Abstract

Business Process Business process redesign (BPR) and informa-

Redesign and tion architecture (IA) have been recognized as
high priority agenda items in organizations dur-
ing the 1990s. This paper explores the relation-
Information ships between the two concepts. Specifically,
this paper focuses on three main concerns: how
IA supports BPR, how the lack of IA hinders
Architecture: BPR, and what approach to IA can facilitate
BPR? The paper begins with a brief review of
Exploring the the development and implementation of each
concept. This is followed by an examination of
how IA and BPR are related to business proc-
Relationships esses, both existing and newly designed proc-
esses. This analysis, in conjunction with results
from field research, provide the basis for nine
propositions regarding the BPR and IA relation-
James T. C. Teng ship. In support of BPR, IS professionals have
William J. Kettinger the opportunity not only to contribute to a firm's
College of Business Administration business objectives, but also to begin to achieve
University of South Carofina IA's promise while avoiding some of IA's past
implementation problems. It is hoped that further
research based on these propositions will lead
to more complete answers and perhaps more
specific questions on the BPR/IA relationships.

Key Words: information architecture, business

process redesign, reengineering, methodology,
information systems, strategy.

Introduction
Organizations are undergoing revolutionary
changes in the way they function and compete.
Popular business publications are replete with
reports on corporations embarking on cam-
paigns to rework fundamentally how they do
business (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Davis,
1993). Business process redesign (BPR) or
reengineering seeks to redesign business proc-
esses to enhance productivity and competitive-
ness. A 1994 survey of 497 large companies in
the United States and 124 firms in Europe re-
vealed that 69% of the American companies
and 75% of the Europeans have attempted
reengineering, and more than half of the re-
mainder are planning BPR initiatives (CSC In-
dex, 1994).

Running in parallel with this recent attention on

BPR has been a somewhat quieter, but equally
significant organizational initiative focusing on
the importance of information as a strategic re-
source of the firm and the vital need to design a
30 DATA BASE ADVANCES-- February 1995 (Vol. 26, No. 1)
corporate "information architecture" (IA) to sup-
port dynamic competitive strategies and proc-
esses. A 1991 study of senior IS executives
identified the "development of an information
architecture" as the most critical issue facing IS
managers in the 1990's (Niederman,
Brancheau, and Wetherbe, 1991).
Given the heightened attention on both BPR
and IA, it is surprising that little research has
been conducted to examine the relationships
between these two concepts in depth, and to
integrate BPR and IA into existing IS scholarly
thinking or practice. As both BPR and IA attain
strategic significance in organizations, it be-
comes imperative for corporate as well as IS
management to understand the relationships
between these two important organizational ini-
tiatives and properly integrate them within their
corporate and IS strategies.
This paper will discuss how data base technol-
ogy and information architecture fit with BPR.
Specifically, BPR/IA relationships will be ex-
plored with respect to three main concerns: how
IA supports BPR, how the lack of IA can hinder
BPR, and an approach to IA that effectively fa-
cilitate BPR. This paper begins with a separate
review of the origin and development of both
BPR and IA. This brief review will set the stage
for subsequent analysis of the relationships be-
tween the two concepts leading to a "process
linkage model" depicting their common focus
on business processes. These linkages are fur-
ther examined in light of field experience and
real case studies. Based on the conceptual
possibilities and practical limitations outlined, we
proceed to explore the BPR/IA relationships by
formulating a set of research propositions in re-
lation to the three research concerns. In the last
part of the paper, concluding observations and
suggestions for further studies on BPR/IA rela-
tionships are discussed.
Business Process Redesign:
Origins and Progress
BPR: Development of the Concept
A business process, according to Davenport and
Short (1990), is "a set of logically related tasks
performed to achieve a defined business out-
come." As such, a process can be conceptual-
ized as operating within a traditional function to
achieve a narrowly "defined business outcome"
(Vol. 26, No. 1) February 1 9 9 5 - DATA BASE ADVANCES
or spanning across different, but "logically re-
lated" functions to achieve broad, strategically
"defined business outcome."
The current phenomenon called business proc-
ess redesign or "reengineering" has its roots in
industrial engineering (Davenport and Short,
1990). With the rise of the industrial revolution,
a field of engineering emerged concerned with
the design of processes to achieve efficient pro-
duction. One industrial engineering tenet is the
division of labor into localized, specialized, and
repeatable tasks. As might be expected, the
same techniques that proved to be successful
with line functions on the factory floor were mir-
rored in supporting business processes. The
value chain of business information tasks were
organized as a production line of employees
who repeatedly applied their narrowly focused
skill to stacks of paperwork. These "scientific
management" theories lie behind many of the
business processes we have in place today.
As time progressed, technological develop-
ments were often incrementally applied to busi-
ness tasks with a narrow efficiency orientation.
The idea was that in achieving maximum effi-
ciency at each point in the value chain, the
whole process would benefit. However, be-
cause today's businesses are changing so rap-
idly, this localized, incremental approach has
created extremely complex process juggernauts
which may contribute "clock-wise" efficiency to
specific tasks, while allowing overall effective-
ness of the process to suffer (Teng, Grover, and
Fiedler, 1994).
In recent years, heightened attention on
"business process" has come in large part from
the total quality movement, which has swept
through the manufacturing industry and spread
to the service sector and non-profit organiza-
tions (Harrington, 1991). However, as observed
by Davenport (1993) and by Dixon, Arnold, Hei-
neke, Kim, and Mulligan (1994), while quality
specialists tend to focus on incremental change
and gradual improvement of processes, propo-
nents of reengineering often seek radical redes-
ign and innovative improvements to processes.
As BPR projects do vary in the "radicalness" of
the change undertaken, it is useful to conceive
BPR initiatives as falling along a continuum
ranging from moderate improvement of existing
processes to radical design of new processes
(Davenport, 1993). This will be referred to as
31
"business process redesign continuum" in the
remainder of the paper.
Many reengineering success stories have been
reported (Hammer and Champy, 1993). CIGNA
RE Corp. has completed over 20 reengineering
projects since 1989 and achieved $2 to $3 in
returned benefits for each $1 invested in these
projects (Caron, Jarvenpaa, and Stoddard,
1994). At Zale Corp., the world's largest jewelry
retailer, a reengineered jewelry appraisal system
has led to better asset management, increased
revenues, and higher productivity and morale
(Newman and Kozar, 1994). The reengineered
claims and price quoting processes has enabled
Progressive, a car insurance company, to
achieve a 30% increase in premium income
(Hammer, 1994),
The tremendous growth in the number of firms
undertaking such efforts provides insight as to
how a typical organization of the late 1990s will
be designed. This organization will be net-
worked across functions and designed around
business processes rather than functional hier-
archies (Drucker, 1988; Norton, Pollock, and
Ware, 1989; Rockart and Short, 1989). In es-
sence, reengineering business processes has
been suggested as a paradigm of organizational
change necessary in achieving needed flexibility
and competitiveness (Davenport, 1993; Venka-
traman, 1991). Because the breadth and depth
of these changes tend to emphasize fundamen-
tal structural change, planning at the strategic
level by top management appears to be a criti-
cal success factor of BPR (CSC Index, 1994;
Dixon et al., 1994; Keen, 1991; Hall, Rosenthal,
and Wade 1993). Based on this view, Kettinger,
Guha, and Teng (1995) defined business proc-
ess reengineering as "an organizational initia-
tive to accomplish strategy-driven redesign of
business processes to achieve competitive
breakthroughs in quality, responsiveness, cost,
and satisfaction," and "these initiatives may
differ in scope from process improvement to
radical new process design" (Kettinger et al., p.
213).
BPR: Current Concems and Emerging Trends
While reports on early BPR successes gener-
ated a high level of enthusiasm and expectation
among corporate executives, the recent rush to
implement the reengineering concept has
yielded mixed results. According to a 1993 in-
32 DATA BASE ADVANCES--February 1995 (Vol. 26, No. 1)
dustry survey conducted by Deloitte & Touche
(Hayley, Plewa, and Watts, 1993), CIOs indicate
that the actual benefits of BPR projects gener-
ally fall short of their expectation. On a scale of
1 to 10, the average ratings on such categories
of BPR benefits as quality, cost reduction, and
competitiveness are all below 5.
The increasing incidence of BPR failures has
generated considerable discussion on the ra-
tionale of "radical" • process redesign
(Davenport and Stoddard, 1994). In response to
recent criticism of the radical BPR concept,
Hammer has reasserted the merits of reengi-
neering and distinguished it from the arbitrary
downsizing efforts in many corporations
(Lancaster, 1995). He points out that contrary to
downsizing, which typically involve mere reduc-
tion of workforce without improvement in busi-
ness processes, BPR entails careful but often
daring changes to existing processes aimed at
manyfold improvements in productivity
(Lancaster, 1995). In the ensuing discussion, a
number of researchers have stressed the impor-
tance of linking reengineering initiatives to cor-
porate strategy (Teng, Grover, and Fiedler,
1994; Kettinger et al., Letb, 1994; Dixon et al.,
1994). In clarifying the nature of reengineering,
Hammer (1994) believes that reengineered
processes not only help to implement a defined
strategy; they can in fact shape strategy in the
first place.
As the BPR concept takes hold and the number
of actual reengineering projects continues to
grow, attention is now focused more on the sub-
stantive issues in managing the reengineering
project (Champy, 1995; Caron et al., 1994)
rather than justifying the initiative. Experience
has shown that a number of change manage-
ment issues not directly related to IT are critical
to reengineering success. These include secur-
ing top management support, communicating
reengineering rationale to employees, and
reengineering project management, etc. (CSC
Index, 1994; Champy, 1995; Schonberger,
1994). In a study involving 20 reengineering
cases, Hall et al. (1993) revealed the critical role
that top management plays in supporting
reengineering initiatives. Based on these cur-
rent concerns, a trend toward extending the no-
tion of process reengineering to a more general
concept of process management can be seen.
It has been recognized that the rich experience
and knowledge from the more established field
of total quality management cannot only be
utilized during the reengineering project, it is
especially applicable after project completion
where the continuous motoring and improve-
ment of the new process must be carried on in-
definitely (Davenport and Stoddard, 1994; Ket-
tinger et al.; Moad, 1994).
Information Architecture:
Origins and Progress
Developments of Data Base Technologies
and the IA Concept
The development of modern computer-based
information systems began with a file-oriented
approach that had as its emphasis the "pro-
gram" rather than "data." The resulting redun-
dancy, inconsistency, and inflexibility led to the
development of data base management tech-
nology (Bachman, 1969; CODASYL, 1971)
based on the 3-schema architecture: external
models (subschemas), conceptual model
(schema), and internal model (ANSI, 1975).
The concept of data independence brought the
realization that the center of the data processing
universe was the data rather than the applica-
tion program (Nolan, 1973; Everest, 1974).
Through the conceptual model, the data inde-
pendence concept calls for the design of a sta-
ble data base structure that is capable of sup-
porting several related applications each with its
own external view. To the extent that the con-
ceptual model is properly designed, this goal of
data independence is achievable even when
some modifications to the external views be-
comes necessary. The methods for the logical
design of shared data bases have been greatly
facilitated by the development of relational data
base theodes and techniques such as normaliza-
tion (Codd, 1971) and the entity-relationship data
modeling approach (Chen, 1976).
It soon became apparent that, if a particular
subject data base could provide a stable data
structure for a group of related applications, a
set of such data bases could support organiza-
tion-wide processing requirements. This
macro-level architectural approach to structure
the entire organization's information resources
was the major thrust of the early IA approach,
BSP (business systems planning), developed by
IBM Corp. in the 1970s. As outlined in BSP, a
collection of "data classes," which support vari-
(Vol. 26, No. 1) February 1 9 9 5 - DATA BASE ADVANCES
ous business processes throughout the entire
organization, can be systematically identified in
a "top-down" fashion based on strategic goals
and objectives (IBM Corp., 1984).
Brancheau and Wetherbe define an information
architecture as "a high-level map of the infor-
mation requirements of an organization. It is a
personnel-, organization-, and technology- inde-
pendent profile of the major information catego-
ries used within an enterprise" (1986, p. 453).
One representation of this high-level map is the
traditional process/data class matrix which
demonstrates how data classes (i.e., information
categories) support information requirements of
various business processes in the organization.
Following a derivation of the BSP approach,
Vogel and Wetherbe (1991, p. 9) reports the
successful use of such a matrix in their illustra-
tion of the supporting relationship of data
classes (e.g., students, courses, faculty) to vari-
ous business processes (e.g., registration, fi-
nancial planning, and admission) at the Univer-
sity of Minnesota.
Another representation of IA is the enterprise
data model, which is typically expressed in the
form of high-level E-R models for the organiza-
tion (Brancheau, Schuster, and March, 1989). It
is important to recognize that information archi-
tecture as discussed by Wetherbe and Davis
(1983), Brancheau and Wetherbe (1986), and
Everest and Kim (1989) is one component of a
broader concept commonly known as informa-
tion system architecture (ISA) (Sowa & Zach-
man, 1992; Targowski, 1988; Wardle, 1984;
Zachman, 1987) which also includes architec-
tures for hardware, communications, and busi-
ness practice.
IA Methodologies and Implementations
Due to its wide organizational scope, the devel-
opment of IA typically calls for a comprehensive
planning and design exercise generally known
as strategic data planning (SDP). According to
Goodhue, Kirsch, Quillard, and Wybo (1992),
SDP is "a formalized, top-down, data-oriented
planning approach" that seeks to define "a data
architecture to guide future systems develop-
ment efforts" by building "a model of the enter-
prise, its functions, its processes, and its under-
lying data" (Goodhue et al., 1992, p. 12). The
BSP method was the first such SDP method-
ology. However, experience with this methodol-
33
ogy over the last 20 years has not always been
positive. The methodology has as many as 13
formal steps. It has been pointed out that the
method requires too many interviews, takes too
long to complete, and often produces volumi-
nous output without visible impacts (Goodhue,
Quillard, and Rockart, 1988; Lederer & Sethi,
1988; Rockart, 1979). By retaining the impor-
tant elements of BSP, a number of newer meth-
ods, such as PC Prism (Index Technology,
1988) and the information engineering (IE)
methods developed by James Martin (1982)
(1990), attempted to simplify its complicated
procedures and incorporate additional tech-
niques such as critical success factors and the
entity-relationship approach to enterprise data
modeling.
In practice, Martin's (1990) IE methodology has
been particularly influential. It should be noted
that, while both BSP and IE focus on business
processes, the concept of business process is
defined differently in the two methodologies. In
BSP, "business processes are defined as a
group of logically related decisions and activities
required to manage the resources of the busi-
ness" and "they are studied and identified with-
out regard to the organization responsible for
them" (IBM, 1984, p.29). In contrast to this
broad definition of a process independent of
organizational structure, the identification of
processes within the IE methodology takes
place within "business area analysis" as com-
ponents of an enterprise function. Thus, it is
likely that processes identified with the IE ap-
proach tend to be quite narrow and operate
within the confines of a single function
(Davenport, 1991).
Even with later modifications to the IA concept,
research has shown a variety of implementation
obstacles in its adoption and use. Limited man-
agement support, user resistance, inadequate
resources, and lack of alignment with corporate
goals and strategies have been found to con-
tribute to IA implementation difficulties (Good-
hue et al., 1988; Goodhue et al., 1992; Lederer
and Sethi, 1988; Lederer and Sethi, 1991).
Goodhue et al. (1988) identified five cases of
SDP efforts, and found none of them were
completely successful. In fact, three of the five
were never implemented. Additional studies by
the researchers suggests that SDPs difficulties
are rooted in its attempt to model the entire en-
34
terprise which results in a massive amount of
details and unacceptable time requirements.
Consequently, the methodology can quickly lose
its strategic focus and draw low-level or un-
qualified personnel into the project team.
Many of these problems in IA implementation
have been observed in connection to "tech-
nocratic utopianism" (Davenport, Eccles, and
Prusak 1992). In their study of "information
politics," these three researchers found many
instances where a few IS professionals in the
organization propagate the belief that problems
of information management can best be solved
by enterprise data models and other technologi-
cal solutions alone. These "technocratic utopi-
ans" assume that politics are an aberrant form
of behavior, and that information can flow freely
in the organization once the planned IA is fully
implemented. This utopian view fans a penchant
for comprehensive, very detailed modeling and
categorization of data resources (i.e., an at-
tempt at precision "information engineering" for
the entire organization). Unfortunately, such ex-
cessive scope and detail can eventually bury
IA's strategic focus and drive away much need
management involvement and resource sup-
port.
IA, BPR, and B u s i n e s s P r o c e s s e s
We have separately reviewed the development
and implementation problems associated with
business process redesign and IA. Business
processes were identified as central to each
concept. In this section, we will explore the re-
lationships between BPR and IA through their
intended and potential effects on existing as
well as new business processes.
IA and BPR in Relation to Existing
Processes
In the past, the major thrust of IA initiatives has
been centered on supporting the information
requirements of existing business processes.
To illustrate IA support for existing processes,
let us consider a typical accounts payable pro-
cedure as represented by a data flow diagram
(see Figure 1). Notice that the data flow dia-
gram covers only the accounts payable function,
but two other related functions, purchasing and
inventory receiving, are also involved in the
process of paying suppliers. In a well-executed
enterprise-wide IA initiative, the purchasing and
DATA BASE ADVANCES--February 1995 (Vol. 26, No. 1)
 existing processes
I Purchase
orders I accounts
Supplier I Accounts
payable (Link X).
Purchase Account I Payable
I order J balance I balance IA and BPR in
~ PaymentBatched, / ~ Accountsf ~ Relation to New
Supplie~r i ~ Supplier~ Processes

While typically not

I Check T I Account
its primary intent, IA
pa~y]ble- amoUntCh!cal~kiannce
l Can result in the re-
thinking and redes-
I ,ovoices I l account 1 ign of business proc-
Figure 1: Data Flow Diagram foraTypicalAccounts Payable System esses. For instance,
Martin (1982) re-
ports cases of in-
inventory receiving functions would be identified formation architects engaged in streamlining
as parts of a common business process calling business procedures while designing shared
for a shared data base. data bases. This typi-
(,~1~pplier~ cally occurred when
A high level data model
for this data base can be
Suppher~ analysts
development
involved
of
in
IA
the
for
expressed in the form of different functional areas
an entity-relationship dia- sharing a common data
gram. As shown in Fi- resource have recog-
gure 2, two entities: nized duplication and
supplier and part are in- inefficiencies of proce-
volved in all three func- dures among these func-
tions. Through data in- tions. In another exam-
dependence, this global ple, Moad (1989) re-
data model serves a va- ported that Syntex
riety of different user Corp., a pharmaceutical
views including those re- manufacturer, started to
quired by the existing build a cross-functional
procedures in the pur- IS using relational data
chasing, payable, and base technology to track
the inventory receiving the full life cycle of its
functions. Figure 2: High-Level E-R Diagram for an products, but encoun-
Accounts Payable Process tered severe user resis-
Just as IA can support tance from the affected
existing processes, BPR may also focus on ex- functions. Eventually, the project team began to
isting business processes. As discussed earlier, use "structured data flow and organizational
BPR initiatives can range in radicalness from analysis to determine exactly how work got done
modest improvements of
existing business proc-
esses to fundamental re- Improves Supports
thinking and design of new
processes along a "bus-
iness process redesign
continuum." As depicted
in Figure 3, while IA is
intended to support ex-
isting processes (Link Y), a I Existing business process
less radical approach to I
BPR may only attempt
modest refinements in the Figure 3: BPR and IA in Relation to Existing Business Process

(Vol. 26, No. 1) February 1995 - - DATA BASE ADVANCES 35

in the business unit" and "discovered that be-
tween 30% and 50% of the tasks people were do-
ing were redundant" (Moad, 1989, p.74). With top
management endorsement, the team began to
redesign certain aspects of the process to take full
advantage of IA and shared data bases. In this
way, if the cross functional process calls for shared
data, IA can be applied to facilitate the BPR effort.
This relationship between BPR and IA can be
illustrated by a well-cited BPR case at Ford Mo-
tor Corp. (Hammer, 1990). At Ford, the BPR
team targeted the accounts payable process for
redesign. Instead of automating the existing pro-
cess within the confine of the payable function,
the team conceptualized accounts payable as a
business process which spans across three
function: accounts payable, purchasing, and
inventory receiving. Attempts to reengineer the
process led to the design of an IA to guide the
development of a common data base shared by
all three functions.
The BPR team designed a new process that no
longer sends purchase orders to accounts pay-
able; instead, the order is simply entered into
the central data base. When the goods arrive,
the receiving clerk checks the data base to see
if an outstanding order corresponds to the arriv-
ing materials; if not, the materials are sent back
to the supplier. Unlike the old system, which
dictated that accounts payable clerks check 14
data items when matching the purchase order,
receipt record, and the invoice, the reengi-
neered process requires the matching of only 3
data items: part number, supplier code, and the
unit of measurement. The new process, besides
being faster and more reliable, results in a 75%
reduction in workforce requirement, from 500 to
125 employees.
As can be seen in Figure 4,
BPR can radically engineer a
new process design (Link A),
which can be facilitated by IA
and shared data bases (Link
B). In the case of the Ford ac-
counts payable BPR project,
the new process design may
be based on the same data
model, as outlined in Figure 2,
which could also be used in a
traditional system develop-
ment projects seeking auto-
mation of the existing process. F i g u r e 4: B P R a n d
36
IA and BPR: Lessons from the Field
A summative model of the relationship between
BPR and IA is presented in Figure 5, the "pro-
cess linkage model." This model centers on the
"degree of change in business process re-
design" (i.e., the business process redesign
continuum) and depicts where shared data
bases and IA facilitate a variety of BPR en-
deavors ranging from incremental improvement
of existing processes to radical reengineering
for new process design. It is important to real-
ize, however, that Figure 5 represents an
"ideal" model. Just as BPR and IA can sepa-
rately lead to problems as discussed earlier in
this paper, one may expect problems to occur
when BPR and IA are used together. Indeed,
some problems have been reported from early
field research on the BPR/IA relationship.
In Figure 5, Link B represents potential opportuni-
ties leading from IA to new process designs. The
possibility that IA initiative may induce the redesign
of business processes, as alluded by anecdotal
evidence described earlier, has recently received
research attention. In a comprehensive field
study, Goodhue et al. (1992) utilized the case
study method on nine firms that adopted the
strategic data planning (SDP) method in their
organizations. The researchers identified "re-
thinking business processes" as one of five
possible outcomes of SDP, but found that none
of the nine companies indicated any success in
rethinking business processes.
In another case reported by Davenport (1991),
IA techniques were applied in BPR at Rank
Xerox U.K. (RXUK). With considerable impetus
from top management, the company undertook
Engineers Facilitates
q
New business process design 1
l A i n R e l a t i o n to N e w B u s i n e s s P r o c e s s
DATA BASE ADVANCES-- February 1995 (Vol. 26, No. 1)
 Improving Existing B u ~
Process I I ~
Figure 5: The BPR and IA Relationship: A Process Linkage Model
a strategic reexamination of its environment and
mission aimed at reshaping the company's bus-
iness processes. Convinced that the process
orientation of Martin's information engineering
(IE) was consistent with BPR, the company
adopted the IEF (information engineering facil-
ity) system from Texas Instrument to conduct
process redesign. A total of 145 business pro-
cesses and 80 distinct data entities were identi-
fied to form a 145-by-80 planning matrix.
The initial effects of this IA application in BPR
was evident in speedy systems development
with data bases and applications emerging at a
fast rate. However, actual process improve-
ment was minor. As one key member of the
BPR team noted early in the BPR project, the
processes identified with IEM were typically
within a single business function. Two years into
its implementation, other BPR team members
also began to realize that the single-function
boundaries of the IE approach had led the BPR
effort astray. This lack of cross-functional per-
spective inhibited the ability of the firm to
achieve significant process improvement as
demanded by its strategic objectives. This reali-
zation pushed the company to refocus its atten-
tion on process definitions consistent with its
cross-functional strategic goals and objectives.
In this reexamination of business processes,
only 10 cross-functional processes were identi-
fied, as compared with the 145 single-function
processes determined previously through the IE
(Vol. 26, No. 1) February 1995 - - DATA BASE ADVANCES
I DevelopingNew Business
Process
approach. To achieve quick results of strategic
significance, three of these processes were se-
lected for immediate improvement. One of the
three processes, the customer order life cycle,
was studied. Drastic process improvements
were deemed possible. For example, the study
team discovered many unnecessary approval
steps in the customer billing procedure and de-
termined that the time to issue a bill may be re-
duced from 112 days to a day and a half. Inter-
estingly, it was determined that these process
improvements could be accomplished by using
cross-functional work teams, workflow modifica-
tions, and, possibly, without adding new infor-
mation systems.
Exploring the BPR/IA Relationship:
Research Propositions
We have attempted to develop a conceptual
basis and gathered relevant research results to
begin to address the three research concerns:
- How IA supports BPR;
- How the lack of IA hinders BPR; and
- What approach to IA facilitates BPR.
Given a lack of systematic empirical studies on
the BPR/IA relationship, it is felt that observa-
tions and conclusions regarding these research
concerns can most appropriately be stated in
the form of research propositions. These tenta-
tive statements represent the "maximum likeli-
37
hood estimates" of the answers given the avail-
able knowledge and limited information about
the BPR/IA relationships. For each research
concern, three propositions are developed. This
set of nine propositions, however, are not meant to
be all inclusive. It is hoped that further research
based on these propositions will generate addi-
tional propositions and provide more definitive an-
swers to the three research concems.
How IA Supports BPR
To address this first research concern, the fol-
lowing propositions are put forth to explore con-
tingencies under which IA can support BPR:
Proposition 1: To the extent that the proc-
ess to be redesigned requires data sharing,
IA can support the BPR effort regardless of
the degree of radicalness attempted in the
process change.
Proposition 2: IA can provide a greater de-
gree of support for cross-functional BPR
projects than those involving a single func-
tion.
Proposition 3: The degree of IA support to a
firm's overall BPR initiatives are pro por-
tional to the extent to which processes to be
redesigned are related to each other in
terms of data sharing.
Proposition 1 is a general statement based on
the principle of data independence and the dis-
cussion presented earlier leading to the process
linkage model (see Figure 5). Since cross-
functional processes are more likely to require
data sharing as compared to single- function
processes, as was seen in the Ford BPR
example, we might expect Proposition 2 to be
valid. Given that "early" research suggests
that cross-functional BPR makes a greater con-
tribution to business performance, IA dedicated
to cross-functional reengineering efforts should
make important contributions to business per-
formance.
For a group of processes involved in a firm's
overall BPR initiatives, IA representation such
as the process/data class matrix can be valu-
able. If the processes included in these BPR
initiatives are related to each other in terms of
data sharing, such matrices make the relation-
ships explicit. Using an IA representation, data
38
bases that are needed the most by processes
targeted for redesign can be developed first,
hence Proposition 3.
How the Lack of IA Hinders BPR
To explore how the lack of IA hinders BPR, the
following propositions warrant consideration:
Proposition4: To the extent that the
process to be redesigned can be improved
through data sharing, the lack of an IA will
hinder the BPR effort regardless of how
radical the degree of process change is at-
tempted.
Proposition5: To the extent that the
process to be redesigned is cross-functional,
the lack of an IA will hinder the BPR project.
Proposition 6: To the extent the proc-
esses to be redesigned in a firm's overall
BPR initiatives are related to each other in
terms of data sharing, lack of an IA will in-
crease the likelihood that the resulting "ad
hoc data architecture" will hinder future
BPR efforts.
These three propositions represent the reverse
of the first three propositions. In explicitly stat-
ing these propositions, attention is focused on
the impact of the lack of IA on BPR success.
Proposition 4 applies when the process to be
redesigned can benefit from data sharing. A
lack of IA in this situation can either slow down
the redesign process because an IA must be
developed, or the designer may choose not to
include needed data base applications in the
process design. Proposition 5 assumes that the
need for data sharing increases when several
different functions must coordinate with each
other in achieving common process outcomes.
Thus, lack of IA will handicap BPR if a cross-
functional process is involved.
In a case where a series of BPR projects are
undertaken and no IA exists, the data base(s)
(or file systems) that emerges are typically
based on the ad hoc needs of the first reengi-
neering project. These "ad hoc data bases" of-
ten do not correspond to methodically config-
ured data base(s) in an information architecture.
For example, if process and data class relation-
ships are clearly delineated, it becomes clear
that a business process may access a number
DATA BASE ADVANCES--February 1995 (Vol. 26, No. 1)
of separate data bases which are also used by
other processes. If these data sources are
structured to optimize only the performance of a
particular reengineering project without consid-
ering the access requirements of related proc-
esses, there will be higher risk that future BPR
projects will find these "ad hoc data bases" un-
accommodating or even incompatible.
What Approach to IA Facilitates BPR
We have elaborated on how an IA can support
BPR and how the lack of it can hinder BPR. It is
also proposed that this IA/BPR relationship op-
erates under the following contingencies:
Proposition 7: IA can facilitate BPR to the
extent that process definitions in IA are
based on the firm's strategic goals and ob-
jectives.
Proposition 8: IA can facilitate BPR to the
extent that it is used to assist in process
definition.
Proposition 9: IA can facilitate BPR to the
extent that it is used to assist in BPR project
prioritization.
According to the research results reported by
Hall et al. (1993), the performance improvement
of BPR projects tends to be greater for
broadly-defined cross-functional processes with
such multidimensional improvement objectives
as cost, time, quality, satisfaction, etc. that are
tied to the firm's strategic goals. However, as
demonstrated in the RXUK case, users of some
IA methods, such as Martin's (1982) information
engineering methodology, may have the ten-
dency to conceptualize a process within a func-
tion, which may not be consistent with strategy-
driven, cross-functional process reengineering
seeking significant performance impact. How-
ever, Proposition 7 suggests that process defi-
nition in IA is not necessarily technically bound.
As discussed earlier, the definition of business
processes in IA should highlight their independ-
ence from existing organizational structure. For
example, the BSP approach specifically em-
phasizes the identification of business proc-
esses that support a firm's strategic goals and
objectives in a "top-down" design of IA. This
"structural-independent" IA tradition, which has
often been lost in practice under mountains of
massive paper work and single function ap-
proaches, is consistent with reengineering's
strategy-driven objectives.
(Vol. 26, No. 1) February 1 9 9 5 - - D A T A BASE ADVANCES
To the extent that the processes to be redes-
igned require data sharing, are cross-functional,
or target a set of processes that are interrelated
in term of data sharing, neglecting IA will lead to
an "ad hoc data architecture" which is dysfunc-
tional for future reengineering projects. After
initially defining a firm's business processes as
part of a BPR effort, it is important to cross
check these BPR process definitions with the
enterprise-wide information architecture. As a
result of this cross check, if it is found that some
adjustments to the BPR process definitions can
be made to accommodate an enterprise IA
without compromising BPR performance objec-
tives, these process definition modifications
should be undertaken. This assistance in proc-
ess definition, as indicated in Proposition 8, is
an important avenue for IA to facilitate BPR ef-
fectively.
In addition to process identification, IA can as-
sist in prioritizing BPR projects as indicated in
Proposition 9. By referring to the information
architecture, some adjustment to the priority
schedule can be attempted. A simple scenario
can illustrate this. Let us assume that the initial
schedule in an organization's BPR plan begin
with process A, followed by process B and C.
However, the enterprise IA indicates that the
data resource associated with process C are
also needed by a number of other processes,
including process B, and that data for process B
is not related to other processes in the BPR
plan. In this circumstance, assigning higher pri-
ority to process C can significantly facilitate the
overall BPR initiatives.
In sum, propositions 7, 8, and 9 advocate a form
of IA that can greatly facilitate BPR when:
• IA is aligned with BPR's strategy-driven
business performance objectives (Proposi-
tion 7); and
• IA supports important reengineering tasks
such as process definition and project pri-
oritization, and assists, rather than drives,
the BPR effort (Propositions 8 and 9).
Thus, IA can contribute significantly to business
process reengineering. IA/BPR collaboration
calls for the inclusion of IA analysts as members
of BPR teams. Field experience, however, sug-
gests that allowing IA to drive the reengineering
endeavor may bias the implementation in favor
of IT solutions when organizational solutions
would have been more appropriate. Further-
39
more, the resulting process definitions may be
too narrow, hindering a cross-functional ap-
proach that is needed for more significant proc-
ess improvements.
All too often in the past, implementation prob-
lems of IA have blurred its strategic focus. In
putting forth these propositions, we recognize
that seeking major improvements in business
outcome requires a broader perspective than IA
alone offers. With BPR driving the overall ini-
tiative, many implementation problems of IA
such as lack of management involvement and
"technocratic utopianism" may be abated. This
would allow BPR to provide a high profile busi-
ness justification to the IA efforts that should
help in overcoming some of its past implemen-
tation "stumbling blocks."
Conclusion
Business process redesign and information ar-
chitecture have received considerable attention
in recent years. In this paper, relationships be-
tween these two concepts were explored and
examined in light of field research in IA and
BPR. Some significant similarities between BPR
and IA were observed. Both concepts are
centered on business processes and are driven
by organizational goals and objectives. Each
concept can be related to both existing proc-
esses and new process designs. Based on these
observations and results from recent field re-
search, a set of propositions were put forth to
address three important research concerns: how
IA supports BPR, how the lack of IA can hinder
BPR and what approach to IA can facilitate
BPR. As suggested in these propositions, IA can
contribute significantly to process reengineering.
The enormous organizational change unleashed
by business process reengineering can be
wrenching (Champy, 1995; CSC Index, 1994;
Lancaster, 1995). In finding their proper places
in this tidal wave of business transformation, IA
professionals can provide significant assistance
to process reengineering initiatives. In collabo-
rating with BPR, as suggested in the proposi-
tions, IA can in fact begin moving toward fulfill-
ing its promises. 1 Additional research based on
1As reported by Davenport (1993), the con-
suiting firm of Ernst and Young is in the pro-
cess of modifying its information engineering
40
the propositions developed in this paper may
further clarify the role of IA in process reengi-
neering and provide more detailed guidelines to
practicing professionals.
References
ANSI X3 SPARC/DBMS (1975). Study Group
Report. American National Standards Insti-
tute, Washington, DC.
Bachman, C.W. (1969). "Data Base Manage-
ment: The Keystone of Applied Systems Ar-
chitecture." In Critical Factors in Data Man-
agement (Edited by Gruenberger, F.) Pren-
tice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Brancheau, J.C., and Wetherbe, J.C. (1986).
"Information Architecture: Methods and
Practice." Information Processing and Man-
agement, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 453-463.
Brancheau, J.C., Schuster, L., and March, S.T.
(1989). "Building and Implementing an In-
formation Architecture." Data Base, Vol. 19
(Summer), pp. 9-17.
Caron, J.R., Jarvenpaa, S.L., and Stoddard,
D.B. (1994). "Business Reengineering at
CIGNA Corporation: Experiences and Les-
sons Learned From the First Five Years."
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 233-250.
Champy, J.A. (1993). "Grand Designs." ClO,
Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 26-32.
Champy, J.A. (1995). Reengineering Manage-
ment: The Mandate for New Leadership.
Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.
Chen, P.P.S. (1976). "The Entity-Relationship
Model - - Toward a Unified View of Data."
ACM Transactions on Database Systems,
Vol. 1 (March), pp. 9-36.
CODASYL Systems Committee Technical Re-
port (1971). Association for Computing Ma-
chinery, New York, London, and Amsterdam.
Codd, E.F. (1971). "A Relational Model of Data
for Large Shared Data Banks." Communica-
tions of the ACM, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 377-387.
CSC Index (1994). State of Reengineering Re-
port. CSC Index.
Davenport, T.H. (1991). "Rank Xerox U.K."
Harvard Business School Case 9-192-071
(Part A) and 9-192-072 (Part B).
Davenport, T.H. (1993). Process Innovation:
Reengineering Work Through Information
methodology to accommodate cross-func-
tional process innovation.
DATA BASE ADVANCES-- February 1995 (Vol. 26, No. 1)
 Technology. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H., Eccles, R. G., and Prusak, L.
(1992). "Information Politics." Sloan Man-
agement Review, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Davenport, T.H., and Short, J.E. (1990). "The
New Industrial Engineering: Information
Technology and Business Process Redes-
ign." Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31,
No. 4, pp. 11-27.
Davenport, T.H., and Stoddard, D.B. (1994).
"Reengineering Business Change of Mythic
Proportion." MIS Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2,
pp. 121-127.
Davis, T.R. (1993). "Reengineering in Action."
Planning Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 49-54.
Dixon, J.R., Arnold, P., Heineke, J., Kim, J.S.,
and Mulligan P. (1994). "Business Process
Reengineering: Improving in New Strategic
Directions." California Management Review,
Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 93-108.
Drucker, P.E. (1988). "The Coming of the New
Organization." Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 45-53.
Everest, G.C., and K i m , Y.G. (1989).
"Perspectives on Data Planning and Infor-
mation Architectures." MISRC Working Pa-
per WP-89-04, University of Minnesota, Min-
neapolis, MN.
Everest, G.C. (1974). Database Management
Objectives, Organizations, and System
Functions. Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-
tion, Unive~Jtyof Pennsylvania,Philadelphia,PA..
Goodhue, D.L., Kirsch, L.J., Quillard, J.A., and
Wybo, M.D. (1992). "Strategic Data Plan-
ning: Lessons from the Field." MIS Quar-
terly, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 11-34.
Goodhue, D.L., Quillard, J.A., and Rockart, J.F.
(1988). "Managing the Data Resource: A
Contingency Perspective." MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 373-391.
Hall, G., Rosenthal, J., and Wade, J. (1993).
"How to Make Reengineering Really Work."
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, No. 6, pp.
119-131.
Hammer, M. (1990). "Reengineering Works:
Don't Automate, Obliterate." Harvard Busi-
ness Review, Vol. 68, No. 4, pp. 104-112.
Hammer, M., and Champy, J.A. (1993).
Reengineering the Corporation: a Manifesto
for Business Revolution. Harper Collins Pub-
lishers, Inc.
Hammer, M. (1994). "Hammer Defends Reengi-
neering." The Economist, Nov. 5, p. 70.
(Vol. 26, No. 1) February 1 9 9 5 - DATA BASE ADVANCES
Harrington, H.J. (1991). Business Process Im-
provement. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hayley, K., Plewa, J., and Watts, M. (1993).
"Reengineering Top CIO Menu." Datama-
tion, Vol. 39, No. 8, pp. 73-74.
IBM Corp. (1984). Business Systems Planning:
Information Systems Planning Guide. Fourth
Edition. IBM Corp., White Plain, NY.
Index Technology. (1988) . Introduction to PC
Prism. Index Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Keen, P.G.W. (1991). Shaping the Future:
Business Design Through Information Tech-
nology. Harvard Business School Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Kettinger, W.J., Guha, S., and Teng, J.T.C.
(1995). "The Process Reengineering Life
Cycle Methodology: A Case Study.". Busi-
ness Process Change: Reengineering Con-
cepts, Methods and Technologies, Eds: V.
Grover and W.J. Kettinger, Idea Publishing,
Harrisburgh, PA, pp. 210-244.
Lancaster, H. (1995). "Re-Engineering Authors
Reconsider Re-engineering." Wall Street
Journal, January 17.
Lederer, A.L., and Sethi, V. (1988). "The Im-
plementation of Strategic Information Sys-
tems Planning Methodologies." MIS Quar-
terly, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 445-461.
Lederer, A.L., and Sethi, V. (1991). "Critical
Dimensions of Strategic Information Systems
Planning." Decision Sciences, Vol. 22, No.
1, pp. 104-119.
Letb, S.A. (1994). "Critical Success Factors for
Reengineering Business Processes." Na-
tional Productivity Review, Autumn, pp. 557-
568.
Martin, J.M. (1982). Strategic Data Planning
Methodologies. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Martin, J.M. (1990). Information Engineering.
Volumes 1,2, & 3. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
McFadden, F.R., and Hoffer, J.A. (1991). Data-
base Management. Third Edition. Benjamin/
Cummings Publishing, Redwood City, CA.
Moad, J. (1989). "Navigating Cross-Functional
IS Waters." Datamation, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp.
73-75.
Moad, J. (1994). "After Reengineering: Taking
Care of Business." Datamation, Vol. 40, No.
20, pp. 40-44.
Newman, J., and Kozar, K.A. (1994). "A Multi-
media Solution to Productivity Gridlock: A
Re-engineered Jewelry Appraisal System at
41
 Zale Corporation." MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18,
No. 1, pp. 21-30.
Niederman, F, Brancheau, J.C., and Wetherbe,
J.C. (1991). "Information Systems Manage-
ment Issues for the 1990s." MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 475-500.
Nolan, R.L. (1973). "Computer Data Bases: The
Future is Now." Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 98-114.
Norton, R.L., Pollock, A.J., and Ware, J.P.
(1989). "Toward the Design of Network Or-
ganizations." Stage by Stage, Vol. 9, No. 1,
Nolan Norton & Co., pp. 1-12.
Rockart, J., and Short, J. (1989). "IT in the
1990s: Managing Organizational Interde-
pendence." Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 7-17.
Rockart, J.F. (1979). "Chief Executives Define
Their Own Data Deeds." Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 81-91.
Schonberger, R.J. (1994). "Human Resource
Management Lessons from a Decade of To-
tal Quality Management and Reengineer-
ing." California Management Review, Vol.
36, No. 4, pp. 109-123.
Sowa, J.F., and Zachman, J.A. (1992).
"Extending and Formalizing the Framework
for Information Systems Architecture." IBM
Systems Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.
590-616.
A JamesT. C. Teng is an Associate
Professor at the College of Business
Administration, University of South
S Carolina. He has researched and
published extensively in the areas of
O data resource management and
process reengineering. In 1992, he
U received the Outstanding Contribu-
tion Award from the Decision Sci-
ences Institute.
THE AUTHORS
42
Targowski, A.S. (1988). "Systems Planning for
the Enterprise-wide Information Management
Complex: The Architectural Approach."
Journal of MIS, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 23-37.
Teng, J.T.C., Grover, V., and Fiedler, K. (1994).
"Business Process Reengineering: Charting
a Strategic Path for the Information Age."
California Management Review, Vol. 36, No.
3, pp. 9-31.
Venkatraman, N. (1991). "IT-Induced Business
Reconfiguration." In The Corporation of the
1990's, Information Technology and Organ-
izational Transformation. Oxford University
Press, New York, NY, pp. 122-158.
Vogel, D.R., and Wetherbe, J.C. (1991).
"Information Architecture: Sharing the
Sharable Resource." CAUSE~EFFECT,Vol.
14, No. 2, pp. 4-9.
Wardle, C (1984). "The Evolution of Informa-
tion Systems Architecture." Proceedings of
the 5th International Conference on Informa-
tion Systems, pp. 205-217.
Wetherbe, J.C., and Davis, G.B. (1983).
"Developing a Long-Range Information Ar-
chitecture." Proceedings of the National
Computer Conference, AFIPS Press, Ana-
heim, CA., pp. 262-269.
Zachman, J.A. (1987). "A framework for Infor-
mation Systems Architecture." IBM Systems
Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 272-292.
William J. Kettinger is Director of Center for
Information Management and Technology Re-
search at the University of South Carolina. He
has extensive consulting experience and re-
search publications in areas such as process
reengineering, national information infrastruc-
ture, and quality management for information
services. His latest book on reengineering is
due from the Idea Publishing Group in April
1995.
DATA BASE ADVANCES--February 1995 (Vol. 26, No. 1)