Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
2 Discussion of BPR Theory
“Whoever is winning at the moment, will always seem to be invincible”
George Orwell.
2.1 Introduction
Organisations who have had a history of prosperous periods of growth and thriving
profits tend to become victims of their own success. Complacency breeds inflexibility
characterised by a lack of aspiration to enforce proactive change in view of changing
market conditions and early signs of impending decline. Recent years have witnessed the
troubles of several ‘blue-chip’ companies. Organisations who previously perceived
themselves to be infallible have subsequently fallen foul of the capricious nature of
competition. Companies such as IBM, Xerox and Ford have been forced into radical
change and restructuring in order to survive in an increasingly competitive market place
[10] ,[11].
Distinctive competencies have been eroded through time and competition. Pascale
discovered that five years on from Peters and Waterman’s study of so called “excellent”
US companies, more than 60% had failed to meet the original criteria specified in 1982
[12]. The fact that many companies have seen themselves in such a predicament means
that they will readily leap through any window of opportunity. A window that offers a
glimmer of hope in the shape of increased productivity and profits and improved
competitive advantage. Michael Hammer and James Champy at the beginning of the
1990s proclaimed that Business Process Reengineering (BPR) could deliver such a
desire. Unlike Total Quality Management (TQM) which focuses on long term objectives,
the proponents of BPR expound the possibility of substantial increases in efficiency and
productivity in a relatively short amount of time.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 1 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
This chapter aims to discuss the fundamental theory behind Business Process
Reengineering and associated issues such as strategy, culture, the management of change,
and information technology. A prescription of successful factors which aims to alleviate
prospective risks associated with the planning and implementation of BPR projects will
be drawn up by critically assessing relevant literature in the field of study.
The approach adopted throughout this chapter to the various BPR aspects is deliberately
abstract in an effort to draw attention to, and summarise, the multitude of relevant points
and arguments. What follows is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive account of
specific issues, but is merely designed to highlight the complexities and problems
associated with implementing a BPR programme.
2.2 Business Process Reengineering Defined
There is some quandary as to the question of originality concerning BPR [13]. Sceptics
claim that BPR is nothing new and is simply a hodgepodge of ideas and techniques
developed over the last few decades. It is often either wrongly mistaken as a modified
version of TQM, or is inaccurately described as business transformation, process
redesign, process innovation or some other loosely held term (It is not the objective of
this paper to discuss in detail the disparities between various approaches, but a diagram
summarising some contrasts is provided in the Appendix). However, Business Process
Reengineering has certain common underlying traits with these latter concepts.
Essentially, they all focus on business processes with a view to obtaining radical
performance improvement. Although there are certain concepts in the approach that are
not entirely new, when combined, they do represent an “amalgam of ideas fundamentally
different to any other change initiative” [14]. To avoid getting too pedantic on
terminology, the theory in this section will be based on the issue of reegineering as first
conceptualised by Michael Hammer and James Champy. Additional comments will also
consider the significant contribution of Davenport and Short to the theory. The terms
reengineering and BPR will be used interchangeably.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 2 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
2.2.1 A Focus on Processes
BPR focuses on the outcome of activities derived from the expectations and requirements
of either the internal or external customer. It aims to achieve dramatic reductions in cost,
improvements in quality and reductions in product cycle time. The basic premise behind
reengineering is the notion of starting from the very beginning, where old practices are
swept aside in favour of new creative and innovative processes. Whereas process
redesign addresses methods for making modifications to existing processes in order to
obtain improvements in performance, BPR seeks to design entirely new processes and
thus radically make changes in how business is conducted.
Indeed, many observers and authors purport that the reason so many statistics proclaim
the apparent failure of BPR is because they are simply process improvement programmes
paraded under the banner of BPR. The incremental improvements yielded from such
programmes have been cited as evidence against the claims of quantum leaps in
performance from BPR. Coulson-Thomas sheds some light on the issue:
"What is referred to as BPR turns out to be process improvement or simplification
and not process re-engineering. Such initiatives may result in worthwhile
increases in performance but they are unlikely to produce the radical
transformation promised by advocates of re-engineering" [15].
Thus, many so-called BPR programmes turn out to be nothing more than an exercise of
improving existing standard activities. So what does BPR exactly entail ?
BPR places great emphasis on process outcomes as opposed to individual tasks and on
eliminating non-value added activities. Porter advocates that organisations can gain a
competitive advantage through enacting value-creating activities at a lower cost than
their competitors or performing in such a way that it leads to product differentiation [16].
With the emphasis firmly in addressing customer needs, a results oriented view should be
adopted as opposed to a task oriented one. Work should be organised around outcomes -
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 3 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
not around individual tasks. This means that several jobs are combined into one,
resulting in the elimination of the need for transitional outcomes, such as non-essential
checks and controls.
Accordingly, organisations can stream-line their workforce to a more efficient level
culminating in added benefit and value to the customer using such tools as value chain
analysis [17] and functional activity analysis. Value is created whenever the same
outputs are made with fewer inputs or more outputs are obtained with the same inputs.
Benchmarking proactively directs organisational efforts to become the best of the best by
allowing the company to identify opportunities for improvement, thus supporting the
value creation process. Benchmarking tools can assist the company by providing a
comparative and visual account of 'best in practice' processes inherent in other
organisations and how to integrate them into the company. It is not about cloning the
success of other organisations, but rather it is the process of building on the success of
others and tailoring these characteristics to an organisational context such that customer
demands are met more efficiently.
Since customers exist at many levels within and outside the organisation, there is
therefore an impending need to investigate the interdependent and cross-functional
business processes that are executed within and across the organisation. Hall et al note
that realising the breadth and depth of processes is crucial to the success of BPR
implementation [18]. Indeed, they attribute an additional reason for BPR failing to live up
expectations to the fact that many redesign projects narrowly target processes which fail
to impact on bottom-line results.
Organisations often fail to look at the wider implications for the business unit as a whole.
As Edwards and Peppard aptly point out:
"Many redesign initiatives take place within a single functional area, and while
they may exhibit significant performance improvement, they contribute little to
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 4 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
the performance of the organisation as a whole. The improvement is measured
relative to the process or function of which it is part" [19].
They conclude that implementing BPR on such a partial style will inadvertently
culminate in the BPR initiative being misaligned with the organisations strategy. Hendry
proposes that this reengineering "on a piecemeal basis", where some companies choose
to concentrate their efforts on "processes in which there seems to be the greatest scope
for improvement" is symptomatic of tough market conditions and the recession which
have served to impinge on corporate resources [20].
So, the amenability for a business outcome does not generally reside with an individual
or an explicit functional area. The business must be viewed as a coterie of processes that
produce outputs of value to a customer, whether they be internal or external. It is thus
vitally important that the organisation identifies the business it is in and the goals it aims
to achieve in order to meet customer demands accurately. By analysing those processes
that add value, a suitable resource for IT can be identified to succor them. Consequently,
new processes are designed radically in a short period of time, with support from a
corresponding organisational infrastructure. Communication technologies facilitate
hybrid centralised/decentralised operations such that information is channeled throughout
the organisation efficiently.
However, BPR is a comprehensive concept and encapsulates more than just process
redesign. The new processes must be coordinated in accordance with an organisations
strategic outlook. They must embody and promote corporate objectives which directly
involves the convergence of consumer demands and tastes. As part of a five step plan in
redesigning business processes, Davenport and Short advocate that the first step should
be to develop a business vision which incorporates process objectives and targets [21].
They purport that the most successful redesign examples had developed a strategic
alignment with the process redesign activities.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 5 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
2.2.2 Summary
This section addressed the main focus of BPR - that of processes. The following factors
have emerged as issues of importance when redesigning processes:
Discontinuous thinking. Objective is to eliminate non-value added
activities by completely re-thinking and streamlining key business
processes;
Organise around outcomes. Several jobs are combined into one;
Outlined processes for redesign should be addressed by a cross-
functional team derived from people with specific hands-on experience
of the relevant inherent activities;
Customer focus. Proccesses should be analysed to determine their
interrelationship with the customer;
Inter-organisational thinking. The process parameters should be
extended to include those involved in activities outside the company,
thus improving the coordination of related activities;
Senior executives must be involved to provide expertise in overseeing
processes and formulating strategic objectives;
Benchmarking is utilised as a basis for learning and stimulating
change;
Goals and targets for improvement should be dramatic and be
communicated in a clear vision;
IT is used where appropriate to improve efficiency.
The following section now looks at the strategic implications of BPR.
2.3 Strategic Implications of BPR
Most companies now carry a mission statement prominently displayed on their annual
report promulgating the organisation’s vision of the future. Such mission statements are
used as marketing slogans and to also capture employee’s commitment and enthuasiasm.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 6 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
Coulson-Thomas highlights the value of a company’s vision as consisting of both an
internal and an external component [22]. Internally, it serves to motivate staff in achieving
the organisation’s goals, and externally, by differentiating the company from it’s
competitors. He goes on to say that both these components act together to provide the
organisation with a collective sense of direction.
The corporate vision encapsulates the very essence of an organisation's purposeful
existence, which is articulated by the mission statement. As such, the mission statement
and strategy are intertwined, each complimenting the other. In fact this relationship can
influence the organisation to such an extent as to result in bottom-line and financial
improvements in performance [23]. Reengineering can reinforce this relationship between
strategy and vision by delivering ambitious gains in performance. Hammer contends that
reengineering can facilitate and foster innovative strategies by improving the
organisation’s operating capabilities. This enables the company to realise strategic
objectives that would have been previously otherwise unachievable and also opens up
new strategic opportunities [24]. This contention will be further explored in the following
sub-sections. The first sub-section defines strategy followed by a section addressing the
contrasting approaches to the concept. This section is concluded by underlining the
importance of communicating the corporate strategy.
2.3.1 What is Strategy?
Strategy is concerned with making choices to meet objectives in the light of the evolving
external environment and the company’s available resources. Formal strategic planning
necessitates a vision and objectives and then a high-level course of action to achieve
these objectives. This strategic vision has a been highlighted by many authors as a
crucial factor for determining the success of corporate redesign projects [25].
However, a clear strategy is insufficient on its own. In order to implement a new
strategy, it often has to be precipitated by a subsequent change an organisation’s
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 7 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
structure. The 'new' structure must support business objectives by being aligned with the
corporate strategy. Miles et al highlight the fact that the inherent difficulties associated
with structural change can be detrimental to the overall strategic change. Indeed, they
attribute the issue of culture as a major source of this problem by commenting that
“managers often avoid or modify important structural demands because the required
changes conflict with their own deeply held attitudes and values” [26].
2.3.2 Approaches to Business Strategy
Like most intangible subjects, there are many opposing views on the structure of strategy.
These views can be generally separated in to four main areas, as depicted in Figure 1
below. The four approaches are differentiated by two main issues: the end-result of the
strategy itself and the processes by which it is executed [27]. The Systemic and Processual
approaches have a multitude of objectives consequental of their action, whereas Classical
and Evolutionary approaches envisage profit maximisation as the ultimate goal. For
brevity and relavancy, only the Classical, Processual and Evolutionary approaches shall
be discussed. For a more detailed description on all four of the aproaches, please refer to
Whittington (1993).
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 8 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
Figure 1: Generic Perspectives on Strategy
Pluralistic
Emergent
OUTCOMES
Profit-Maximising
PROCESSES
Deliberate
PROCESSUAL
EVOLUTIONARYCLASSICAL
SYSTEMIC
Influential writers such as Ansoff [28] and Andrews [29] have been instrumental in forming
the main body of argument for the Classical movement. Porter has extended this early
work on strategic planning into his five forces framework. This concept focuses on a
company’s ability to develop products and then it’s prowess in being able to identify
markets for them to be sold. At the heart of this framework lies the notion of long term
planning to maximise future success. This premise implies therefore, that strategy is a
predetermined and willful course of action developed by organisations. It is a rational
process whereby the company can exercise a limited form of control in predicting it’s
own future and the direction it intends to take.
However, distinguished writers such as Mintzberg and McHugh proclaim that strategy is
not explicitly concocted at the outset, but instead emerges organically [30]. They regard
the long-term view with scepticism and instead place much more value on present
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 9 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
chances of survival. This emphasis is encapsulated by Quinn. He perceives that the
efficacy of strategies tend to emerge from a series of “strategic subsystems” which fuse
cohesively into the company’s overall corporate strategy [31]. Mintzberg continues that
"formulation and implementation merge into a process of learning through which
creative strategies evolve" [32]. The 'strategy as evolution' camp maintain this argument
on the premise that the ensuing external competitive climate is too subjective and
unpredictable and it therefore cannot be manipulated as easily as what the classical
school would have one believe. As such, the market wrestles the reins of power away
from the manager, placing him in a position of uncertainty and incapacity. They can only
meet this challenge by responding to the every-day issues thrown up by the environment
with ‘best-fit’ strategies.
The processual approach is very much a learning process, built upon and reinforced by
the manager’s experience and perceptual outlook of the organisational context. As such,
it recognises that management should act as “learning agents” by adopting a flexible and
amenable approach to the surrounding chaotic environment. De Geus purports that an
organisation's ability to learn faster than it's competitors may be the only element of
competitive advantage that is truly sustainable [33]. However, rather than mirroring one
particular school of strategic thought, organisational learning consists of elements
relevant to all of them.
This myriadic view of organisational learning presents the manager with a formidable
challenge in bridging the gap between strategy formulation and strategy implementation.
It clouds the organisation’s perspective of the competitive environment and thus poses as
a significant danger in it’s ability to focus on the surrounding important issues.
However, Edwards and Peppard claim that reengineering can successfully negotiate the
difference between strategy formulation and implementation. They claim that
reengineering “involves identifying and linking the strategy of the business with the
required organisational processes to ensure that this strategy is actually delivered” [34].
This is very much a top-driven approach in that reengineering forces the company to
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 10 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
address the direction of it’s current business processes by articulating the organisational
design necessary to deliver the formulated strategy. Since reengineering cuts right across
business functions within the organisation, it must be led by someone who has the
appropriate authority to oversee a process in its entirety.
However, it is possible for the actual redesign of processes to be enacted without any
direct involvement from senior management, depending on the scale and scope of the
programme [35]. Although the BPR initiative must be led from the top, it is important that
a bottom-up perspective is also adopted. It is the employees who have had an integral
part in redesigning the processes and it is they who must live with the new way of work.
Thus, top management should provide the direction, objectives and vision as to how the
new process will look, and lower levels should provide the necessary details as to how
this new way of work should be ordered and maintained [36].
However, some authors remain sceptical as to the exact relationship between BPR and
business strategy. In particular, Earl and Khan cast some doubt on the association
between emergent strategy characteristics [37], [38] and BPR. They propose that these
characteristics are more in line with continuous improvement as opposed to the one-shot
- quantum leap focus inherent in BPR. Additionally, Hamel and Prahalad attack BPR on
it’s apparent focus for short-term objectives. They purport that reengineering “has more
to do with shoring up today’s businesses than creating tomorrow’s industries” [39]
However, Hammer counters this argument by contending that:
“Re-engineering is the mechanism for creating strengths and operating processes
which can then be exploited in many ways, re-engineering can be used to provide
cost advantages or improve customer service, thereby defending an existing
market; it can enable entry into entirely new businesses either by turning internal
processes into revenue generating services or by identifying new applications for
the same skills” [40]
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 11 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
But, Hammer's contentions for BPR are somewhat simplified in this context. There is a
multiplicity of underlying factors which can influence a company's position within the
market and it would be rather naive to suggest that BPR can provide all the answers.
Lloyd offers some thought from a different perspective on the relationship between
business strategy and BPR:
“the success of a reengineering programme is not the efficiency of the redesigned
processes, but the contribution it makes to the achievement of the firms strategic
objectives” [41].
So, BPR supplements and promotes the efficacy of business strategy. It is essential that
BPR is aligned with corporate strategy because it has the leverage to alter both the
competitive and operational nature of the organisation [42].
2.3.3 The Importance of Communicating the Corporate Strategy
From their detailed research on French companies, Calori and Atamer highlight the
importance of communication “for the implementation of strategies and the emergence of
strategic actions” [43]. They stress that these companies have improved the channels of
communication by adopting consultative management practices, which are supported by
an organisational design that is conducive to employee participation and involvement.
Spiker and Lesser criticise senior strategists who "often fall into the trap of providing
information on a 'need-to-know' basis [44].
The implications of this is that information seeps down through informal channels and
can become misconstrued in the process. The end-result is inaccurate pieces of
information which serves to invoke fear and hostility toward any proposals of strategic
change.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 12 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
In order to avert the aforementioned fear factor, any change initiative must be properly
managed. This is the topic of the next section.
2.4 The Management of Change
Change can be either advantageous or detrimental to organisations. In some cases,
organisations are forced to undergo a process of change whereas in other cases, change is
actively sought and welcomed. Organisational change can arise out of pressures created
by a host of external and internal factors, singularly or collectively. The characteristics
of external forces are most commonly manifested in areas such as technology,
sociological climate, economic environment and political changes. Leavitt identified
technology, people, task and administrative structures as being the most influential issues
in initiating internal change [45].
These internal and external forces often act in synchrony. But whether these forces are
external or internal, the symptoms of the change are often expressed in a universal
manner: resistance to change. People frequently resist change for a variety of reasons,
such as fear of the unknown, vested interests threatened or do not feel the need to change.
Spiker and Lesser purport that "any change, no matter how clearly beneficial to
employees and the organisation as a whole, will meet with and often be sabotaged by
resistance" [46]. They believe that this resistance is at the root for the failure of many
corporate change efforts. It thus remains evident that change must be successfully
managed if the organisation is to reap any benefits at all from reengineering. This section
addresses the important issue of cultural change in this management process and how to
change it. Consequently, the significance of resistance to cultural change and ways of
overcoming it will also be looked at.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 13 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
2.4.1 Organisational Culture and Change
Most companies have a common underlying culture which permeates the entire
enterprise, with slight deviances among divisions where fundamental barriers sufficiently
prevail [47]. Culture is one of those intangible matters which is difficult to quantify and
analyse. The concept encapsulates the manner in which people perform work and the
way in which they are treated in the organisational context. Schein provides an
appropriate definition on the concept of organisational culture:
“By definition it consists of a large set of taken-for-granted implicit assumptions
that cover how group members view both their external relationships with their
various environments and their internal relationships with each other” [48]
The subjective characteristic of culture poses obvious difficulties for transforming
organizations, which are essentially establishments grounded in a history of past
experiences and group norms. Organisational culture is not only expressed through the
official channels of structure and systems, but it is also manifested through more
unofficial sources such as rituals, political behaviour and physical symbols [49]. It is the
culmination of the organisation’s past "accumulated experiences and of the lessons it has
learnt in seeking to survive and prosper" [50]. So the cultural characteristics of an
organisation are engrained in its historical background which is composed of the actions
and decisions of past leaders.
If culture is so difficult to measure, then how does one go about changing it? The terse
answer is with great difficulty! Williams et al propose that culture consists of three
levels:
• Observable level manifested by the behaviour of individuals;
• Reportable level characterised by the attitudes and values of members
• Unconscious level which is characterised by individual beliefs. [51].
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 14 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
They contend that individual beliefs form the basic grounding for organisational culture
since the behaviour, attitudes and values of organisational members are intrinsically
dependent upon it. Beliefs are thus seen as the crucial factor in facilitating cultural
change.
2.4.1.1 The importance of cultural change
Culture directs the capacity an organisation has in both devising and implementing a new
strategy [52]. Culture is self-reinforcing and thus any change, whatever the inherent
characteristics are, will involve a consequential degree of cultural change. Peters and
Waterman, highlight the importance of advocating cultural change to increase corporate
competitive performance [53]. Both writers have noted that excellent companies are
characterised by their “strong corporate cultures in which the values of service, quality
and innovation were all deeply embedded” [54]. They argue that the multi-faceted issue of
corporate culture is the cornerstone of successfully implementing any change program.
Peters stresses the importance of an organisation's ability to manage continuous change to
the point that it will cease to exist if it cannot adapt to its turbulent environment [55].
2.4.1.2 How to change organisational culture
Changing an organisation’s culture involves having a comprehensive awareness and
understanding of its surrounding parameters. However, perceptions concerning these
parameters are often polluted with bias because "the task of comprehending a particular
culture becomes more formidable the more one becomes acquainted with it: one's initial
model is little more than an amalgam of the observer's own prejudiced presuppositions."
[56]. This interpretative approach is succinctly highlighted by Hendry and Hope who
remark that a company's culture is bolstered by any significant past successes which in
turn act as a barrier to future change, thus culminating in the failure of the change
programme [57]. These prejudices must be overcome. There must be a process of
unlearning past experiences.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 15 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
Since culture is founded and enforced by many factors such as leadership, structure, and
environment, this unlearning process must first address these factors [58]. Schein
advocates that the first step in changing culture is to prepare the organisation by
unfreezing existing attitudes and behaviours [59]. This process must include certain
mechanisms to promote cognitive redefinition as a means of cultivating new
suppositions. Existing beliefs and prejudices must be supplanted with those that are
conducive to realising corporate objectives. This process is administered through a
"refreezing" stage in which new cultural components fortify desired outcomes and
minimise problems and apprehensions [60]. Kennedy underlines the value of education
and training in this refreezing stage by quoting an executive in a re-engineering firm:
“...you have to change things at the emotional level. We should have spent more
time underpinning beliefs and harnessing the benefits of ownership and
partnership...Don’t tune into organisational logic, tune into behaviours” [61].
It is thus essential that top-level management ensure consistency and coherence in their
approach to avert jeopardising the successful outcome of this transition. The transition
will also likely be accompanied by a subsequent change in the organisational design in
alignment with the strategic direction.
Each of the above methods have their own distinct advantages and disadvantages. The
choice of method is therefore down to organisational context. Hendry and Hope
highlight a bottom-up approach to achieve culture transition, where staff form new
attitudes, shared assumptions and beliefs in the context of being placed in unfamiliar job
settings and relationships [62]. This process is first undertaken in discrete departments
before being integrated into the organisation as a whole.
Hendry and Hope also outline two top-down approaches which incorporate linking
programs with clear communication from the top. The first approach encourages staff to
acquire ownership of the programme through partcipation and involvement in key change
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 16 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
activities. Top level management offer facilitation and support to alleviate any inherent
fears toward the impending change [63].
The alternative top-level method is where the change programme is ‘sold’ to staff
through the medium of a corporate vision. This approach requires “charismatic
leadership, symbolic action and powerful advertising” to realise the desired ‘new’ culture
[64]. Senior executives must exert positive direction which is testament to their
commitment.
Indeed, it is not just top-level management's commitment that is fundamentally important
to the successful management of change. There is often less adherence at middle
management level which can very often act as a hindrance and slow down the momentum
of change.
However, an interesting survey on middle managers in privatised companies recently
conducted by Gemini Consulting throws new light on a possible reason for this hindrance
[65]. Alun Evans, vice president of Gemini remarked that the "reason middle
mangers...appeared to be obstacles to change is that they are not sufficiently involved in
the process to translate the vision into pragmatic decisions" [66]. The solution is thus to
involve middle managers in the change process. They have a vast knowledge base on
existing practices which may be untapped by senior executives and management
consultants. The result is "incremental change, not transformational."[67].
Since reengineering is change at its most radical, then it has to be conducted in an
environment which is conducive to open communication and which recognises the value
of group dynamics.
David Harvey, author of the British Intelligence report, “Reengineering: the Critical
Success Factors” believes that Hammer’s approach to BPR is fundamentally flawed
because it fails to recognise the human element of change. Indeed, the report purports
that companies must adopt an approach which heeds the “social, procedural, systems and
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 17 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
group dynamic dimensions of process reengineering”. Failure to do so otherwise
“jeopardises the outcome of the reegineering effort.” [68].
Accordingly, reengineering advocates an organisational structure that promotes
communication and motivates staff. A reengineered business dismantles 'command and
control' type structures and supplants them with a cross-functional multi-tasked
architecture. This creates a flexible and highly motivated workforce who are empowered
with higher degrees of responsibility and a propensity to make decisions at the point of
contact. Employee empowerment can significantly increase the performance of a
business, but there are many complex underlying problems associated with this dramatic
change in culture. An insight into these traits is provided next.
2.4.2 Empowerment Issues
Empowerment involves top-level management delegating power to lower levels of staff,
where staff are entrusted to take ownership of processes. This transition can benefit both
parties as staff’s jobs become enriched with new challenges and responsibilities and
manager’s can free their time to do more value-added tasks.
Accordingly, empowerment involves a shift in the political distribution of power within
an organisation. Thus to successfully implement the principles of empowerment requires
direction, delegation and commitment from top level management. It is this element of
sacrifice that represents the stumbling block to progress. Some executive leaders are
unwilling to let go of their power reins. For them empowerment poses a serious threat to
their political standing in the corporation. It is evident that there will be some friction as
power is eroded from one group and devolved to another. The fact that some managers
fear the onslaught of employee empowerment means that the principles may not be
executed consistently. Managers ultimately hold court and therefore any impending
program of empowerment must initially be sanctioned by them.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 18 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
Another inherent problem associated with empowerment is that not every employee
relishes the prospect of increased degrees of responsibility. Stress comes hand-in-hand
with greater levels of power and so some employees will choose to avert the issue .
Additionally, employees may be sceptical of management motives. They may distrust
the intentions of devolved responsibility as simply an exploitation exercise. To alleviate
these fears management must be consistent in their approach.
However, empowerment is not a universal panacea for attaining rises in productivity.
Again, there is no magic formula for making it work. Empowerment must be
circumscribed for the particular organisation in question because it is fundamentally
grounded on cultural issues. The onus is therefore on top-level management to create a
culture conducive to employee participation. This requires formulating a framework for
recognising and rewarding employee innovation. Employees should have a clearly
defined mission statement and a complimentary set of intrinsic values to identify.
To facilitate continuous involvement, management must give their full commitment to
ensure that participation prevails. The organisational design and structure will be such
that employees will have easy access to relevant information and the opportunity to apply
this information productively. Although empowerment requires the abdication of
specific levels of management power, it is ultimately down to them to successfully drive
the program through in order to achieve the required increases in productivity.
Failure in this process could result in employee dissatisfaction and resistance. Resistance
to any impending change can become an insurmountable barrier if it is not tackled in the
appropriate manner. The next section describes some of the symptoms associated with
resistance to cultural change and ways of alleviating and overcoming the problem.
2.4.3 Resistance to Cultural Change and Ways of Dealing With It
Most change programmes are characterised by some level of resistance. Factors that
contribute to resistance range from conscious behaviour where there is “calculated
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 19 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
opposition to change” to the more sub-conscious level where some people develop
“mental blockages” which preclude change capacity [69]. Organisations by their very
nature are conservative [70]. Political infighting can impinge upon the change progress to
the extent of deliberate sabotage. Individuals with conflicting interests, each striving to
reach opposing goals can have disastrous consequences. Morris and Brandon stress that
"solving this problem is essential to successful reengineering. The results of negative
political action can destroy any reengineering effort." [71]. They propose that solving this
dichotomy can only be realised by top level management leveraging and directing
appropriate levels of control.
Management’s ability to identify the cause of resistance to previous change programmes
is important. Change agents can learn from these past experiences and act accordingly
when similar issues arise in preceding projects. Indeed, some authors purport that the
issues for resolving resistance rests with top-level management:
"In any redesign project, senior executives must overcome resistance and
convince employees of the need for change. Ignored or ill-handled, the politics of
redesign can doom an otherwise successful project" [72]
Without such direction, the organisational politics inherent to companies can ultimately
“sabotage the project” [73]. The role of senior executives will be further probed in section
2.4.4.
To alleviate such consternation, a change sponsor can call upon several approaches each
with differing degrees of applicability [74]. For example, managers can remove any
feelings of anxiety or fear arising out of inaccurate or insufficient information by
advocating an extensive programme of communication and education. This approach
helps foster a relationship between hierarchies that serves to dispel feelings of mistrust.
This trusting relationship can be reinforced through management promoting staff
participation and involvement in the change process by means of a compelling mission
and a set of values with which employees can identify. By implementing their practical
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 20 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
ideas where appropriate, staff become more motivated and respond by offering their
commitment to the programme.
Alternatively, management can resort to more direct methods such as manipulation and
co-opting. This manner involves the explicit selection of information disseminated to
staff and the instillment of a particular individual(s) in implementing the change
initiative. Management can take this a stage further by wielding explicit and implicit
coercion where people are forced into accepting change.
Resistance to change is therefore context based. People will react differently to change
according to the environment in which it is conceived. For this reason, no magic formula
exists for alleviating the problem. Different organisations, situations and other inherent
governing factors will determine the most amenable solution. Each of the above change
strategies have their own relative merits and drawbacks. There is no quick fix or list of
ingredients that can act as a universal panacea. As Dawson stresses:
"...there can be no simple prescriptions for managing organisational transitions
successfully. What may prove successful in one context and in one time may not
prove to appropriate to comparative companies operating from different
locations at some future point in time" [75].
It is therefore important that change agents are best kept informed of any impending
voices of dissent and recognise the symptoms of resistance early on in the change
programme.
2.4.4 Leadership as Change Sponsors
Leaders are inherently responsible for fostering their own respective organisational
cultures [76]. Thus, the onus must therefore reside with them for implementing and
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 21 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
advocating organisational change. There is no doubt as to how critical the leader's role is
in a change initiative:
"...a reengineering project, like any major change programme, can produce
lasting results only if senior executives invest their time and energy" [77]
The exact contribution leadership enacts in a fluxing environment is in managing the
dynamics. As Duck explains:
“The fundamental job of leadership is to deal with the dynamics of change, the
confluence and congruence of the forces that change unleashes, so that the
company is better prepared to compete” [78].
By their very actions, leaders play a perfunctory role in formulating and executing
policies and standards for organisational members and in uniting and impelling them.
The onus is on these people to take on the role of change agents to facilitate creativity
and innovation within the organisation.
In this context, the essence of a leader is taken to both represent the CEO as well as
leaders in the context of organisational projects. Leading change is not to suggest that it
is the action of one particular individual. In steering a change initiative, sponsors are
faced with a complexity of multi-dimensional issues which penetrate enumerous
hierarchies and different functional areas [79].
Thus, in order to effectively manage the array of ensuing problems, “leading change
necessitates a leadership which can operate with multiple levers and at multiple levels”.
Consequently, “such breadth of activity cannot be accomplished by one person or
through single episodes or programmes” [80]. It requires the skill and determination of
people to challenge accepted paradigms of behaviour and practices and then searching
for, and driving through new ways of thinking and working.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 22 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
2.4.5. Conclusions
Success in a reengineering programme primarily depends on fostering the appropriate
management mindset that is conducive to continuous change rather than applying the
right technical tools [81]. The effective management of change must involve the bi-
directional flow of information - both top-down and bottom-up. However, top
management must show consistency and coherence in their approach. They should be
seen to be following up their own directions and recommendations with affirmative
action in driving the change initiative forward. Both informal and formal communication
channels should be exploited. But senior management must maintain adequate controls
on informal channels as they can be a breeding ground for suspicion and confusion.
Most management change programmes go astray because there is no atmosphere of trust
[82]. Without such trust there will not be any followers and what is a leader without
followers? Effective leadership is not an essence of being clever, it is more a matter of
being consistent [83].
Much has been written in this chapter on the importance of organisational
communication to the company’s success. This importance is not only relevant to
managing change successfully, but to the overall operational success of a company. A
major component of organisational failure is the poor lines of communication between
specialised functional business units [84]. Problems and issues relevant to particular
business projects can become enlarged to the point of crises if they are not aired and
expressed to the appropriate people. The result is that these crises become harder to
solve and may set the change programme unnecessarily back in time. Effective
communication requires the anxieties and expectations of organisational members to flow
up and down the company.
However, there is no short road to fostering this atmosphere [85]. The human dynamics
involved are often complex and unpredictable and are thus not subject to a quick fix. The
change process is not a rationalistic linear sequence of events or activities in which
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 23 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
constant progress is made [86]. Rather it is a random process consisting of parallel
activities where every member of the organisation should be involved.
However, although managing change successfully is a critical and important issue, it is
not an end in itself [87]. The issue must not become the sole purpose or objective of
Business Process Reengineering. The goal of BPR remains performance improvement
through focusing on processes. Tackling change arises out of this quest. It should be
appropriately managed through adequate planning and direction from top level
management to drive the programme through. Those who can successfully unite the cold
logic of business with the soft side of people issues will realise the huge advances in
performance that were first promised by Hammer and Champy. The role of technology
in fostering this relationship is one which has caused much debate and is where I next
turn my attentions.
2.5 IT as Driver or Enabler?
Technology has an important role to play in catalysing the successful reengineering of
business processes. In certain circumstances, business processes cannot be redesigned
without first initiating the application of information technology. However, it’s
definitive capacity is somewhat immersed in debate. On the one hand is the ‘IT as
enabler’ camp, who advocate that technology merely aids and supports the
implementation of BPR, whereas on the other hand is the ‘IT as driver’ advocates, who
maintain that technology is responsible for driving the change program. Both of these
arguments hold to a certain degree and their validity is contextual. The relative merits of
each opposing view are briefly discussed below.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 24 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
2.5.1 IT as Enabler
Coulson-Thomas believes that “technology is seen not as an end in itself, but as a set of
tools to be used, where appropriate, to support the way managers prefer to work and
think, and enable more of them to move closer to their full potential” [88]. The crux of the
matter is that IT can facilitate increases in productivity. Gary Loveman, a Harvard
business school professor states that these gains “come not because the technology is
whizz-bang, but because it supports ideas in business processes” [89].
As one respondent retorted to a Price Waterhouse/Financial Times survey,
“It would be difficult for IT to drive BPR. It must be generated from within the
operational side of the business with IT providing support where possible” [90]
Rowland is even more refined in his approach when he purports that “IT may be an
enabler of new ways of working but it is not a requirement” [91]. He concludes that those
people who uphold this view are biased because they are either technologists or have
something to gain from promoting this creed. As such, IT according to this notion, is not
the driving force behind BPR. Rather the “motivation for reengineering has to come
from the business itself” [92].
2.5.2. IT as Driver
A great many authors perceive that IT has a more incisive role to play in redesigning
business processes. Gouillart and Kelly believe that, in an organisations quest for
transformation, technology "is so powerful that a company's leadership can change the
rules of the game" through its application [93]. Davenport and Short echo this claim.
They maintain that IT and BPR form both a supporting and fortifying partnership and
argue that “IT should be viewed as more than an automating or mechanising force; it can
fundamentally reshape the way business is done” [94]. They proceed by stating that “IT
can actually create new process design options, rather than simply support them” [95].
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 25 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
Hendry is in the same frame of mind as he explicitly details how IT is a critical
component in forming the basis for "engineered processes; it also provides...the ability to
undertake the redesign, maximising value added and minimising costs over the large
range of interdependent variables that enter into a complex administrative system." [96].
From this perspective, IT is more than just an enabler, it can vastly affect the success of a
reengineering programme.
2.5.3. Conclusion
BPR originated out of the field of IT and it is evident that the role of IT is still very
influential, both in formulating an organisations’ business strategy and implementing
BPR. Indeed, it is imperative that IT is aligned with corporate strategic planning to yield
long-term success in transforming the organisation [97].
The role of IT within the context of BPR is still a much hotly debated topic. Many of the
above arguments do nothing to explain the role of IT with any clarity. Some are
ambiguous and vague and only serve to cloud over the extent of the issue, whereas others
are just plain contradictory. What is apparent, however, is that the role of IT in
transforming businesses is very much context based. Some change programmes are
brought about purely for technological reasons, whereas in others it is more of a side
issue.
However, in a strictly BPR environment as advocated by Hammer, that role is a little
more precise. IT in this manner is perceived to enable the successful outcome of any
reengineering effort. Simply automating existing business processes does not constitute
BPR. Rather, this practice will only speed up inadequate processes which were
inefficient in the first place. The objective of reengineering is to exploit the capabilities
of IT by applying it to innovatively redesigned processes to achieve new goals.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 26 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
2.6 Summary of Theory
This chapter has focused mainly on the people dynamics of change programmes and the
implications for BPR initiatives. BPR was first perceived to be a cold technical
management technique. But increasingly, people are now waking up to the fact that the
underlying traits and business objectives of BPR is akin to most change programmes.
Thus, a company who can manage the change successfully will reap the rewards
providing they adhere to the process focus as advocated by Hammer. In essence, BPR is
characterised by the following:
Focus is on creatively and innovatively redesigning new processes,
not improving existing processes;
Process breadth and depth. Holistic approach;
A clear business vision eliciting the objectives for BPR must be
outlined at the start. The focus must be on what objectives are of
particular importance to certain businesses;
Reengineering compounds the relationship of strategy and vision to
achieve dramatic increases in performance;
Executive top-level leadership must show and exercise commitment to
the radical change programme;
Appoint process owners. This person should be a senior manager with
direct process involvement and who has enough clout to push through
changes to the process;
Staff are empowered to make decisions at point where work is
performed. By streamlining process steps, responsibility and control
can be devolved to staff without the necessary introduction of
additional technological support;
IT strategy should be aligned in accordance with the overall business
strategy;
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 27 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
Improved procedures and processes should be continuously monitored
once implemented [98].
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 28 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
Appendix
ProcessRe-engineering
ProcessImprovement
ProcessRe-design
Differences between improvement, redesign and re-engineering.Source: McDonald, J (1995) “Understanding BPR in a week”, Hodder & Stoughton, pp. 7.
IT-based need
Risk Degree of change
Imperitive
High
Radical
Miinor
Low
Small
Low Dramatic
Low
Expectation of results
Short/Low Time & cost to improvement Long/High
Executive involvement Very High
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 29 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
Bibliography
NB: The numbering below starts at [10] because earlier references relate to chapters omitted due to
confidentiality.
[10] Goss, T. (1993) "The Reinvention Roller Coaster: Risking the Present for a Powerful Future", HBR,
Nov-Dec, pp.97.
[11] Hammer, M. (1990a), pp.104-112.
[12] Pascale, R. (1994) “Managing on the Edge”, Penguin.
[13] Earl, M. & Khan, B. (1994) "How New is Business Process Redesign", European Management
Journal, Vol.12, No.1, Mar, pp.20-30.
[14] Patching, D. (1995) “BPR - Reading Between the Lines”, Management Services, Feb, pp.14-17.
[15] Quoted in Kavanagh, J. (1994) "Farewell to antiquated operations - BPR is the restructuring of a
company and the way it operates", Survey of A-Z of Computing, Financial Times, 26 April.
[16] Porter, M.E. (1985) “Competitive Advantage: Creating & Sustaining Superior Performance”, Free
Press.
[17] Dale, M.W. (1994) “The Re-engineering Route to Transformation”, Journal of Strategic Change,
Vol. 3, pp.9.
[18] Hall, G. et al (1993) "How to Make Reng. Really Work", HBR, Nov-Dec, pp.121.
[19] Edwards, C. & Peppard, J. (1994) "Forging a Link Between Business Strategy and Business
Reengineering", European Management Journal, Vol.12, No.4, December, pp.410.
[20] Hendry, J. (1995) “Process Reengineering and the Dynamic Balance of the Organisation", Euro
Mgmt Jnl, Vol.13, No.1, Mar.
[21] Davenport, T.H. & Short, J.E. (1990) “The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and
Business Process Redesign”, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp.13.
[22] Coulson-Thomas, C. (1993) “Transforming The Company”, Kogan Page, pp.61.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 30 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
[23] Rarick, C.A. & Vitton, J. (1995) "Corporate Strategy: Mission Statements Make Cents", Journal of
Business Strategy, Vol.16, No.1, Jan/Feb, pp.12.
[24] Hammer, M. (1994) “Hammer defends re-engineering”, Economist, Nov 5, pp.96.
[25] see for example Edwards & Peppard (1994), pp.407-414.
[26] Miles, R..E. et al (1995) “Keys To Success In Corporate Redesign”, California Management Review,
Vol 37, No3, Spring, pp.128-145.
[27] see Whittington, R. (1993) “What is Strategy - and does it matter?”, Routledge, pp.2.
[28] Ansoff, H.I. (1965) "Corporate Strategy", McGraw Hill.
[29] Andrews, K.R. (1971) "The Concept of Corporate Strategy", Irwin.
[30] Mintzberg, H. & McHugh, A. (1985) “Strategy Formulation in an Adhocracy”, Administration
Science Quarterly; Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.160-197.
[31] Quoted from Edwards, C. & Peppard, J. (1994), pp.408.
[32] Quoted in Turner, C.H. (1990) "Henry Mintzberg: A profile", Business Strategy Review, Spring,
pp.58.
[33] de Geus, A.P. (1989) "Planning as Learning", HBR, Mar-Apr.
[34] Edwards, C. & Peppard, J. (1994), pp.409.
[35] Edwards, C. & Peppard, J. (1994), pp.409.
[36] Stewart, T. A. (1993) “Reengineering: The Hot New Managing Tool”, Fortune, August 23, pp. 33-37.
[37] Mintzberg, H. (1987) "Crafting Strategy", HBR , Vol.66, No.4, July-Aug, pp.66-75.
[38] Quinn, J. B. (1978) "Strategic Change: Logical Incrementalism", Sloan Management Review, Vol.
20, No.1, Fall, pp.7-21
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 31 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
[39] Quoted in Hammer, M. (1994) pp.96.
[40] Hammer, M. (1994) pp.96.
[41] Lloyd, T. (1994) "Management: Giant with feet of clay", Financial Times, 5 May.
[42] Fiedler, K.D. et al (1995) “An empirical study of information technology enabled bp redesign and
corporate competitive strategy”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol.4, Iss.1, February,
pp.17-30.
[43] Calori, S. and Atamer, T. (1990) “How French Managers Deal with Radical Change”, Long Range
Planning, Vol.23, No.6, pp.50.
[44] Spiker, B.K. & Lesser, E. (1995) “Change Management”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol.16, No.2,
Mar/Apr, pp. 17-21.
[45] Taken from Dawson, P. (1994) “Organisational Change: A Processual Approach”, Paul Chapman
publishing, pp.13.
[46] Spiker, B.K. & Lesser, E. (1995), pp.17.
[47] Morris, D. & Brandon, J. (1993) “Reengineering Your Business”, McGraw-Hill, pp.72.
[48] Schein, E.H. (1989) “Organisational Culture and Leadership”, Jossey-Bass, pp.183.
[49] Hendry, J. & Hope, V. (1994) "Cultural Change and Competitive Performance", European
Management Journal, Vol.12, No.4, Dec, pp.401-406.
[50] Hendry, J. & Hope, V. (1994) pp.403.
[51] Williams, T. et al (1993) “Changing Culture - New Organisational Approaches”, 2nd ed, IPOS.
[52] Green, S. (1988) “Strategy, Organisational Culture and Symbolism”, Long Range Planning, Vol.21,
No.4, pp.121-129.
[53] Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. ‘In Search of Excellence’, Harper & Row, 1982.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 32 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
[54] Quoted in Hendry, J. & Hope, V. (1994), pp. 401.
[55] Peters, T. (1992) "Thriving on Chaos", Basingstoke:Macmillan, pp.401.
[56] Quoted in Green, S. (1988) pp.124.
[57] Hendry, J. & Hope, V. (1994), pp.402.
[58] Graves, D. (1986) “Corporate Culture and Change”, Frances Pinter.
[59] Schein, E.H. (1989) "Organisational Culture and Leadership", Jossey-Bass, pp. 271.
[60] Schein, E.H. (1989) pp. 296.
[61] Kennedy, Carol (1993) “Re-engineering: the Human Costs and Benefits”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 27, No.5, pp.64-72.
[62] Hendry, J. & Hope, V. (1994), pp.404.
[63] Kotter, J.P. & Schelesinger, L.A. (1979) “Choosing Strategies for Change”, HBR, pp.71.
[64] Kotter, J.P. & Schelesinger, L.A. (1979) pp.68.
[65] Management Consultancy, July/Aug 1995, pp.7.
[66] Management Consultancy, July/Aug 1995, pp.7.
[67] Management Consultancy, July/Aug 1995, pp.7.
[68] Management Consultancy, July/Aug 1995, pp.14.
[69] Kaufman, H. (1971) “The Limits of Organisational Change”, University of Alabama Press, pp.8-23.
[70] Kaufman, H. (1971) pp. 8-23.
[71] Morris, D. & Brandon, J. (1993) pp. 124.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 33 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
[72] Hall, G. et al (1993) pp.131.
[73] Hall, G. et al (1993) pp.131.
[74] see Kotter, J.P. & Schelesinger, L.A. (1979) pp.67-73.
[75] Dawson, P. "Organisational Change: A processual Approach", pp.72.
[76] Schein, E. (1989) pp.2.
[77] Hall, G. et al (1993) pp. 119.
[78] Duck, J.D. 1993) "Managing Change: The Art of Balancing", HBR, Nov-Dec, pp.118
[79] Pettigrew, A. & Whipp, R. (1993) “Managing Change for Competitive Success”, Blackwell, pp.166.
[80] Pettigrew, A. & Whipp, R. (1993) pp.281.
[81] Talwar, R. (1993)“Business Reengineering - a Strategic Approach”, Long Range Planning., Vol.26,
No.6, pp.22-40.
[82] Lorenz, C. (1994) “Management: New light on the Grail of Corporate Renewal”, Financial Times,
12 August.
[83] Drucker, P.F. (1993) "Managing For The Future", Butterworth Heinemann, pp.103.
[84] Betz, F. (1987) “Managing Technology”, Prentice-Hall.
[85] Kotter, J.P. (1995) “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail”, HBR, Mar-Apr, pp.59-67.
[86] Atkinson, P.E. (1995) “The Competitive Advantage: Speeding up the Implementation of Change”,
Management Services, July pp.10.
[87] Rowland, P. (1994) “The process for improving business”, Independent, 22 June.
[88] Coulson-Thomas, C. (1993) pp.256.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 34 of 35
Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd
[89] Quoted in “The Technology Payoff”, Business Week, June 14, 1993, pp.37.
[90] Cane, A. (1994) “Management: Re-engineering’s all the rage”, Financial Times, 24 June.
[91] Rowland, P. (1994).
[92] Talwar, R. (1993) "Business Re-engineering - a Strategy-driven Approach", Long Range Planning,
Vol.26, No.6, pp.22-40.
[93] Gouillart, F.J. & Kelly, J.N. 1995) "Transforming The Organisation", McGraw-Hill, pp.215.
[94] .Davenport, T.H. & Short, J.E. (1990) “The New Industrial Engineering: IT & Business Process
Redesign”, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp.12.
[95] Davenport, T.H. & Short, J.E. (1990) pp.16.
[96] Hendry, J. (1995)
[97] Teng, J.T.C. et al (1994) “Re-designing Business Processes Using IT”, Long Range Planning, Vol
27, No 1, pp.95-106.
[98] See "Translating BPR into Bottom-Line Results", IE, Jan 1995, pp.27.
© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 35 of 35