FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2186494019> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2186494019 abstract "A B S T R A C T Business process redesign (BPR) efforts seem to be needed more than ever, yet they have acquired a questionable reputation. This paper states that this may be due to inherent paradoxes in BPR project management, where employees in the intended future work processes are empowered and management is non-hierarchical, but the BPR project itself is not conducted in this manner. A set of new BPR project management rules is proposed which may overcome this contradiction. Empirical material from three BPR projects is presented which gives modest support to the theory presented. Suggestions for further research and management implications are provided. I N T R O D U C T I O N Now, perhaps more than ever before, is there a strong imperative for organisations to redesign business processes in adjustment to the rapid and profound changes in the environment that coincide with the advent of the network economy (Castells 19961998, Kelly 1998, Malone and Laubacher 1998). The impact of the required changes may differ depending on the information intensity of the product currently offered (c.f. Evans and Wurster 1997), but it seems clear that the next decade will see structural changes in organisational processes on an unprecedented scale. Throughout, organisational management structures will become considerably thinner, and management styles will increasingly have to evolve from command-and-control to „servant leadership‟ (Manz and Sims, 1993, Handy 1995, Koch and Godden 1996, Zohar 1996). In light of these drastic readjustments one would expect business process redesign to be flourishing. And indeed, this does appear to be the case. After Michael Hammer made his battle call for radical change in 1990 (Hammer 1990) the field has seen a proliferation of methods to tackle BPR assignments, usually performed by external consultants in commercial client engagements (E.g. Scott-Morton 1991, Hall, Rosenthal and Wade 1993, Davenport 1993, Hammer and Champy 1993). These days, BPR is flourishing in the European business community, with well over half a billion ECU of external consulting fees spent on it in 1997 and a predicted continued growth of 10% for the coming five years (Archer & Bowker 1997, Alpha Publications 1998). But if BPR is such a great success then why has the term acquired such a bad name? For at least a questionable reputation it has acquired, being associated with costly and time-consuming but often ineffective projects and success rates varying between 30 and 50% (Hammer and Champy 1993, Hall, Rosenthal and Wade 1993). And methodologically speaking, BPR is either done away with as old news (Archer" @default.
• W2186494019 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2186494019 creator A5002685455 @default.
• W2186494019 creator A5039075784 @default.
• W2186494019 creator A5058841226 @default.
• W2186494019 date "1999-01-01" @default.
• W2186494019 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2186494019 title "N E T W O R K I N G T E A M S : N E W M A N A G E M E N T R U L E S F O R B U S I N E S S PR O C E S S R E D E S I G N PR O J E C T S" @default.
• W2186494019 cites W101223594 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W10445582 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W1496977828 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W1522581641 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W1527311855 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W1550565170 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W1551750437 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W1573949409 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W1590595678 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W1591890724 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W1605701154 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W1969997 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W1970766149 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W1980729938 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W2004184632 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W2005497495 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W2010463190 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W2038859829 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W2057116778 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W2066737623 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W2071757226 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W2079423558 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W2101157755 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W2124210013 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W2144930911 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W2155154513 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W25164474 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W27418265 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W2940126405 @default.
• W2186494019 cites W3120537379 @default.
• W2186494019 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W2186494019 type Work @default.
• W2186494019 sameAs 2186494019 @default.
• W2186494019 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2186494019 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2186494019 hasAuthorship W2186494019A5002685455 @default.
• W2186494019 hasAuthorship W2186494019A5039075784 @default.
• W2186494019 hasAuthorship W2186494019A5058841226 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConcept C137335462 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConcept C21547014 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConcept C29143872 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConceptScore W2186494019C127413603 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConceptScore W2186494019C137335462 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConceptScore W2186494019C144133560 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConceptScore W2186494019C162324750 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConceptScore W2186494019C187736073 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConceptScore W2186494019C21547014 @default.
• W2186494019 hasConceptScore W2186494019C29143872 @default.
• W2186494019 hasLocation W21864940191 @default.
• W2186494019 hasOpenAccess W2186494019 @default.
• W2186494019 hasPrimaryLocation W21864940191 @default.
• W2186494019 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2186494019 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2186494019 magId "2186494019" @default.
• W2186494019 workType "article" @default.