BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING ON CAMPUS: WHAT IS IT'S ROLE?

CAUSE94 Current Issues Session
Thursday, December 1, 1994, 4:30 to 6:00 pm
Walt Disney World Dolphin, Oceanic Room 5

Moderators: Jill Tuer Arnold, University of Michigan and 
            Susy Chan, DePaul University

CURRENT ISSUES SESSION ABSTRACT

Does business process reengineering belong on your campus?  
What is the role of the IT organization in leading or 
supporting reengineering efforts?  How should information
technology be effectively deployed during reengineering? 
Participants should come prepared to exchange experiences and 
successful strategies on how their institutions and IT
organizations adopt BPR for process renovation to their 
campus.

CURRENT ISSUES SESSION SUMMARY

One of the current issues facing Information Resource 
Management professionals on our campus today is process 
re-engineering.  A group of about 40 CAUSE attendees met 
at the 94 conference to begin addressing process 
re-engineering, strategies for success, and the related 
issues for our IRM organizations. More questions were raised 
than strategies presented. We agreed we were only touching 
the surface, that we needed more education and an 
opportunity to continue sharing and discussion via a 
CAUSE sponsored listserv. 
 
Brainstorm of Issues and Questions 
 
The issues identified in a round table identification 
process clustered in the areas of overall definition of 
BPR, the BPR process, the challenges for IRM organizations,
and the cultural issues regarding change in the higher 
education environment.  These questions and issues were 
used to help structure the group discussion of strategies 
and will be addressed in follow-on activities of the group.
 
Understanding what BPR really is:
This was the major concern expressed by the group. Although 
the Hammer and Champy definition is widely quoted it was felt 
that there is often a misunderstanding of what BPR really is.
The term is often over-used and used incorrectly. Many people 
say they are doing re-engineering but in reality the information 
systems are just being re-done. Must BPR be radical change or 
does re-design fall within the definition? A clear understanding 
of this is needed before campuses can determine whether to 
be involved. The differences and relationships between business 
process re-engineering, continuous process improvement, and 
information engineering must also be understood by both IRM 
organizations and our customers. How can we bridge from TQM to 
BPR?  How do we deal with concerns that BPR is just a fad? We 
need to understand the mandate we are hearing for BPR and to 
clarify the expectations of our campus executive officers.  
What strategies are there to help clarify the defintion and 
the expectations of BPR?

Understanding the basics:

The need for more knowledge in the basics of business process 
re-iengineering, for advice on gathering customer (student) input,
for access to data on best practices, and for gaining 
executive commitment was expressed. Many in the group felt that 
more education regarding the process of business re-engineering 
was needed before they could recommend how IRM could facilitate 
the efforts.  While executive commitment is said to be critical 
for success in re-engineering, strategies for ensuring commitment 
rather than mere involvement are needed.  Recommendations for how 
best to gather input from students and other customers in 
re-engineering were requested.  Best practice data sharing methods 
are needed as well. 
 
Challenges for the IRM organization:

The questions here revolved around the various roles required in 
BPR activities, the role of the IRM organization in facilitating 
change, and the need for responsiveness in implementing 
information technology solutions to meet new process needs. Sharing 
of strategies for keeping IRM and organizational goals connected 
and on being involved with planning and not just implementing 
solutions is needed.  Many were concerned with whether IRM would 
be able to deliver what was needed when it was needed; the question 
of how this impacts current methodologies for development and 
implementation was raised. 

Cultural Change:

Cultural change is seen as a part of the BPR process.  How can 
change be managed in a way that deals with the cultural issues?
How can morale be maintained and negative after-effects be 
minimized?  How can we facilitate BPR without alienation?  The 
concern over faculty involvement was expressed.  Should BPR be 
done only on the administrative processes? Are the academic 
processes sacred?  Should client and customer language be 
hidden from faculty?
 
Strategies for Successful Process Innovation 
 
Setting the stage and creating the vision:
The IRM organization can be a change agent in helping to set 
the stage for positive change.  Some strategies for raising 
awareness include: repetitive communication to introduce the 
ideas and opportunities; road shows with executives and 
stakeholders; training on process versus function; 
collaborative planning and information sharing between IRM 
and executive officers and campus leaders; initial focus 
on what needs to be done as opposed to how it should be done;
involvement of business school faculty.
 
Identifying the opportunities and setting priorities:
1)  The IRM organization can help structure a process to 
    determine where BPR efforts should be focused.  It is 
    important to have all understand the drivers and whether 
    they are significant to sustain a successful BPR.  
    Reducing expenses, enhancing service, and projects 
    linked to achieving institutional goals need to be 
    considered.  Transformation of the business we are in 
    is not often a goal. 
2)  Being up-front with regard to academic processes is 
    important.  If the intent is to stay clear of in 
    classroom content and delivery of education processes 
    and focus on instructional support systems and 
    processes, then this should be made clear.  A desire 
    for more aids to the barriers of addressing faculty and 
    academic instructional areas continues to be needed.
 
The Re-design Effort and Implementation
There were mixed feelings concerning the extent to which 
project teams should focus on analysis of the current state. 
Concerns were expressed over spending too much time on the 
As-Is and suggested skipping this phase of the BPR methodology.
Others felt that the As-Is analysis was needed in order to 
develop proper implementation and transition plans. It was 
suggested that over focus on the To-Be could lead to the lack 
of understanding the whole picture and all of the issues that 
would need to be addressed. 
 
The discussion of strategies regarding methodology, best 
practices, organizational issues, change management, etc. was 
deferred due to lack of time at the session.  These topics 
will be discussed via the Listserv.
 
Process Innovation and the IRM Organization
 
The Use of Consultants:
Strategies for use of external consultants in a manner that 
keeps down the overall institutional costs were identified.  
Knowledge transfer of BPR skills to local d. We agreed we 
were only touching the surface, that we needed more education 
and an opportunity to continue sharing and discussion via 
a CAUSE sponsored listserv. 
 
Brainstorm of Issues and Questions 
 
The issues identified in a round table identification process 
clustered in the areas of overall definition of BPR, the BPR 
process, the challenges for IRM organization in the past. 
 
IRM Role:
The IRM organization can provide multiple roles for BPR 
efforts.  They can be change agents in various steps of the 
process.  They can assist in planning, visioning, identifying 
areas of opportunity, and in prioritizing projects. They can 
maintain the methodology and the tools to support BPR. They 
can provide facilitation. They can provide support in process 
analysis, data analysis, technology planning, and can be the 
implementers of the technology required.
 
What Skills are Needed:
The skills are varied and they include:  team building, 
facilitation, creativity, abstraction, technology assessment, 
systems analysis, process analysis, data analysis, systems 
development, prototyping, best practices awareness, rapid 
application development, client/server......  Various kinds 
of expertise will be needed at different times in a project 
and should be available to the project team as needed.

Relationship with IRM Architecture
The relationship between business process re-engineering and 
IRM architecture planning is symbiotic.  The architecture needs 
to be utilized in BPR planning and the BPR needs should drive 
the continuous improvement and development of the architecture.
BPR provides a construct for architecture development that 
marries traditional concepts with new ones and provides a 
linkage with architecture and the goals of the institution.
 
Information Systems Support:
The applicability of vendor software in support of a 
re-engineered process was discussed and various strategies 
were shared: 
1)  Pick a vendor product and re-engineer around the technology.  
2)  Perform a market analysis early on in the To-Be step to 
    understand availability of solutions/enablers.  Incorporate 
    this knowledge into the re-design process and be prepared for 
    trade-offs.
3)  Build entirely in-house.  Do this either upon completion of 
    the new process design or with an iterative prototyping and 
    design methodology in conjunction with the To-Be design.  
    If one is innovative, a package will not likely be available. 
4)  Support the new process with a mix of in-house development 
    and the use of components for certain functions from vendors. 
5)  Work in partnership with a vendor in developing software that 
    meets the needs of the new process.
 
Whatever the strategy, IRM will be expected to react quickly in 
providing appropriate technology solutions and these solutions 
must be easily enhanced to provide for continuous improvement of 
the process. Object orientation is seen as a mechanism that will 
allow us flexibility and re-usability of commonly used parts.  
GUI builders, prototyping tools, and an iterative protypying 
development environment are also seen as important in meeting 
the challenges. 

Date Revised: 2/14/95 (rlr)