Most firms should proceed with caution when implementing business process reengineering (BPR), first removing any other impediments to the effectiveness of the business process reengineering (BPR). Unless these firms avoid adopting a poor BPR approach, engage consultants effectively, train their personnel on new technology and systems, invest in training, and have complete control of a legacy system, BPR will inevitably fail. This article will go through why the Biometric Process Reengineering project failed and what lessons were learned. Furthermore, it illustrates how the lessons acquired were applied to inform the initiatives. Additionally, if they do not acquire an IT architecture that is well aligned with their objectives, have a flexible management team, and finally, have a long-term commitment, then the BPR system is doomed to fail. Business process reengineering (BPR) came intense onto the firm stage as a savior of the underperforming organizations. But a few years later on, it fails to live up to its hype and even the expectations of both its advocates and even the groups that adopted it. This is primarily due to the various flaws that were all along present within the deemed to be "revolutionary" system itself and of course due to the in capabilities of the adopting organizations to efficiently and more supplement the system's efforts.
Another factor that made the success of the business process re-engineering impossible was the fact that the managers of the organizations that adopted it lacked patience. This was also because the managers faced various challenges such as limited resources within their grasp, slow pay-off, lessened worker fervor, and increased resistance to change. Perhaps this was because the managers were targeting BPR initiatives that weren't "manageable" and that were not getting quick results; short-term goals.
Majority of the organizations that adopted the business process re-engineering, never really got to fully understand the scope of the system in that they failed to carefully consider the type of the process initiative offered by the BPR system. They neglected to figure out that the BPR effort should be driven by a focus on the customer and also the strategic business issues or senior management directives.
Majority of these organizations also had legacy systems heritage that predicted the failure of the BPR even before the initiative was adopted. This is because these legacy systems were not under control because they were deprived of proper documentation, historical measurements, and an outdated change control processes that were not accommodating to the BPR initiative.
Majority of the managers lost patience and faith with the BPR initiative and in came the high-profile technologies (HPT) which were thought to be more efficient than the BPR in delivering better results. In this case, the top management of Vicro communications made a grave mistake to base this decision solely on vendor's promises, the market share of the software in its market niche, name recognition, and CEO endorsement all which were entirely irrelevant towards the success of this new system (Bergey et al.1999). No significant effort was made to obtain opinions and response from personnel at the progression level or those engaged in present systems development and preservation, all which were crucial to the success of the HPT system.
This was an apparent spelling of disaster within Vicro communications especially when there appeared to be a communication breakdown between the stakeholders who are practically the owners of the company and the top management at Vicro. The co-existence between the BPR initiative and technology was virtually absent. There was no consideration for the existing process before the implementation of a new system-the HPT (Davenport, 1993). There was no attempt to come up with or re-engineer the existing ones to match the procedures of the HPT. Additionally, Vicro programmers were not given a chance to alter the enterprise system to match the current processes all which made it impossible for the new HPT initiative to thrive. HPT, on the other hand, itself did not enable information sharing across the enterprise which was quite an essential function of the system in the first place.
The failure of both the BPR and the HPT initiatives was due to a culmination of factors that can be seen in both the systems themselves and the organizations that adopted the such as Vicro communications. This is because the BPR system/initiative to start with was not well designed or planned by the top management since the senior management viewed it as something that was to make them more competitive than the rest rather than a holistic method to transform the organization (Davenport, 1993). In the future, Vicro communication's top management should look at the bigger picture which should be in that case the long-term goals instead of short-term goals when adopting new systems. The top management should also invest heavily in its workforce by training them better on new systems, that way they can be able to design and re-design existing systems and processes within the organization that way being self-sustainable.
In a nutshell, Vicro communication's top management should in plan carefully and not just use their financial muscle to gain profits and make the company the most competitive. In this case, they should engage their workforce in consultations about adopting new systems and also employ other consultants who are not within the organization. This will enable them to get an in-depth understanding of the problem and even a better insight and most importantly their opinions since they are the ones who interact with these systems more often. Vicro should also in the future pay attention to the views of its employees irrespective of their level, rank or even full ability on matters regarding the day-to-day operations of the company.
References
Bergey, J., Smith, D., Tilley, S., Weiderman, N., & Woods, S. (1999). Why Reengineering Projects Fail (No. CMU/SEI-99-TR-010). CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIV PITTSBURGH PA SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INST.
Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business Press.
