Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00259-9
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
An Empirical Analysis of Impact of Organizational Strategies
on Critical Success Factors of Business Process Reengineering
Niraj Kumar Vishvakarma1 • R. R. K. Sharma2 • Anup Kumar3
Received: 24 March 2020 / Accepted: 10 January 2021 / Published online: 7 February 2021
 Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management 2021
Abstract This study empirically investigates the influence
of organizational strategies on critical success factors of
business process reengineering (BPR) related to the scope,
efficiency, effectiveness, direction of information flow, and
resistance to change during the BPR implementation pro-
ject. The study adopts the organizational typology propose
by Miller and Roth (Manag Sci 40(3):285–304, 1994,
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570810867204) to categorize
the organizations into three strategic groups (caretakers,
marketeers, and innovators). For this study, the data have
been collected from 131 organizations involved in BPR-
related activities. This study uses various statistical tech-
niques like cluster analysis, principal component, and post
hoc analysis, to analyze the collected data. The data
analysis shows an impact of organizational strategies on
BPR factors like scope, efficiency, and bottom-up commu-
nication. Moreover, there are also some factors where
organizational strategies do not play a significant role, but
these factors are crucial for all the organizational strategy
types.
& Niraj Kumar Vishvakarma
niraj@bhu.ac.in
& R. R. K. Sharma
rrks@iitk.ac.in
& Anup Kumar
anunewin@gmail.com
1
Institute of Management Studies, BHU Varanasi, Varanasi,
India
2
IIT Kanpur, Kanpur, India
3
Institute of Management Technology Nagpur, Nagpur, India
Keywords Business process reengineering  BPR scope 
Channels of communication  Organizational resistance 
Organizational strategy
Introduction
Business process reengineering (BPR) nowadays has
become a buzzword for management and IT specialists.
Hammer and Champy (1993a, b) defined BPR as ’a fun-
damental rethinking and radical redesign of business
process to achieve dramatic improvement in contemporary
critical measures of performance such as cost, quality,
efficiency, and speed.’ Davenport (1993) calls it a tool for
redesigning business processes and organizational archi-
tecture to improve an organization’s overall performance.
Talwar (1993) defines BPR as a process to redesign, refine,
and streamline the organizational structure, operational
process, and value chain that creates and delivers customer
value. On the other hand, Petrozzo (1995) argued that BPR
required a restructuring of business procedure, corporate
structure, and information structures to achieve a revolu-
tionary change in company goods and services efficiency
(cost, price, time, and customer satisfaction). Lowental
(1994) considers BPR an aggressive strategy to innovate
business processes and its structure to align the core
competencies. It helps to significantly boost efficiency in a
brief amount of time by making Davenport (1993) the root
cause of improvements. Contrary to the TQM strategy,
which concentrates on increasing the organization’s per-
formance, productivity, and versatility (Goetsch and Davis
2016), TQM relies on continually develop the process to
meet customers’ requirements.
Zinser et al. (1998) proposed that diversified and
growing consumer demand and the rapid shift in the
123
56 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73
business environment were the leading causes of business
process transformation. Similarly, Grey and Mitev (1995)
also argued that customers, competition, and technology
require business process changes. BPR leads to innovation
for competitive advantages and advanced technology
(Archer and Bowker 1995). The essential explanations for
BPR include cost savings and differentiation of goods.
Companies must combine all their operating operations and
function as a team to become a market leader to stay
competitive in the sector because the essence of competi-
tiveness between firms requires sensitivity and versatility,
and not just cost and price. To accomplish these goals, an
organization has to overhaul its organizational structure. So
the restructuring of the mechanism requires BPR to be
applied effectively. A successful BPR application entails
many threats and obstacles. Kohnen (1996) defined in
using BPR two forms of uncertainty: operational and
technological uncertainties. Organizational uncertainty is
the fear that organizational culture can react to the changes,
and technical risk is that the process change may not
function.
Many kinds of researches have been conducted to rec-
ognize critical success factors and failures in implementing
BPR. Based on our best knowledge, no research empiri-
cally examines the importance of organizational strategies
in the BPR implementation project. As far as we know, this
is the first article that gives a manager specific guidance for
managing the business process project based on the orga-
nization’s requirements. Managers can use this research to
determine which essential factors are the most relevant for
the organization based on its strategy. This study allows
both the manager and the researcher to use it as a guidance
document to plan a BPR project that eventually minimizes
the BPR project failure probability. Because of the find-
ings’ statistical support, the findings seem more logical and
acceptable to the practitioner.
Furthermore, the statistical analysis of the findings also
minimizes the subjective biases of the researches. Most of
the literature discussed the BPR implementation critical
success factors (ICSFs) is talking about in general. This is
the first study that explores the degree of impact of various
ICSFs on organizational strategies. This study has first tried
to find the reason based on the literature why this degree of
impacts are happening at various organizational strategies,
and later it has tried to validate with data analysis empir-
ically. This study explores how the organizational strate-
gies impact the setting of BPR (efficiency, effectiveness,
and scope) objectives, the flow of knowledge (top-down or
bottom-up), and the organizational resistance to change.
Therefore, the following research questions (RQ) are
identified in this study.
123
The Objectives of the Study
RQ1: Does BPR vary in scope across the various organi-
zational strategies?
RQ2: Does the degree of improvement in process
effectiveness vary through the implementation of BPR?
RQ3: Does the degree to which BPR implementation
improves the process efficiency vary in organizational
strategies?
RQ4: During the BPR implementation project, does the
degree of top-down flow vary in organizational Strategies?
RQ5: Does the degree of bottom-up information flow
vary across organizational strategies during BPR
implementation?
RQ6: During BPR implementation, does the degree of
resistance to change vary in different organizational
strategies?
This article has adopted the proposed organizational
strategies by Miller and Roth (1994). It is a robust orga-
nizational strategy that considers different organizational
dimensions, such as structure, process, managerial control,
and various capacities relating to its innovative, develop-
ment, and distribution ability. It is a popular strategy for an
organization; more than 1300 research papers have cited it.
This typology of the organization uses the statistical
method to classify the organization. The use of statistical
methods to classify the organization into different strate-
gies reduces the researchers’ subject biases.
The remainder of this article has the following structure.
A brief overview of the BPR and various organizational
strategies is provided in the first section. The second sec-
tion explains sampling and data collection processes and
data analysis methodologies in the field of research. The
research findings have been discussed in the third sec-
tion. Section four discusses the overall results and practical
implications of the study. Furthermore, in fifth section,
limitations and future research directions are provided.
Background Literature Review
Business Process Reengineering
In recent years, researchers (McKeown and Philip 2003;
Zhao 2004; Boersma and Kingma 2005; Xenakis, Macin-
tosh, and Centre 2005; Martin and Cheung 2005; Nguyen
and Shanks 2009; Xin 2009a, b; Groznik and Maslaric
2010; Shen and Chou 2010; Lee, Chu, and Tseng 2011;
Khodambashi 2013; McLean, McGovern, and Davie 2015;
Pattanayak and Roy 2015; Samiei and Habibi 2020) look
business process through the lens of information tech-
nologies (IT) and information systems (IS). Xin (2009a, b)
and McLean et al. (2015) studied the impact of IT-driven
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73
business processes in accounting, engineering, manage-
ment of companies’ growth, e-commerce, and business
process management; their studies find these factors have a
positive association with BPR. Shen and Chou (2010) find
that BPR is an essential foundation to ensure the success of
enterprise information systems.
This study examines the relationship between BPR
implementation and the business performance of logistics
companies. This study finds that BPR companies outper-
form non-BPR companies in information processing,
technology application, and coordination of major logistic
applications. However, Khodambashi (2013) studies BPR
in the context of healthcare information systems (HIS)
implementation. This study investigates the application of
BPR and its effectiveness in health care related to HIS.
This study finds that the application of HIS affects
healthcare delivery, including its clinical process.
Critical success factors (CSFs) play an essential role in
successful BPR implementation and organizational objec-
tives through BPR (Queiroz and Mendes 2020). Various
authors have tried to identify CSFs of BPR, but these CSFs
vary from case to case as the aim of BPR projects varies.
Davenport and Short (1990) have identified four goals of
BPR: cost reduction, time reduction, output quality, and
quality of work life. Burton (1993) identified BPR targets
as cost reduction, revenue growth, process streamline, and
customer satisfaction. On the other hand, Stow (1993) has
reported that the BPR project aims to improve the orga-
nization’s effectiveness, efficiency, competitiveness, and
profitability.
Sarker and Lee (1999) identify three factors of failure of
reengineering in the US telecommunication company
TELECO. They are leadership, communication, and IT
knowledge and management. After examining more than
25 BPR cases, Maull et al. (1995) have identified six fac-
tors influencing the successful BPR implementation. They
are information technology, human, performance mea-
sured, process architecture, BPR strategy, and corporate
strategy. Al-Mashari and Zairi (1999) have mentioned hard
and soft factors that cause BPR implementation’s success
and failure. They have further subdivided these factors into
six groups: change management, management competency
and support, organizational structure, project planning,
administration, and IT infrastructure.
After a critical analysis of BPR implementation litera-
ture, we identify some essential CSFs for almost all the
BPR projects. They are top management support, the scope
of BPR project implementation, effective communication,
leadership, resistance to change, etc. (Braganza and Myers
1996). Top management support is the most crucial CSF in
BPR implementation. They have adequate knowledge of
the organization and have the power to make strategic
decisions for the BPR implementation process (Crowe
57
et al. 2002; Salimifard et al. 2010). Besides this, top
management motivates the employee and creates friendly
interaction with the BPR implementation team (Dennis
et al. 2003).
Organizations need resources such as financial, techni-
cal, time, and human to implement BPR successfully. BPR
is a costly process requiring sufficient budget allocation to
implement changes and manage unforeseen circumstances
(Bashein et al. 1994). Reengineering activity requires all
people in the organization, including top management,
middle management, and line staff. Besides these resour-
ces, BPR’s success depends on the proper adoption of IT
infrastructure and time management (Kettinger et al. 1997).
Researchers (Proctor and Doukakis 2003; Kock et al. 2008;
Ryan et al. 2008; Suman et al. 2009; Brandes and Darai
2014; Mitike 2015; Berk et al. 2016; Elias 2019) report that
IT and business strategy must be aligned to ensure the
success of BPR implementation (Martinez 1995). If infor-
mation technology and strategic planning are involved,
there will be a growing need for operational flexibility and
productivity in meeting institutionally defined goals. It has
been observed that most of the difficulties and issues
associated with the introduction of data processing and
reengineering (BPR) for systemic reform in the state are
linked to the marginalization of knowledge technology and
communication.
Mostly BPR projects are started by the IT department,
where the information and IT infrastructure are the primary
resources organizations use to create competitive advan-
tage (Sabherwal and King 1991). It forces the organizations
to acquire suitable enabling technologies (Barrett 1994),
selection of appropriate IT architecture (Vishvakarma et al.
2015), proper information system integration, and adequate
sourcing of technology vital to successful BPR imple-
mentation (Zairi and Sinclair 1995; Jacks et al. 2011). The
lack of preparation is crucial to the high rate of BPR fail-
ures. Research suggests a strategy to minimize the risk of
business process reengineering (BPR) projects’ failure. The
key factors were information technology (IT), top man-
agement commitment, and collaborative work (Hussain
et al. 2014).
Techniques for improving business processes such as
BPR and TQM need to be successfully implemented by
various organizations. For the successful implementation
of BPR, management driven by BPR needs a top-to-bottom
approach. Simultaneously, TQM is an approach driven by
people and deals with internal problems. Consequently, a
bottom-up approach is necessary for the successful
implementation of TQM. Many BPR projects are cross-
functional and require a flexible organizational structure to
foster innovative creativity. Consequently, the successful
implementation of BPR requires less bureaucracy and more
participatory teamwork. Organizational culture was
123
58
recognized as a decisive factor in BPR’s successful
implementation (Michael Hammer and Champy 1993a, b).
Successful implementation requires an innovative
organizational environment and professional organizational
culture (Vishvakarma and Sharma 2015; Birasnav et al.
2019). Coordination of employee participation has prime
importance. A strong corporate culture influences an
organization’s ability to adapt to changes and avoid stress
and reduce resistance to change. Culture contains belief
that may not be relevant in the reengineered process. BPR
is a team-based method toward significant changes in
efficiency. Efficient BPR projects contribute to process,
quality, and cost breakthroughs (Hales and Savoie 1994).
Hence, the organization needs to adopt new values, man-
agement processes, and communication systems created by
newly reengineered processes. The critical success factors
(CSF) identified for BPR implementation are given in
Table 1.
Organizational Strategy Types
The term ’strategy’ was first introduced by Chandler (1962)
in business corporations. The literature of the 1950s and
Table 1 Key factors for business process reengineering
SN Code Particulars
1 CSF Reduction in lead time
1 and Braiden (2004)
2 CSF Increase in return on investment (ROI)/profit
2 Kasim et al. (2018)
3 CSF Increase in product quality
3 (2018)
4 CSF Increase in product innovation
4
5 CSF Increase organizational efficiency
5
6 CSF BPR ideas and communication from the bottom level of Proctor and Doukakis (2003), Tyworth and Sawyer (2006), Ryan et al.
6 the organization
7 CSF Encouragement of middle management and bottom-level
7 employee
8 CSF Lower-level employees have a significant impact on BPR
8 success
9 CSF Mainly directing, leadership style
9
10 CSF (Instructive) indicating step by step what employees
10 should do, and keep close supervision of the
performance
11 CSF Resistance to change was significant
11
12 CSF Adaptation with the new procedure requires high time
12
123
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73
1960s has used many other terms such as policy making,
organizational behavior, and business administration, and
later strategic concepts over time replaced it. The strategy
is a long-term goal and objective and a plan of action and
the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these
goals of an enterprise. Grant (1991) has touted it as a match
between organizations’ internal strengths to the external
opportunities and challenges. On the other hand, some
authors have called it managers’ intension of gaining
competitive advantage (Porter 1985), testing internal
capability within the organization’s boundary for future use
(Eisenhardt and Sull 2001; Markides 2004) and building a
resource base (Barney 1991; Peteraf 1993).
The concept of strategy has multidimensional charac-
teristics; different authors have categorized organizational
strategy differential based on the basis they have followed
in classifying the organizational strategy. Miles et al.
(1978) touted that every organization faces entrepreneurial,
engineering, and administrative issues. They propose four
organizational strategies: defender, analyzers, prospec-
tor, and reactors, based on how organizations solve the
above issues. Based on the market competitiveness, three
organizational strategies are suggested by Porter (1980):
References
Hammer and Champy, (1993a, b), Hales and Savoie (1994) and Cameron
Habib (2013), Ringim et al. (2013), Sungau and Ndunguru (2015) and
Soung-Hie and Ki-Jin (2002), Chiarini et al. (2006) and Qusef et al.
Gasston (1996) and Chen et al. (2004)
Stow (1993), Martinsons, (1995) and Ringim et al. (2011)
(2008), Kock et al. (2008), Suman et al. (2009), Brandes and Darai
(2014), Mitike (2015) and Berk et al. (2016)
Sutcliffe (1999) and Hussain et al. (2014)
Sayer (1998), Hanif et al. (2014) and Serban and Iorga (2016)
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73
cost leadership, differentiation, and focus/niche strategy.
Miller and Roth (1994) have given three types of strategy:
caretakers, marketeers and innovators, based on the inno-
vativeness and capacity development capability of the
firms. This classification is based on product innovation
and competitive capability development. Zack (1999) has
proposed five organizational strategy types: innovators,
leaders, viable competitors, and laggard at risk, and he has
considered a market penetration strategy as a classification
criterion. Blue ocean and red ocean strategies are proposed
by Zack (1999). Kim and Mauborgne’s (2005) strategy is
based on an organization’s strategic action where they are
willing to compete in an established market or willing to
create or explore an untapped market.
This paper adopts the organizational strategy typology
given by Miller and Roth (1994). The brief details of these
organizational strategy types are as follows.
a) Caretaker organizational strategy
Organizations following caretaker organizational strat-
egy types focus on cost-cutting rather than seeking new
opportunities and innovation. They focus on protecting its
market share, maintaining stable growth, and serving
existing customers. They choose a narrow product and
market domain for operation. They tend toward production
and distribution efficiency by implementing cost-efficient
and single-core technology, highly vertical integration, and
continuous improvement (Miller and Roth 1994; Vish-
wakarma et al. 2019). They ensure efficiency through
structure and processes called mechanistic organization
structure. Here, the top management is highly dominated
by ’production and cost control specialist,’ ’high degree of
formalization and division of labor,’ ’less environmental
scanning for new opportunities and intense focus on cost
control,’ ’long looped and centralized controlled informa-
tion system,’ and ’hierarchical communication channels’
(Miller and Roth 1994).
b) Marketeers organizational strategy
Generally, marketeers operate in a dynamic environ-
ment to find and exploit the new product and market
opportunity, and they critically focus on product innovation
and market development. They used to have a broad pro-
duct line and continuously add new products or markets in
their operation domain to meet up with customer demands
(Miller and Roth 1994; Vishwakarma et al. 2019). The
marketeers heavily invested in market scanning to search
for new market opportunities. Marketeers focus on flexi-
bility (Sushil 2001; Shukla et al. 2019; Evans and Bahrami
2020), multiple core technologies, low-degree division of
labor, and multiskill workforce. In these organizations, top
management is dominated by marketing and research and
development experts and has decentralized control and less
59
hierarchical communication (Miller and Roth 1994; Vish-
wakarma et al. 2019).
c) Innovators organizational strategy
These organizations can make rapid design changes and
introduced new products quickly. Product performance,
conformance to quality, and dependability hold top priority
for innovators (Vishvakarma and Sharma 2015; Vish-
vakarma et al. 2015; Khanmohammadi et al. 2019). They
carry limited product lines, a low degree of emphasis on
volume flexibility, and the price is considered the least
important factor for them. Other than these, they also focus
on better after-sales services (Mondal et al. 2016; Vish-
vakarma 2016).
We have identified variables mostly from Miller and
Roth’s (1994) research to analyze organizations’ charac-
teristics. Variables are presented in Table 2; we called
these variables as strategic organizational variables.
Theoretical Discussion and Hypothesis
Development
Bhaskar (2016) has touted that BPR is now the best tool for
improving quality and bring innovation. It has been
designed to enhance organizational performance and
quality to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage in
this global production era. The innovators are highly
focused on quality products, and they charge the premium
price for their quality products, so innovators are more
quality conscious while implementing the BPR. Miller and
Roth (1994) have discussed the innovators’ organizations
have the highest priority on conformance to the product’s
quality and durability. These organizations charge schem-
ing pricing for their product quality. The organization
makes changes in its business process to increase product
quality. Based on the above discussion, the following
hypothesis can be proposed.
H1 Innovators have the highest focus, and caretakers
have the lowest priority, whereas the marketeers have a
moderate emphasis on increasing innovativeness during
BPR implementation.
Business process reengineering (BPR) was designed to
allow companies to be process-driven and customer-fo-
cused. Customers demand lower costs and lower lead
times, which require increased operational efficiency
(Cameron and Braiden 2004; Kasim et al. 2018). Hammer
and Champy (1993a, b) have discussed that the organiza-
tions go for business process reengineering to minimize the
cost, speed up the process, and improve the quality. It
means the organization’s objective to improve organiza-
tional efficiency, and it is essential for all the organizations
123
60 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73

Table 2 Organizational strategic variables

SN Variable Description References

1 STR1 Low price competition Miller and Roth (1994)

2 STR2 Competition on making a new product and quickly launching in the market
3 STR3 Competition on fulfilling fluctuating demand
4 STR4 Consistent, high-quality product and service competition
5 STR5 High product performance competition
6 STR6 Competition on quick delivery of product and services
7 STR7 Competition for better on-time delivery
8 STR8 Competition on providing better after-sales services
9 STR9 Competition on gaining market share by promotion and advertisement of products and services
10 STR10 Competition of providing a vast distribution network
11 STR11 Competition to offer a variety of products
12 STR12 Competition on new product innovation Vishwakarma et al. (2019)
13 STR13 Competition on gaining market share by introducing innovation and change
14 STR14 Competition on attaining industry leadership by product/process/service offering

irrespective of the strategies follow by the organizations.
Miller and Roth (1994) have discussed the organization
with an innovation strategy has the highest priority on
timely service and product delivery. In contrast, the care-
taker has the lowest emphasis, and the maketeers have a
moderate focus on service delivery time, so the following
hypothesis has been proposed.
H2 While the organizations go for BPR, they focus on
organizational efficiency irrespective of organizational
strategy types (innovators, caretaker, and marketeers).
BPR is a management technique used to dramatically
change organizations’ efficiency (Mathew et al. 2015).
Innovators have the fundamental characteristic to leverage
the market opportunity as soon as they emerge. They are
willing to take the risk and grow because the organizations
with caretaker strategies tend to avoid the risk. The inno-
vators grab the new market opportunity through innovative
products and being the first mover in the market (Chatterjee
2014). The innovators heavily invest in their R&D to
become innovative. They charge a premium price for their
innovation and uniqueness, so the innovators have the
highest focus on return on investment (ROI) (Vishwakarma
et al. 2019). Based on the above, the following hypothesis
can be proposed.
H3 Innovators have the highest scope, and caretakers
have the lowest scope, whereas the maketeers have mod-
erate scope for improvement during BPR.
With the emergence of BPR, communication elements
within operational improvements were given higher prior-
ity. Conventional communications strategies do not adapt
to the requirements of a specific organization. Only by
mounding a particular network or channel in a manner that
satisfies the group’s specific criteria will effectively be
accomplished (Belmiro et al. 2000). The organization
having the innovators strategy has participative decision
making they allow the ideas to emerge from each level of
the organization. Moreover, in contrast, the caretaker has a
high degree of centralization of control and a hierarchical
structure of communication where decisions are taken. In
contrast, there is a balanced focus on both approaches
(Vishwakarma et al. 2019). Based on the above discussion,
the following hypothesis has been proposed.
H4 Innovators have the highest focus, and caretakers
have the lowest focus, whereas the marketeers have a
moderate focus on bottom-up communication during BPR.
Output and business process orientation is a significant way
of raising productivity and pace while reducing costs. Over the
past few years, there has been growing value for independent
companies to see human capital as a tool and ability to ensure
versatility (Scherer and Zölch 1995). The successful imple-
mentation of BPR requires monitoring and controlling the
BPR project’s progress tightly and accurately so that any
deviation in the process can be managed and corrected timely.
To accomplish these things, a strict and clear message is
required to send to all the organization employees, so it can be
concluded that clear and strict communication from top
management is necessary to implement the BPR project in the
organization. It is compulsory for all the organizational
strategy types. So the following hypothesis can be proposed.
H5 While the organizations go for BPR, they have to
focus on top-down communication irrespective of

123
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73 61

organizational strategy types (innovators, caretakers, and performed or given BPR guidance, improvement of busi-
marketeers). ness processes. The survey instrument was a structured
questionnaire that we prepared by pertinent literature study.
Organizational transition management is a scientific
The survey was sent to the respondent’s target via email.
technique in a broad BPR project and art involving con-
The survey participants were the general manager, senior
sistent subjective evaluations. The organization does not
management, quality improvement manager, quality man-
neglect that reform attempts must be scientifically modu-
ager, project manager, functional architect, senior consul-
larized with critical stakeholders in clearly established
tant, and business analyst. A total of 152 responses were
practices (Mohapatra 2013). Hanif et al. (2014) have
received, and we left 131 valid responses after data
studied the impact of organizational resistance to change
screening.
on BPR Implementation. This study provides an insight
Most of the questions are calculated on a scale of five
into the factors that create organizational resistance to
Likert points in this study. We also conducted a Cronbach
change. The research indicates that human dynamics,
alpha test to verify the scale’s reliability and the results’
behavioral characteristics, and IT planning contribute
inner accuracy and delete some survey questions to
actively and substantially to BPR implementation. If there
improve data quality. Of all systems that are very satis-
is a good IT infrastructure available and the workers are
factory to survey-based analysis, our results’ cumulative
well educated in IT technologies, they do not exhibit much
reliability was found to be over 0.80.
reluctance and readily adapt. The organization having
innovators strategy has well-qualified and skilled employ-
Data Analysis Methodologies
ees who are willing to learn and implement them in the
organizational practices. In contrast, with care takes
A variety of statistical methods are used in this research,
approach has less skilled workers than the worker of
such as Cronbach alpha, k-mean clustering, discriminant
innovators’ organizational strategy, they fear job loss while
analysis, factor analysis, and post hoc data analysis meth-
process change happens. It makes the employees in the
ods/tools. The reliability of the data scale and internal
caretaker organization more resistant to change.
consistency were tested using Cronbach alpha. Cluster
H6 Caretakers have a high degree of resistance to change, analysis was used to classify the organizations into various
and innovators have the lowest, whereas the marketeers strategic groups, and discriminant analysis was used to
have moderate resistance to change during BPR. determine clusters’ internal descriptive statistics. Factor
analysis was used to reduce the dimension of critical suc-
A consolidated summary of the proposed hypothesis in
cess factors. For multiple comparisons of the mean dif-
this paper is given in Table 3.
ference, post hoc analysis was used. The following are the
short descriptions of these strategies.
Research Design a) K-mean Clustering
It is used when the number of clusters is fixed at the
Data Source and Sampling
beginning of the analysis. A similar case is with this paper.
There are three types of strategy groups, so k-mean clus-
We collected data from companies that have reengineered
tering is a suitable methodology to classify the organization
business processes to test these hypotheses. The question-
in different strategic groups. The same method had also
naire was circulated to businesses worldwide that had
been applied by Miller and Roth (1994). The clusters are
formed, such that intra-cluster variance is minimum, and
Table 3 Summary of the proposed hypothesis inter-cluster distance is maximum (Mok et al. 2012) at the
SN Hypothesis Caretakers Marketeers Innovators
significance level of 0.05 or less.
Let X = {o1, o2, x3, …on} be the set of n observed points
1 H1 L M H and each observed points are d-dimensional points. Let mt
P
2 H2 H H H = o2Ct nto be the centroid of cluster Ct, where C = {ck,
3 H3 L M H k = 1, …,K}, nt is the number of observation points in
4 H4 L M H cluster ct, and K is the number of clusters. The clustering is
5 H5 H H H done to minimize the variance within the cluster and
6 H6 H M L maximize the variance among the clusters. Then objective
In the above table, L, M, and H are representing low, moderate, and
function J(ck) of k means clustering is formulated as
high importance, respectively follows:

123
62 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73

X
JðckÞ ¼ ðmk  ckÞ
ot2ck
The objective of K-mean clustering is to minimize the
sum of the squared error over all the K clusters.
X
k X
JðCÞ ¼  ðmk  ckÞ2
ðk¼1Þ ðot2ckÞ
b) Discriminant analysis (DA)
Ronald Fisher developed the discriminant analysis
technique in 1936. This technique is different from cluster
analysis, and it is used when clusters and members of
clusters are already known (unlike cluster analysis).
Computationally, discriminant analysis and multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) are very similar. In
MANOVA, independent variables are groups, and depen-
dent variables are the predictor variables, whereas, in DA,
dependent variables are groups, and independent variables
are discrete or continuous (predictor variables).
The assumption of DA is similar to ANOVA/MAN-
OVA, and they as following.
1. Multivariate normality: Independent variables follow
a normal distribution in each group.
2. Homoscedasticity: The same variables are present in
each group, and they have almost similar variance
across each group
3. Multicollinearity: Ideally, it assumes that there is no
mutual interdependence between variables.
4. Independence: Respondents are assumed to be ran-
domly sampled, and one respondent’s response is not
affected by any other respondent.
ð1Þ This research uses DA to find the descriptive statistics of
clusters which are formed by cluster analysis. Based on the
description and similarity of clusters to Miller and Roth
(1994) typology, the cluster has been given the name of
caretaker, marketeer, and innovators.
ð2Þ c) Principle component analysis (PCA)
PCA is a multivariate data analysis technique for data
reduction and separating useful parameters from the
redundant one (Jolliffe 2002; Nguyen and Reynolds 2009).
The orthogonal transformation can be achieved that con-
verts data into a new set of uncorrelated variables (prin-
cipal components) that explain the maximum amount of
variance in original data (Astephen et al. 2008). It can be
accomplished by representing the observations and vari-
ables simultaneously for an optimal number of principal
components (PCs). The components are extracted in such a
way that the first PC explains the maximum partition of
variance and subsequent PCs describe less variance in the
original data set (Lu et al. 2008; Zafiriou et al. 2012; Park
et al. 2015; Onat et al. 2019). Before applying the PCA
procedure, we have performed the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
(KMO) test for sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of
sphericity for the non-interdependence of original data.
Ideally, the KMO value should be [ 0.60, and Bartlett’s
test of sphericity should be significant (\ 0.05).
In this study, we have collected several key BPR
implementation factors from the literature. We have
applied factor analysis to divide these factors into con-
structs. The factors analysis result shows that KMO and
Bartlett’s test of sphericity is significant. This factor anal-
ysis divides implementation success factors into five con-
structs: organizational effectiveness, organizational
efficiency, bottom-up information flow, top-down infor-
mation flow, and resistance to change. The pattern matrix
of analysis is shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Pattern matrix of BPR key implementation success factors

Critical success factors Effectiveness Efficiency Bottom up Top down Resistance to change

CSF1 .812
CSF2 .738
CSF3 .758
CSF4 .887
CSF5 .712
CSF6 .879
CSF7 .845
CSF8 .781
CSF9 .830
CSF10 .788
CSF11 .779
CSF12 .805

123
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73
The score of any construct has been calculated by taking
the average of the variables representing that construct.
The BPR scope has been defined as the ability of an
organization to increase efficiency and effectiveness. The
scope of BPR has been calculated as the average of effi-
ciency and effectiveness of BPR implementation.
d) Post hoc analysis
In this study, Chi-squared statistics will not be a suit-
able measure to check the significant mean differences, as
there are more than two groups of different sizes. The Chi-
squared method is suitable to compare the significant mean
difference between the two groups, so this study adopts
post hoc approach. This method is used to compare the
means between the multiple groups when they are of dif-
ferent sizes. The post doc study is a way of comparing the
mean of different groups. It tests whether or not there is a
significant difference between groups. This method is
appropriate for this study because the size of the clusters
differs from one another. The hypotheses of this approach
were checked and are given in Annex 4. The presumption
that the results are distributed naturally is violated, and the
variances are considered homogeneous. In such a case, the
Tukey HSD tests or the ship post hoc tests are suit-
able methods for comparing all possible groups’ means.
Various means contrasts were made by Turley’s HSD and
post hoc research in this report. Table 5 provides Turley
HSD performance, and Table 6 offers a post doc analysis.
Results and Discussion
The descriptive statistics of the clusters are presented in
‘‘Appendix 1.’’ Moreover, the groups have been repre-
sented as alphabet C, I, and M (C = caretakers, I = inno-
vators, and M = marketeers). The organizations in cluster
’C’ have the highest emphasis on low-cost capabilities
among all the strategy types. Other than the low-cost
capabilities, this group of organizations focuses on other
competitive capabilities compared to the other two strategy
types. The organizations in the group ’I’ have the least
emphasis on low-cost production, but have the highest
focus on other competitive capabilities to provide the
innovative product, offering large variety, and provide
better after-sales services. The organizations in the group
’M’ have a moderate focus on all the competitive capa-
bilities. For the group ’M’ organizations, low-cost leader-
ship, and innovation both are important. The stable market
adopts the caretaker strategy, and in an emerging market;
they have innovators’ approach. The characteristics of
clusters found from the data are very similar to the char-
acteristics of the organizational strategies discussed by
Miller and Roth (1994).
63
Organizations with innovators strategy types have rela-
tively more scope for BPR implementation than marketeers
and caretakers strategy types. Post hoc analysis results in
Table 6 reveal that BPR implementation significantly
increases the efficiency of the organization. There is a
significant difference between the mean score of BPR
efficiency (C2 [ C3 [ C1; C2 [ C1**; C3 [ C1**)
among all the organizational strategy type at 0.01 level of
significance. Innovator has the highest mean score for BPR
effectiveness. The scope of BPR is to increase the effi-
ciency and effectiveness of the organization. The Post hoc
analysis result also reveals that the BPR scope significantly
(at 0.01 level of significance) differs among the three
strategic groups (C2 [ C3 [ C1; C2 [ C1**; C3 [ C1**)
and it is highest for innovator organizations.
The organizations with a higher degree of bottom-up
information flow find it relatively easier to implement BPR
than organizations with a higher degree of top-down
information flow. Post hoc analysis results in Table 6 also
show that top down is not significantly different among the
three organizational strategy types. Top-down information
flow is equally and highly crucial for all the organizations
to implement BPR. In contrast, bottom-up information flow
is significantly different among the different organizational
strategy types at the 0.05 level of significance. Innovators
organizations have a significantly high degree of (C2 [
C1 [ C3; C2 [ C3*) bottom-up information flow.
Conclusion
The empirical analysis of data reveals that the scope of
BPR implementation varies across different organizational
strategy types. The summary of the proposed hypothesis
and their acceptance/rejection is presented in Table 7.
The study finds that the organizations following inno-
vator and marketeer strategy have more scope for BPR.
There is a significant difference in the scope of BPR
implementation in innovator and caretaker strategies. The
implementations of BPR give enormous scope to innova-
tors to make their process more efficient. The research
found no significant difference in effectiveness, but it is
crucially important to all organizations, whatever their
strategies. The average value of effectiveness is found to be
3.45 on a scale of 5. It means that BPR’s core objective for
all the firms is to make the business process more effective.
The paper has some other exciting findings that there is
no significant difference in the flow of information from
top to bottom among different organizational strategies. In
contrast, there is a substantial difference in the flow of
information from bottom to top across the organizational
strategy. The study also reveals that there exists a resis-
tance to change in all the organizational strategies.
123
64 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73

Table 5 Difference test of cluster means for key BPR implementation factors
Dependent variable Mean difference (I–J) SE Sig. 95% confidence interval
Lower bound Upper bound

BPR effectiveness
Innovators
Marketeers .2653 .1290 .1033 - .0407 .5713
Caretakers .2667 .1402 .1420 - .0657 .5991
Caretakers
Marketeers - .0014 .1489 .9999 - .3545 .3517
Innovators - .2667 .1402 .1420 - .5991 .0657
BPR efficiency
Innovators
Marketeers .6746032* .1533 .0001 .3111 1.0381
Caretakers .5417480* .1665 .0041 .1469 .9366
Caretakers
Marketeers .1329 .1769 .7335 - .2866 .5523
Innovators - .5417480* .1665 .0041 - .9366 - .1469
BPR scope
Innovators
Marketeers .4699580* .1105 .0001 .2079 .7320
Caretakers .4042397* .1200 .0029 .1196 .6889
Caretakers
Marketeers .0657 .1275 .8640 - .2367 .3681
Innovators - .4042397* .1200 .0029 - .6889 - .1196
Bottom up
Innovators
Marketeers .3103 .1540 .1126 - .0548 .6754
Caretakers .4137816* .1672 .0387 .0172 .8103
Caretakers
Marketeers - .1035 .1776 .8297 - .5247 .3178
Innovators - .4137816* .1672 .0387 - .8103 - .0172
Top down
Innovators
Marketeers .3959900* .1651 .0467 .0046 .7874
Caretakers .2160 .1793 .4525 - .2091 .6412
Caretakers
Marketeers .1800 .1905 .6129 - .2716 .6316
Innovators - .2160 .1793 .4525 - .6412 .2091
Resistance to change
Innovators
Marketeers .2569 .1289 .1182 - .0488 .5626
Caretakers .3120 .1401 .0704 - .0201 .6441
Caretakers
Marketeers - .0551 .1488 .9273 - .4078 .2977
Innovators - .3120 .1401 .0704 - .6441 .0201
Caretakers .9184872* .1358 .0000 .5964 1.2406
Caretakers
Marketeers - .4766946* .1443 .0035 - .8189 - .1345
Innovators - .9184872* .1358 .0000 - 1.2406 - .5964
*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

123
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73 65

Table 6 Post hoc analysis summary of panels

Cluster 1 (n = 42) Cluster 2 (n = 57) Cluster 3 (n = 32) F-test p value Cluster mean differences
Marketeers Innovators Caretakers

Panel 1: Business process reengineering

BPR efficiency
Mean 2.99 3.67 3.12 11.072 .000 C2 [ C3 [ C2; C2 [ C1, C3**
SD 0.77 0.75 0.74
BPR effectiveness
Mean 3.45 3.72 3.45 2.827 .063 C2 [ C1 [ C3
SD 0.55 0.71 0.59
BPR scope
Mean 3.22 3.69 3.29 10.761 .000 C2 [ C3 [ C2C2 [ C1, C3**
SD 0.41 0.64 0.51
Bottom up
Mean 3.63 3.94 3.52 3.711 .027 C2 [ C1 [ C3; C2 [ C3*
SD 0.71 0.78 0.78
Top down
Mean 2.93 3.32 3.11 2.920 .058 C2 [ C3 [ C1
SD 0.75 0.90 0.72
Resistance to change
Mean 3.52 3.78 3.47 3.224 .043 C2 [ C1 [ C3
C2 [ C3*
SD 0.67 0.62 0.61
C1 = cluster 1 (marketeers), C2 = cluster 2 (innovators) and C3 = cluster 3 (caretakers)
**The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level
*The mean difference is significant at the 0.10 level

Table 7 Hypothesis acceptance/rejection summary

SN Hypothesis Caretakers Marketeers Innovators

1 H1 Accepted Accepted Accepted

2 H2 Accepted Accepted Accepted
3 H3 Accepted Accepted Accepted
4 H4 Accepted Accepted Accepted
5 H5 Accepted Accepted Accepted
6 H6 Rejected Rejected Rejected

Chatterjee (2014) reports that innovators/marketeers have
less centralization and encourage emerging new ideas from
every organization level. This study also reveals that
organizations having innovator organizational strategy
types have a relatively high degree of bottom-up commu-
nication in BPR implementation. The research also shows a
significant degree of change in resistance to change across
different organizational strategies. This difference exists
because of the different organizational structures and
division mechanisms followed by the organizations.
Extensive literature is available to classify the facilitator
(Melão and Pidd 2000; Khong and Richardson 2003; Lee
et al. 2011; Weerakkody et al. 2011) and implementer of
BPR (Rajala et al. 1997; Bhatt 2000; Votano et al. 2004;
Zhao 2004; Lee et al. 2011; Rao et al. 2012). A few studies
have been done to access the scope of BPR implementation
in various industries, such as construction (Vakola and
Rezgui 2000), health care (Khodambashi 2013), and the
banking industry (Khong and Richardson 2003).
Researchers (Cheng and Chiu 2008; Ostadi et al. 2011)
have discussed CSFs and BPR’s barriers in organizations.

123
66 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73

As far as we know, no such researchers have attempted to
develop the connection between BPR scope, resistance to
change, and information flow with business strategy types.
The novelty of this study is that it empirically validates
these relationships.
This research adds significantly to BPR literature and
BPR practitioners. This research describes the scope of
BPR for an organization. This study shows the link
between BPR and some organizational variables, such as
the effect of organizational strategy, resistance to change,
and communication flow on the implementation of BPR.
The analytical study of such relationships provides a
roadmap to BPR professionals and consultants.
In this study, the hypothesis H6 has been rejected. This
hypothesis is related to resistance to change. In this
hypothesis, it has been hypothesized that caretakers find the
most difficult to manage resistance to change than other
organizational strategies. Still, this hypothesis has been
rejected by statistical data analysis in this paper. The
research finding is against this hypothesis. The reason may
be that the innovators’ organizations have decentralized
working processes in which managing the change may be
difficult. The exact cause can be found by the in-depth
analysis of this research problem in the future.
Limitation and Future Research Scope
The research classifies organizations (caretakers, marke-
teers, and innovators) based on data collected by each
company’s single respondent. The feasibility of studies
may pose questions about respondents’ bias, as every
institution has only one response. In comparison, a com-
plex term such as BPR can be the best interpreted using a
formal questionnaire and an interview process instead of
using data derived from the survey only. Another limitation
of this study that it has considered a few variables of the
organization like the scope of BPR implementation,
direction of information flow, and resistance to change.
Many other variables affect the implementation of BPR in
an organization, and they leave the scope for future studies
by considering other variables.
Despite a few limits, this research is precious and
deserving of attention for adequate theorization. This study
examines Miller and Roth’s (1994) organizational strategy.
Many other organizational strategies provided by
researchers can be considered to study their effect on
implementing BPR in the future. This research considers
the essential performance factors relating to the BPR scope,
communication flow direction, and resistance to change. In
the future, the BPR should research critical success factors
related to management control, corporate systems, culture,
employee skill, and knowledge sharing.
This research can be summarized in the SWOT
(strength, weakness, opportunity, and threads) in the final
concluding remark. This research’s biggest strength is that
this paper’s finding is entirely derived from a statistical
analysis of the data. Because of the statistical analysis, the
chance of researchers’ subjective biases is minimum. This
research’s weakness is that the organization’s categoriza-
tion into the different organization’s strategic groups is
based on its only single response. In the case of respondent
biases, the organization’s strategy type may be affected.
This research provides many opportunities for future
studies. This research has considered the organizational
typology proposed by Miller and Roth (1994). In the
future, many other organizational typologies can be
examined. In this research, some threads show that this
research’s finding is based on statistical analysis in which
sometimes changes in high, moderate, and low level hap-
pens at tiny differences. In case some changes occur in the
sample size, some of the research levels may change.
Funding No grant has been received for this paper.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Appendix 1
See Table 8.

Table 8 Descriptive statistics of variables of organizational strategies

STR1 STR2 STR3 STR4 STR5 STR6 STR7 STR8 STR9 STR10 STR11 STR12 STR13 STR14

M 2.71 3.38 3.46 4.21 4.00 3.76 4.38 3.64 3.10 3.05 2.93 2.90 3.50 3.69
I 2.12 4.32 4.19 4.45 4.46 4.24 4.46 4.37 4.18 4.19 4.11 4.21 4.28 4.41
C 2.88 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.09 3.01 3.09 3.09 2.91 2.94 2.94 3.09 3.15 3.22
T 2.50 3.73 3.70 4.05 3.98 3.79 4.10 3.82 3.52 3.52 3.44 3.52 3.76 3.89
C = caretakers, I = innovators and M = marketeers

123
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73 67

Appendix 2

See Table 9.

Table 9 Descriptive statistics of research constructs

Descriptions
N Mean SD SE 95% confidence interval Min Max
Lower bound Upper bound

BPR effectiveness
Marketeers 42 3.45 0.55 0.08 3.28 3.63 2.50 5.00
Innovators 57 3.72 0.71 0.09 3.53 3.91 1.00 5.00
Caretakers 32 3.45 0.59 0.10 3.24 3.66 2.50 5.00
Total 131 3.57 0.64 0.06 3.46 3.68 1.00 5.00
BPR efficiency
Marketeers 42 2.99 0.77 0.12 2.75 3.23 1.00 4.00
Innovators 57 3.67 0.75 0.10 3.47 3.87 1.33 5.00
Caretakers 32 3.12 0.74 0.13 2.86 3.39 1.00 4.67
Total 131 3.32 0.81 0.07 3.18 3.46 1.00 5.00
BPR scope
Marketeers 42 3.22 0.41 0.06 3.09 3.35 2.50 4.00
Innovators 57 3.69 0.64 0.08 3.52 3.86 1.17 5.00
Caretakers 32 3.29 0.51 0.09 3.11 3.47 2.25 4.17
Total 131 3.44 0.58 0.05 3.34 3.54 1.17 5.00
Bottom up
Marketeers 42 3.63 0.71 0.11 3.40 3.85 2.00 5.00
Innovators 57 3.94 0.78 0.10 3.73 4.14 1.67 5.00
Caretakers 32 3.52 0.78 0.14 3.24 3.80 1.67 5.00
Total 131 3.74 0.77 0.07 3.60 3.87 1.67 5.00
Top down
Marketeers 42 2.93 0.75 0.12 2.70 3.16 2.00 4.50
Innovators 57 3.32 0.90 0.12 3.09 3.56 1.00 5.00
Caretakers 32 3.11 0.72 0.13 2.85 3.37 1.50 5.00
Total 131 3.14 0.82 0.07 3.00 3.29 1.00 5.00
Resistance to change
Marketeers 42 3.52 0.67 0.10 3.31 3.73 2.00 5.00
Innovators 57 3.78 0.62 0.08 3.62 3.95 1.50 5.00
Caretakers 32 3.47 0.61 0.11 3.25 3.69 2.50 5.00
Total 131 3.62 0.64 0.06 3.51 3.73 1.50 5.00
Total 131 3.21 0.74 0.06 3.09 3.34 1.33 5.00

123
68 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73

Appendix 3

See Table 10.

Table 10 Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk test of normality

Tests of normality
Organizational strategy Kolmogorov–Smirnov Shapiro–Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

BPR effectiveness
Marketeers .229 42 .000 .883 42 .000
Innovators .162 57 .001 .913 57 .001
Caretakers .217 32 .001 .902 32 .007
BPR efficiency
Marketeers .123 42 .111 .941 42 .031
Innovators .128 57 .022 .962 57 .068
Caretakers .152 32 .058 .950 32 .143
BPR scope
Marketeers .108 42 .200* .948 42 .055
Innovators .099 57 .200* .943 57 .009
Caretakers .108 32 .200* .972 32 .555
Bottom up
Marketeers .121 42 .131 .966 42 .237
Innovators .147 57 .004 .937 57 .005
Caretakers .218 32 .000 .939 32 .072
Top down
Marketeers .241 42 .000 .896 42 .001
Innovators .159 57 .001 .948 57 .016
Caretakers .278 32 .000 .898 32 .006
Resistance to change
Marketeers .187 42 .001 .940 42 .029
Innovators .235 57 .000 .895 57 .000
Caretakers .280 32 .000 .851 32 .000
*This is a lower bound of the true significance

Appendix 4

See Table 11.

Table 11 Test of homogeneity of variances

Test of homogeneity of variances
Levene statistic df1 df2 Sig.

BPR effectiveness 1.751 2 128 .178

BPR efficiency .111 2 128 .895
BPR scope 1.692 2 128 .188
Bottom up .355 2 128 .702
Top down 1.581 2 128 .210
Resistance to change .555 2 128 .575

123
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73 69

Appendix 5

See Table 12.

Table 12 ANOVA test

ANOVA
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

BPR effectiveness
Between groups 2.277 2 1.139 2.827 .063
Within groups 51.543 128 .403
Total 53.820 130
BPR efficiency
Between groups 12.584 2 6.292 11.072 .000
Within groups 72.740 128 .568
Total 85.324 130
BPR scope
Between groups 6.356 2 3.178 10.761 .000
Within groups 37.802 128 .295
Total 44.157 130
Bottom up
Between groups 4.253 2 2.127 3.711 .027
Within groups 73.362 128 .573
Total 77.615 130
Top down
Between groups 3.848 2 1.924 2.920 .058
Within groups 84.325 128 .659
Total 88.173 130
Resistance to change
Between groups 2.592 2 1.296 3.224 .043
Within groups 51.454 128 .402
Total 54.046 130
Within groups 40.832 128 .319
Total 55.099 130
Within groups 58.239 128 .455
Total 69.478 130

References Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advan-

Al-Mashari, M., & Zairi, M. (1999). BPR implementation process: An
analysis of key success and failure factors. Business Process
Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637159910249
108.
Archer, R., & Bowker, P. (1995). BPR consulting: An evaluation of
the methods employed. Business Process Management Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637159510798266.
Astephen, J. L., Deluzio, K. J., Caldwell, G. E., Dunbar, M. J., &
Hubley-Kozey, C. L. (2008). Gait and neuromuscular pattern
changes are associated with differences in knee osteoarthritis
severity levels. Journal of Biomechanics. https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.jbiomech.2007.10.016.
tage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/
10.1177/014920639101700108.
Barrett, J. L. (1994). Process visualization getting the vision right is
key. Information Systems Management. https://doi.org/10.10
80/10580539408964631.
Bashein, B. J., Markus, M. L., & Riley, P. (1994). Preconditions for
rpr success and how to prevent failures. Information Systems
Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580539408964630.
Belmiro, T. R., Gardiner, P. D., Simmons, J. E. L., Santos, F. C. A., &
Rentes, A. F. (2000). Corporate communications within a BPR
context. Business Process Management Journal. https://doi.org/
10.1108/14637150010345479.
Berk, Z., Laurenson, Y. C. S. M., Forbes, A. B., & Kyriazakis, I.
(2016). Modelling the consequences of targeted selective

123
70 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73
treatment strategies on performance and emergence of anthel-
mintic resistance amongst grazing calves. International Journal
for Parasitology: Drugs and Drug Resistance.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpddr.2016.11.002.
Bhaskar, H. L. (2016). BPR as a quality improvement tool. SSRN
Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2739368.
Bhatt, G. D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between information
technology, infrastructure and business process re-engineering.
Business Process Management Journal, 6(2), 139–163.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150010324085.
Birasnav, M., Chaudhary, R., & Scillitoe, J. (2019). Integration of
social capital and organizational learning theories to improve
operational performance. Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, 20(2), 141–155.
Boersma, K., & Kingma, S. (2005). From means to ends: The
transformation of ERP in a manufacturing company. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 14(2), 197–219. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jsis.2005.04.003.
Braganza, A., & Myers, A. (1996). Issues and dilemmas facing
organizations in the effective implementation of BPR. Business
Change and Re-engineering. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)10
99-0828(199604)3:2%3c38::aid-bcr60%3e3.3.co;2-8.
Brandes, L., & Darai, D. (2014). The value of top-down communi-
cation for organizational performance. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2441117.
Burton, R. M. (1993). Re-engineering your business. The Columbia
Journal of World Business. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-542
8(93)90026-l.
Cameron, N. S., & Braiden, P. M. (2004). Using business process re-
engineering for the development of production efficiency in
companies making engineered to order products. International
Journal of Production Economics, 89(3), 261–273. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0925-5273(02)00448-6.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history
of the industrial enterprise. MIT Press, 120, 519–551.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3111403.
Chatterjee, D. (2014). Management control systems and Hofstede’s
cultural dimensions: An empirical study of innovators and low
innovators. Global Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/09
72150914535144.
Chen, J., He, D., & Tong, L. (2004). Innovation business process
reengineering based on workflow technology: A type of
e-innovation. International Journal of Information Technology
& Management, 3(1), 1.
Cheng, T. C. E., & Chiu, I. S. F. (2008). Critical success factors of
business process re-engineering in the banking industry. Knowl-
edge & Process Management, 15(4), 258–269.
Chiarini, A., Snee, R. D., Bellows, W. J., Chiarini, A., Cabras, S.,
Morales, J., Andersson, R., Eriksson, H., Torstensson, H.,
Dahlgaard, J. J., Mi Dahlgaard-Park, S., Abraham, B., Cheng,
J.-L., Green, F. B., Richard, J. G., & Offodile, O. F. (2006).
Japanese total quality control, TQM, Deming’s system of
profound knowledge, BPR, Lean and Six Sigma. The TQM
Magazine. https://doi.org/10.1002/asmb.
Crowe, T. J., Meghan Fong, P., Bauman, T. A., & Zayas-Castro, J. L.
(2002). Quantitative risk level estimation of business process
reengineering efforts. Business Process Management Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150210449148.
Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: reengineering work
through information technology. Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/0923-4748(94)
90026-4.
Davenport, T.H., Short, J.F. (1990). The new industrial engineering:
information technology and business process redesign. Sloan
Mgmt. Rev. 11–17.
123
Dennis, A. R., Carte, T. A., & Kelly, G. G. (2003). Breaking the rules:
Success and failure in groupware-supported business process
reengineering. Decision Support Systems. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00132-X.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Sull, D. N. (2001). Strategy as simple rules.
Harvard Business Review, 79, 106–119.
Elias, A. A. (2019). Strategy Development Through Stakeholder
Involvement: A New Zealand Study. Global Journal of Flexible
Systems Management, 20(4), 313–322.
Employee Participation in Business Process Reengineering | Free
Essay Example. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2020, from
https://studycorgi.com/employee-participation-in-business-
process-reengineering/.
Evans, S., & Bahrami, H. (2020). Super-flexibility in practice:
Insights from a crisis. Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, 21(3), 207–214.
Gasston, J. L. (1996). Process improvement: An alternative to BPR
for software development organizations. Software Quality Jour-
nal. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00678582.
Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. B. (2016). Quality Management for
Organizational Excellence: Introduction to Total Quality. Pear-
son. British Library Cataloguing- In Publication data.
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive
advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California
Management Review, 33(3), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.101
6/S0149-2063(99)00037-9.
Grey, C., & Mitev, N. (1995). Re-engineering organizations: A
critical appraisal. Personnel Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/004
83489510079066.
Groznik, A., & Maslaric, M. (2010). Achieving competitive supply
chain through business process re-engineering: A case from
developing country. African Journal of Business Management, 4,
140–148.
Habib, M. N. (2013). Understanding critical success and failure
factors of business process reengineering. International Review
of Management and Business Research, 2, 1–10.
Hales, H. L., & Savoie, B. J. (1994). Building a foundation for
successful business process reengineering. Industrial and Engi-
neering 26(9), 17–19.
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993a). Business process re-engineer-
ing. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993b). Reengineering the corporation:
A manifesto for business revolution. Business Horizons, 36(5),
90–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-6813(05)80064-3.
Hanif, M., Khan, Y. S., & Zaheer, A. (2014). Impact of Organiza-
tional resistance to change on BPR implementation: A case of
State Bank of Pakistan. European Journal of Business and
Managemen, 6, 186–196.
Hussain, M., Saleh, M., Akbar, S., & Jan, Z. (2014). Factors affecting
readiness for business process reengineering-developing and
proposing a conceptual model. European Journal of Business
and Management, 6, 55–60.
Jacks, T., Palvia, P., Schilhavy, R., & Wang, L. (2011). A framework
for the impact of IT on organizational performance. Business
Process Management Journal, 17(5), 846–870.
Jolliffe, I. (2002). Principal component analysis. Springer series in
statistics. In Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science.
Kasim, T., Haracic, M., & Haracic, M. (2018). The improvement of
business efficiency through business process management.
Economic Review: Journal of Economics and Business, 16,
31–43.
Kettinger, W. J., Teng, J. T. C., & Guha, S. (1997). Business process
change: A study of methodologies, techniques, and tools. MIS
Quarterly, 21(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.2307/249742.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73
Khanmohammadi, E., Zandieh, M., & Tayebi, T. (2019). Drawing a
strategy canvas using the fuzzy best–worst method. Global
Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 20(1), 57–75.
Khodambashi, S. (2013). Business process re-engineering application
in healthcare in a relation to health information systems.
Procedia Technology, 9(2212), 949–957. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.106.
Khong, K. W., & Richardson, S. (2003). Business process re-
engineering in Malaysian banks and finance companies. Manag-
ing Service Quality, 13(1), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/0
9604520310456717.
Kim, S-H., & Jang, K-J. (2002). Designing performance analysis and
IDEF0 for enterprise modelling in BPR. International Journal of
Production Economics, 76(2), 121–133
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: How to
create uncontested market space and make the competition
irrelevant. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5),
240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315309336032.
Kock, N., Danesh, A., & Komiak, P. (2008). A discussion and test of
a communication flow optimization approach for business
process redesign. Knowledge and Process Management.
https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.301.
Kohnen, J. B. (1996). Best Practices in reengineering: What works
and what doesn’t in the reengineering process. Quality Manage-
ment Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.1996.11918722.
Lee, Y.-C., Chu, P.-Y., & Tseng, H.-L. (2011). Corporate perfor-
mance of ICT-enabled business process re-engineering. Indus-
trial Management & Data Systems, 111(5), 735–754.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111137287.
Lowental, J. N. (1994). Reengineering the organization. A step-by-
step approach to corporate revitalization. Brown (William C.)
Co ,U.S. (1 January 1994), ISBN-13: 978-0873892582
Lu, H., Plataniotis, K. N., & Venetsanopoulos, A. N. (2008). MPCA:
Multilinear principal component analysis of tensor objects. IEEE
Transactions on Neural Networks. https://doi.org/10.1109/TN
N.2007.901277.
Markides, C. (2004). What is strategy and how do you know if you
have one? Business Strategy Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.09
55-6419.2004.00306.x.
Martin, I., & Cheung, Y. (2005). Business process re-engineering
pays after enterprise resource planning. Business Process
Management Journal, 11(2), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1108/
14637150510591174.
Martinez, E. (1995). Successful reengineering demands IS/business
partnerships. Sloan Management Review, 36(4), 51–60.
Martinsons, M. G. (1995). Radical process innovation using infor-
mation technology: The theory, the practice and the future of
reengineering. International Journal of Information Manage-
ment. https://doi.org/10.1016/0268-4012(95)00023-Z.
Mathew, G., Sulphey, M. M., & Rajasekar, S. (2015). Scope of
business process reengineering in public sector undertakings.
Asian Social Science. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n26p129.
Maull, R. S., Weaver, A. M., Childe, S. J., Smart, P. A., & Bennett, J.
(1995). Current issues in business process re-engineering.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
15(11), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579510102882.
McKeown, I., & Philip, G. (2003). Business transformation, infor-
mation technology and competitive strategies: Learning to fly.
International Journal of Information Management, 23(1), 3–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-4012(02)00065-8.
McLean, T., McGovern, T., & Davie, S. (2015). Management
accounting, engineering and the management of company
growth: Clarke Chapman, 1864–1914. British Accounting
Review, 47(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.20
13.11.001.
71
Melão, N., & Pidd, M. (2000). A conceptual framework for
understanding business processes and business process mod-
elling. Information Systems Journal, 10, 105–129.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2000.00075.x.
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978).
Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of
Management Review, 3(3), 546–562. https://doi.org/10.5465/
AMR.1978.4305755.
Miller, J. G., & Roth, A. V. (1994). Taxonomy of manufacturing
strategies. Management Science, 40(3), 285–304.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570810867204.
Mitike, N. M. (2015). Information management and strategic
communication for institutional change in Ethiopia. Interna-
tional Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age.
https://doi.org/10.4018/ijpada.2015100104.
Mohapatra, S. (2013). Change management approach in implement-
ing BPR (pp. 163–190). Boston, MA: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6067-1_8.
Mok, P. Y., Huang, H. Q., Kwok, Y. L., & Au, J. S. (2012). A robust
adaptive clustering analysis method for automatic identification
of clusters. Pattern Recognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pat
cog.2012.02.003.
Mondal, A., Sharma, R. R. K., & Vishvakarma, N. K. (2016). Linking
strategies of organizations to multi agent system typologies.
International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technol-
ogy, 7(3), 106–110. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijimt.2016.7.3.654.
Nguyen, L., & Shanks, G. (2009). A framework for understanding
creativity in requirements engineering. Information and Software
Technology, 51(3), 655–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infs
of.2008.09.002.
Nguyen, T. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2009). Principal component
analysis of lifting kinematics and kinetics in pregnant subjects.
IFMBE Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92
841-6_468.
Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., & Afshar, S. (2019). Eco-efficiency of
electric vehicles in the United States: A life cycle assessment
based principal component analysis. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.058.
Ostadi, B., Aghdasi, M., & Alibabaei, A. (2011). An examination of
the influences of desired organisational capabilities in the
preparation stage of business process re-engineering projects.
International Journal of Production Research, 49(17),
5333–5354. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2010.501829.
Park, Y. S., Egilmez, G., & Kucukvar, M. (2015). A novel life cycle-
based principal component analysis framework for eco-effi-
ciency analysis: Case of the United States manufacturing and
transportation nexus. Journal of Cleaner Production.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.057.
Pattanayak, S., & Roy, S. (2015). Synergizing business process
reengineering with enterprise resource planning system in capital
goods industry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189,
471–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.194.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A
resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3),
179–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303.
Petrozzo, D. P. (1995). Restructuring the purpose of IT in an
organization. National Productivity Review. https://doi.org/10.10
02/npr.4040140304.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy (Vol. 1). New York: Free
Press. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025476.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Technology and competitive advantage. Journal
of Business Strategy. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb039075.
Proctor, T., & Doukakis, I. (2003). Change management: The role of
internal communication and employee development. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.11
08/13563280310506430.
123
72 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73
Queiroz, M. M., & Mendes, A. B. (2020). Critical Success Factors of
the Brazilian Offshore Support Vessel Industry: A Flexible
Systems Approach. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Man-
agement, 21(Suppl 1), S33–S48.
Qusef, A., Hamdan, A., & Murad, S. (2018). Business process
integration with quality characteristics: Quality-oriented process.
In Proceedings - 2017 international conference on engineering
and MIS, ICEMIS 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEMIS.201
7.8273030.
Rajala, M., Savolainen, T., & Jagdev, H. (1997). Exploration methods
in business process re-engineering. Computers in Industry,
33(2–3), 367–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(97)00
042-0.
Rao, L., Mansingh, G., & Osei-Bryson, K. M. (2012). Building
ontology based knowledge maps to assist business process re-
engineering. Decision Support Systems, 52(3), 577–589.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.10.014.
Ringim, K. J., Osman, N. H., Hasnan, N., & Razalli, M. R. (2013).
Exploring the implementation of business process reengineering
in banks. Asian Social Science. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass
.v9n11p243.
Ringim, K. J., Razalli, M. R., & Hasnan, N. (2011). Effect of business
process reengineering factors on organizational performance: IT
capability as a moderator. International Journal of Business and
Social Science. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.2792.
Ryan, N., Williams, T., Charles, M., & Waterhouse, J. (2008). Top-
down organizational change in an Australian Government
agency. International Journal of Public Sector Management.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550810846096.
Sabherwal, R., & King, W. R. (1991). Towards a theory of strategic
use of information resources. An inductive approach. Journal
Information and Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-720
6(91)90055-7.
Salimifard, K., Abbaszadeh, M. A., & Ghorbanpur, A. (2010).
Interpretive structural modeling of critical success factors in
banking process re-engineering. International Review of Busi-
ness Research Papers, 6, 95–103.
Samiei, E., & Habibi, J. (2020). The mutual relation between
Enterprise resource planning and knowledge management: A
review. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 21(1),
53–66.
Sarker, S., & Lee, A. S. (1999). IT-enabled organizational transfor-
mation: A case study of BPR failure at TELECO. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-86
87(99)00015-3.
Sayer, K. (1998). Denying the technology: Middle management
resistance in business process re-engineering. Journal of Infor-
mation Technology, 13(4), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.105
7/jit.1998.4.
Scherer, E., & Zölch, M. (1995). Design of activities in shop floor
management: A holistic approach to organisation at operational
business levels in BPR projects. Re-engineering the Enterprise.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34876-6_25.
Serban, A., & Iorga, C. (2016). Employee Resistance to organiza-
tional change through managerial reengineering. In Proceeding
of the 10th international management conference.
Shen, C., & Chou, C.-C. (2010). Business process re-engineering in
the logistics industry: A study of implementation, success
factors, and performance. Enterprise Information Systems, 4(1),
61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517570903154567.
Shukla, S. K., Sushil, & Sharma, M. K. (2019). Managerial paradox
toward flexibility: Emergent views using thematic analysis of
literature. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,
20(4), 349–370.
Stow, R. P. (1993). Reengineering by objectives. Planning Review.
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054414.
123
Suman, N., Ursic, D., Psunder, M., & Veselinovic, D. (2009). Mobile
information and communication technology and management of
business changes in construction companies in Slovenia.
Systemic Practice & Action Research, 22(5), 397–411.
Sungau, J. J., & Ndunguru, P. C. (2015). Business process re-
engineering: A panacea for reducing operational cost in service
organizations. Independent Journal of Management & Produc-
tion. https://doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v6i1.248.
Sushil (2001) SAP-LAP Models, Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, 2(2), 55–61.
Sutcliffe, N. (1999). Leadership behavior and business process
reengineering (BPR) outcomes: An empirical analysis of 30
BPR projects. Information & Management, 36(5), 273–286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(99)00027-0.
Talwar, R. (1993). Business re-engineering-a strategy-driven
approach. Long Range Planning. https://doi.org/10.1016/0
024-6301(93)90204-S.
Tyworth, M., & Sawyer, S. (2006). Organic development: A top-
down and bottom-up approach to design of public sector
information systems. ACM International Conference Proceeding
Series. https://doi.org/10.1145/1146598.1146633.
Vakola, M., & Rezgui, Y. (2000). Critique of existing business
process re-engineering methodologies of a new methodology.
Business Process Management Journal, 6(3), 238–250.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150010325453.
Vishvakarma, N. K., & Sharma, R. R. K. (2015). Relating organi-
zations strategy, culture and control systems with implementa-
tion strategy of business process re-engineering (BPR). Journal
of Academy of Business and Economics, 1(1).
Vishvakarma, N. K. (2016). Key RFID implementation factors
affecting ‘‘sourcing’’ decision of RFID systems in supply chain
of manufacturing industry (pp. 1537–1547).
Vishvakarma, N. K., Sharma, R. R. K., & James, W. (2015). Relating
‘‘internet of things’’ (IoT) architectures to strategy types of
organizations: A conceptual framework. Journal Of Interna-
tional Management Studies, 15(1), 29.
Vishwakarma, N. K., Singh, R., & Sharma, R. R. K. (2019). Internet
of things architectures: Do organizational strategies matters?
Business Process Management Journal, 26, 102–131.
Votano, J., Parham, M., & Hall, L. (2004). Business process re-
engineering (BPR): The REBUS approach. Chemistry & …, 44,
1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101110050030.
Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2011). Transfor-
mational change and business process reengineering (BPR):
Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Government
Information Quarterly, 28(3), 320–328. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.giq.2010.07.010.
Xenakis, A., Macintosh, A., & Centre, I. T. (2005). Using business
process re-engineering (BPR) for the effective administration of
electronic voting. Business, 3(2), 91–98.
Xin, C. (2009a). Approaching to application of business process re-
engineering and information strategy and technology. In Pro-
ceedings - 2009 IITA international conference on control,
automation and systems engineering, CASE 2009 (pp. 179–182).
https://doi.org/10.1109/CASE.2009.142.
Xin, C. (2009b). Approaching to the application of e-commerce and
business process management and re-engineering. In Proceed-
ings - 2009 IITA international conference on control, automation
and systems engineering, CASE 2009, (pp. 183–186).
https://doi.org/10.1109/CASE.2009.143.
Zack, M. H. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California
Management Review, 41(3), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.23
07/41166000.
Zafiriou, P., Mamolos, A. P., Menexes, G. C., Siomos, A. S.,
Tsatsarelis, C. A., & Kalburtji, K. L. (2012). Analysis of energy
flow and greenhouse gas emissions in organic, integrated and
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (March 2021) 22(1):55–73
conventional cultivation of white asparagus by PCA and HCA:
Cases in Greece. Journal of Cleaner Production.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.040.
Zairi, M., & Sinclair, D. (1995). Business process re-engineering and
process management: A survey of current practice and future
trends in integrated management. Management Decision.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749510085049.
Zhao, F. (2004). Management of information technology and business
process re-engineering: A case study. Industrial Management &
Data Systems, 104(8), 674–680. https://doi.org/10.1108/026
35570410561663.
Zinser, S., Baumgärtner, A., & Walliser, F. S. (1998). Best practice in
reengineering: A successful example of the Porsche research and
development center. Business Process Management Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637159810212325.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Dr. Niraj Kumar Vishvakarma is currently
working as Assistant Professor at the Institute of
Management Studies, BHU Varanasi. Dr. Vish-
vakarma is a Ph.D. from the Indian Institute of
Technology Kanpur, India, and has a master of
business administration (MBA) and a bachelor of
technology (B. Tech) degrees ABV-Indian Insti-
tute of Information Technology & Management
Gwalior, M.P., India. He has more than three years of experience in
premier institutions. He is an outstanding researcher and has pub-
lished more than one dozen publications in international journals and
conferences. He has research interest in the Internet of Things,
73
Artificial Intelligence, Big data Analytics, Adoption and Diffusion of
Innovation / Technology, and Business Process Re-engineering
(BPR).
RRK Sharma is professor at IIT Kanpur, India,
Department of Industrial & Management Engi-
neering. He has over 150 publications. He also
supervised 60 M.Tech and 25 doctoral theses. He
has received over 20 awards. His academic inter-
ests are in Computing and Information Systems,
Operations Research, operations Management,
Business Strategy, and Manufacturing Policies.
Dr. Anup Kumar works as an Assistant professor
in the area of Operations and Business Analytics at
the Institute of Management Technology, Nagpur.
He is a learner and academician with over ten
years of teaching, research, and industry experi-
ence, of having worked at research, development,
and faculty positions in institutions of repute. He
has multi-functional expertise in Operations,
Analytics, Supply Chain, Administration, and Institution Building.
This includes the experience of raising and deploying resources for
setting up new ventures. He is an avid researcher, prolific writer, and
an academician of repute.
123