Article Preview
Top1. Introduction
As the business is growing and becoming more dynamics, couple with high rate of organizational changes and technological breakthrough a lot organizations are forced to continuously reengineer in order to compete both internally and externally (Kotter, J.P., 1996; Henriques, et. al., 2010). The need for innovation and strong external force are serious threat and challenge for healthcare systems. Subsequently, healthcare organization need to overcome these challenges by eliminating non-value added transactions, eliminate or reduces waiting time by implementing new technological services (Christensen, et. al., 2009; Kaplan & Porter, 2011)
Literatures have shown how implementation of Business Process Reengineering (BPR) help many organizations achieved dramatic breakthrough performance in terms of saving cost, quality and services. Popular example is Motorola, when faced with the challenge of high rate of defect percentage and longer cycles times, decide to totally redesign its parts and tooling process, and at the same time upgrading manufacturing facilities. This BPR process was also able to cut the production cost by one billion US Dollars per year (US$1) and cut cycle time by half. Hallmark also achieved 75% decrease in introduction time on cards (C Ranganathan & Jasbir S., 2001)
Meanwhile, a survey conducted by a D. Little consulting firm indicated that 85% of the top management of an organization were not happy or satisfied with the outcome of the reengineering project (Kleiner A., 2000). This is in line with the series of research conducted in the early 90s which indicated that 70% of the reengineering programs had only delivered less than what they are expected to do otherwise had fails (Grover, V., 1999)
Therefore, even though a lot of organizations embraced the concept of this BPR programs, only few of them immerge successful in their effort. Study indicates that many top management of organizations are disappointed with the result of the program (Moad. J., 1993). And that the failure rates are as high as 70%9. The initiation and diffusion of the BPR like most of the management concept follows S-shaped curve. When this concept was first introduced in early 90s there was an overwhelming success and large scale acceptance. After spate of failures and difficult nature in implementation, the initiatives become serious challenges to both the researchers and practitioners (Rao et. al., 2012)
This high rates of failures prompted researchers in that field to view the concept of BPR as a passing management short-lived fashion. Some of the earlier approach of the programme is changing and the researchers are now looking PBR as not only process change but overall organizational change (Rao, et. al.,2009).
The reasons behind this many failures have been discussed by so many researchers, and number of reasons have been provided as to why these previous success is no more releasable. Among the factors deliberated is focusing on only the steps in the business process and giving little emphasis to the environment within which the reengineering program is taking place9. This situation makes it difficult for the BPR team to visualize certain knowledge available in the organization where the program is taking place. The second reason discussed was lack of appropriate tools for proper modeling and integration among the various enterprise elements of the business process of an organization undergoing BPR. Even though there are so many available tools for modeling but so many of them only support diagrammatic modeling only (Vergidis, et. al., 2008).