BPR — to Redesign or not to Redesign?

Bryant, Tony; Chan, David

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0828(199604)3:2<52::aid-bcr57>3.0.co;2-y

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In attempting to expose the limits of guru theorising, the analyses offered by critical management scholars have tended to suggest that guru theorising restricts choice and distorts the realities of managerial practice (Collins, 2000) because it is under‐theorised and conceptually emaciated (Jackson, 1996). Yet it might be countered that this attempt to dismiss guru theorising is, itself, based upon a limited and distorted account of managerial practice because in taking the gurus and their pronouncements at face value it:assumes that managers are actually willing and able to do what their gurus advise (Bryant and Chan, 1996);assumes that the relationship between managers and their gurus is a linear and didactic one (Sturdy, 2002); andassumes that the outputs of guru theorising are employed by managers in an undiluted and unalloyed form (Collins, 2003). Disputing this image of the guru as the master of corporate diffusion, a number of authors (Pruijt, 1998; Valentine and Knights, 1998; Sturdy, 2002; Collins, 2003) have argued that guru ideas are subject to forces of translation (Latour, 1987) as actors struggle to derive utility from guru theory.…”

Section: Re‐viewing the Legacy Of Bprmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…assumes that managers are actually willing and able to do what their gurus advise (Bryant and Chan, 1996);…”

Section: Re‐viewing the Legacy Of Bprmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Offering a slightly more forgiving analysis of BPR, Bryant and Chan (1996) nevertheless concede that BPR, as described by Hammer and Champy, has little to offer practitioners. Indeed they argue that reengineering lacks a reliable methodology for identifying and analysing business processes.…”

Section: Generation X?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed they argue that reengineering lacks a reliable methodology for identifying and analysing business processes. Thus, in common with more radical critics, Bryant and Chan complain that the reengineering project offers managers little detailed or practically useful advice on managing the problems of reengineering (Bryant and Chan, 1996). Collins (2001a, 2002), concentrating upon the nature of organizational dynamics suggests similar problems.…”

Section: Generation X?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

X‐engineering: ex cathedra?

Collins

2004

Personnel Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper offers a critical analysis of X‐engineering – an approach to management, which it is claimed refines and extends business process reengineering (BPR) to offer sustainable benefits to business and to the various communities, which constitute modern business organizations. Noting that academic critiques of guru theorising in general and academic critiques of BPR in particular have done little to exercise the minds of practitioners, the paper offers two critical accounts of X‐engineering. The first follows a familiar concern with the production of X‐engineering as it seeks to debunk the ideas and concepts, which constitute this body of knowledge. The second offers an alternative account of guru theorising, which focuses upon the nature of managerial work and on the consumption of management knowledge as it attempts to develop a line of critique, which can reflect and yet intrude upon the complexities of managerial work. Building upon this analysis of the consumption of guru theorising, the paper seeks to provide counter‐arguments and analysis for the constituencies, which can be expected to bear the brunt of X‐engineering.

show abstract

Section: Re‐viewing the Legacy Of Bprmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…assumes that managers are actually willing and able to do what their gurus advise (Bryant and Chan, 1996);…”

Section: Re‐viewing the Legacy Of Bprmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Generation X?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Generation X?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

X‐engineering: ex cathedra?

Collins

2004

Personnel Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Adapting organizations: the instance of business process re‐engineering

Dekkers

2008

Syst. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question whether the often‐radical approach of Business Process Re‐engineering constitutes a viable option for restructuring is at the heart of this study. It appraises the case of Business Process Re‐engineering and its kin—process innovation and the Delft School Approach—from an evolutionary perspective based on an analogy between organisms and organizations. The research introduces a reference model that originates in evolutionary biological theories and models. The study undertaken—archival research for Business Process Re‐engineering and process innovation, and six case studies for the Delft School Approach—confirms that organizations evolve slower than expected, that Business Process Re‐engineering as a radical approach is hardly viable, that it and its kin seem to be directed at optimization and that the initiatives hardly connect to external opportunities. The primary yield of this research is the reference model that makes it possible to describe these (often slower) evolutionary processes. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Beyond BPR ‐ confronting the organizational legacy

Bryant

1998

Management Decision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

BPR — to Redesign or not to Redesign?

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

X‐engineering: ex cathedra?

X‐engineering: ex cathedra?

Adapting organizations: the instance of business process re‐engineering

Beyond BPR ‐ confronting the organizational legacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About