{"title":"BPR——重新设计还是不重新设计?","authors":"T. Bryant, David Chan","doi":"10.1002/(SICI)1099-0828(199604)3:2<52::AID-BCR57>3.0.CO;2-Y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent excitement and hype about Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) fails to concern itself with many of the details of the phenomenon itself. The concept of ‘process’ is ill-defined, as are the mechanisms for initiating and completing re-engineering exercises. Furthermore, however much the originators and proponents of BPR may protest, BPR in use is seen all too often as a covert way of downsizing (itself a polite euphemism for redundancy) whilst simultaneously loading further responsibility and demands on those staff who manage to retain their fixed-term positions. BPR is associated with obliteration and ruthlessness, but not in quite the ways Hammer and Champy would have us assume. The authors believe that many criticisms of BPR are well founded, but that some of the underlying principles and motivations of re-engineering retain their value if understood against a wider perspective of ‘Goal Directed Development’.","PeriodicalId":100208,"journal":{"name":"Business Change and Re-engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"BPR — to Redesign or not to Redesign?\",\"authors\":\"T. Bryant, David Chan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/(SICI)1099-0828(199604)3:2<52::AID-BCR57>3.0.CO;2-Y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent excitement and hype about Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) fails to concern itself with many of the details of the phenomenon itself. The concept of ‘process’ is ill-defined, as are the mechanisms for initiating and completing re-engineering exercises. Furthermore, however much the originators and proponents of BPR may protest, BPR in use is seen all too often as a covert way of downsizing (itself a polite euphemism for redundancy) whilst simultaneously loading further responsibility and demands on those staff who manage to retain their fixed-term positions. BPR is associated with obliteration and ruthlessness, but not in quite the ways Hammer and Champy would have us assume. The authors believe that many criticisms of BPR are well founded, but that some of the underlying principles and motivations of re-engineering retain their value if understood against a wider perspective of ‘Goal Directed Development’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":100208,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Business Change and Re-engineering\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Business Change and Re-engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0828(199604)3:2<52::AID-BCR57>3.0.CO;2-Y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business Change and Re-engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0828(199604)3:2<52::AID-BCR57>3.0.CO;2-Y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
摘要
最近对业务流程再造(Business Process reengineering, BPR)的兴奋和大肆宣传没有关注到该现象本身的许多细节。“过程”的概念定义不清,启动和完成再工程练习的机制也是如此。此外,无论BPR的发起者和支持者如何抗议,BPR的使用往往被视为一种隐蔽的裁员方式(本身是裁员的委婉说法),同时给那些设法保住固定职位的员工增加了更多的责任和要求。BPR与抹杀和无情联系在一起,但与Hammer和Champy让我们想象的方式并不完全一样。作者认为,对业务流程再造的许多批评是有充分根据的,但是,如果从更广泛的“目标导向的开发”的角度来理解,重新设计的一些基本原则和动机仍然具有其价值。
Recent excitement and hype about Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) fails to concern itself with many of the details of the phenomenon itself. The concept of ‘process’ is ill-defined, as are the mechanisms for initiating and completing re-engineering exercises. Furthermore, however much the originators and proponents of BPR may protest, BPR in use is seen all too often as a covert way of downsizing (itself a polite euphemism for redundancy) whilst simultaneously loading further responsibility and demands on those staff who manage to retain their fixed-term positions. BPR is associated with obliteration and ruthlessness, but not in quite the ways Hammer and Champy would have us assume. The authors believe that many criticisms of BPR are well founded, but that some of the underlying principles and motivations of re-engineering retain their value if understood against a wider perspective of ‘Goal Directed Development’.