Business analysis techniques in business reengineering

Abstract

Purpose – Using 12 case studies, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the use of business analysis techniques in BPR. Some techniques are used more than others depending on the fit between the technique and the problem. Other techniques are preferred due to their versatility, easy to use, and flexibility. Some are difficult to use requiring skills that analysts do not possess. Problem analysis, and business process analysis and activity elimination techniques are preferred for process improvement projects, and technology analysis for technology problems. Root cause analysis (RCA) and activity-based costing (ABC) are seldom used. RCA requires specific skills and ABC is only applicable for discrete business activities. Design/methodology/approach – This is an exploratory case study analysis. The author analyzed 12 existing business reengineering (BR) case studies from the MIS literature. Cases include, but not limited to IBM Credit Union, Chase Manhattan Bank, Honeywell Corporation, and Cigna. Findings – The author identified eight business analysis techniques used in business process reengineering. The author found that some techniques are preferred over others. Some possible reasons are related to the fit between the analysis technique and the problem situation, the ease of use-of-use of the chosen technique, and the versatility of the technique. Some BR projects require the use of several techniques, while others require just one. It appears that the problem complexity is correlated with the number of techniques required or used. Research limitations/implications – Small sample sizes are often subject to criticism about replication and generalizability of results. However, this research is a good starting point for expanding the sample to allow more generalizable results. Future research may investigate the deeper connections between reengineering and analysis techniques and the risks of using various techniques to diagnose problems in multiple dimensions. An investigation of fit between problems and techniques could be explored. Practical implications – The author have a better idea which techniques are used more, which are more versatile, and which are difficult to use and why. Practitioners and academicians have a better understanding of the fit between technique and problem and how best to align them. It guides the selection of choosing a technique, and exposes potential problems. For example RCA requires knowledge of fishbone diagram construction and interpreting results. Unfamiliarity with the technique results in disaster and increases project risk. Understanding the issues helps to reduce project risk and increase project success, benefiting project teams, practitioners, and organizations. Originality/value – Many aspects of BR have been studied but the contribution of this research is to investigate relationships between business analysis techniques and business areas, referred to as BR dimensions. The author try to find answers to the following questions: first, are business analysis techniques used for BR project, and is there evidence that BR affects one or more areas of the business? Second, are BR projects limited to a single dimension? Third, are some techniques better suited for diagnosing problems in specific dimensions and are some techniques more difficult to use than others, if so why?; are some techniques used more than others, if so why?