REENGINEERING process

PROJECT BY: NAMES

RAHUL GATHANI RAGHAV IYENGAR SIDDHARTH PARYANI HEERAL SHAH FORUM THAKKER

ROLL NO.
18 20 33 40 53

Sr. No. Topic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Introduction Overview History Development After 1995 The Role Of Information Technology Research And Methodology Critics The Impact Of Bpr On Organizational Performance How To Implement A Bpr Project? Tools To Support Bpr Scenarios 8 Steps To Re-Engineering Process Success How Does Bpr Differ From Tqm? The Issues Interview With Silverline Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Conclusion Acknowledgement & Bibliography

INTRODUCTION
Business process re-engineering is the analysis and design of workflows and processes within an organization. According to Davenport (1990) a business process is a set of logically related tasks performed to achieve a defined business outcome. Re-engineering is the basis for many recent developments in management. The cross-functional team, for example, has become popular because of the desire to re-engineer separate functional tasks into complete cross-functional processes. Also, many recent management information systems developments aim to integrate a wide number of business functions. Enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, knowledge management systems, groupware and collaborative systems, Human Resource Management Systems and customer relationship management. Business process re-engineering is also known as business process redesign, business transformation, or business process change management.

DEFINITION

Business process re-engineering is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical modern measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service, and speed." " Business process Re-engineering encompasses the envisioning of new work strategies, the actual process design activity, and the implementation of the change in all its complex technological, human, and organizational dimensions."

Additionally, the major difference between BPR and other approaches to organization development (OD), especially the continuous improvement or TQM movement, as stated: "Today firms must seek not fractional, but multiplicative levels of improvement 10x rather than 10%." Finally a description of BPR relative to other process-oriented views, such as Total Quality Management (TQM) and Just-in-time (JIT), was found and stated:

"Business Process Reengineering, although a close relative, seeks radical rather than merely continuous improvement. It escalates the efforts of JIT and TQM to make process orientation a strategic tool and a core competence of the organization. BPR concentrates on core business processes, and uses the specific techniques within the JIT and TQM toolboxes as enablers, while broadening the process vision." In order to achieve the major improvements BPR is seeking for, the change of structural organizational variables, and other ways of managing and performing work is often considered as being insufficient. For being able to reap the achievable benefits fully, the use of information technology (IT) is conceived as a major contributing factor. While IT traditionally has been used for supporting the existing business functions, i.e. it was used for increasing organizational efficiency, it now plays a role as enabler of new organizational forms, and patterns of collaboration within and between organizations. BPR derives its existence from different disciplines, and four major areas can be identified as being subjected to change in BPR - organization, technology, strategy, and people - where a process view is used as common framework for considering these dimensions. The approach can be graphically depicted by a modification of "Leavitts diamond". Business strategy is the primary driver of BPR initiatives and the other dimensions are governed by strategy's encompassing role. Technology is concerned with the use of computer systems and other forms of communication technology in the business. In BPR, information technology is generally considered as playing a role as enabler of new forms of organizing and collaborating, rather than supporting existing business functions. The people / human resources dimension deals with aspects such as education, training, motivation and reward systems. The concept of business processes - interrelated activities aiming at creating a value added output to a customer - is the basic underlying idea of BPR. These processes are characterized by a number of attributes: Process ownership, customer focus, value adding, and cross-functionality.

OVERVIEW
Business process re-engineering (BPR) began as a private sector technique to help organizations fundamentally rethink how they do their work in order to dramatically improve customer service, cut operational costs, and become world-class competitors. A key stimulus for reengineering has been the continuing development and deployment of sophisticated information systems and networks. Leading organizations are becoming bolder in using this technology to support innovative business processes, rather than refining current ways of doing work.

Reengineering guidance and relationship of Mission and Work Processes to Information Technology. Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) is basically the fundamental re-thinking and radical re-design, made to an organization's existing resources. It is more than just business improvising. It is an approach for redesigning the way work is done to better support the organization's mission and reduce costs. Reengineering starts with a high-level assessment of the organization's mission, strategic goals, and customer needs. Basic questions are asked, such as "Does our mission need to be redefined? Are our strategic goals aligned with our mission? Who are our customers?" An organization may find that it is operating on questionable assumptions, particularly in terms of the wants and needs of

its customers. Only after the organization rethinks what it should be doing, does it go on to decide how best to do it. Within the framework of this basic assessment of mission and goals, re-engineering focuses on the organization's business processesthe steps and procedures that govern how resources are used to create products and services that meet the needs of particular customers or markets. As a structured ordering of work steps across time and place, a business process can be decomposed into specific activities, measured, modelled, and improved. It can also be completely redesigned or eliminated altogether. Re-engineering identifies, analyzes, and redesigns an organization's core business processes with the aim of achieving dramatic improvements in critical performance measures, such as cost, quality, service, and speed. Re-engineering recognizes that an organization's business processes are usually fragmented into sub processes and tasks that are carried out by several specialized functional areas within the organization. Often, no one is responsible for the overall performance of the entire process. Re-engineering maintains that optimizing the performance of sub-processes can result in some benefits, but cannot yield dramatic improvements if the process itself is fundamentally inefficient and outmoded. For that reason, re-engineering focuses on re-designing the process as a whole in order to achieve the greatest possible benefits to the organization and their customers. This drive for realizing dramatic improvements by fundamentally re-thinking how the organization's work should be done distinguishes re-engineering from process improvement efforts that focus on functional or incremental improvement.

HISTORY
In 1990, Michael Hammer, a former professor of computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), published an article in the Harvard Business Review, in which he claimed that the major challenge for managers is to obliterate non-value adding work, rather than using technology for automating it. This statement implicitly accused managers of having focused on the wrong issues, namely that technology in general, and more specifically information technology, has been used primarily for automating existing processes rather than using it as an enabler for making non-value adding work obsolete. Hammer's claim was simple: Most of the work being done does not add any value for customers, and this work should be removed, not accelerated through automation. Instead, companies should reconsider their processes in order to maximize customer value, while minimizing the consumption of resources required for delivering their product or service. A similar idea was advocated by Thomas H. Davenport and J. Short in 1990, at that time a member of the Ernst & Young research centre, in a paper published in the Sloan Management Review. This idea, to unbiasedly review a companys business processes, was rapidly adopted by a huge number of firms, which were striving for renewed competitiveness, which they had lost due to the market entrance of foreign competitors, their inability to satisfy customer needs, and their insufficient cost structure[citation needed]. Even well established management thinkers, such as Peter Drucker and Tom Peters, were accepting and advocating BPR as a new tool for (re-)achieving success in a dynamic world. During the following years, a fast growing number of publications, books as well as journal articles, were dedicated to BPR, and many consulting firms embarked on this trend and developed BPR methods. However, the critics were fast to claim that BPR was a way to dehumanize the work place, increase managerial control, and to justify downsizing, i.e. major reductions of the work force, and a rebirth of Taylorism under a different label.

Despite this critique, reengineering was adopted at an accelerating pace and by 1993, as many as 65% of the Fortune 500 companies claimed to either have initiated reengineering efforts, or to have plans to do so. This trend was fuelled by the fast adoption of BPR by the consulting industry, but also by the study Made in America, conducted by MIT, that showed how companies in many US industries had lagged behind their foreign counterparts in terms of competitiveness, time-tomarket and productivity.

DEVELOPMENT AFTER 1995

With the publication of critiques in 1995 and 1996 by some of the early BPR proponents, coupled with abuses and misuses of the concept by others, the reengineering fervour in the U.S. began to wane. Since then, considering business processes as a starting point for business analysis and redesign has become a widely accepted approach and is a standard part of the change methodology portfolio, but is typically performed in a less radical way as originally proposed. More recently, the concept of Business Process Management (BPM) has gained major attention in the corporate world and can be considered as a successor to the BPR wave of the 1990s, as it is evenly driven by a striving for process efficiency supported by information technology. Equivalently to the critique brought forward against BPR, BPM is now accused of focusing on technology and disregarding the people aspects of change.

THE ROLE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Information technology (IT) has historically played an important role in the reengineering concept. It is considered by some as a major enabler for new forms of working and collaborating within an organization and across organizational borders. Early BPR literature identified several so called disruptive technologies that were supposed to challenge traditional wisdom about how work should be performed. Shared databases, making information available at many places. Expert systems, allowing generalists to perform specialist tasks. Telecommunication networks, allowing organizations to be centralized and decentralized at the same time. Decision-support tools, allowing decision-making to be a part of everybody's job. Wireless data communication and portable computers, allowing field personnel to work office independent. Interactive videodisk, to get in immediate contact with potential buyers. Automatic identification and tracking, allowing things to tell where they are, instead of requiring to be found. High performance computing, allowing on-the-fly planning and revisioning. In the mid 1990s, especially workflow management systems were considered as a significant contributor to improved process efficiency. Also ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) vendors, such as SAP, JD Edwards, Oracle, PeopleSoft, positioned their solutions as vehicles for business process redesign and improvement.

RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY

Although the labels and steps differ slightly, the early methodologies that were rooted in IT-centric BPR solutions share many of the same basic principles and elements. The following outline is one such model, based on the PRLC (Process Reengineering Life Cycle) approach developed by Guha.

Simplified schematic outline of using a business process approach, exemplified for pharmaceutical R&D: 1. Structural organization with functional units 2. Introduction of New Product Development as cross-functional process 3. Re-structuring and streamlining activities, removal of non-value adding tasks Benefiting from lessons learned from the early adopters, some BPR practitioners advocated a change in emphasis to a customer-centric, as opposed to an IT-centric, methodology. One such methodology, that also incorporated a Risk and Impact Assessment to account for the impact that BPR can have on jobs and operations, was described by Lon Roberts (1994). Roberts also stressed the use of change management tools to

proactively address resistance to changea factor linked to the demise of many reengineering initiatives that looked good on the drawing board. Some items to use on a process analysis checklist are: Reduce handoffs, Centralize data, Reduce delays, Free resources faster, Combine similar activities. Also within the management consulting industry, a significant number of methodological approaches have been developed.

CRITICS
Reengineering has earned a bad reputation because such projects have often resulted in massive layoffs. This reputation is not altogether unwarranted, since companies have often downsized under the banner of re-engineering. Further, reengineering has not always lived up to its expectations. The main reasons seem to be that:

Reengineering assumes that the factor that limits an organization's performance is the ineffectiveness of its processes (which may or may not be true) and offers no means of validating that assumption. Reengineering assumes the need to start the process of performance improvement with a "clean slate," i.e. totally disregard the status quo. According to Eliyahu M. Goldratt (and his Theory of Constraints) reengineering does not provide an effective way to focus improvement efforts on the organization's constraint.

There was considerable hype surrounding the introduction of Reengineering the Corporation (partially due to the fact that the authors of the book reportedly bought numbers of copies to promote it to the top of bestseller lists). Abrahamson (1996) showed that fashionable management terms tend to follow a lifecycle, which for Reengineering peaked between 1993 and 1996 (Ponzi and Koenig 2002). They argue that Reengineering was in fact nothing new (as e.g. when Henry Ford implemented the assembly line in 1908, he was in fact reengineering, radically changing the way of thinking in an organization). Dubois (2002) highlights the value of signalling terms as Reengineering, giving it a name, and stimulating it. At

the same there can be a danger in usage of such fashionable concepts as mere ammunition to implement particular reform. The most frequent and harsh critique against BPR concerns the strict focus on efficiency and technology and the disregard of people in the organization that is subjected to a reengineering initiative. Very often, the label BPR was used for major workforce reductions. Thomas Davenport, an early BPR proponent, stated that: "When I wrote about "business process redesign" in 1990, I explicitly said that using it for cost reduction alone was not a sensible goal. And consultants Michael Hammer and James Champy, the two names most closely associated with reengineering, have insisted all along that layoffs shouldn't be the point. But the fact is, once out of the bottle, the reengineering genie quickly turned ugly." Hammer similarly admitted that: "I wasn't smart enough about that. I was reflecting my engineering background and was insufficient appreciative of the human dimension. I've learned that's critical." Business process reengineering (often referred to by the acronym BPR) is the main way in which organizations become more efficient and modernize. Business process reengineering transforms an organization in ways that directly affect performance.

THE IMPACT OF BPR ON ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE

The two cornerstones of any organization are the people and the processes. If individuals are motivated and working hard, yet the business processes are cumbersome and non-essential activities remain, organizational performance will be poor. Business Process Reengineering is the key to transforming how people work. What appear to be minor changes in processes can have dramatic effects on cash flow, service delivery and customer satisfaction. Even the act of documenting business processes alone will typically improve organizational efficiency by 10%.

HOW TO IMPLEMENT A BPR PROJECT?

The best way to map and improve the organization's procedures is to take a top down approach, and not undertake a project in isolation. That means:

Starting with mission statements that define the purpose of the organization and describe what sets it apart from others in its sector or industry. Producing vision statements which define where the organization is going, to provide a clear picture of the desired future position. Build these into a clear business strategy thereby deriving the project objectives. Defining behaviours that will enable the organization to achieve its' aims. Producing key performance measures to track progress. Relating efficiency improvements to the culture of the organization Identifying initiatives that will improve performance. Once these building blocks are in place, the BPR exercise can begin.

TOOLS TO SUPPORT BPR

When a BPR project is undertaken across the organization, it can require managing a massive amount of information about the processes, data and systems. If one does not have an excellent tool to support BPR, the management of this information can become an impossible task. The use of a good BPR/documentation tool is vital in any BPR project. The types of attributes one should look for in BPR software are:

Graphical interface for fast documentation "Object oriented" technology, so that changes to data (eg: job titles) only need to be made in one place, and the change automatically appears throughout all the organization's procedures and documentation.

Drag and drop facility so one can easily relate organizational and data objects to each step in the process Customizable meta data fields, so that one can include information relating to their industry, business sector or organization in their documentation Analysis, such as swim-lanes to show visually how responsibilities in a process are transferred between different roles, or where data items or computer applications are used. Support for Value Stream mapping. CRUD or RACI reports, to provide evidence for process improvement. The ability to assess the processes against agreed international standards Simulation software to support 'what-if' analyses during the design phase of the project to develop LEAN processes The production of word documents or web site versions of the procedures at the touch of a single button, so that the information can be easily maintained and updated. The software normally used is 2c8, a very comprehensive Swedish system that has been translated into English. 2c8 meets all the above requirements, and many more, and is better than any system originated in English that has been seen.

SCENARIOS
1) Driven By Competition
Reengineering is driven by open markets and competition. No longer can we enjoy the protection of our own country's borders as we could in the past. Today, in a global economy, worldwide customers are more sophisticated and demanding.

2) Less Management
Modern industrialization was based on theories of specialization with millions of workers doing dreary, monotonous jobs. It created departments, functions and business units governed by multiple layers of management, the necessary glue to control the fragmented workplace. In order to be successful in the future, the organization will have fewer layers of management and fewer, but more highly skilled workers who do more complex tasks. Information technology, used for the past 50 years to automate manual tasks, will be used to enable new work models. The successful organization will not be "technology driven;" rather it will be "technology enabled."

3) Customer Oriented and Radical Improvement

Although reengineering may wind up reducing a department of 200 employees down to 50, it is not just about eliminating jobs. Its goals are customer oriented: it is about processing a contract in 24 hours instead of two weeks or performing a telecommunications service in one day instead of 30. It is about reducing the time it takes to get a drug to market from eight years to four years or reducing the number of suppliers from 200,000 to 700. Reengineering is about radical improvement, not incremental changes.

8 STEPS SUCCESS

TO

RE-ENGINEERING

PROCESS

It's been said that more than half of re-engineering projects fail. That's because they are often difficult, and eventually may not necessarily meet the stated objectives when they were first commissioned. Discover 8 steps that you can take to help ensure success.

1) Top management sponsorship

If top management have strategic goals, and are allocating a significant percentage of capital budgets to these projects, but aren't spending a corresponding amount of their time nurturing these same initiatives, then there must be some cognitive dissonance. Sponsors, while not needing to get into the detail, need to be available to clear roadblocks, make key strategic decisions, and communicate the importance of the change to the business, if the project team are to have any hope of delivering.

2) Alignment with company strategic direction

Project managers aren't always made aware of greater strategic initiatives, and the inherent uncertainties in those strategic decisions. Re-engineering projects that aren't contributing to strategic growth are counter-productive. Whilst it sounds obvious, it isn't always so. Reengineering projects tend to be based on value-streams within an organisation and cut across organisation boundaries. Leaders then sometimes commission projects that might be in their best interest - but not address the real problem constraining the organisation from moving towards its strategic goals.

3) Convincing business case for change

A business case should be short and compelling. It should be clear to all involved why this project, above all else, should actually be done. Business cases are about describing the many reasons for a proposed change into a single starting point for exploring the problem and solving it. People have lots of things to do at work and the majority of subject matter experts that will be working on your change won't be devoted solely to this project. A succinct business case and problem definition will help people frame why they should devote time to the initiative.

4) Methodology
It is important to have a methodology for solving problems and reengineering processes. But remember the old refrain - "to the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Structured processes are excellent, but they've been around since ancient Greece. Don't tell me about the 5 step, 4 star method, when you just need people to collaborate and pragmatically solve an issue. Other times, we don't really have a problem to solve, but a solution in search of a problem. It's really the same thing.

5) Effective change management

New ideas and solutions usually involve people, not just systems. In many ways we could define all problems as people problems. So keep in the fore-front of your mind that a human will be interacting with your system and new process.

6) Line ownership
In my experience the best and most productive projects are those where the 'business end' has direct ownership of the project. Taking it out of their hands and having the issue looked after' by IT for example is defeating. The business - who must live with the results - feel powerless to influence the results.

7) Diverse team
Go for breadth and knowledge. Look for people with deep content knowledge, balanced with people who have broad process skills. Involve customers, who aren't always customers, but more often users'. Keep the team size within reason. Too few and you will miss out on creative ideas, too big and decisions and consensus will be hard to achieve.

8) Above all else - good project managers

In a recent peer reviewed study, a researcher investigating the contributing factors to computer game success found: "that some 30% of differences in revenue between games could be attributed to the producer (project manager) and the designer alone; and that the lion's share of this variation was due to the producer (project manager). "The 'boring project manager', in other words, meant more to the success or failure of the project than did the flashy designer. Moreover, the effect seemed to persist even as the individuals moved on to other projects, so more than one game could benefit from the same competent producer."

HOW DOES BPR DIFFER FROM TQM?

In recent years, increased attention to business processes is largely due to the TQM (Total Quality Movement). They conclude that TQM and BPR share a cross-functional orientation. Davenport observed that quality specialists tend to focus on incremental change and gradual improvement of processes, while proponents of reengineering often seek radical redesign and drastic improvement of processes. Davenport (1993) notes that Quality management, often referred to as total quality management (TQM) or continuous improvement, refers to programs and initiatives that emphasize incremental improvement in work processes and outputs over an open-ended period of time. In contrast, Reengineering, also known as business process redesign or process innovation, refers to discrete initiatives that are intended to achieve radically redesigned and improved work processes in a bounded time frame. Contrast between the two is provided by Davenport (1993).

THE ISSUES
BPR has unfortunately been associated with "downsizing" or "rightsizing" both of which mean laying off workers. This has been used incorrectly as an umbrella excuse for managers to justify downsizing actions. This should not take away from the need to streamline processes and induce velocity in product and information flow in a company. Consulting firms coin phrases to promote their company: Time Based Competition, World Class Manufacturing, Lean Manufacturing, etc. The essence of the new approaches quite often amount to nothing more than "old wine, new bottles." Just like anything else, business process reengineering is no panacea, nor should it be embraced as a religion. It is an operational strategy that, if implemented properly, will provide a new dimension to competing: quickly introducing new customerized high quality products and delivering them with unprecedented lead times, swift decisions, and manufacturing products with high velocity

Interview with Silverline Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Jeckin Chheda(left), Mr. Kirti Chheda (centre) and Mr. Jatin Chheda (right), Wadala

Q . 1) What is the nature or structure of your business?

Ans We are a logistics or road transportation involved company. Involving different levels of workforce from bottom to top drivers, labours, under the supervision of field supervisors, which make sure the jobs assigned to these labours are carried out duly. These supervisors further report up to the operation managers in different vertical fields liked traffic, repair or maintenance and accounts. These managers then communicate within themselves to assemble reports to report further up to the managing directors of the company, who asses and pass or propose improvements in the functioning of the company processes.

Q. 2) What are the parts of the business that you have reengineered and how does it help?
Ans We have restructured and enforced dynamic nature of the data flow processes by adopting new-aged technology and management and reporting processes. We have adopted a SAS model for our business, which gives various data-entry and data-review control to various verticals

of the business, bottom-up, making the information flow process within the organisation more effective and secured at the same time, since it gives limited or selective access at various levels of management to various data and information resources. A SAS model is much like an ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) model which is used more by manufacturing or large scale multinational organisations to manage every physical, business, financial or logistical transactions. This helps the organisation to keep record of every movement or transactions in the business enabling more effective and precise governance and planning. Since we are a service based organisation, it is more convenient and a value based strategy for us to adopt a SAS based model as against ERP model, as it brings down the project costs and giving us a WEB based solution that can be accessed from any internet enabled computer from any part of the world.

Q.3) Did the restructuring occur with the current employees or did it require any new workforce?
Ans The restructuring involved training current employees and adding a few more at different levels to create an active and passive workforce at different levels, the former to execute the tasks involved in everyday business transactions and the latter to review or comment and account for these business transactions in the form of reports or job follow ups with the active management.

Q. 4) What are the problems that you have faced while reengineering?
Ans We have face a number of problems like confusion in carrying out a particular task, transition from old methods to new refined methods, bottle necks, lack of resources, lack of diligence by the concerned staff.

Q. 5) What would be a good reason for your company to decide to reengineer its self?
Ans Few of many reasons include the sustaining and growing of efficiency of the workforce, also for gaining long term benefits, having a better management and clarity in the working and communication with the internal management or the workforce, and also for a better accountability.

Q. 6) During the process of re engineering, what did you do for your worker?
Ans We dispatched more freedom in terms of decision making, provided incentives for increased and higher responsibility, brought forth an easier reporting process by eliminating or reducing the margin of errors and also helped reduce tedious process to establish accountability of resources given at hand, by use of better technology.

Drivers being provided with food, Belapur

Q. 7) What were the failures in adapting and practicing re engineering process within the planned framework (time)?
Ans - In terms of employees and management communication and effective communication between employees and management revolutionizing and adding new interfaces of technologies in the existing phases and resistance of existing staff or members in learning or applying the new standards. In terms of technology, there would be a transformation in the workforce of the organisation since new technology and advanced and enhanced processes would require more skilful workforce adding to the day-to-day cost of the business. This transformation would also affect the day-to-day business processes and systems to new ones and also from old experienced workforce to the relatively new workforce altogether would disturb the stability of the business.

Q.8) What were the goals set at the time of re engineering and benefits at various levels?
Ans Goals and benefits such as, 1. To give clarity in the data flow process and to set out clear information flow within the organisation. 2. To govern access to various data and information at various hierarchy level within the organisation. 3. To set out a more efficient workforce by defining clear goals and objectives. Motivation based to various levels of management assuring better output, information flow and integrity of the workforce and better teamwork. This also assures time bound completion of objectives and motivates the workforce for being more efficient. 4. To create an effectively value based system at a physical, logistical and financial level. 5. Helping the organisation to attain or achieve more effectiveness with lesser input cost.

6. In the old system of management fashion it would be really difficult for the top level management to keep track or records of micro level transactions or activities. Thus enabling space for many unseen losses, enabling these new age systems and models, helps tackle this critical space by giving the top-level management complete control and access to micro level transactions and activities of the business, since their review, permissions and authentications are necessary at every level to authorise, pass or approve any transactions or activity to be recorded in the books of the business or organisation.

Q. 9) Have youll outsourced for business re engineering?

Ans Yes, a consultancy firm to design and create a model has been adopted by the business efficiently with least possible transactions and transformation losses and smoother adoption of new systems.

Q. 10) What do youll plan to do for future?

Ans We plan to enhance the business process and adopt effective process controls to minimise losses, delay and bottlenecks of information flow and costs. We also plan to upgrade standards of process controls and upgrade technological standards enabling more efficient and smoother business process.

Trucks parked in the workshop, Jasai.

Q. 11) What are the some of the mistakes made when beginning reengineering?
Ans - Common mistakes like underestimating leakages while planning reporting the information flow, along with limitation in communication. These leakages cause loss of time and also create loopholes in the integrity of the information or reporting channel thereby risking a possibility of a bottleneck. Having an over optimistic expectations of deliverables from new systematic process and adoption, adaptability and response from the workforce to the new system process.

Q. 12) Why does reengineering take so long?

Ans Re engineering normally takes long due to reasons like untimely or delays in response from various verticals of the business creating stagnancies, bottlenecks or complete failures in any module of a process or in an entire process.

Q. 13) What type of management structure is needed for the new style reengineered company?
Ans Logistics would need a vertical structure.

Q. 14) Any failures experienced while adapting BPR? Ans - Practical adaptation of technology or optimal use of technology by
workforce as planned. This was a major drawback experienced, since different levels of workforce chose to go back to older manual systems because of their comfort factors with them. This created loopholes, bottlenecks, delays or complete failure. Also older or experienced employees found it difficult or unnecessary to report to new/educated staffs, which were put in place to collect information, organize it and pass to the next level.

Q.15) What are the risks involved in re engineering the business?

Ans Few risks involved in Re engineering the business were 1. Technological know-how or acceptance, and practice of technology or failure of technology in translating into a real and simpler form of process, thereby actually complicating the process rather than simplifying it. 2. Estimation of time to complete the project - As discussed earlier; bottlenecks, non-acceptance of technology, seamless, etc can cause delay in complete restructuring, thereby involving major risk of cost escalation, sometimes steeply, when project managers charge by the day/hourly. 3. Changes may add complexities to the current affairs of the company initially lack of planning redundant staff/process may result in dead-ends or unplanned project black outs.

CONCLUSION
To be successful, business process reengineering projects need to be top down, taking in the complete organization, and the full end to end processes. It needs to be supported by tools that make processes easy to track and analyze. BPR highlights the importance of the human factors in implementation, we can conclude that their differing views as to how to approach the people issues, reflects the diversity of opinion within the broader perspective of change management. From the preliminary research exercise we can make a number of tentative conclusions. First, that most organisations undertaking BPR are making significant reductions in staff numbers and that they are undergoing significant change both in their type of organisational structures and in their management styles. Whilst the research does confirm that respondents overwhelming believe that organisational culture can be changed, it seems there is little consensus as to the factors for achieving such change, other than it needs time to accomplish. Thirdly, that management are not overtly concerned about any ethical considerations in changing their employees values and beliefs. BPR are concerned with the social implications, such as significant redundancies and an atmosphere of fear and insecurity for those that remain. Their accusations against the BPR protagonist, that of overtly using hard, systematic and coercive change management techniques, only seems to be somewhat true. Most of the respondent organisations do also use softer. A tentative conclusion is that most employee improvements occur when there is indeed an emphasis on the harder techniques, particularly those that aim to directly change employees behavioural patterns, but that most improvements occur where these are complemented by a number of the softer techniques. Further, it seems that most improvements occur with BPR programmes that have been running for 2 to 3 years. Given most respondent's BPR programmes were still inprogress, with most for less than a year, then organisations will need the tenacity to see their BPR projects bear fruit.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We hereby acknowledge that we have completed this project on RE-ENGINEERING PROCESS in our TYBBI (Semester 6) under the guidance of Prof. Mamta Sippy. The information submitted is true and original to the best of our knowledge. We would like to express our gratitude to Mr. Jatin Chheda and Mr. Jeckin Chheda who gave us the possibility to complete this project. We would like to specially thank Prof. Mamta Sippy for encouraging us and being our guardian for this project and giving us the scope to make this project.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Website: 1. http://www.wikipedia.com 2. http://www.google.com Interviewed: Mr. Jatin Chheda and Mr. Jeckin Chheda, the Directors of Silverline Logistics Pvt. Ltd.