Coping with contradictions in business process re-engineering

doi:10.1108/09593849610153421

Login

Welcome:
Guest

Search for:

Browse:

Resources:

Our site has recently been upgraded & the page you requested has moved, so we have redirected you to the new location. Please amend your bookmarks.

Information Technology & People

ISSN: 0959-3845

Online from: 1982

Subject Area: Information and Knowledge Management

Content: Latest Issue | Latest Issue RSS | Previous Issues

Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile

Coping with contradictions in business process re-engineering

Document Information:
Title:	Coping with contradictions in business process re-engineering
Author(s):	Marie-Claude Boudreau, (Department of Computer Information Systems, Georgia State University, USA), Daniel Robey, (Department of Computer Information Systems, Georgia State University, USA)
Citation:	Marie-Claude Boudreau, Daniel Robey, (1996) "Coping with contradictions in business process re-engineering", Information Technology & People, Vol. 9 Iss: 4, pp.40 - 57
Keywords:	BPR, Organizational learning, Organizational politics
Article type:	Research paper
DOI:	10.1108/09593849610153421 (Permanent URL)
Publisher:	MCB UP Ltd
Abstract:	Business process re-engineering (BPR) promises to transform organizations by fundamentally altering their core processes, thereby achieving radical improvements in performance. As the number of actual re-engineering projects increases, the rhetoric surrounding BPR has shifted to reflect greater cynicism and discomfort over its claims. In the absence of compelling and trustworthy evidence about the success of BPR projects, critics have exposed logical contradictions within BPR’s “manifesto” for revolutionary change and insinuated that BPR’s utopian rhetoric masks political motives. This paper contributes to this discussion in three ways. First we examine two difficulties affecting the evaluation of BPR programmes: defining what process re-engineering really is, and determining whether BPR has been applied successfully. Second, we examine four fundamental contradictions inherent in BPR’s analysis of organizations: the fallacy of its “clean-slate” assumption, the paradox of information technology’s role as an enabler of organizational change, the hypocrisy of employee empowerment, and the irony of employee commitment. Third we propose that such contradictions be addressed in both research and practice by employing theoretical perspectives that are prepared to accommodate contradictory phenomena, in contrast to the simplistic, deterministic logic guiding current investigations of BPR’s effectiveness. We suggest theories of organizational learning and organizational politics to understand and resolve the contradictions embedded within BPR.