BPMJ 02 2013 0020

Business Process Management Journal
A process model of managing organizational change during business process redesign

Arijit Sikdar Jayashree Payyazhi
Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Arijit Sikdar Jayashree Payyazhi , (2014),"A process model of managing organizational change during
business process redesign", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 6 pp. 971 - 998
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-02-2013-0020
Downloaded on: 10 November 2015, At: 00:28 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 111 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2410 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Jan vom Brocke, Theresa Schmiedel, Jan Recker, Peter Trkman, Willem Mertens, Stijn Viaene, (2014),"Ten
principles of good business process management", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 4
pp. 530-548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2013-0074
Junlian Xiang, Norm Archer, Brian Detlor, (2014),"Business process redesign project success: the role
of socio-technical theory", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 5 pp. 773-792 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2012-0112
Tatiane Pereira Librelato, Daniel Pacheco Lacerda, Lus Henrique Rodrigues, Douglas Rafael Veit,
(2014),"A process improvement approach based on the Value Stream Mapping and the Theory of
Constraints Thinking Process", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 6 pp. 922-949 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-07-2013-0098
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543666 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm
A process model of managing

organizational change during
business process redesign
Arijit Sikdar and Jayashree Payyazhi
Faculty of Business & Management,
University of Wollongong in Dubai, Dubai, UAE
Abstract
Business process
redesign
971
Received 16 February 2013
Revised 19 July 2013
6 October 2013
30 November 2013
Accepted 30 January 2014
Purpose Business process implementation has been primarily seen as a redesign of the workflow
with the consequent organizational change assumed to be taking place automatically or through
a process of muddling through. Although evidence suggests that 70 per cent of business process
reengineering programmes have failed due to lack of alignment with corporate change strategy, the
question of alignment of workflow redesign with the organizational change process has not received
adequate attention. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for managing organizational
change in a structured manner during workflow redesign, a perspective missing in the literature on
business process management (BPM) implementation.
Design/methodology/approach This paper attempts to integrate the 8-S dimensions of Higgins
model across the different phases of workflow redesign to develop a process framework of managing
organizational change during BPM workflow redesign. As an exploratory study the paper draws
on existing literature on BPM and change alignment to conceptualize an alignment framework of
associated managerial activities involved during different phases of BPM workflow redesign. The
framework is evaluated against two case studies of business process implementation to substantiate
how lack of alignment leads to failure in BPM implementation.
Findings The paper provides a conceptual framework of how organizational change should be
managed during BPM implementation. The model suggests the sequence of alignment of the 8-S
dimensions (Higgins, 2005) with the different phases of the workflow redesign and identifies the role of
the managerial levels in the organization in managing the alignment of the 8-S dimensions during
business process change.
Practical implications This framework would provide managers with an execution template of
how to achieve alignment of the workflow redesign with the 8-S dimensions thus facilitating effective
organizational change during business process implementation.
Originality/value This paper proposes a process model of how organizational elements should be
aligned with the workflow redesign during business process change implementation. No such model is
available in BPM literature proposing alignment between hard and soft factors.
Keywords Change management, Strategic alignment, Business process redesign, Process model
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
As the basis of competition shifts from cost and quality to flexibility and
responsiveness the importance of delivering value through process management has
increased significantly. It has been recognized that business process management
(BPM) plays a central role in creating sustainable competitive advantage as empirical
research suggests positive correlation between process management and business
success (McCormack and Johnson, 2001; McCormack et al., 2009; Skerlavaj et al., 2007).
BPM requires coordinating and integrating cross-functional activities to deliver value
to customers (Guha and Kettinger, 1993; Strnadl, 2006). The root of BPM lies in the
concept of business process reengineering (BPR) in the 1990s, introduced by Hammer
(1990) and Davenport and Short (1990), which advocated a new approach to the
Business Process Management

Journal
Vol. 20 No. 6, 2014
pp. 971-998
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-7154
DOI 10.1108/BPMJ-02-2013-0020
BPMJ
20,6
972
management of business processes for producing radical improvements in

performance. This has led to the replacement of the functional hierarchical
perspective of organizing business with the principle of organizing the business as
a set of value-adding processes. Examples like Fords inefficient accounts payable
system with respect to Mazda (Hammer, 1990) and Xeroxs inefficient office systems
with respect to Canon (Davenport and Short, 1990) demonstrated how reengineering of
business processes as a set of value-adding processes resulted in radical breakthrough
in performance.
However, studies have confirmed that 70 per cent of BPR programmes have failed
because BPR programmes have not been integrated with the corporate change
strategy (Champy, 1995). One reason for this is the overemphasis on the application of
information technology (IT) solutions as IT was considered to be a fundamental
enabler of process automation in the reengineering programme (Hammer and Champy,
1993; Venkatraman, 1993; Davenport and Short, 1990; Grover et al., 1993) while
underemphasizing the soft systems of management (Carr, 2003; Scheepers and
Scheepers, 2008; Cooper and Markus, 1995). Though IT has the capability of providing
the means to achieve breakthrough performance, according to ONeill and Sohal (1999)
in order to have a full understanding of the effects of reengineering it is necessary
to understand the whole business process and how it fits into the organizational
system. Evidence from business process implementation suggests that factors like top
management support, project champions, communication and inter-departmental
cooperation (Ranganathan and Dhaliwal, 2001; Ariyachandra and Frolick, 2008;
Bandara et al., 2005) are critical success factors in BPM. As new business process
creates a change in the organizational system of relationships, workflows, tasks,
structure, etc. so also there is a need to develop an understanding of how the new
business process is aligned with the overall organizational system.
The need for alignment of business process with the organizational system is
evident from Dooley and Johnsons (2001) work wherein they observed that New
Product Development change efforts were characterized by elements of both
reengineering (for alignment with external environment) and continuous quality
improvements (for alignment with internal organization). How this alignment is
achieved is an important issue in any BPM as successful alignment would facilitate in
enhancing the organizational value chain. A survey of international experiences in
BPR implementation by Al-Mashari et al. (2001) revealed that organizational
experience in integrating change management with BPR implementation is still at its
infancy. In this context, the purpose of this paper is to propose a framework to facilitate
the alignment of business process redesign with the organizational change efforts
during business process redesign implementation.
2. BPM
Hammer and Champy (1993) defines businesses process as a collection of activities
that takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output that is of value to the
customer. BPR, popularized in the 1990s, is considered as the analysis and design of
work flows and processes within and between organizations for achieving radical
performance improvements (Davenport and Short, 1990). The focus on the narrow
technical perspective (Taylorism approach) without giving enough importance to an
integrated holistic approach is seen as one of the important reasons behind BPR
failures (Al-Mashari et al., 2001). This need for an integrated holistic approach has led
to the development of the concept of BPM. The integrated approach of BPM is evident
from the definition of BPM as supporting business processes using methods,

techniques and software to design, enact, control and analyze operational processes
involving humans, organizations, applications, documents and other sources of
information (van der Aalst et al., 2003). This integrated perspective of BPM is
supported by the distinction between BPM as a holistic management philosophy as
against BPR being about radical process redesign (Choong, 2013). Similarly, the holistic
perspective of BPM is reflected by Ko et al. (2009) representation of BPM as practical,
iterative and incremental in fine-tuning business processes as compared to BPRs focus
on radical obliteration of business processes.
2.1 Business process redesign methodologies
Methodology indicates the application of an organized set of methods and techniques
to guide a process. According to Barrett (1994), the key to successful process
management lies in the development of a vision of the process. The concept of business
as a process can be traced to the application of Porters (1980) value chain to visualize
the business as a combination of core and supporting activities directed towards
generating value to achieve the organizational objectives. This modelling is at the
macro level of the process and does not give any indication of the linkage between
activities and the flow of decision and information. To support business process
implementation, various structured methodologies (Klein, 1994; Petrozzo and Stepper,
1994; Furey, 1993; Barrett, 1994) have been proposed. All these methodologies indicate
that business process implementation is a stage wise process consisting of certain
essential components such as strategizing and goal setting, feasibility analysis,
process analysis, understanding customer requirements, performance measurement,
designing improvements, prototyping and process mapping and instituting
organizational change to implement the new process (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000).
Similarly, Spanyi (2003) proposed a methodology of business process implementation
that called for adoption of eight principles, such as using customer perspective,
awareness of business strategy, creating organizational alignment, creating enabling
organization design, using enabling technology, etc. to be followed during business
process redesign. As evident, the structured methodologies have recognized the need
to institute organizational change/alignment for redesign of the business process.
However, these methodologies do not indicate how the organizational change/
alignment are to be instituted. Managing the organizational change requires answer to
questions like what specific tasks need to be covered, what should be the timing and
sequence, which actors/roles are involved, etc.
The importance of the essential components/principles, as identified in the
structured methodologies, in driving the success of business process implementation
has been supported in the business process literature. Researchers have found that
successful business process implementation requires creating strong linkage between
business process and business strategy (Teng et al., 1994; Harvey, 1995) or when
the business process architecture enables the organization to link with customer needs
(Edwards and Peppard, 1994) or when organizational core competencies are aligned
with the business processes (Bhattacharya and Gibbons, 1996). Involvement of
different actors is supported by Andreu et al. (1997) framework that link learning at
different organizational levels during process innovation. According to Zairi and
Sinclair (1995) bottom-up approach to implementation can achieve better performance
indicating the importance of the operating people. Also increased acceptance of the
business process has been found to be linked to integrating multiple stakeholder
Business process
redesign
973
BPMJ
20,6
974
perspective in the measurement of business process performance (Yen, 2009). Choong

(2013) argue that performance measurement system for BPM should focus on the value
chain rather than the workflow. All these research highlight the importance of
alignment of the business process with the specific organizational elements. However,
the research fails to provide answer on how the alignment process is operationalized.
For example, in creating strong linkage between business process and business
strategy what are the specific tasks, who performs, when, how to manage the impact,
etc. are not addressed. Also there is a lack of a comprehensive framework that would
align the various organizational elements with the different stages of business process
redesign from an end-to-end perspective.
2.2 Business process modelling techniques
A variety of modelling techniques were developed to support process mapping,
analysis and design, for example, use of simulation to redesign processes (Ackere et al.,
1993). Kettinger et al. (1997) provides a detailed review of the various techniques used
in different aspects of BPM like problem solving (fishbone diagram, Pareto diagram),
process mapping (process flowchart, role activity diagram, data flow diagram), process
measurement (activity based costing, statistical process control), process prototyping
(coloured petri nets), etc. In addition to those discussed there exists other modelling
tools and techniques that have been developed for business process redesign, a detailed
review of each tool is available in Aguilar-Saven (2004). Vergidis et al. (2008) have
classified BPM tools and techniques into three categories mathematical models
(facilitating process optimization), diagrammatic models (facilitating graphic
representation of the process) and business process languages (facilitating
automation of the process design). In addition, BPM standards, like Universal
Modeling Language and Business Process Modeling Notation, have been developed to
facilitate common language amongst practitioners, academics and IT implementers.
In a survey of BPM standards by Ko et al. (2009), these BPM standards were classified
into the following categories:
(1)
graphical standards: this allows users to express business processes and their
possible flow and transitions in a diagrammatic way;
(2)
execution standards: this computerizes the deployment and automation of

business processes; and
(3)
interchange standards: this facilitates portability of data, e.g. the portability of

business process designs in different graphical standards.
Recent developments in modelling have been related to reusability of business process

models for greater efficiency and consistency (Aldin and de Cesare, 2011). This has led
the creation of ontologies (semantic models that tend to represent real world systems)
like SUPER and BWW for discovering process patterns.
The business process modelling tools and techniques have focused on addressing
the operational/technical issues in process redesign to achieve performance
improvement (Chang, 1994). The review of BPM standards by Ko (2009) showed
their incorporation in various BPM software to support workflow management. This is
also supported by Ko et al. (2009) wherein they found that many BPM Suites are
actually workflow management systems. Thus, BPM modelling tools and techniques
do not throw light on how the process workflow redesign should be aligned with the
various organizational soft system elements.
2.3 Business process change management

According to Davenport (1993), successful BPM implementation requires fundamental
organizational change in terms of organizational structure, culture and management
processes. These changes would impact the human aspect of management as it
involves redesignation of work or relationships amongst individuals involved in the
execution of the business process. Some authors like Mumford and Beekman (1994)
and Bruss and Roos (1993) have suggested that management of organizational change
is the largest task in reengineering. Researchers have identified various factors
influencing successful implementation of business process change. One such factor is
commitment of leadership as it plays a role in providing a clear vision of the future
(Hammer and Stanton, 1995; Law and Ngai, 2007). Similarly, empowering employees
has been found to be an effective factor for business process redesign implementation
success as it promotes self-management and collaborative teamwork (Mumford, 1995).
Communication is considered crucial to successful business process implementation
(Arendt et al., 1995; Terziovski et al., 2003) as it breaks the barrier between those
in charge of the change initiatives and those getting impacted by them. Strategic
visioning is necessary to link business processes with potential customers and
anticipate future processes (Clemons, 1995) as well as to motivate organizational actors
(Carr and Johansson, 1995). Furthermore, it has been identified that factors like
organizational structure and inter-departmental interaction (Grover et al., 1999), culture
(Willcocks et al., 1997)and organizational politics (Boonstra, 2006) play a critical role in
successful implementation as they help to manage relationships by promoting trust,
openness and resolving conflicts.
However, the business process change management does not provide any guidance
on how these various organizational elements are to be incorporated with the stages of
workflow design to indicate the sequence of organizational change during business
process redesign. This failure to consider the linkages between hard and soft factors
has been attributed as the main reason for BPM failures (Trkman, 2010). Thus there
exists a distinct knowledge gap in how to integrate the technical perspective of process
redesign with the human and strategic perspective of managing organizational change.
Table I provides a summary of the knowledge gap that exists in business process
implementation.
Main theme
Key findings
Business process BPR implementation is a stage

wise process consisting of key
redesign
activities required to design the
methodologies
business process
Successful BPR implementation requires
alignment with the organization
Business process Business process workflow can be
represented in variety of forms to facilitate
modelling
optimization and automation
techniques
Business process Successful BPM implementation requires
fundamental organizational change in
change
terms of organizational structure, culture
management
and management processes
Business process
redesign
975
Knowledge gap
How to institute organizational change
to support the business process?
How should the organizational change
be managed?
How to create and manage the
alignment?
How the business process workflow is
aligned with the organizational
elements- structure, HR, culture, etc.?
How to link the organizational factors
with the process workflow?
How should the organizational factors
be implemented?
Table I.
Review of business
process implementation
literature
BPMJ
20,6
976
3. Change management and strategic alignment

As indicated in previous sections, organizations that are facing increasing pressure to
sustain and surpass competition are required to proactively introduce various change
interventions. Depending upon the complexity of the triggers from the internal and
external business environment, business leaders may engage in doing things better
through incremental improvements within the existing organizational structure and
processes or introduce radical and transformational changes usually involving
creation of new configurations with regard to systems, structure, process, technology,
etc. As is evident, Business process interventions are an example of one such
transformational intervention to revitalize organizations in response to stakeholder
demands. However, the failure rate of such transformational changes are high because
they are high-intensity changes involving substantial changes to existing systems and
processes that lead to ambiguity and uncertainty (Beer and Nohria, 2000). This is
supported by McNulty and Ferlies (2002) study that provided mixed results regarding
the outcomes of business process interventions from the health-care sector.
3.1 Implementing change
Beer et al. (1990) provide evidence that while conventional thinking suggests that
organization-wide transformational changes is best brought about in a structured
manner with leadership support from the top, evidence from organizations that have
succeeded in transforming organizations indicate the contrary. Transformational
changes that succeeded were brought about through aligning tasks at a unit level or
departmental level which were then spread across the organization in an integrated
and aligned manner through a bottom-up approach. This was achieved by first
creating a critical mass at the operational level through engaging them in problemsolving thereby proactively changing assumptions and mobilizing commitment, and
then providing the necessary support to develop new competencies and finally
modifying structures, performance management and reward systems to sustain the
continued effectiveness of newly articulated roles and responsibilities, and then
spreading this change to an organization-wide level. The holistic approach and
bottoms-up engagement is strengthened by having transformational leaders who
demonstrate sustained commitment throughout the change process through their
rhetoric, actions and decisions. Support for a holistic approach to change management
comes from Beer and Nohria (2000) who advocate combining a top-down economic
approach (with a focus on modifying structures and systems in a directive manner to
create shareholder value) with a bottom-up organizational development approach
(focused on changing the deep rooted assumptions and thus the organizational
culture through various human related interventions aimed at building employee
capabilities) for transformational changes to succeed. Adcroft et al. (2008) further
propose that irrespective of whether the approach to change is top-down or bottoms
up, it must proceed in an integrated manner with an accurate diagnoses of why
change is required and an informed analyses of the desired outcomes with
active engagement of key stakeholders across all levels during all stages of the
transformation process.
Operationalization of this holistic approach is informed by various process models
of change which offer useful insights on how to navigate the complexities of the change
process in a step-wise and integrated manner. The foundations for much of change
research and specifically the process models which advocate a planned approach have
been laid by the three-step process model of change by Kurt Lewin which proposed
that unfreezing of current state is fundamental before implementing the change itself
and refreezing new changed behaviours and skills with supportive institutional
mechanisms are necessary to sustain transformational changes (Lewin, 1951; Burnes,
2004a, b). Hayes and Hydes (1998) generic process model of change likewise proposes
that before introducing any transformational change, one must first identify the
external and internal triggers for change and make it explicit to create awareness
regarding the need for change. They propose that one must then convert this need into
a desire for change through engaging key stakeholders in accurate diagnoses of
internal and external alignment factors which would create a sense of urgency which
must then be channelized through appropriate planning such as through setting
timelines, allocating resources and identifying change agents concluding with a review
of the change process to spread and sustain good practices.
Much of this research has recognized that at the heart of this holistic and integrated
change management approach lies the various people related concerns that must be
proactively addressed through stake-holder management, leadership, communication
and motivation. For example, Armenakis and Harris (2002) propose that in order to
create change readiness the content of communication must provide evidence to key
stakeholders regarding the discrepancy between existing state and desired state. In
addition, the change must be perceived as appropriate and this can be achieved
through engaging key stakeholders in diagnoses and problem-solving which also
enhances their sense of control over the outcome. According to Armenakis and Harris
(2002), this increased self-efficacy enhances change readiness which is further
strengthened by perceptions of support from senior management with regard to
information and resources, a finding supported by Fugate et al. (2012) who also found
that fairness in decisions as evidenced through procedural, distributive and
interactional justice played a major role in reducing perceptions of threat during
periods of change, thereby decreasing resistance. The role of leadership and various
organizational socialization strategies in bringing about changes in deep-rooted
assumptions thereby facilitating transformational change has been recognized in
much of change literature (Taormina, 2008; Beer and Nohria, 2000; Burke and Litwin,
1992; Kuhl et al., 2005). Kotters (1995) eight step model of transformational leadership
suggests that for transformational changes to succeed, leaders have to play a crucial
role in establishing a sense of urgency by unfreezing assumptions, forming a powerful
guiding coalition, creating and communicating a compelling vision, empowering
change recipients to act through creating facilitating organizational systems, and then
consolidating and institutionalizing the change. Research also proposes the need to
address change readiness at individual, group and organizational levels because their
antecedents and consequences are different further suggesting that both affective and
cognitive components of change readiness must be addressed while using different
styles of communication to address emotional vs cognitive needs of change recipients
(Rafferty et al., 2013; Jick, 2003). For example, there is evidence in literature to suggest
that the change message itself may be conveyed using different techniques, depending
upon the stage of the change process and the maturity and information requirements of
change recipients. These techniques may include direct communication through verbal
messages or selling the message with an intention to persuade, proactive sharing of
information with key stakeholders, consensus-building through engaging change
recipients in discussion and problem-solving and provision of relevant information
from internal and external sources (Armenakis and Harris, 2002; Jawahare and
McLaughlin, 2001).
Business process
redesign
977
BPMJ
20,6
978
3.2 Alignment in change implementation

It is evident from the aforementioned literature on change management that the
sustained success of transformational changes are impacted by the extent to which
those leading the change are taking a holistic and integrated approach with a focus on
both the hard factors such as structure, systems, technology, processes and the softer
issues, such as people and culture.
Close strategic linkage between competitive strategy and the operations function is
also crucial (Rhee and Mehra, 2006). Particularly significant for operationalizing this
holistic approach is an understanding of internal or external fit or the process of
alignment that emerges from the open systems view of organizations which proposes
that changes to any one element of an organization will have an equal impact on other
elements. The implication therefore is that any change whether it is transactional or
transformational will fail if internal and external alignment issues are not addressed in
a timely manner. Various diagnostic models of change have been proposed in literature
which informs practitioners on how to achieve this alignment. For example, Nadler and
Tushmans (1980) congruence model proposes that organizations are dynamic entities
and organizational effectiveness can only be achieved if changes to the various internal
elements such as the task that comprise the various activities of the organization, skills
and competencies of people, structural and social dimensions, both formal and
informal are informed by the organizations strategic goals which itself must be
informed by external contingencies. Furthermore it is proposed that the extent of fit or
alignment between these internal components determines the success of change efforts
which in turn thus impact organizational performance. Other models of internal
alignment echo a similar view in that effectiveness of an organization is impacted by
the degree of fit that exists between strategy, structure and systems, culture, skills and
resources (Kotter, 1980).
While much of the literature on alignment recognizes the significance of fit in
internal elements, it is also recognized that tightly coupled systems (as evidenced
by strong fit between internal elements) are at risk of decreased adaptiveness. It is
thus recommended that in order to remain competitive, organizations must develop
robust systems and processes by which environmental changes can be detected
and addressed proactively such that incremental changes can be brought about
within the internal configurations to continuously align with changes in the
external environment (Siggelkow, 2001). A very useful model for diagnosing both
internal and external alignment has been provided by Burke and Litwin (1992) who
propose that transformational changes that are mostly driven by extreme and often
unexpected pressures from the external environment require creation of new
configurations or doing different things which can only be achieved if changes are
brought to the fundamental elements of the organization such as organizational
cultures defined by deep-rooted values along with transformational leadership and
changes to organizational strategy itself. Changes in these key elements will then
impact and inform lower-order elements including the structure, human resource (HR)
practices and policies, tasks and roles, all of which when in alignment will lead
to transformational changes across the organization. However, transactional
changes intended to modify existing systems or behaviours would only require
interventions at the unit, or departmental level and can be managed through project
management delegated to key people at the unit level. Thus this model offers useful
insights to change leaders with regard to the focus and scope of changes (Burke and
Litwin, 1992).
Schneider et al. (2003) provide further evidence that in organizations whose strategic
goal is that of service excellence, one can find a constant reciprocal and synergistic
relationship between strategic direction, HR practices and organizational culture
such that all actions are integrated with each other thus reinforcing the message of
service excellence. Buch and Wetzel (2001) suggest that alignment of culture with
strategy can be brought about through engaging organizational incumbents in
a reflection on existing culture, followed by active data collection and documentation
of misalignments between structure, culture, HR practices and systems. These gaps
may then be resolved through short term, intermediate or long-term change
interventions to strategy, structure, people, process or systems depending upon the
extent of discrepancy between desired culture and existing culture (Buch and Wetzel,
2001). Higginss 8-S model of strategic alignment likewise provides a very useful model
to inform practitioners on how to achieve cross-functional alignment for enhancing
strategic performance (Higgins, 2005). Higgins proposes that at a minimum,
executives must align the following cross-functional organizational factors structure,
systems and processes, leadership style, staff, resources, and shared values with each
new strategy that arises in order for that strategy to succeed, in order for strategic
performance to occur (Higgins, 2005, p. 4).
The significance of this holistic approach in implementing Business Process Change
is also being increasingly recognized in BPM literature. Failure to align people and
organizational culture is recognized as one of the key barriers with regard to
transforming organizations from a silo-based functional culture to a process-based
culture and systemic thinking underlying BPM as this requires cross-functional
integration (Segatto et al., 2013; da Silva et al., 2012; Crawford and Pollack, 2004).
Palmberg (2010) provides evidence collected through a multiple-case study approach
that movement from a pure functional to a completely process-based structure puts
substantial pressure on employees because of the increased accountability required of
them, which in turn acts as a barrier to BPM implementation. A combined soft and
hard approach to BPM is thus advocated, wherein key roles such as that of process
owners and process improvement teams and steering committees be designated at all
stages of the change process with clear responsibilities, accountabilities and sufficient
power; followed by focusing on the hard aspects, by taking a structured approach
focusing only on those processes that are critical for the accomplishment of the
organizations strategic priorities (Siriram, 2012; Palmberg, 2010). Further support for
the significance of change management during BPM comes from a Project Alignment
Model proposed by Box and Platts (2005) which recognizes the significance of both
internal and external alignment for project implementation to succeed. This model also
recognizes the significance of empowered, engaged, committed and competent project
leaders distributed across the organization with clear project related accountabilities
and an organizational culture characterized by a collaborative ethos essential for
building a readiness for change.
It is evident from the aforementioned literature that the success of techno-structural
interventions such as business process redesign would depend on taking a holistic and
integrated approach with particular emphasis on fit or alignment with HR practices
and strategic deliverables. As BPR encompasses transformational change elements
which impact the organization in totality, therefore piece-meal and compartmentalized
approaches to bring about this change will not have any sustainable impact on
organizational improvement. Empirical evidence suggest that BPM efforts have failed
due to lack of alignment with organizational culture and HR systems and practices,
Business process
redesign
979
BPMJ
20,6
980
rigid hierarchical structures and managers with low competence and commitment
(Appelbaum and Lee, 2000; Grover et al. 1995) which signifies the central role played
by alignment in business process change. In view of the importance of change
management in BPM interventions, Kettinger and Grover (1995) have highlighted the
need for integration of process management and change management in their
theoretical framework of business process change management.
While literature does provide evidence that transformational changes such as
business process redesign fail due to a compartmentalized approach to change and
inadequate attention to alignment issues, no studies have as yet provided any practical
tool to map the process of technical implementation while achieving alignment at
strategic, cultural and structural level.
4. Achieving alignment during BPM: an operational framework
4.1 Alignment of technical and change sub-processes
The nature of business process redesign indicates a change in the way things are going
to be done within the organization in the future. This change not only impacts the
technical dimension but also the human dimension of behaviour and interaction
(Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000). Every existing organization has its organizational reality
represented by assumptions and beliefs of the individuals and groups in the
organization (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979; Weick, 1995) and any change process
creates a new organizational reality as existing assumptions and beliefs are altered.
Business process redesign being a change process, is supposed to bring about a new
organizational reality and thus it is necessary for BPM implementation to understand
the existing organizational reality in order to chart a way for the creation of the new
organizational reality. Thus any BPM implementation would involve an organizational
change sub process running alongside the technical (workflow redesign) sub process
(Figure 1). According to Weicks (1988) enactment theory, people enact limitations upon
the system to avoid issues and thus the existing organizational reality will be enacted
to avoid implementing the redesigned process. Overcoming this would require creating
the new organizational reality to align with the redesigned business process in BPM.
Change sub process

(Organizational reality)
Strategy
Structure
Task
Roles
Culture
Systems
Resource Allocation
alignment
Technical sub process

(Workflow redesign)
Figure 1.
Alignment in BPM
Identify new
Value chain
Design workflow Execute new

value chain
The need for alignment between the BPM technical process and the new organizational
reality raises important questions about how this alignment needs to be performed.
What is the role of the different levels of management in the process of alignment?
What activities of alignment need to be performed during the stages of BPM
implementation? What should be the sequence of activities for alignment? Answers to
these questions would provide managers a practical guide on how to integrate the
technical perspective of BPR with the human perspective of managing organizational
change.
4.2 Developing the alignment framework
The methodology followed for developing the alignment framework is based on the
theory of pattern matching and is more applicable for complex situations (Trochim,
1989). Pattern matching always involves an attempt to link two patterns where one is
a theoretical pattern and the other is an observed or operational one. In this case the
theoretical pattern is represented by the change management alignment theories
wherein it is hypothesized that alignment of organizational elements leads to
performance improvement. Since BPM involves a change in organizational practice
it could be hypothesized that performance improvement is possible when there is
organizational alignment. The observational pattern is represented by the stage wise
implementation of business process change as depicted by the stage-activity (S-A)
framework of BPR implementation (Kettinger et al., 1997). The S-A framework has
been based on extensive review of literature on BPR methodologies, tools and
techniques and interview with practitioners (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000) and thus is
a comprehensive representation of business process redesign spread over six stages.
The inferential task involves the attempt to relate, link or match the theoretical and
observational patterns to develop the framework.
Based on the S-A framework of Kettinger et al. (1997), the BPM implementation has
been conceptualized to occur over three phases conceptual, design and execution.
The conceptual phase is where the process value chain is aligned to the strategic
objectives and matches with the Envision and Initiate stage activities of the S-A
framework. The design phase involves the redesign of the process creating new
workflows and linkages required to implement the new value chain conceptualization
and matches with the Diagnose and Redesign stage activities of the S-A framework.
And the execution phase involves the rollout of the new practices and processes as part
of the new workflow and matches with the Reconstruct and Evaluate S-As of the S-A
framework.
To address organizational change alignment during the three key phases of BPM
implementation one of the most comprehensive internal and external strategic
alignment model, Higginss (2005) 8-S Model of Strategy Execution, a revision of
McKinseys 7-S Model (Peters and Waterman, 1982) is used. The 8-S model states that
Strategic performance as desired can be achieved by organizations only if eight key
organizational factors including Structure, Systems and processes, leadership Style,
Staff, reSources, and Shared values are aligned with Strategy. Table II shows how
the activities across the BPM implementation phases map with the primary factors
in the 8-S model.
4.3 Role of managerial levels in business process implementation
The involvement of different managerial levels in different stages of BPM
implementation is supported by Kos (2009) typology of business processes into
Business process
redesign
981
BPMJ
20,6
982
Table II.
Mapping of alignment
factors across BPM
Phases
BPM phases
Stages
Conceptual
(linking value
chain to
strategy)
Envision
Design (design
of workflow)
Diagnose
Redesign
Execution
(executing the
practices)
Reconstruct
Initiate
Evaluate
Kettinger et al. (1997) S-A framework

Activities
Establish management commitment and vision
Discover reengineering opportunities
Select processes for redesign
Inform stakeholders
Organize reengineering teams
Conduct project planning
Document and analyse existing process
Prototype and detailed design of new process
Design human resource structure
Analyse and design
Reorganize human resource roles
Train users
Evaluate performance
Link to continuous improvement
Higgins 8 S
alignment factors
Strategy
Shared values
reSources
Structure
Structure
Systems
Style
Staff
Strategic
Performance
operational, management and strategic levels based on management activities. Even

Andreu et al. (1997) work on process innovation indicate integration of learning across
individual, organization and business levels. According to Harmon (2007) business
process change initiatives involve three levels of managerial concern enterprise level,
process/departmental level and activity level. Differentiation between the levels is
necessary as activities at different levels require different participants, different
methodologies and different types of support (Harmon, 2007). The goals and tasks
associated with the three levels are depicted in Table III.
4.3.1 Enterprise level managers. The primary role of the enterprise level managers is
to obtain the alignment of the 8-S dimensions Strategy, Shared values and reSources.
During the conceptual phase, the enterprise level managers play a primary role in
identifying the value chain that would serve the strategic objectives. This would
require these managers to understand the organization goals and relate what business
processes would be required to meet the goals.
However, for the BPM implementation to be successful this envisaged value chain
needs to be have the buy-in of the process/departmental managers as the execution of
Table III.
Role of managerial levels
in business process
implementation
Managerial level
Goals and measures
Key tasks
Enterprise
level
Define organizational
goals and measures of
organizational success
Process/
departmental
level
Define process goals

and measures of
process success
Activity level
Define activity goals

and measures of
activity success
Strategic positioning
Define process architecture
Performance measurement
BPM governance planning
Create process redesign and improvement projects
Process management
Plan budget and schedule
Organize resource and define responsibilities
Monitor process
Job design
Training development
Knowledge management
IT application development
the new value chain would impact on the functioning of the departments. One of the
major difficulties of getting the buy-in is that process/departmental managers have
developed a mental frame of how work is being done and what roles they play.
Obtaining the buy-in would require the enterprise level managers to change the
perspective of the process/departmental managers towards the new value chain. This
would require the alignment of the mental frame of the process/departmental
managers with the enunciated strategic values of the organization. Execution of the
new business process would require resource acquisition to support the business
process accordingly. As enterprise level managers controls the mobilization and
allocation of resources, it could align the existing organizational resources with the
requirements of the new value chain and thus drive change in the behaviour of process/
departmental managers. According to Noda and Bower (1996), the escalation of
a firms strategic commitment to the new businesses is a consequence of iterations of
resource allocation. So the enterprise level managers need to play a primary role in
obtaining the resource alignment with the redesigned business process.
The new business process would require the buy-in of the activity level managers
for successful implementation. This would require a behavioural change of the activity
level managers. As the activity level managers are not under the direct control of the
enterprise level managers, they would only be able to impact the behavioural change
through indirect methods like sharing the strategic vision. Thus enterprise level
managers would play a primary role in creating a shared understating within the wider
organization of the role of the new business process in meeting the strategic goals.
4.3.2 Process/departmental level managers. As part of managing the technical
process of the BPM, the process/departmental level managers role is to detail the
conceptualized value chain by designing the workflows and interactions, both inter
and intra department. To facilitate the business process redesign, the process/
departmental level managers play a primary role in seeking to obtain alignment of the
Structure and Systems dimensions of the 8-S framework. The envisaged value chain
would require redesigning the business process thus impacting the structural
relationships, both intra and inter process/departmental. The achievement of the
goals of the envisaged value chain would require reorienting the existing relationship
between processes/departments. As discussed earlier, enterprise level managers would
allocate resources to process/departmental managers based on their ability to support
the organizational goals. Thus process/departmental managers would work towards
realignment of the existing intra and inter-process/departmental structural
relationships to forge new structural relationships.
Design of workflows to support the new business process would require new tasks,
roles, knowledge, etc. However, at the activity level there exist a mental model of doing
work based on the existing systems and processes. Execution of the new business
process would require that these systems and processes are modified or adapted to the
requirements of the systems and processes of the new business process. Thus, this
would require the process/departmental managers to align the existing systems and
process with the new design of the workflows and interactions.
4.3.3 Activity level managers. As part of the BPRs technical process the role of
the activity level managers is to detail and operationalize the rules, roles, methods
involved within each individual task of the workflow. In the process of integrating
managing change with business process implementation, the activity level managers
play a primary role in seeking alignment of the Staff, Style and Strategic performance
dimension of the 8-S framework.
Business process
redesign
983
BPMJ
20,6
984
Executing the new business process would require unlearning and relearning new
operational doctrines. As operational doctrines requires the involvement of the people
singularly or in groups or in conjunction with technology, the unlearning and
relearning would involve the organizational staff. However, all staff may not be equally
motivated or able to unlearn and relearn the operational doctrines. To facilitate
effective execution, it would be necessary for the activity level managers to identify
and train staff who can bridge the gap between the old and new operational doctrines.
This would ensure an effective alignment between the old and new operational
doctrines with individual capabilities and attitudes.
In order to support the strategic objective, operational execution of the business
process would also require integration of the behavioural culture with the desired
strategic values. For example, if the business process change calls for increased
customer responsiveness, the executional success would also need change in behaviour
of operatives towards customer service. This would require the activity level managers
to initiate change in their working style. As stated earlier, the dissemination of the
strategic values are primarily controlled by the enterprise level managers and therefore
there is a need to align the behavioural style of the activity level with the shared values
propagated by the enterprise level. In this process, the activity level managers would
play a significant role in aligning their behavioural style with the shared values
propagated by the enterprise management.
The achievement of the organizational goals through business process
implementation is based on how effectively the execution of the business process
meets the customer objectives. Thus it is necessary that the activity level managers
would need to develop measures for the business process activities that are aligned
with the strategic objectives. For example, achievement of strategic objective of better
customer satisfaction would require customer interface operations to be measured by
waiting time of the customer. Therefore, one of the roles of the activity level managers
is to develop operational measures that achieve alignment of operational outcomes
with the strategic goal as envisaged in the redesigned business process.
Figure 2 represents the model for aligning business process redesign with managing
change using Higgins (2005) 8-S model during BPM implementation. The model depicts
the role of the different managerial levels in facilitating the alignment of the different 8-S
dimensions with the BPM technical process. The model also depicts the sequence of
alignment of the 8-S dimensions over the different phases of the BPM implementation.
The role of the different managerial levels in the alignment is discussed.
5. Case studies of business process implementation
5.1 Case study 1: automated and integrated customer care system
This case is about the business process change at one of the oil and gas company in UAE
which has its core value chain processes and sub-processes organized in a sequential
fashion. Specifically the primary activities of the vertically integrated value chain
include inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics and marketing and sales,
comprising specific sub-processes. The business process change was to restructure the
customer care process as the company felt that the customer care system was falling
short of meeting the customer expectations. The existing customer care process was
considered the responsibility of the marketing and sales department and was not
integrated with the other functions. While the legacy system of resolving customer
complaints was based on trust and prior experience, difficulties were increasingly being
experienced when handling non-routine requests, an outcome of the highly fragmented
Activity
Level
Process/
Departmental
Level
Managerial
mental frame
of work
organization
Identifying the
strategic value
chain
Ingrained
work practices
& attitudes
Design of
workflows &
interactions
Phases of BPM
Design
Detailing
operational
doctrines
Logic for
behavioral
change
Execution
8, Strategic performance
Technical sub-process element
Change sub-process element
Dimensions of alignment: 1, Strategy; 2, Shared values; 3, Resources; 4, Structure; 5, Systems & processes; 6, Style; 7, Staff;
Managerial
Levels
Enterprise
Level
Strategic goals
Conceptual
Business process
redesign
985
Figure 2.
Operational framework
of BPM alignment
BPMJ
20,6
986
and functional structure of the organization which was inappropriate for an increasingly
dynamic environment. Furthermore, inability to resolve customer related issues in
a timely fashion perpetuated a culture of denial and blame, thus resulting in
misalignment with the key strategic objectives of customer satisfaction.
The first stage of the business process change in this particular organization was
to rearticulate the customer care process as an important element in achieving the
customer satisfaction leading to the decision to redesign the existing customer care
process into an integrated process. This led to the second stage that was defined by
mapping the scope of an electronically driven integrated process which would form
the basis for IT integration, drawing workflows with specific responsibilities and
finalizing measurement metrics. This task was facilitated by the appointment
of a cross-functional team by the top management and included members from
different departments and hierarchy levels of the company. The participants in the
cross-functional team were considered as key change sponsors who were expected to
train and communicate the new process within their respective domain.
The third stage was the rollout of the redesigned process which involved creating
new roles, work practices and accountabilities, and performance measurement metrics
to replace the existing work practices of the erstwhile process. This was to be followed
by the training of employees to be involved in the redesigned process.
However, despite the careful planning, the envisaged business process change
was unable to meet the expected objectives, with the execution process itself getting
delayed. Evidence indicated that although in the initial two months after
implementation of the new system, most departments were logging into the new
system, thus showing some adaptability, there was a dramatic decline in usage of the
new system by the third month, with many employees showing resistance and
tendencies to revert back to the old informal way of handling customer complaints.
5.1.1 Diagnosis of failure. A diagnosis of the envisaged business process change
indicated some implementation gaps within the organization. For example, although
the new customer care process and the need for the same was widely communicated
and endorsed strongly by senior management at the beginning of the launch itself,
thus creating an awareness of the change itself, lack of continuous sponsorship and
engagement by the management at all levels was a major factor that impacted the
momentum for change. Furthermore, while the end-users were aware of the what of
the business process change, they had limited information regarding the why and
how of change thus reducing their desire to adapt to the new process. Although
knowledge in the usage of the new process was provided through interactive mail, this
was inadequate and misaligned with existing low skill-levels among the employees
who would have benefitted more from face-to-face training at a pace that matched their
capability levels.
A second factor that impeded the change was the traditional culture driven by
a compartmentalized approach to the customer care process with employee perceptions
that accountabilities of the customer care process rested with the marketing and sales
department. Such a mind-set was in direct contradiction with the cross-functional
mind-set and skill-set the employees were now expected to have within the changed
customer care scenario. Furthermore no process interventions were provided to
address cross-functional conflict that inevitably resulted out of the new way of
functioning. Lack of shared values that focused on teamwork was further compounded
by a functional hierarchical structure which continued to have performance
management practices that focused on individualized goal-setting mechanisms.
Mapping of case study 1 on the alignment framework is shown in Figure 3. The

mapping shows that the enterprise level management carried out the tasks of
articulating a new vision and appointing cross sectional team to achieve alignment
of the Strategy and reSource dimensions. The process/departmental managers
achieved the alignment of the Structure dimension by carrying out the task of IT
integration. These facilitated the smooth transition of the BPM from the conceptual to
the design phase leading to the development of the electronic process. However, the
process/departmental managers were not able to achieve alignment of the Systems
dimension as they failed to impart proper training to the activity level managers
which led to non-development of skills leading to weak alignment of the Staff
dimension. Similarly, the enterprise level management were not able to effectively
communicate the need for new process to the activity level managers causing weak
alignment of the Shared values dimension which led to no behavioural change in the
activity level managers thereby achieving weak alignment of the Style dimension.
Thus the envisaged business process redesign to the new automated and integrated
customer care process failed to move effectively from the design to the execution phase
and achieve the intended strategic outcomes due to the weak alignment of the Style,
Staff, Systems and Shared values dimensions.
5.2 Case study 2: automated distribution centre (ADC)
This case reports changes in the value chain processes implemented in a UAE-based
company with a diversified portfolio of products and services in the IT and telecom
sector, and which has recently progressed from being a distributor for IT products to a
fully integrated supply chain solution and service provider. The process change that
was implemented resulted out of a need to support increasing business volume
through world class warehouse and inventory management system. The strategic
vision of the company was to transform from a responsive warehousing system to a
response-efficient distribution centre with the expected outcome of improved service
quality and increased profitability.
The specific change envisaged required the redesign of the warehousing management
processes linked to the value chain of volume distribution to achieve process
optimization and thus speed up the organizations goal to be the number one
IT and Telecom distributor in the MENA region. Thus strategic alignment was the
key driver for the process change and service maximization was the key benefit
expected. The task involved was to automate the distribution centre to address existing
problems such as:
.
inefficient utilization of manpower due to manual stock-counting;
inefficient data exchange processes related to shipment and item tracking;
inefficient space utilization, resulting in overcrowding of ground space;
lack of timely and complete information on resource-utilization leading to

questions regarding productivity; and
non-availability of timely and adequate pallet information resulting in

difficulties with regard to item-wise tracking of shipment after goods are issued.
All the above issues resulted in poor quality of service, inadequate infrastructure to
accommodate rising business volumes and resulting in lack of mobility and capability
issues.
Business process
redesign
987
4: IT integration
Design electronic
driven integrated
customer care
process
2: no communication of
how & why of change
Mindset that
customer care is
responsibility of
marketing only
5: no proper training, no cross

functional shared values
Customer care is
not only
responsibility of
marketing alone
but all functions
3: appoint cross
sectional team
Develop integrated
customer care
process architecture
1: articulate new vision
7: skill not
developed
New roles, work

practices &
performance metrics
6: old way of
doing thing
Culture of
integrated
teamwork in
customer care
Execution
8: no decrease in
customer complaints
weak alignment
Dimensions of alignment: 1, Strategy; 2, Shared values; 3, Resources; 4, Structure; 5, Systems & processes; 6, Style; 7, Staff; 8, Strategic performance
Activity
Level
Process/
Departmental
Level
Enterprise
Level
Phases of BPM
Design
988
Managerial
Levels
Figure 3.
of BPM alignment
in case 1
Remove
bottleneck in
customer service
Conceptual
BPMJ
20,6
In order to address the above issues and to support the next stage of the business
expansion program, the ADC was set up to manage the flow of goods, improve delivery
capability and overall service quality. Besides being strategically located (close to the sea
port and the international airport), the specific features of ADC included substantial
increase in space with docking stations, narrow aisle technology, material handling
equipment, advanced radio frequency technology and WIFI enabled warehouse.
However, while customized information systems facilitated by SAP helped tracking
and notification of shipment on timely bases, the change failed to achieve economies
of scale and service, resulting in blaming, low morale and decreased responsiveness.
Specifically the following negative outcomes were noticed:
.
increase in turnaround time;
obstruction of pallet movement due to uncertainty in customer pick-up time;

increase in shipment packing time; and
reduced speed of service due to partial (loose picking).
.
.
5.2.1 Diagnosis of failure. The diagnosis revealed that while technical dimensions of the
process change had been addressed through careful project management, the change
management dimensions were not adequately addressed. Specifically, the end users were
unaware of the rationale for the change or the associated benefits. Lack of involvement
during the design and execution of the new automation process resulted in decreased
appreciation or desire for adapting to the new system. The problem in capabilities was
further compounded by the provision of training opportunities, just a month before the
actual execution, which was inadequate for understanding the operational dimension of
the new process, leading to increased resistance towards adoption of the new system.
Besides, not enough time was available for people to get familiar with the system
leading to increased learning anxiety. Furthermore, since there were no reinforcement
mechanisms or modification to reward systems, sustaining the change became difficult.
Undue pressure from management to deliver and fulfil, the increasing customer demands
was also perceived as a constant interference in operation. In essence the improvements
in quality and service that were expected out of the ADC were not realized leading to
a gap between strategic intent and strategic outcome.
Mapping of case study 2 on the alignment framework is shown in Figure 4. The
mapping shows that the enterprise level management carried out the tasks of
articulating a new vision and investment in SAP technology to achieve alignment
of the Strategy and reSource dimensions. The process/departmental managers
achieved the alignment of the Structure dimension by carrying out the task of setting
up ADC. These facilitated the smooth transition of the BPM from the conceptual to the
design phase leading to the development of the ADC with SAP. However, the process/
departmental managers were not able to achieve alignment of the Systems dimension
as they failed to involve in the design the activity level managers which led to
learning anxiety leading to weak alignment of the Staff dimension. Similarly, the
enterprise level management were not able to effectively communicate the benefits of
new process to the activity level managers causing weak alignment of the Shared
values dimension which led to negative behaviour in the activity level managers
thereby achieving weak alignment of the Style dimension. Thus the envisaged
business process redesign to the ADC process failed to move effectively from the
design to the execution phase and achieve the intended strategic outcomes due to
the weak alignment of the Style, Staff, Systems and Shared values dimensions.
Business process
redesign
989
4: Setup
Automated DC
Automation of
distribution centre
operations with SAP
Appreciation of
new system not
developed
New roles, work

practices &
performance metrics
Culture of
integrated
teamwork in
customer care
6: change
perceived as
interference,
blame game
7: learning
anxiety
2: no communication of
nature & benefitsof change
5: no involvement of operatives
in design,last minute training
Remove
inefficiencies in
distribution
operation
3: investment in
SAP technology
Transform to a
response-efficient
distribution centre
1: become no. 1 in
MENA region
Execution
8: expected outcomes
not achieved
weak alignment
Dimensions of alignment: 1, Strategy; 2, Shared values; 3, Resources; 4, Structure; 5, Systems & processes; 6, Style; 7, Staff; 8, Strategic performance
Activity
Level
Process/
Departmental
Level
Enterprise
Level
Phases of BPM
Design
990
Managerial
Levels
Figure 4.
of BPM alignment
in case 2
Support increased
business volumes
Conceptual
BPMJ
20,6
6. Validation of alignment framework

Drawing from the key results as illustrated in the two cases of business process
change, it may be deduced that while the strategic intent was derived out of required
business deliverables in the context of a changed economic landscape, the strategic
outcomes were not attained due to flawed business process implementation. The main
factor that emerged as common themes in both cases was the lack of alignment
between the culture, process, task and roles with the new strategy and structure of the
proposed business process. Thus while the technical dimension of the business process
was well thought-out and implemented, the lack of alignment of the key dimension
at the activity level was a key factor in preventing the success of the change. The
case studies reveal the emergence of the following patterns which validates the
conceptualization of the alignment framework.
Comparison of the mapping of the business process change implementation phases
for both the case studies, as shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively, show that the
process of business process change involves three phases conceptual, design and
execution. The conceptual phase is where the process value chain is aligned to the
strategic objectives. The design phase involves the redesign of the process creating
new workflows and linkages required to implement the new value chain
conceptualization. And the execution phase involves the rollout of the new practices
and processes as part of the new workflow. This phase wise implementation of
business process change is in consonance with the conceptualisation of the alignment
framework of business process implementation. The mapping also indicates that the
framework can be applied in the real world context.
The comparison of the case studies indicate that the three phases of business
process implementation is carried out by different levels of the organization. As evident
in Figures 3 and 4, the conceptual phase involves activities like rearticulation of
vision or create response efficient distribution which are strategic in nature and
were carried out by the enterprise level managers. During the design phase, the
activities involved design of electronic process or automation of distribution centre
operations and was performed the process/departmental level managers in the
organizations. While during the execution phase, activity level managers were
entrusted to implement the redesigned process. Thus it could be observed that the
three phases of BPM implementation had the primary responsibility of different
organizational levels enterprise level managers, process/departmental level
managers and activity level managers. This is in consonance with the conceptual
alignment framework where the primary responsibilities of the three implementation
phases have been assigned to different organizational levels.
In both the case studies, the enterprise level management assigned the resources for
developing the new process like invested in SAP technology and facilitated cross
departmental team. Both these evidence support the fact that the enterprise level
management was instrumental to achieve the alignment of the reSources dimension
of the 8-S framework. This observation is in agreement with the envisaged role of
enterprise level managers in the alignment framework where it uses resource
allocation to induce structural change. As hypothesised in the alignment framework,
achieving the alignment of reSources dimension during the business process
conceptual stage by the enterprise level managers would facilitate advancement of the
design of the new business process. This is evident from the case studies where
the business process implementation moved smoothly to the design phase due to the
enterprise level managers role in achieving the alignment of the desired reSources
Business process
redesign
991
BPMJ
20,6
992
dimension. Also the case studies indicate that the redesigned business process did not
have successful operationalization due to the lack of alignment of the Systems and
Staff dimensions with the new business process. As per the alignment framework, the
process/departmental managements primary role is to achieve the alignment of the
Systems factor and in both cases the process/departmental managers were not able to
create the necessary system to support the new process.
The enterprise level managements primary role is to share strategic values down
the organizational hierarchy. However, in both the cases, the enterprise level
management did not have any interaction with the activity level managers and thus
failed to share the new strategic direction. So it could be observed in both the cases
studies that behavioural change of the activity level managers did not take place. This
substantiates the role of activity level management in the alignment framework who
would align their behavioural style with the Shared values of the enterprise level
management. Thus the two case studies provide evidence of business process
implementation issues that validate the conceptualisation of the alignment framework
in Figure 2.
7. Conclusion
Though BPM was supposed to provide a holistic management philosophy that focus
on aligning all aspects of the organization, for practical purposes BPM implementation
is primarily focused on the technical aspect of business process or workflow
management. This view is supported by Ko et al. (2009) who found that many BPM
Suites are actually workflow management systems. With the growing adoption of
BPM Suites by organizations this would lend credence to the belief that in practice the
consequent organizational change process associated with workflow redesign is not
getting addressed adequately within organizations. By delineating the interaction of
the 8-S dimensions with the technical dimension of BPM implementation, the model
provides the manager an operational tool on how to achieve this alignment in the most
effective manner. Second, most of BPM practitioners have been accustomed to a surfeit
of tools and techniques available for workflow management but none in the area of
change management. The operating model proposed in this paper could act as a tool
for implementing change management during BPM.
The need for alignment of the technical process with the organizational change
process in BPM has not received adequate attention. In this context, this study
provides a framework for alignment of the technical dimension of business process
redesign with the human dimension of organizational change, a perspective that has
been missing in the literature on BPM implementation. Second, it is believed BPM
lacks clarity (Harmon and Wolf, 2008; Doebeli et al., 2011) as the field is largely
prescriptive and there is little theory in the academic area to assist businesses in
embedding BPM across organizations (DeBruin and Doebeli, 2008). This paper has
tried to address the need for theory in BPM implementation by linking the differential
role of managers in organizations to what they should or can do and by identifying
what organizational support do different stages of the business process redesign
require based on the nature of work involved during the different stages.
The application of the alignment framework in the context of the two case studies
as shown in Figures 3 and 4 indicate that the lack of alignment seem to occur when the
new process design is operationalized. This lack of alignment is related to the 8-S
factors of Systems, Staff, Style and Shared values. One of the reasons for this could be
that these factors deal with process activity related issues and thus cannot be
visualized and perfected prior to their actual application. The findings thus indicate
that more scrutiny needs to be exhibited when seeking the alignment of these factors
during business process redesign.
Yen (2009) has argued for the incorporation of multiple stakeholders preferences in
business process measurement. We believe this paper provides a framework that
identifies the role of multiple stakeholders (managerial levels) to address their
requirements in business process performance measurement as well as identifies
factors besides the workflow that could be incorporated in the business process
measurement system.
In the context of global competition and increasing customer expectations,
companies are required to exhibit cross-functional integration and exhibit process
orientation, i.e. focusing from end-to-end rather than on functional hierarchies (Reijers,
2006). A process-oriented organization comprehensively applies the concept of BPM
such that there is integration of strategy, organization structure, performance
measurement and IT around the end-to-end process (Kohlbacher, 2010). However,
existing BPM research had limited scope and focus on specific BPM related issues or
initiatives (Barros, 2007) and there is a call for more integrated research in BPM
(Sidorova and Isik, 2010). Thus this study provides some input towards the
development of integration of organizational and process redesign in BPM research.
The limitation of this study is the choice of the methodology that allows a degree of
subjectivity creeping into the interpretation. Another limitation is the fact that the
framework is not validated by strong empirical data. Thus it is left for future research
to provide empirical backing to the proposed framework.
References
Ackere, A., Larsen, L. and Morecroft, J. (1993), Systems thinking and business process
redesign: an application to the beer game, European Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 412-413.
Adcroft, A., Willis, R. and Hurst, J. (2008), A new model for managing change: the holistic view,
Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 40-45.
Aguilar-Saven, R. (2004), Business process modeling: review and framework, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 129-149.
Aldin, L. and de Cesare, S. (2011), A literature review on business process modeling: new
frontiers of reusability, Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 359-383.
Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (2000), Revisiting BPR: a holistic review of practice and
development, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 10-42.
Al-Mashari, M., Irani, Z. and Zairi, M. (2001), Business process reengineering: a survey
of international experiences, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 5,
pp. 437-455.
Andreu, R., Ricart, J. and Valor, J. (1997), Process innovation: changing boxes or revolutionizing
organizations?, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 114-125.
Appelbaum, S.H. and Lee, W. (2000), Transformation or change: some prescriptions for health
care organization, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 279-298.
Arendt, C., Landis, R. and Meister, J. (1995), The human side of change part 4, IIE Solutions,
Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 22-27.
Ariyachandra, T.R. and Frolick, M.N. (2008), Critical success factors in business performance
management striving for success, Information Systems Management, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 113-120.
Business process
redesign
993
BPMJ
20,6
994
Armenakis, A.A. and Harris, S.G. (2002), Crafting a change message to create transformational
readiness, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 169-183.
Bandara, W., Gable, G. and Rosemann, M. (2005), Factors and measures of business process
modelling: model building through a multiple case study, European Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 347-360.
Barrett, J.L. (1994), Process visualization: getting the vision right is the key, Information
Systems Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 14-23.
Barros, O. (2007), Business process patterns and frameworks: reusing knowledge in process
innovation, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 47-69.
Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000), Cracking the code of change, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78
No. 3, pp. 133-141.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A. and Spector, B. (1990), Why change programs dont produce change,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 158-166.
Bhattacharya, A. and Gibbons, A. (1996), Strategy formulation: focusing on core competencies
and processes, Business Change & Re-engineering, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 47-55.
Boonstra, A. (2006), Interpreting an ERP-implementation project from a stakeholder
perspective, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Box, S. and Platts, K. (2005), Business process management: establishing and maintaining
project alignment, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 370-387.
Bruss, L.R. and Roos, H.T. (1993), Operations, readiness and culture: dont reengineer without
considering them, Inform, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 57-64.
Buch, K. and Wetzel, D.K. (2001), Analysing and realigning organizational culture, Leadership
and Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 40-44.
Burke, W.W. and Litwin, G.H. (1992), A causal model of organizational performance and
change, Journal of Management, Vol 18 No. 3, pp. 523-545.
Burnes, B. (2004a), Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re-appraisal, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 977-1002.
Burnes, B. (2004b), Kurt Lewin and complexity theory: back to the future, Journal of Change
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 309-325.
Carr, N. (2003), IT doesnt matter, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 41-49.
Carr, D. and Johansson, H. (1995), Best Practices in Re-Engineering: What Works and What
Doesnt in the Re-Engineering Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Champy, J. (1995), Reengineering Management, Harper Collins, London.
Chang, R.Y. (1994), Improve processes, reengineer them, or both?, Training and Development,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 54-58.
Choong, K.K. (2013), Are PMS meeting the measurement needs of BPM? A literature review,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 535-574.
Clemons, E. (1995), Using scenario analysis to manage the strategic risks of reengineering,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 61-71.
Cooper, R. and Markus, M. (1995), Human engineering, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 39-50.
Crawford, L. and Pollack, J. (2004), Hard and soft projects a framework for analysis,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 645-653.
da Silva, L.A., Damian, I.P.M. and de Padua, S.I.D. (2012), Process management tasks and barriers:
functional to process approach, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 762-776.
Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process Innovation: Re-Engineering Work Through Information
Technology, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. (1990), The new industrial engineering: information technology
and business process redesign, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 11-27.
DeBruin, T. and Doebeli, G. (2008), Transitioning from functional silos to process centric
learnings from Australian organizations, BP Trends, available at: www.bptrends.com/
publicationfiles/SIX-ART-Transitioning%20from%20Silos%20Process-deBruin-dpebeli.
doc-final.pdf (accessed 25 November 2013).
Doebeli, G., Fisher, R., Gapp, R. and Sanzogni, L. (2011), Using BPM governance to align
systems and practice, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 184-202.
Dooley, K. and Johnson, D. (2001), Changing the new product development process:
reengineering or continuous quality improvement?, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5
No. 4, pp. 32-38.
Edwards, C. and Peppard, J. (1994), Forging a link between business strategy and business
re-engineering, European Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 407-416.
Fugate, M., Prussia, G.E. and Kinicki, A.J. (2012), Managing employee withdrawal during
organizational change: the role of threat appraisal, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 890-914.
Furey, T. (1993), A six-step guide to process reengineering, Planning Review, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 20-23.
Grover, V., Teng, J. and Fiedler, K. (1993), Information technology enabled business process
redesign: an integrated planning framework, Omega: The International Journal of
Management Science, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 433-447.
Grover, V., Fiedler, K.D. and Teng, J.T.C. (1999), The role of organizational and information
technology antecedents in reengineering initiation behavior, Decision Sciences, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 749-781.
Grover, V., Seung, R.J., Kettinger, W.J. and Teng, J.T.C. (1995), The implementation of
business process reengineering, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 109-144.
Guha, S. and Kettinger, W.J. (1993), Business process reengineering, Information Systems
Hammer, M. (1990), Reengineering work: dont automate, obliterate, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 104-112.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Revolution, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Hammer, M. and Stanton, S. (1995), The Reengineering Revolution, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Harmon, P. (2007), Business Process Change: A Guide for Business Managers and BPM and Six
Sigma Professionals, 2nd ed., Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Burlington, MA.
Harmon, P. and Wolf, C. (2008), The state of business process management, BP Trends,
available at: www.bptrends.com/bpt/wp-content/uploads/BPTrends-State-of-BPM-SurveyReport.pdf (accessed 25 November 2013).
Harvey, D. (1995), Re-Engineering: The Critical Success Factors, Management Today/Business
Intelligence, London.
Hayes, J. and Hyde, P. (1998), Process model of change, in Hayes, J. (Ed.), The Theory and
Practice of Change Management, 3rd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 47-54.
Higgins, J.M. (2005), The eight Ss of successful strategy execution, Journal of Change
Jawahare, M. and McLaughlin, G.L. (2001), Towards a descriptive stakeholder theory:
an organizational life cycle approach, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 397-414.
Business process
redesign
995
BPMJ
20,6
Jick, T.D. (2003), The Recipients of change, in Jick, T.D. and Peiperl, M.A. (Eds), Managing
Change: Cases and Concepts, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 299-311.
Klein, M. (1994), Re-engineering methodologies and tools: a prescription for enhancing success,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 30-35.
Ko, R.K.L. (2009), A computer scientists introductory guide to business process management
(BPM), Crossroads, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 11-18.
996
Ko, R.K.L., Lee, S.S.G. and Lee, E.W. (2009), Business process management (BPM) standards:
a survey, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 744-791.
Kohlbacher, M. (2010), The effects of process orientation: a literature review, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 135-152.
Kotter, J.P. (1980), An integrative model of organizational dynamics, in Lawler, E.E.,
Nadler, D.A. and Cammann, C. (Eds), Organizational Assessment, John Wiley, New York,
NY, pp. 279-299.
Kotter, J.P. (1995), Leading change: why transformation efforts fail?, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 59-67.
Kettinger, W.J. and Grover, V. (1995), Towards a theory of business process change, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 9-30.
Kettinger, W.J., Teng, J. and Guha, S. (1997), Business process change: a study of methodologies,
techniques and tools, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 55-80.
Kuhl, S., Schnelle, T. and Tillman, F.J. (2005), Lateral Leadership: an organizational change
approach, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 177-189.
Law, C.C.H. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2007), ERP systems adoption: an exploratory study of the
organizational factors and impacts of ERP success, Information & Management, Vol. 44
No. 4, pp. 418-432.
Lewin, K. (1951), Behaviour and development as a function of the total situation, in
Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, Harper and
Row, New York, NY, pp. 238-303.
McCormack, K. and Johnson, W. (2001), Business Process Orientation: Gaining the E-Business
Competitive Advantage, St Lucie Press, Delray Beach.
McCormack, K., Willems, J., Van den Bergh, J., Deschoolmeester, D., Willaert, P., Indihar
Stemberger, M., Skrinjar, R., Trkman, P., Ladeira, M.B., de Oliveira, M.P.V., Vuksic, V.B. and
Vlahovic, N. (2009), A global investigation of key turning points in business process
maturity, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 792-815.
McNulty, T.A. and Ferlie, E. (2002), Reengineering Health Care: The Complexities of
Organizational Transformation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Mumford, E. (1995), Creative chaos or constructive change: business process re-engineering
versus socio-technical design, in Burke, G. and Peppard, J. (Eds), Examining Business
Process re-engineering: Current Perspectives and Research Directions, Kogan Page, New
York, NY, pp. 192-216.
Mumford, E. and Beekman, G.J. (1994), Tools for Change and Progress: A Socio-Technical
Approach to Business Process Re-Engineering, CSG Publications, Leiden.
Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1980), A congruence model for organizational assessment,
in Lawler, E.E., Nadler, D.A. and Cammann, C. (Eds), Organizational Assessment, John
Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 261-278.
Noda, T. and Bower, J. (1996), Strategy making as iterated process of resource allocation,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. S1, pp. 159-192.
ONeill, P. and Sohal, A. (1999), Business process reengineering a review of recent literature,
Technovation, Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 571-581.
Palmberg, K. (2010), Experiences of implementing process management: a multiple-case study,

Peters, T.J and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Business process
redesign
Petrozzo, D.P. and Stepper, J.C. (1994), Successful Reengineering, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Rafferty, A.E., Jimmieson, N.L. and Armenakis, A.A. (2013), Change readiness: a multilevel
review, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 110-135.
Ranganathan, C. and Dhaliwal, J.S. (2001), A survey of business process reengineering practices
in Singapore, Information & Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 125-134.
Reijers, H.A. (2006), Implementing BPM systems: the role of process orientation, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 389-409.
Rhee, M. and Mehra, S. (2006), Aligning operations, marketing, and competitive strategies to
enhance performance: an empirical test in the retail banking industry, Omega, Vol. 34
No. 5, pp. 505-515.
Scheepers, H. and Scheepers, R. (2008), A process-focused decision framework for analyzing the
business value potential of IT investments, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 321-330.
Schneider, B., Hayes, S.C., Lim, B., Raver, J.A., Godfey, E.G., Huang, M., Nishii, L.H. and
Ziegert, J.C. (2003), The human side of strategy: employee experiences of strategic
alignment in a service organization, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 121-141.
Segatto, M., de Padua, S.I.D. and Martinelli, D.P. (2013), Business process management:
a systemic approach?, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Sidorova, A. and Isik, O. (2010), Business process research: a cross disciplinary review,
Siggelkow, N. (2001), Change in the presence of fit: the rise, the fall and the renaissance of Liz
Clairborne, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 838-857.
Skerlavaj, M., Indihar Stemberger, M., Skrinjar, R. and Dimovski, V. (2007), Organizational
learning culture the missing link between business process change and organizational
performance, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 346-367.
Spanyi, A. (2003), BPM is a Team Sport, Anclote Press, Tampa, FL.
Siriram, R. (2012), A soft and hard systems approach to business process management,
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-100.
Strnadl, C.F. (2006), Aligning business and IT: the process-driven architecture model,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 67-77.
Taormina, R.J. (2008), Interrelating leadership behaviours, organizational socialization and
organizational culture, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 85-102.
Teng, J., Grover, V. and Fiedler, K. (1994), Business process re-engineering: charting a strategic
path for the information age, California Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 9-31.
Terziovski, M., Fitzpatrick, P. and ONeill, P. (2003), Successful predictors of business process
reengineering (BPR) in financial services, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Trkman, P. (2010), The critical success factors of business process management, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 125-134.
997
BPMJ
20,6
998
Trochim, W.M.K. (1989), Outcome pattern matching and program theory, Evaluation and
Program Planning, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 355-366.
Vergidis, K., Tiwari, A. and Majeed, B. (2008), Business process analysis and optimization:
beyond reengineering, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C:
Applications and Review, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 69-82.
van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M. and Weske, M. (2003), Business process
management: a survey, Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Process
Management, BPM 2003, Eindhoven, 26-27 June.
Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E.H. (1979), Towards a theory of organizational socialization, in
Staw, B.M. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 209-264.
Venkatraman, N. (1993), IT-induced business reconfiguration, in Scott-Morton, M. (Ed.), The
Corporation of the 1990s: Information Technology and Organizational Transformation,
Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 122-158.
Weick, K.E. (1988), Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 305-317.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Willcocks, L.P., Currie, W. and Jackson, S. (1997), In pursuit of the re-engineering agenda in
public administration, Public Administration, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 617-649.
Yen, V.C. (2009), An integrated model for business process measurement, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 865-875.
Zairi, M. and Sinclair, D. (1995), Business process reengineering and process management:
a survey of current practice and future trends in integrated management, Management
Decision, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 3-16.
Further reading
Earl, M. and Khan, B. (1994), How new is business process redesign?, European Management
Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 20-30.
Holt, A., Ramsey, H.R. and Grimes, J.D. (1983), Coordination systems technology as
a programming environment, Electrical Communication, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 307-314.
Lowenthal, J.N. (1994), Reengineering the Organization: A Step-By-Step Approach to Corporate
Revitalization, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Nadler, D., Shaw, R.B. and Walton, A.E. (1995), Discontinuous Change: Leading Organizational
Transformation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1995), Types of organizational change: from incremental
improvement to discontinuous transformation, in Nadler, D.A., Shaw, R.B. and Walton, A.E.
(Eds), Discontinuous Change: Leading Organizational Transformation, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 15-34.
Watts, J. (1995), An introduction to holistic BPR, Business Change & Re-Engineering, Vol. 2
No. 4, pp. 3-6.
Corresponding author
Dr Arijit Sikdar can be contacted at: arijitsikdar@uowdubai.ac.ae
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Teija Aarnio. 2015. The Strengthened Business Process Matrix - A Novel Approach for Guided
Continuous Improvement at Service-Oriented SMEs. Knowledge and Process Management 22:10.1002/
kpm.v22.3, 180-190. [CrossRef]

BPMJ 02 2013 0020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BPMJ 02 2013 0020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Process Management Journal

A process model of managing organizational change during business process redesign

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

A process model of managing

Business Process Management

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

management of business processes for producing radical improvements in

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

from the definition of BPM as supporting business processes using methods,

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

perspective in the measurement of business process performance (Yen, 2009). Choong

execution standards: this computerizes the deployment and automation of

interchange standards: this facilitates portability of data, e.g. the portability of

Recent developments in modelling have been related to reusability of business process

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

2.3 Business process change management

Business process BPR implementation is a stage

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

3. Change management and strategic alignment

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

3.2 Alignment in change implementation

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

Change sub process

Technical sub process

Design workflow Execute new

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

Kettinger et al. (1997) S-A framework

operational, management and strategic levels based on management activities. Even

Goals and measures

Define process goals

Define activity goals

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

Technical sub-process element

Change sub-process element

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

Mapping of case study 1 on the alignment framework is shown in Figure 3. The

inefficient utilization of manpower due to manual stock-counting;

inefficient data exchange processes related to shipment and item tracking;

inefficient space utilization, resulting in overcrowding of ground space;

lack of timely and complete information on resource-utilization leading to

non-availability of timely and adequate pallet information resulting in

5: no proper training, no cross

1: articulate new vision

New roles, work

Technical sub-process element

Change sub-process element

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

increase in turnaround time;

obstruction of pallet movement due to uncertainty in customer pick-up time;

New roles, work

Technical sub-process element

Change sub-process element

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 00:28 10 November 2015 (PT)