessed the impact of BPR (essentiallyorganizational automation impacts) in a hospital usingbase lining. Also, Seidmann and Sundarajan [52] studiedthe popular combination of the empower and the triagebest practices (leading to decentralization and task consol-idation). They proved, using mathematical models, thatthis combination is sub-optimal in many cases.

• At last, to provide users with a methodology in applyingbest practices. This includes the classiDcation of the bestpractices within the framework for BPR implementationas a basis (which was one of the purposes of this paper)and as a guideline to the order/conditions in which thebest practices should be implemented. Of course, severalauthors have already investigated this area. Harrington[53] provided a streamlining of business process redesignrules. Kettinger and Teng [54] provide a frameworkfor analyzing BPR in conjunction with several strategicdimensions. However, these approaches lack the set ofmeasures and guidelines to the application of the bestpractices.

We believe that in presenting in this paper the best practicestogether with their qualitative assessments we provide sup-port to the practitioner of BPR dealing with the mechanicsof the process. The best practices may be used as a check-list with (limited) additional guidance for the applicationof each of these, so that a favorable redesign of a businessprocess becomes feasible. The checklist should be incorpo-rated within a BPR methodology that addresses managerialaspects as well. One suggestion would be to use the Dvethemes listed by Maull et al. [55] that lead to e>ective BPRimplementation: integrating the business strategy, integrat-ing performance measurement, creating business process ar-chitectures, involving human and organizational factors andidentifying the role of information and technology.


References

[1] Manganelli R, Klein M. The reengineering handbook: astep-by-step guide to business transformation. New York:American Management Association; 1994.

[2] Carr D, Johansson H. Best practices in reengineering. NewYork: McGraw-Hill Editions; 1995.

[3] Galliers R. Against obliteration: reducing risk in businessprocess change. In: Sauer C, Yetton P, editors. Steps tothe future: fresh thinking on the management of IT-basedorganizational transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass;1997. p. 169–86.

[4] Grover V, Jeong SR, Kettinger WJ, Teng JTC. Theimplementation of business process reengineering. Journal ofManagement Information Systems 1995;12(1):109–44.

[5] Kettinger WJ, Teng JTC, Guha S. Business process change: astudy of methodologies, techniques, and tools. MIS Quarterly1997;21(1):55–80.

[6] Hammer M, Champy J. Reengineering the corporation: amanifesto for business revolution. New York: Harper BusinessEditions; 1993.

[7] Gerrits H. Business modeling based on logistics to supportbusiness process re-engineering. In: Glasson BC et al.,editors. Business process re-engineering: information systemsopportunities and challenges. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science;1994. p. 279–88.

[8] Motwani J, Kumar A, Jiang J. Business processreengineering: a theoretical framework and an integratedmodel. International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement 1998;18(9/10):964–77.

[9] Valiris G, Glykas M. Critical review of existing BPRmethodologies. Business Process Management Journal1999;5(1):65–86.

[10] Sharp A, McDermott P. Work1ow modeling: tools for processimprovement and application development. Boston: ArtechHouse Publishers; 2001.

[11] Brand N, van der Kolk H. Work1ow analysis and design.Deventer: Kluwer Bedrijfswetenschappen, 1995 [in Dutch].

[12] Schonberger RJ. World class manufacturing: the lessons ofsimplicity applied. New York: Free Press; 1986.

[13] Stalk GH, Hout TM. Competing against time: how time basedcompetition is re-shaping global markets. New York: FreePress; 1990.

[14] Womack JP, Jones DT. Lean thinking: banish waste and createwealth in your corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster;1996.

[15] Goldratt EM. What is this thing called theory of constraintsand how should it be implemented?. New York: North RiverPress; 1990.

[16] Goldratt EM, Cox J. The goal. New York: North River Press;1992.

[17] Goldman SL, Nagel RN, Preiss K. Agile competitors andvirtual organisations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold;1995.

[18] Jones C, Medlen N, Merlo C, Robertson M, ShepherdsonJ. The lean enterprise. BT Technology Journal 1999;17(4):15–22.

[19] Alter S. Information systems: a management perspective.Amsterdam: Addison Wesley; 1999.

[20] Berio G, Vernadat F. Enterprise modeling with CIMOSA:functional and organizational aspects. Production Planning &Control 2001;12(2):128–36.

[21] Grant D. A wider view of business process reengineering.Communications of the ACM 2002;45(2):85–90.

[22] Gunasekaran A, Nath B. The role of information technologyin business process reengineering. International Journal ofProduction Economics 1997;50(1/2):91–104.

[23] Jablonski S, Bussler C. Work1ow management:modeling concepts, architecture and implementation. London:International Thomson Computer Press; 1996.

[24] Van der Aalst WMP, Berens PJS. Beyond work1owmanagement: product-driven case handling. In: Ellis S etal., editors. International ACM SIGGROUP Conference onSupporting Group Work (GROUP 2001). New York: ACMPress; 2001. p. p42–51.

[25] Seidmann A, Sundararajan A. The e>ects of task andinformation asymmetry on business process redesign. Inter-national Journal of Production Economics 1997;50(2/3):117–28.

[26] Martin J. The best practice of business. London: John MartinPublishing; 1978.

[27] Butler P. A strategic framework for health promotionin Darebin. A report to the East Preston and Northcotecommunity health centers by the center for development andinnovation in health, center for development and innovationin health, Melbourne, Australia, March 1996.

[28] Golovin J. Achieving stretch goals: best practices inmanufacturing for the new millennium. New York:Prentice-Hall Editions; 1997.

[29] Software Program Managers Network (SPMN).Sixteen critical software practices for performance-basedmanagement, 1999. hhtp://www.spmn.com/critical softwarepractices.html.

[30] O’Neill P, Sohal AS. Business process reengineering: a reviewof recent literature. Technovation 1999;19(9):571–81.

[31] Aldowaisan TA, Gaafar LK. Business process reengineering:an approach for process mapping. Omega 1999;27(5):515–24.

[32] Peppard J, Rowland P. The essence of business processreengineering. New York: Prentice-Hall Editions; 1995.

[33] Van der Aalst WMP. Work1ow veriDcation: Dndingcontrol-1ow errors using Petri-net-based techniques. In: Vander Aalst WMP et al., editors. Business process management:models, techniques, and empirical studies. Lecture notesin computer science, vol. 1806. Berlin: Springer; 2000.p. p161–83.

[34] Reijers HA, Limam S, Van der Aalst WMP. Product-basedwork1ow design. Journal of Management InformationSystems 2003;20(1):229–62.

[35] Klein M. 10 principles of reengineering. Executive Excellence1995;12(2):20.

[36] Buzacott JA. Commonalities in reengineered businessprocesses: models and issues. Management Science1996;42(5):768–82.

[37] Oliver RK, Webber MD, Supply-chain management: logisticscatches up with strategy. In: Christopher M. editor. Logistics:the strategic issues. London: Chapman & Hall; 1982.p. 63–75.

[38] Berg A, Pottjewijd P. Work1ow: continuous improvementby integral process management. Schoonhoven: AcademicService; 1997 [in Dutch].

[39] Rupp RO, Russell JR. The golden rules of process redesign.Quality Progress 1994;27(12):85–92.

http://hhtp://www.spmn.com/critical_software_practices.html.

http://hhtp://www.spmn.com/critical_software_practices.html.


[40] Castano S, de Antonellis V, Melchiori M. A methodology andtool environment for process analysis and reengineering. Data& Knowledge Engineering 1999;31:253–78.

[41] Van der Aalst WMP, Van Hee KM. Work1ow management:models, methods, and systems. Cambridge: MIT PressEditions; 2002.

[42] Zapf M, Heinzl A. Evaluation of generic process designpatterns: an experimental study. In: Van der Aalst WMP etal., editors. Business process management. Lecture notes incomputer science, vol. 1806. Berlin: Springer; 2000. p. 83–98.

[43] Dewan R, Seidmann A, Zhiping W. Work1ow optimizationthrough task redesign in business information processes. In:Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Hawaii InternationalConference on System Sciences. Washington: IEEE 1998;p. 240–53.

[44] Reijers HA, Goverde RHJJM. Resource management:a clear-headed approach to ensure e=ciency. Work1owMagazine 1998;4(6):26–8. [in Dutch].

[45] Van der Aalst WMP. Reengineering knock-out processes.Decision Support Systems 2000;30(4):451–68.

[46] Poyssick G, Hannaford S. Work1ow reengineering. MountainView: Adobe Press Editions; 1996.

[47] Van Hee KM, Reijers HA, Verbeek HMW, Zerguini L. Onthe optimal allocation of resources in stochastic work1ownets. In: Djemame K, Kara M, editors. Proceedings of theSeventeenth UK Performance Engineering Workshop. Leeds:Print Services University of Leeds; 2001. p. 23–34.

[48] Gunasekaran A, Marri HB, McGaughey RE, Nebhwani MD.E-commerce and its impact on operations management.International Journal of Production Economics 2002;75:185–97.

[49] Kalakota R, Whinston AB. Electronic commerce: a manager’sguide. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1997.

[50] MacIntosh R. BPR: alive and well in the public sector.International Journal of Operations & Production Management2003;23(3):327–44.

[51] Foster Jr. ST. Assessing process reengineering impactsthrough base lining. Benchmarking for Quality Management& Technology 1995;2(3):4–19.

[52] Seidmann A, Sundararajan A. Competing in in-formation-intensive services: analyzing the impact oftask consolidation and employee empowerment. Journalof Management Information Systems Fall 1997;4(2):33–56.

[53] Harrington HJ. Business process improvement: thebreakthrough strategy for total quality, productivity, andcompetitiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991.

[54] Kettinger WJ, Teng TC. Aligning BPR to strategy: aframework for analysis. Long Range Planning 1998;31(1):93–107.

[55] Maull RS, TranDeld DR, Maull W. Factors characterisingthe maturity of BPR programmes. International Journalof Operations & Production Management 2003;23(6):596–624.

best practices in business process redesign:an …is.ieis.tue.nl/education/bpmcourse/papers/reijers...

Documents