Addis Ababa University

School of Business and Public Administration

Department of Accounting and Finance
(Graduate Program)

Prospects and Challenges to Implement Business Process

Reengineering (BPR) in Ethiopian Public Universities

By
Naod Mekonnen

June 2011
Prospects and Challenges to Implement Business Process Reengineering (BPR) in
Ethiopian Public Universities

By
Naod Mekonnen

Advisor
P. Laxmikantham (PhD)

A thesis submitted to the department of Accounting and Finance (graduate

program) in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of
Science in Accounting and Finance

June 2011
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Prospects and Challenges to Implement Business Process Reengineering (BPR) in
Ethiopian Public Universities

By
Naod Mekonnen

Approved by Examining Board

………………………………………… ………………………….
Advisor Signature

………………………………………… ………………………….
Examiner Signature

June 2011
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Declaration

I, the undersigned graduate student, hereby declare that this thesis is my original work,
and it has not been presented for a degree in any other university and all sources of the
materials used for this thesis have been duly acknowledged.

Name: Naod Mekonnen

Signature:…………………..

Advisor: P. Laxmikantham (PhD)

Place: Department of Accounting and Finance (Graduate Program)

School of Business and Public Administration
Addis Ababa University
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Date of Submission:………………………………..
Abstract
Since educational institutions function similar to other types of business organization, they can
use Business Process Reengineering (BPR) to enhance their performances in terms of reducing
processes‟ cost and cycle time, increasing service quality, and increasing customers and
employees satisfactions. Likewise, starting from 2008 and 2009, all Ethiopian public universities
engaged in BPR project to enhance their performances dramatically. However, the
implementation phase of BPR pointed as the most challenging one. Thus, this study intended to
identify factors that deemed as challenging factors of BPR implementation.

To address study‟s objectives, sequential explanatory strategy of mixed methods research design
adopted. Specifically, in the first phase of the study, survey was conducted on four public
universities. To identify various challenging factors of BPR implementation, forty BPR project
redesign and implementation team members in the universities were subjects of the study. In the
second phase, after results obtained in the first phase, interviews were held with three
interviewees to better understand the magnitudes of challenging factors. The study statistically
analyzed the data obtained in the first phase. Then, results obtained in the first phase elicited to
get qualitative data and thematically analyzed the qualitative data obtained in the second phase.

Results of this mixed method research design in the first phase shows that between 11 to 40
percent of the redesigned processes implemented at universities and to implement the entire
processes, the implementation phase believed to take more than three years. Results also
identified universities‟ support processes (administrative) as challenging to implement compare
to core processes (academic). Besides, out of the thirty challenging factors included in the survey
instrument, more than 50 percent of respondents showed a higher degree of agreement to
seventeen factors as the most challenging factors that impeded redesigned processes from being
implemented. However, results in the second phase shows that, of the seventeen factors, the
magnitudes of nine factors to delay the implementation phase were severe. These include
problems originated from change-management factors, top management support factors,
organizational factors, and country factors. Generally, this study suggests to take corrective
measures by the universities‟ management body and Ethiopian Ministry of Education before the
project completely fail.

Keywords: BPR implementation; Challenging factors; Ethiopian public universities

i
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my profound and heartfelt gratitude to my advisor, Dr.
Laxmikantham, for his invaluable support and comments during the course of my thesis
work. I am also grateful for his, kindness, patience and warm-welcome he has shown me.

I would like to thank anonymous survey respondents and interviewees for their welcomed
responses. Not only for this, but they also helped me to get their colleagues addresses,
thank you.

My special thanks also go to Alebachew Yirga, Asmamaw Getei, Daniel, Dr. Tadel,
Ermias, Haileyesus, Hussein Mohammed, Kindye Essa, Konjit, Marye Belete, Mohamed
Kasye, Samrawit, and Tekalign, for their consistent encouragement and material support
from the beginning to the end. I am also indebted to my families for their endless support
and encouragement.

Finally, yet importantly, my acknowledgement goes to Addis Ababa University for

providing the necessary fund for the study. Samara University is also worth
acknowledged for sponsoring the entire course of my education for Master Degree.

ii
Table of contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. ii
Table of contents ................................................................................................................ iii
List of tables ....................................................................................................................... iv
List of figures ..................................................................................................................... iv
Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ v
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the study ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the problem ..................................................................................... 3
1.3 Objective of the study .......................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research questions ............................................................................................... 5
1.5 Structure of the thesis ........................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2: Literature review ............................................................................................... 7
2.1. Business Process Reengineering (BPR): theoretical perspectives ....................... 7
2.1.1. BPR in higher education ............................................................................. 11
2.1.2. BPR implementation barriers ...................................................................... 13
2.2. Empirical studies on BPR .................................................................................. 18
2.3. Conclusion and gap in literature ........................................................................ 22
2.4. Definition of terms ............................................................................................. 24
Chapter 3: Research design ............................................................................................... 25
3.1. Research methods ............................................................................................... 25
3.2. Research method adopted................................................................................... 27
3.2.1. Quantitative feature of mixed method ........................................................ 28
3.2.2. Qualitative feature of mixed method .......................................................... 32
Chapter 4: Results and analysis ........................................................................................ 33
4.1. Results and analysis: quantitative future of mixed method................................ 33
4.1.1. Respondents‟ profile ................................................................................... 33
4.1.2. BPR implantation in Ethiopian public universities ..................................... 35
4.1.3. BPR project cost and benefits from implementation .................................. 39
4.1.4. BPR implementation challenging factors ................................................... 41
4.1.5. Further refinements of BPR implementation challenging factors .............. 48
4.2. Results and analysis: qualitative future of mixed method.................................. 63
Chapter 5: Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 73
5.1. Summaries .......................................................................................................... 73
5.2. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 77
5.3. Implications ........................................................................................................ 78
5.4. Significance of the study and its delimitations................................................... 81
References ......................................................................................................................... 83
Appendix 1: Summary of key success/failure factors of BPR .......................................... 88
Appendix 2: Potential problems of BPR implementation................................................. 89
Appendix 3: Survey instrument ........................................................................................ 92

iii
List of tables
Table 3.1: Variables, research questions and items on a survey ....................................... 31
Table 4.1: Survey respondents by educational level ......................................................... 34
Table 4.2: Survey respondents‟ position at their universities ........................................... 34
Table 4.3: Survey respondents‟ role in BPR project......................................................... 34
Table 4.4: BPR implementation periods ........................................................................... 37
Table 4.5: Difficult process of to implement .................................................................... 38
Table 4.6: Responsible to implement BPR ....................................................................... 38
Table 4.7: BPR project cost .............................................................................................. 40
Table 4.8: Expected benefits of BPR ................................................................................ 40
Table 4.9: BPR implementation challenging factors rank ................................................ 43
Table 4.10: Top management support factors................................................................... 50
Table 4.11: Change-management factors ......................................................................... 52
Table 4.12: Organizational factors .................................................................................... 54
Table 4.13: BPR project management factors .................................................................. 57
Table 4.14: IT factors ........................................................................................................ 59
Table 4.15: Country factors .............................................................................................. 61

List of figures
Figure 4.1: Redesigned processes implemented at each university .................................. 36
Figure 4.2: Redesigned processes implemented at universities ........................................ 36

iv
Acronyms

BPR Business Processes Reengineering

BPRPMF BPR Project Management Factors
CF Country Factors
CMF Change-Management Factors
GAO General Accounting Office of United State of America
IT Information Technology
ITF Information Technology Factors
MoE Ethiopian Ministry of Education
MOTI Ethiopian Ministry of Trade and Industry
OF Organizational Factors
TMSF Top Management Support Factors
TQM Total Quality Management
UK United Kingdom
USA United State of America

v
Chapter 1: Introduction

This thesis studies Business Process Reengineering (BPR) implementation in Ethiopian

public universities. Specifically, it tries to study factors related to BPR implementation in
Ethiopian public universities. Hence, BPR is one of the management tools that can help
the organization for effective, efficient and economic performance through dramatic and
radical redesign of old business processes. As well, it can help to contribute benefits to
external stakeholders of the organization. Thus, studies on BPR have immense value to
both practitioners and academicians.

The aim of this chapter is to provide background information on the thesis. The
remaining sections of this chapter organized as follows. The first section presents study‟s
background, in which it deals about Ethiopian public universities and it gives general
induction about the thesis. The second section presents the statement of problem. Next,
objective of the study presented in third section. Then, research questions of the study
provided in section four. Finally, the structure of the thesis presented in section five.

1.1 Background of the study

Higher education is a center of knowledge and skill transformation and creation. As such,
higher education is crucial for the production of vital human resources with different
disciplines. In addition, it provides vital roles for the society through community services
and job creations. On top of these, Teshome (2005) concluded that higher education as
critical for economic progress, political stability and peace, as well as building
democratic culture and cohesive societies in the country.

According to Nuffic (2011), the Ethiopian government recognizes the importance of

education for national development, which aimed at expanding the education sector,
improving quality and ensuring educational content to be harmonized with the country's
economic needs. Thus, in order to accommodate the increased needs of educational
development, the government gives attention on the inauguration of new universities and
expansion of existing universities‟ infrastructures. The number of public universities in
Ethiopia reached twenty-two by end 2007/08 (National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE), 2009);

1
and now a day 10 public universities planned to be opened soon. At the same time, the
number of students in each university has doubled and expected to double again (Kate,
2010).

Although Ethiopia‟s public universities number and their intake capacity increased
rapidly, universities‟ way of doing businesses criticized being as old-fashioned processes
that are scattered in pieces of tasks among various unites of the university. That in turn
resulted to dissatisfy both the customers and service providers. Above all, those old-
fashioned work practices lack to enhance the Ethiopian public universities for effective,
efficient and economic performances. Accordingly, the former Ethiopian Ministry of
Capacity Building tried to introduce transformation in Ethiopia in the ways in which
works have to be done by all government organization through BPR. Thus, under the
delegation of Ministry of Education (MoE), Ethiopian public universities engaged in BPR
project starting from 2008 and 2009.

To carry out BPR project at universities, each university had identified processes and
assigned redesign team members. Eventually, all university had finished the redesign
phase of BPR before the end of 2009 and assigned implementation team members to
commence the implementation phase. However, all universities not yet entirely
implemented the redesigned processes. In this regard, Linden (1998) noted that the
biggest disappointment of organizations‟ on BPR is implementation or more specifically,
lack of implementation. Likewise, Hammer and Champy (1993) estimate indicated that
50% to 70% of BPR initiatives failed to achieve their objectives.

Studies on the key success and failure factors of BPR implementation attempted to
identify different sets of factors (Grover et al., 1995; Attaran and Wood, 1999; Allen and
Fifield, 1999; Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999; Ahmad et al., 2007). These factors include
change management, management competency and support, organizational culture,
project planning and management, information technology (IT) infrastructure and
financial resources. Besides, Attaran (2000) attempted to identify barriers to successful
implementation of BPR; however, the author claimed that the difference between success

2
and failure did not depend on company size or resources, but on appropriate planning and
avoidance of pitfalls.

The factors identified by various authors are almost similar, except some researchers like
Allen and Fifield (1999) and Terziovskia et al. (2002) depart on the IT factor. Although
the introduction of BPR in Ethiopia is a recent phenomenon, to the researcher‟s
knowledge, there was no study that identified the specific factors that affect BPR
implementation and their magnitudes. Specifically, BPR implementation challenges faced
by Ethiopian public universities highlight the importance of paying attention to
implementation and a need to study.

Therefore, this study could have implications to take corrective actions before BPR
project of public universities completely fail. As well as, the study attempted to
contribute to the literature body by studying the issue through a mixed method research
design.

1.2 Statement of the problem

As Reyes (2001) claimed, multiple layers of management, centralized and expensive
systems as well as the accumulation of control procedures and regulations remain to be
formidable obstacles in ensuring efficiency, economy and productivity of public sector
organizations. Likewise, the traditional working practices of Ethiopian public
organizations criticized as being fragmented across various units of the organization and
each unit focused only on one task that leads to frustrate the customers from ups and
downs to get services from various units‟ handoffs. Supporting this, Getaneh (2009)
reported that Ethiopian institutions criticized for their poor service delivery systems.
Thus, in this ever changing and competitive environment the traditional working
practices of Ethiopian public organization are not efficient, effective and economical.

To alleviate like the above-mentioned working practices, recently, the former Ethiopian
Ministry of Capacity Building tried to introduce transformation in Ethiopia in which
works have to be done by all governmental organization through BPR. Accordingly,

3
under the delegation of MoE, Ethiopian public universities engaged with BPR project to
drastically change the traditional working practices.

To undertake BPR initiatives, all public universities have identified their problems. For
instance, Addis Ababa University (2009) BPR initiative report stated that the university
losing its grip on a clear sense of direction and performing below all expectations and its
full potential. In addition, Mekelle University (2008) BPR report stated that the university
faced many problems due to limitation in its current organization setup and systems of
operation. Having these, before the end of 2009 all Ethiopian public universities finished
the redesigning phase of BPR and arranged implementation team to commence the
implementation phase.

However, all universities not yet fully implemented the redesigned processes. Supporting
this, Debela and Hagos (2011) claimed the existence of BPR implementation pace
variation in Ethiopian higher education. Although in BPR principles all of the redesigned
processes shall not be implemented once rather piloted approach, at least some selected
redesigned processes have to be piloted and implemented. Otherwise, the rate of failure
increased as time passed. Thus, lack of implementation implied that universities‟ BPR
project faced challenges to implement and its intended objectives remained on shelf. In
this regard, Allen and Fifield (1999) and United States General Accounting Office (1997)
noted that implementing BPR project is far from straightforward activities. In addition to
the challenges, Attaran and Wood (1999) noted BPR as still an unfulfilled promise for
many organizations despite all the energy, money and efforts spent by organizations
trying to make their BPR efforts successful. In general, although all public universities of
Ethiopia had undertaken BPR project, issues to implement the redesigned processes turn
out as the major concerns of them.

According to Debela and Hagos (2011), BPR implementation in Ethiopian public

organizations accompanied by doubt, skepticism, and fear of losing the status quo. With
respect to Ethiopian public universities, BPR implementation challenges traced to various
factors that were identified by different authors (Grover et al., 1995; Attaran and Wood,

4
1999; Allen and Fifield, 1999; Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999; Ahmad et al., 2007), such as
change management, management competency and support, organizational culture,
project planning and management, IT and financial resources. However, the specific
challenging factors that faced public universities of Ethiopia to implement BPR and
magnitudes of various factors on the implementation phase of BPR not addressed on
prior studies. Therefore, this study attempted to identify the factors that affect BPR
implementation and their magnitude in case of Ethiopian public universities.

1.3 Objective of the study

The broad objective of the thesis was to study BPR implementation factors using mixed
method research. In the first phase of research method adopted, quantitative survey
research questions identified challenging factors of BPR implementation from
respondents who were BPR redesign and implementation team members of the
universities. Information from this quantitative phase used further in second qualitative
phase. In the second phase of research method adopted, qualitative interview research
questions used to understand the magnitude of identified factors from interviewees of
Ministry of Education who are responsible for the higher education affairs and Ex-Vice
President of ABC (anonymous) University. Specifically, the objectives of this study
were:

 to identify challenging factors of BPR implementation in Ethiopian public

universities and
 to better understand the magnitude of the identified factors.

1.4 Research questions

As per Grover et al. (1995) view, process change is complex and not easily
accomplished, involving the manipulation of interactive relationships among
organizational subcomponents such as management, people, structure, technology, and
rewards. This view highlights the interaction of various factors might impede BPR
implementation in the organization.

5
Therefore, to achieve the intended objectives of the study and to address the research
problem, the following research questions developed:

RQ1. What are the challenging factors that public universities faced to implement
BPR?
RQ2. How do those factors affect BPR implementation in public universities?
RQ3. What is the magnitude of each factor?
RQ4. Why public universities faced challenges to implement BPR?

Factors that affect BPR implementation varied from organization to organization. The
characters and magnitudes of various factors also varied among organizations. Thus, the
following sub research question developed to research question 1:

SRQ1. What are the challenging factors that affect BPR implementation at elder
universities and new universities?

1.5 Structure of the thesis

The overarching theme of the thesis focused on BPR implementation to identify
challenging factors that impeded the implementation of redesigned processes in Ethiopian
public universities. The study report structured as follows. Chapter 2 presents literature
review with respect to the theoretical perspective of BPR and empirical studies on BPR.
Chapter 3 provides the research design part of the study, in which it encumbrances the
main principles of research methodology and the adopted research design for the study.
Chapter 4 presents both the quantitative and qualitative features of mixed method results
and analysis of findings. Finally, chapter 5 presents study‟s conclusions part that
encompasses summaries of major findings, conclusions, implications, and significance
and delimitation of the study.

6
Chapter 2: Literature review

Today, globalization along with key driving forces such as customers behavior,
competition among businesses and change in the working environment have created
tough environment for organizations that have been working with outdated philosophies
and principles of work practices. Although those outdated philosophies and principles
succeed to cope up the socio-economic challenges of that time, they cannot fit today‟s
new environment. The new environment requires organizations to realize new working
practices that can make up them to be responsive and flexible for the changing
environment. In doing so, organizations utilize various types of management tools such
as Total Quality Management (TQM), Restructuring, Business Process Reengineering
(BPR), and so on.

In light of the above induction, the aim of this chapter is to review literature on BPR and
factors related to BPR implementation. Accordingly, the review of literature helped to
highlight previous studies on BPR implementation with their underling concepts. These
in turn, helped to highlight gap in the literature and forward a general research question
for the study. In addition, it helped to develop survey instrument for the first phase of
research method adopted in this thesis.

The review part has four sections. The first section presents reviews regarding to the
theoretical perspectives of BPR, then, section 2 presents prior empirical studies on BPR
implementation. Section 3 presents conclusions and gap in literature. Finally, definition
of terms presented in section 4.

2.1. Business Process Reengineering (BPR): theoretical perspectives

As indicated previously, BPR is one of the management tool undertaken by organizations
to respond to the changing environment. BPR is about beginning a new from scratch, i.e.,
starting over entirely by considering how activities in the organization put together. Thus,
it entails the fundamental and radical redesign of the old/traditional business processes
for the pursuit of new direction and perspective of the organization. As Grover et al.
(1995) indicated, the impetus for this change comes both reactively to competitive
7
pressures and proactively to improve corporate responsiveness. Generally, Motwani et al.
(1998) noted that BPR hailed as one of the current major drivers of change within
organizations in order to survive in the changing environment of today.

The term „Business Process Reengineering‟ was first introduced by Hammer (1990) and
Davenport and Short (1990), and it thriving as a popular management tool for the past
two decades. Supporting this, O‟Neill and Sohal (1999) claimed Hammer (1990) and
Davenport and Short (1990) as pioneers for BPR concept development during 1990. In
connection with its introduction, as Tanoglu (2004) noted, during the beginning of 1990s,
with globalization and extraordinary pace of development in the information technology
(IT) area, three driving forces (customers, competition and change) resulted BPR.

Following the introduction of BPR by Hammer (1990) and Davenport and Short (1990),
various authors called BPR as process innovation, business process redesign, business
reengineering, or process reengineering (Revenaugh, 1994). Because of these
nomenclature variations, Tanoglu (2004) claimed Hammer and Champy (1993) BPR
definition as a widely accepted. As Hammer and Champy (1993) defined BPR:

“…is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business

processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary
measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service, and speed.”

According to the Hammer and Champy (1993), the above definition comprises four
keywords: fundamental, radical, dramatic and process. These four keywords of BPR
implied that before redesigning the process understanding the „fundamental‟ business
operation is necessary, while it ignores the underlying rules and assumptions of the
old/traditional business processes to „radically‟ redesign the process for „dramatic‟
performance of business „process‟ that can be measured in terms of speed, cost and
quality.

Having this insight, BPR has its own methodology and principles that encompasses
starting from determining whether the organization engage with BPR or not to the final

8
implementation of redesigned processes and further revisions and improvements of
processes. Thus, in order to carry out BPR project, a series of steps need to be followed.
With respect to BPR methodology and principles, numerous authors (e.g., Hammer and
Champy, 1993; Linden, 1998; Attaran and Wood, 1999; Wu and Du, 2010) published
various sets of methodology and principles. To grasp the concepts of BPR, it is worth
mentioning to highlight some of BPR methodology and principles. Thus, based on the
scope of the study, some of them reviewed hereunder with special emphasis on BPR
implementation.

According to Wu and Du (2010), to undertake BPR project, four basic phases followed.
The first phase involves conducting need analysis to determine whether the organization
to conduct BPR or not. In the second phase, organizations decided to engage with BPR
need to make preliminary preparation in order to reconstruct concepts. As per Wu and
DU (2010), this phase includes making reengineering objectives clear, forming of
redesign team; establishing organization‟s vision; good communication with employees;
and establishing the appropriate organizational culture. In the third phase, redesign team
formed at the second phase begin reengineering of process.

As Wu and Du (2010) noted in third phase, the first step is to conduct an analysis of
existing processes, identify problems in existing process; and the second step is the
design of more effective new process. At the finally phase, newly design process piloted
to test its performance and if necessary, revision and improvement made, in order to
implement the process at organization wide. To ensure the success of BPR, this phase
also includes reforming the original organizational structure, staffing, performance
evaluation, and technological alignment of the newly designed process.

In connection with BPR implementation, Grover et al. (1995) conceptualized it as the

ongoing process of preparing the organization for new system and introducing it to assure
its successful use. Implementing the redesigned process is typically an intricate and
complex process that involves strategy alignment, project planning and scheduling, and
resource allocation. The earlier work of Hummer and Champy (1993) categorized the

9
implementation phase into two points. One is the redesigned process tested and
implemented, and the other point is the alignment of organization‟s structure,
management and measurement system, values and beliefs, and IT to new process.

More broadly, Linden (1998) mentioned appropriate sets of steps to be followed during
implementation phase. The steps include: (i) developing a charter; (ii) establishing
communication strategies; (iii) hold an all hand meeting to review the model; (iv) prepare
a detailed implementation plan; (v) run pilot tests, revise the redesigned processes if
needed; (vi) implement short-term changes; (vii) phase in long-term changes; and (vii)
measure the performance of the new process. These steps of Linden (1998) stressed that
an implementation plan should be developed to spells out the work that needs to be done,
with timeframes, decision points, and resource allocations. Pilot testing provides a
method for refining the process and building support for the full implementation. In
addition, training and workforce issues are important for effective implementation plan.
Moreover, the steps stressed the importance of ongoing performance measurement and
feedback to continually improve the new processes once it is in place.

Generally, Attaran and Wood‟s (1999) outlined basic guidelines of BPR. Some of the
authors‟ guidelines include the following: reengineering effort should be constructed by a
clearly defined strategic vision; reengineering should focus on important cross-
organizational business processes which are critical to the organization‟s vision; cost
reduction is not the only goal of reengineering rather seeking opportunities for new
sources of revenue growth could be an important driving for the reengineering efforts;
and leadership plays an important role for the success of reengineering. Due to the
complex and intricate nature of BPR implementation, Wu and Du (2010) stressed the
importance of careful thinking about the necessity of BPR to the organization prior to
engage with BPR project; otherwise, it cannot bring new vitality to the organization, but
also create chaos businesses in the organization.

So far, some highlights of BPR methodology and principles presented. Thus, the reviews
suggest that organizations should adopt a suitable BPR methodology to serve as a

10
framework for the success of BPR. The following section presents reviews regarding to
BPR applicability in higher education.

2.1.1. BPR in higher education

The motivation to undertake BPR project is usually the realization of breakthrough
performance improvement. Lingus (1993, cited in Terziovskia et al., 2002) claimed that a
“30-35% reduction in the cost of sales; 75-80% reduction in delivery time; 60-80%
reduction in inventory; 65-70% reduction in the cost of quality; and unpredictable but
substantial increased market share”, were all possible through effective BPR. In general,
as indicated previously, BPR in response of the three driving forces (change, competition
and customer) used to redirect organizations to new working practices.

Many organizations in various industries (banking, manufacturing, services, and so on)

used BPR as a panacea for organizational illness and to respond to high level of
competition, changing environment and customer needs (Attaran and Wood, 1999;
Mnisha, 2004). Since educational institutions function similar to other types of business
organization, they can use various management tools used by business organizations
(Balaji, 2004). Thus, higher education institutions attempt (either voluntarily or under
mandate) to adopt new management systems and processes that were originally designed
to meet the needs of more efficient business organizations.

Specifically, Casey (1995) noted BPR as a thoroughly researched and well-crafted

prescriptions punch list for evaluating how well a college or university runs its business.
Thus, for the pursuit of radical and fundamental change of work practices, Casey (1995)
view suggests the applicability of BPR in higher education institutions. As a justification,
Sepehri et al.(2004) claimed that higher education, due to strong existing culture which
does not seems to fit the present era, have faced financial and structural crisis. In
addition, the authors argued that higher educations must be refined with respect to new
methods and existing technologies to provide knowledge development and transfer in
ways that are more productive. In this regard, it can be said that higher education are
always under pressure to become more efficient and effective. Therefore, since BPR used
11
for dramatic performance enhancement, it suits to improve higher educations‟
performance.

Despite the fact of BPR applicability in higher education, arguments exist about its use in
educational institutions. As Porter (1993) argued, BPR could not be applied to higher
education in the foreseeable future and further states. Porter (1993) argument for this
position is that BPR success will not occur because no one wants fundamental changes in
teaching and research, because there is no demonstrated need, benefit, or support for such
an effort in higher education. Instead, the author claimed that administrative processes of
higher education could be redesigned like other types of business organization.

However, Stahlke and Nyce (1996) annoyed Porter‟s (1993) position and they stressed
that successful reengineering in higher education must begin with teaching and learning,
rather than administrative processes. As the authors noted, addressing educational
processes first will naturally force a reconsideration of such features as the student credit
hour, faculty load, space utilization, the academic calendar, course scheduling,
instructional resources like technology, and the design of student-faculty interaction.

Although arguments exist about the use of BPR either for the academic or administrative
processes of higher education, the educational quality in a higher education is determined
through the physical, virtual and human resource availability and how effectively they are
being used (Iqbal, 2007). In response, educational institutions in pursuit of improved
performance used BPR in various countries. For instance, in Canada, Iran, Malaysia,
New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Spain, Turku, United Kingdom (UK), and United State
of America (USA), educational institution implemented BPR to enhance their efficiency,
effectiveness and economic performance (Adenso-Diaz and Canteli, 2004; Allen and
Fifield, 1999; Balaji, 2004; Casey, 1995; Kontio, 2007; McAdam and Bickerstaff, 2001;
Sepehri et al., 2004; Sohail et al., 2006; Whalen and Wright, 1999). Therefore, these
experiences highlighted that higher education institutions can adopt BPR to enhance their
performances like other types of business organizations. However, whether BPR applied
in academic or/and administrative processes of higher education or other types of

12
business organization, BPR implementation indicated as the most challenge prone
endeavor. The following section presents factors that determine BPR implementation
success or failure, which is the objective of this study focused.

2.1.2. BPR implementation barriers

BPR will have significant positive results for the organization, if correctly implemented.
Several authors (Attaran and Wood, 1999; Revenaugh, 1994; Terziovskia et al., 2003)
indicated numerous organizations (Ford Motor, Wal-Mart, IBM Credit Co., and so on)
who were achieved larger cost reduction, higher profits, improved quality and
productivity, faster response to market and customer service through BPR. Assefa (2009)
claimed that, in Ethiopia, the experiences of the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MOTI),
the Ethiopian Investment Commission, and the Ethiopian Customs Authority were
instructive examples of how institutions can be transformed using BPR to be more
responsive, efficient and effective. Furthermore, in Ethiopia, as Debela and Hagos (2011)
reported in their research findings, public organizations like Commercial Bank of
Ethiopia and Ethiopian Revenue and Customs Authority have been successful in meeting
their BPR objectives.

However, despite the significant growth of BPR literatures and increasingly used by
many organizations, not all organizations achieved the intended objectives of BPR. As
Hammer and Champy (1993) estimated, about 50 to 70% of BPR projects fail to achieve
dramatic results that the organizations intended to achieve. Likewise, General Accounting
Office (GAO) of United States (1997) noted that the implementation of a new process is
typically the most failure-prone phase of BPR because of an organization's natural
resistance to change. Linden (1998) also noted the biggest source of organizational
disappointment with BPR change effort as implementation, or more specifically, lack of
implementation. Thus, as more organizations undertaken BPR project, issues on BPR
implementation becomes a major concern.

As the definition of BPR highlighted, it is the implementation of radical and fundamental

change in business processes of the organization to achieve dramatic performance

13
improvements (Hammer and Champy, 1993). In connection with this definition, Cypress
(1994, cited in Guimaraes, 1998) noted BPR as an attempt to change the way work is
performed by simultaneously addressing all aspects of work that impact performance
including the process activities, the people‟s jobs and their reward system, the
organization structure and the roles of process performers and managers, the management
system and the underlying corporate culture which holds the beliefs and values that
influence everyone‟s behavior and expectations. As such, Grover et al. (1995) noted that
the broad organizational focus and deliberate nature of BPR needs a planned change.
Specifically, the authors suggested preparation and deliberate actions, support from
management, technical competence, and mitigation of resistance to change as
requirements for the success of BPR implementation.

Along with the above suggestions of Grover et al. (1995), GAO (1997) claimed the factor
for the failure of BPR as not lied in managing the technical or operational aspects of
change, instead in managing the human dimensions of change. However, there are
various reasons that make BPR project to fail. To understand thoroughly the issues
involved on BPR implementation failure, this section reviewed the primary barriers for
effective BPR implementation.

Attaran and Wood‟s (1999) article identified five primary obstacles to more effective
BPR implementation. That are misunderstanding of the concept, misapplication of the
term, lack of proper strategy, management failure to change, and failing to recognize the
importance of people. Underscoring the five primary obstacles of Attaran and Wood
(1999) is appropriate. Such as BPR is not downsizing, automation, restructuring, or more
of the same. It is dramatic revising of the organization‟s process and changing the way in
which work is carried out. BPR requires creative thinking and new perspective on the
part of management, and top management must change their ways of thinking and
develop new skills. Employees play an important role in the success of BPR. Hence,
employees fear about job displacement due to redesigned process and coping with their
resistance needs to be alleviated. Thus, without an effective approach to deal with
employees‟ resistance, BPR implementation is certain to fail.
14
Meanwhile, Attaran‟s (2000) article advanced the above-discussed five primary obstacles
(Attaran and Wood, 1999) to eight. The author also clarified the difference between
success and failure as not depend on the company size or resources, but on appropriate
planning and avoidance of pitfalls. The additional three primary obstacles are „lack of
flexibility‟ in terms of existing rigid infrastructure of the organization; „lack of
organizational communication‟ to loop feedbacks for employees to air their concerns; and
„failure to test the process‟ to understand the impact of any process change. At the end,
Attaran (2000) concluded that organization often fail to achieve BPR objectives because
trivializing the concept and ignoring the pitfalls result dangers that makes BPR effort just
another short-lived improvement.

On top of the above-mentioned, Al-Mashari and Zairi (1999) recognized implementation

of BPR as complex and needs to be checked against several success and failure factors to
ensure successful implementation by avoiding implementation pitfalls. In their review of
both soft and hard factors that cause success and failure of BPR effort, they had identified
five categories, namely change-management and culture, management competency and
support, organizational structure, project planning and management, and IT
infrastructure. In general, from various literature sources, the authors distilled these five
success and failure factors in to thirty-three and twenty-two subgroups, respectively (see
appendix 1).

BPR could be considered as innovation, because it results new types of business

processes by obliterating existing business processes; where innovation is an idea,
practice, products, processes, services, policies or technology that is perceived as new by
the organization whether other organizations previously used it or not (Klein and Sorra,
1996). As such, innovation implementation literatures, like BPR implementation, also
identified barriers for successful implementation. The recent work of Klein and Knight
(2005), attempted to describe six interrelated obstacles that organizations face during
innovation implementation along with six allowing factors to overcome obstacles during
implementation.

15
According to Klein and Knight (2005), the six obstacles that initiate challenges during
innovation implementation are unreliable and imperfectly designed innovation;
innovation requires new knowledge use; little or no user input in adoption and
implementation of innovation decisions; innovation requires individuals to change their
roles, routines, and norms; time consuming and expensive nature of implementation; and
organizational status quo maintenance.

To tackle with the aforementioned challenges, Klein & Knight (2005) suggested six key
factors to shape the process and outcomes of innovation implementation. These are
quality implementation policies and practices; strong and positive climate for innovation
implementation; strong, convincing, informed, and demonstrable management support
because in the absence these employees are likely to conclude that innovation as a
passing managerial fancy; availability of financial resources; learning orientation; and
long-term oriented managerial patience to achieve innovation‟s benefits.

Since this study conducted on public universities, it is worth mentioning challenging

factors of BPR implementation specific to public organizations. In doing so, the work of
Reyes (2001) reviewed. As the author noted, government activities are often so
interrelated, cutting across not only divisions and units within an agency, but also tending
to spillover to other agencies. Further, the author noted bureaucratic behavior and action
as often based on laws and a series of incremental changes in rules derived from policies
or legislation, which may be difficult to overhaul overnight. In these cases, BPR
implementation in public organization could be challenging, because, to redesign
processes for dramatic performance, BPR methodology requires breakdowns of old
processes‟ assumptions and laws (Linden, 1998, pp. 67).

In addition, Reyes (2001) noted implementing BPR in public sector, which is

reengineering fundamentals of “breaking away from the past”, as a major obstacle. As the
author justified in this case, the culture of bureaucracies have been so ingrained that any
effort to modify it may receive resistance not only from bureaucrats, but politicians and
interest groups as well. In this regard, the author noted that in government organizations,

16
any deviation from the status quo considered as a threat, and seen as part of a hidden
agenda that can be political in nature.

Another difficulty, as Reyes (2001) noted, to implement BPR in public organization is

that substantial investments requirements of BPR in developing or even upgrading IT,
because IT considered enabler of redesigned processes. In this case, the author reasoned
that investing on IT might put government budgets under severe pressure considering the
costs of hardware, consultants, constant upgrading and maintenance, as well as training
and re-training of employees. Thus, the cost of BPR project impedes its implementation.

Political and pluralist bureaucratic environment factors also confronting BPR

implementation in public organization. As Reyes (2001) claimed, these factors refer to
the environment of the political system, because success in government consists not just
making the right decisions, but also of mobilizing political support for the decision. Thus,
to implement BPR in public organization needs commitment and support of top
management who have real power to change.

Moreover, Reyes (2001) pointed a major issue that would have to be addressed is that
downsizing due to the redesigned processes. Wide scale removal or dismissal of
government personnel at any levels may invite the wrath of both politicians and of the
public. Adding to this, the author noted the use of BPR by misguided officials as the
downsizing strategy to dismiss government personnel. Thus, employees‟ resistance could
be manifested when wide scale downsizing suspected due to BPR implementation. In
general, BPR implementation in public organization faces challenges due to existing laws
or proclamations of a country. In addition, lack of financial resources and hidden political
agenda manifested by bureaucrats diminish BPR implementation in public organization.

So far, literature reviews made regarding to the theoretical perspectives of BPR like its
methodology, its applicability in higher education with countries experience, and its
implementation barriers. Hence, the aforementioned factors for the success and failure of
BPR implementation suggest that BPR implementation phase constrained by various
factors and suggest a need to be addressed for the success of BPR implementation. Since
17
the conception of BPR, numerous researchers carried out researches on BPR; the
following section presents selected empirical studies on BPR.

2.2. Empirical studies on BPR

As indicated previously, organizations use BPR for better performance improvement; and
the driving factors to undertake BPR accounted to the „three C‟s‟ that are change,
competition and customers (Hammer and Champy, 1993). Starting from the introduction
of BPR at the beginning of 1990s, issues on BPR increased and many researchers
undertaken studies on it, to date. Thus, in order to highlight literature gaps, this section
first reviewed selected empirical studies on BPR implementation factors and then
empirical studies conducted in Ethiopian context reviewed.

The study conducted by Grover et al. (1995) on the research area of BPR implementation
attempt to identify numerous challenging factors of BPR implementation. As the authors
indicated, their research empirically sought to explore BPR implementation problems and
the severities of problems how relates to BPR implementation success. To carry out this
study, they have identified sixty-four BPR implementation problems based on past
theories and research related to the implementation of organizational change as well as
field experience of reengineering experts (see appendix 2). Further, the authors
categorized the identified problems in to six main groups, namely management support
problems, technological competence problems, process delineation problems, project-
planning problems, change-management problems, and project management problems.
Then, the authors used the identified problems in the survey instrument to generate
responses from 239 individuals who have participated in BPR projects in 105
organizations.

Grover et al. (1995) analysis of the results showed the importance of change management
in BPR implementation success. As result also showed, addressing problems in
technological competence and project planning are necessary, but not sufficient,
conditions for reengineering success. Further, problems related to project management
and training personnel for the redesigned process are highly related to project success. In
18
general, the findings of Grover et al. (1995) noted that BPR implementation as complex.
Thus, to succeed with BPR implementation, the authors suggest that organizational
change to be essentially managed and balanced attention to be paid to those that are
contextual factors (e.g., management support and technological competence) as well as
factors that pertain directly to the conduct of the project (e.g., project management and
process delineation).

With respect to BPR implementation in higher educations, Allen and Fiefield (1999)
studied the applicability of BPR in higher education institutions of UK along with factors
that affect the change process of BPR. In doing so, the researchers adopted case study
approach on five selected universities of UK and gathered data through seven structured
interviews from project stakeholders in the universities undergoing BPR programs. At the
first glance, the researchers identified a range of factors that make implementation of
BPR in these universities a difficult process. The factors are senior management
approval, complex information requirements, institutional policies and entrenched values,
academic freedom, inertia, business process improvement (conservative change
programs), IT driven change, maintaining the status quo, failure to reengineer human
resources, and organizational transformation.

The findings drawn from the study (Allen and Fiefield, 1999) are that the organizational
culture and structure of higher education institutions limit the degree of change sought
from BPR and insufficient attention given to the human resources side of change
management. As the authors claimed, the selected five universities for the most part of
implementing the project represent a limited approximation of BPR techniques. In other
words, the project was not about radically changing the organization by obliterating
existing processes, instead, it was process improvement. Thus, the radical change of BPR
conflicted with the factors previously mentioned. Particularly, as Allen and Fiefield
(1999) indicated, the power of academic departments, the professional status of
academics and inertia within the universities made radical change unlikely.

19
To study New Zealand‟s tertiary institute BPR implementation, Balaji (2004) conducted
research using a case study strategy. The main purpose of the study was to gain an in-
depth insight of experience and understand the dynamics of process reengineering and
implementation in the institute. As the researcher claimed, data gathered from semi-
structured interview with member of the institute and further analyses revealed the use of
internal staff to drive BPR efforts resulted in higher level of organizational commitment
to manage the process in the institute, which played a critical role in its success. Further,
the researcher claimed that implementation of BPR in the institute yield better results,
while information technology recognized as an important factor for the success of BPR.
Finally, Balaji (2004) conclude that BPR is a tool that is available for any tertiary
education institute in its artillery to improve its efficiency and performance.

Research carried out by Ahmad et al. (2007) showed critical success factors of BPR in
Malaysia higher education institutions. The study used a case study based on open-ended
interviews with top managers and BPR team members of three-selected private higher
education in Malaysia. The findings highlighted that seven factors were critical for the
successful implementation of BPR. The factors are teamwork and quality culture, quality
management system and satisfactory rewards, effective change management, less
bureaucratic and participation, IT or information system, effective project management,
and adequate financial resources. In general, their study provides important lessons as a
condition for the success of BPR project.

Kontio (2007) undertaken case study research at Turku University of Applied Sciences to
describe reengineering process of human resource management related to organizing
teaching and other tasks in degree programs. As the researcher confirmed, human
resource management process of the university has improved significantly by using BPR,
but the overall process of the project took quite a long time. The research also confirms
the essential role of management support for the success of BPR implementation at the
university. As the author finally concluded, the relative advantage of new processes was
clearly better than the previous way of doing businesses at the university.

20
To this point, empirical studies on BPR implementation with respect to higher education,
except Grover et al. (1995) research, reviewed. Although BPR is a recent phenomenon
used to reengineer public organizations of Ethiopia, some researchers have been engaged
to study BPR in a context of Ethiopian public organizations. For instance, using mixed
method research design, Mengesha and Common (2007), Debela (2009), and Debela and
Hagos (2011) studied BPR design and implementation on selected public organizations
of Ethiopia. However, based on the researcher knowledge, there was no empirical study
conducted on Ethiopian public universities‟ BPR implementation success/failure factors.
Hereunder, the aforementioned empirical studies conducted in Ethiopian case reviewed.

Research conducted by Mengesha and Common (2007) evaluated the implementation of

public sector capacity reform in Ethiopia on two selected Ministries - Ministry of Trade
and Industry (MOTI) and Ministry of Education (MoE). In doing so, the researchers used
a mixed method research design and gathered data using structured questionnaire and
interview from respondents. Mengesha and Common (2007) based on their finding
claimed that in each organization very high levels of user satisfaction and spectacular
improvements in performance recorded because of BPR. However, the researchers also
noted that the change process in both organizations tended has been sluggish. As per the
researchers‟ recommendation, appropriate rewards and motivational instruments required
to enhance the momentum of change reform in public organizations of Ethiopia.

The study of Debela (2009) showed the relationship between BPR theory and practice in
Ethiopian public organization. Hence, the researcher used case study strategy to assess
BPR experience of Ministry of Capacity Building and other civil service organizations in
Ethiopia. As indicated by the researcher, data were collected using observation technique,
participating in meetings, and interviewing officials and reengineering teams. Although
the research tried to present BPR theory and practice by public organization, the finding
report lacks consistency. For instance, the researcher indicated that improvement in the
performance of agencies attributed to IT use in processing customer‟s request, while the
researcher claimed that non-consideration of automation at the time of reengineering has
made all the redesigned process to be incomplete and non-exhaustive. However, the
21
researcher recommended considerable points regarding to BPR applicability to improve
service delivery in Ethiopian public organizations. Such as to recognize the differences
between the characteristics of government organizations and profit making corporations in
process design, to recognize the use of IT as vital for successful BPR implementation, to
recognize human resource capacity as determinant for the success of BPR, and so on.

Debela and Hagos (2011) study was the recent empirical study, which was conducted in
four public organizations of Ethiopia, namely Ethiopian Revenue and Custom Authority,
Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, Commercial Bank of Ethiopia, and Development
Bank of Ethiopia. Using mixed method research design, the authors noted that in the
selected four organizations encouraging results have been achieved in terms of efficiency,
mission effectiveness, transparency, and minimizing corruption. However, the authors
claimed that the selected four organizations faced challenges in human, technological and
material capacities in their BPR project implementation. Finally, Debela and Hagos
(2011) recommended that the government of Ethiopia might needs to exert greater effort
to change the attitude of public servants and the political leaders, adopt a holistic and
integrated approach in using reform tools, and consider mission differences when
applying a change management tool in public organizations.

2.3. Conclusion and gap in literature

Organizations required responding to changing environments through various
management tools. In response, organizations use appropriate management tools to
alleviate the changing environment and to increase their performance. Among the various
management tools, BPR is one of the management tool undertaken by organizations. Its
concept was first introduced by Hammer (1990) and Davenport and Short (1990) due to
globalization and extraordinary IT development pace with three driving forces of
customers, competition, and change.

Various organization employed BPR in pursuit of improved performances. Since

education institutions function like other types of business organizations, BPR also used
by educational institutions in Malaysia, New Zealand, Spain, UK, USA and so on (Sohail

22
et al., 2006; Balaji, 2004; Adenso-Diaz and Canteli, 2004; Allen and Fifield, 1999;
Casey, 1995) to enhance their performance.

Despite the increased use of BPR in various organization resulted enhanced performance,
not all organization realized the promises of BPR. According to Hammer and Champy
(1993) estimate, about 70 percent of BPR project failed. Several authors (Al-Mashari and
Zairi, 1999; Attaran, 2000) mentioned numerous failure factors of BPR. Such as BPR
concepts misunderstanding, misapplications of BPR terms, management failure to change
their values and beliefs, and so forth. Allen and Fiefield (1999) study indicates that
factors that were not identified by other researchers, such as academic freedom and
complex information requirements. In addition, the study conducted by Ahmad et al.
(2007) showed that seven factors contributed for the success of BPR in Malaysian higher
education institutions. The seven factors were teamwork and quality culture, quality
management system and satisfactory rewards, effective change management, less
bureaucratic and participation, IT or information system, effective project management,
and adequate financial resources.

However, due to its recent introduction of BPR in Ethiopia, limited number of study
conducted on Ethiopian public organizations‟ BPR project. Among them, Debela‟s
(2009), Debela and Hagos‟s (2011), and Mengesha and Common‟s (2007) studies
acknowledged as steppingstone on the issues of BPR in Ethiopian public organization.

As per the researcher knowledge, there is no comprehensive study on BPR

implementation challenges in Ethiopian context, specifically, public universities‟ BPR
implementation stands. Thus, this gap leads to originate the following general research
question and a need to study BPR implementation challenges in public universities:

What are the various challenging factors that public universities faced to
implement BPR and their magnitudes to affect BPR implementation?

23
2.4. Definition of terms

 Cascading of policies: - sets of program of actions adopted by government that

requires implementation.
 Change management: - that involves all human- and social-related changes and
cultural adjustment techniques needed by management to facilitate the insertion of
newly designed processes and structures into working practice and to deal
effectively with resistance (Ahmad et al., 1999).
 Core processes:- are those that end up touching an external customers; they occur
when an employee fills a customer‟s order, responds to a customer‟s complaint, or
develops a new program or product (Linden, 1998, pp.8)
 Design team members: - refers to individuals participated to redesign the way
work is done. The members take the current process, analyze it and come up with
a fundamentally new design (Linden, 1998, pp.25).
 Implementation team members:- individuals who actually implement the
redesigned processes. They can be redesign team members or others, but not
necessarily redesign team members (Linden, 1998, pp.151).
 IT: - represents an all-encompassing term for computer workstations linked to
computer networks, open systems, client–server architecture, database groupware,
and electronic commerce. Together they can simplify a manual-paper based
business process for automated business processes (O‟Neill and Sohal, 1999).
 Process:- is a set of interrelated steps that begins with an input or trigger and end
with an outcome that satisfies the end user (Linden, 1998, pp.8)
 Redesigned processes: - means those processes newly redesigned by
disregarding all existing structures and procedures, and inventing completely new
ways of accomplishing work (Tanoglu, 2004).
 Support processes:- are internally focused, such as the process of recruiting,
hiring, and training new employees (Linden, 1998, pp.8)

24
Chapter 3: Research design

The preceding chapter presented reviews of literature on BPR with respect to the
theoretical perspectives and prior empirical studies. The literature review confirms that
there was no study conducted on Ethiopian public universities‟ BPR implementation.
The purpose of this chapter is to present the main principles of research methodology and
the adopted research method for this study.

3.1. Research methods

There are three types of research design: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.
Quantitative research is a means for testing objective theories by examining the
relationship among variables. On the other hand, qualitative research is a means for
exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or
human problem. Between the two strands, mixed methods research is an approach that
combines or associates both quantitative and qualitative designs to inquire an issue
(Creswell 2009, pp.4). However, the author noted that the selection of a research design
involves the considerations of the worldview assumptions the research brings to study,
the nature of research problem, procedures of inquiry, the researcher‟s experience,
audiences for the study, and data collection methods, analysis and interpretation.

As tried to indicate the types of research design and their meaning previously,
quantitative and qualitative designs have distinct characters, while mixed methods design
shares the characters of both designs. The research design involves the interactions of
philosophical worldview, strategies of inquiry, and specific methods for the quantitative,
qualitative and mixed methods design (Creswell, 2009, pp.5). The following sections
reviewed the aforementioned characters for each type of research designs in which it
helped to adopt the fitted research method for this study.

Quantitative research design possesses the postpositivist worldview assumption that

encompasses „deterministic philosophy‟ in which causes probably determine the effect,
and „reductionistic philosophy‟ to reduce the ideas into a small, discrete set of ideas to
test variables that comprise hypotheses and research questions. Postpositivism develop

25
knowledge based on objective observation and measurement as well as verify theories
that govern the world (Swanson and Holton, 2005, pp.19). Quantitative design employs
strategies of inquiry such as survey and experiment, and collect data through standardized
instruments that are close-ended question and numeric data. Using statistical method, it
generalizes about the population from the sample (Swanson and Holton, 2005, pp.32).

Qualitative research design possesses social constructivism worldview assumptions that

holds individuals seek to understand the world in which they live and work. The
participant views relied on participants to construct meanings and the researcher
inductively develops theory or pattern of subjective meaning (Creswell, 2009, pp.8).
Qualitative research design tries to assess experiences and events contextually within the
participants‟ natural setting. It employs strategies of inquiry like ethnographies, grounded
theory, case study, phenomenological research and narrative research and collect data
through observation, interviews, text and image data that are open-ended and emerging.
The findings are subjective that the inquirer inductively generates meanings from the data
collected in the field (Creswell, 2009, pp.11-13).

Mixed methods design possesses the pragmatic worldview that focused on the research
problem for the consequence of actions. Pragmatic worldview uses pluralistic approach to
drive knowledge about the problem. Accordingly, researchers have a freedom to choose
the methods, techniques, and procedures of research that best suits the purposes of the
study. Thus, mixed method design involves philosophical assumptions to use the mix of
quantitative and qualitative designs (Nagy, 2010, pp.3). It employs strategies of inquiry
such as sequential, concurrent and transformative mixed method and both close and open
ended, standardized and emerging, quantitative and qualitative data collected.

In general, quantitative and qualitative designs have their own inherent advantages and
disadvantages. Although the advantages and disadvantages of them not discussed here,
mixed methods design emanated to utilize the advantages and to tackle the disadvantages
of the two designs. As cited in Creswell (2009, pp.14), the concept of mixing different

26
methods originated in 1959, when Campbell and Fisk used multi-methods to study
validity of psychological traits.

The reasons for mixing methods includes to triangulate data source for the sake of
convergence across quantitative and qualitative methods; to integrate or combine the
quantitative and qualitative data to identify participants or questions to ask for the other
method or to reinforce each other; or transformative to advocate marginalized groups
(Nagy, 2010, pp.3-6).

Having the above summarized reviews of research designs, several studies on BPR in
terms of research design, used quantitative and qualitative designs. In the case of BPR
implementation in higher education, researchers like Ahmad et al., 2007; Sohail et al.,
2006; Balaji, 2004; Allen and Fiefield, 1999 used qualitative research design. On the
other hand, studies on BPR implementation in other industries, researchers like Tennant
and Yi-Chieh, 2005; Terziovskia et al., 2002; O‟Neill and Sohal, 1998; Grover et al.,
1995 used quantitative research design. These practices suggest that both types of
research designs could be applicable to study BPR implementation. Thus, as indicated in
chapter one, section 1.1 and 1.3, this study adopted mixed methods design to get the
benefits of mixed methods design. The following sections discussed the method adopted.

3.2. Research method adopted

As indicated earlier, to get a brief understanding of the research problem and to benefit
from the method adopted, mixed method design used to study BPR implementation in
Ethiopian public universities. Besides, sequential explanatory strategy used in the method
adopted. This strategy characterized by the collection and analysis of quantitative data in
the first phase of research followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data in
the second phase that builds on the result of the initial quantitative results (Swanson and
Holton, 2005, pp.321). In the first phase of the study, survey was conducted to identify
factors that affect BPR implementation, and in the second phase, based on results of the
first phase, interviews were held to better understand the magnitude of identified factors.

27
The following sections discuss the quantitative and qualitative features of mixed methods
adopted during the study.

3.2.1. Quantitative feature of mixed method

In a first phase, the quantitative research design helped to identified various challenging
factors of BPR implementation in Ethiopian public universities. The quantitative features
of research design, namely the strategy of inquiry; sampling design; survey instrument;
variables, research questions and items on a survey instrument; and data analysis and
interpretation presented hereunder.

Survey design
As Swanson and Holton (2005, pp.99) claimed, the purpose of survey research in
organizations is to collect information from one or more people on some set of
organizationally relevant constructs. Thus, to gather data relevant for the identification of
various factors that affect BPR implementation, the study employed survey strategy to
gather data from BPR project redesign and implementation team members of public
universities (justified latter). In addition, data were collected one point in time (cross
sectional) from the respondents.

The rationales to adopt survey strategy were the economy of the design and the rapid
turnaround in data collection. Particularly, the later one fitted the samples that were
selected from BPR redesign and implementation team members; because some team
members were not available at their university premises (e.g. educational leave). Thus,
respondents who were not available at the university, they were surveyed using e-mail
survey instrument to reach dispersed geographical area that the respondents reside. In
doing so, respondents address acquired from their colleagues.

Sample design
As indicated in chapter one, in Ethiopia there are twenty-two public universities, as of
2011. Among these, eleven universities considered as „elder‟ universities and the
remaining are „newly‟ established universities. Having this, the researcher decided to took
four universities, in which two universities from „elder‟ group and two universities from
28
„new‟ group. Namely, Addis Ababa University and Hawassa University from
„elder‟group and Samara University and Wollo University from „new‟ group selected.

To study BPR implementation at universities, the study population units constitute

service providers and users. However, defining the study population and study units
depend on the research problem and study‟s objectives (Walonick, 2005). Unless the
universities fully implemented the redesigned processes, not all service providers and
users included as study‟s population units. To help ensure validity, Huber and Power
(1985, cited in Grover et al., 1995) also suggested to select informants who are most
knowledgeable about the issue of interest researched. Thus, to gather data on the
perceived experiences of respondents, the study‟s population units comprised individuals
who were directly involved on BPR project of universities as redesign or implementation
team members.

Accordingly, to generate the sampling frame, lists of participants were acquired from
each university. The numbers of BPR redesign and implementation team members of
Addis Ababa University, Hawassa University, Samara University and Wollo University
were 59, 28, 22, and 26, respectively. Totally, the study‟s population size comprised 135
individuals. After having the sampling frame, from each university, 10 respondents were
selected randomly to the survey. As a result, the sample size comprised 40 respondents.

Survey instrument
The survey instrument developed based on the literature review, most of the items in the
instrument adapted from the work of Grover et al. (1995) and Al-Mashari and Zairi
(1999). All items in the instrument were close-ended questions. In addition, items in the
survey instrument categorized in to four parts (see appendix 3).

Part 1 of the survey instrument sought to get respondent‟s profile. Part 2 dealt about BPR
implementation at the university, typical questions in this part sought to get the extent of
BPR implementation at the university and the period required to implement BPR at the
university. Part 3 tried to get responses in the areas of BPR project cost and benefits.
Thus, to get the perceived level of BPR cost and benefits, all items in this part developed
29
using five-point Likert-type scales („strongly agree‟ to „strongly disagree‟). The last part
sought to get responses in the areas of BPR implementation challenging factors. Like part
3, all items in part 4 developed using five-point Likert-type scales. The Likert-type
questions helped to get respondents‟ perceived experiences about each challenging
factors.

Part 4 of the instrument included thirty challenging factors of BPR implementation and
these factors categorized in to six sections. Section „A‟, top management support factors,
deals with managers‟ active commitment and support for BPR. Section „B‟, change-
management factors, relate to managing organizational change and cultural adjustments
for new processes. Section „c‟, organizational factors, accounted to organizational
readiness to change and organizational structure. Section „D‟, BPR project management
factors, relate to how the project undertaken. Section „E‟, IT factors, relate to how IT
considered in the redesigned processes, IT investment and training provision about IT.
The last section deals about country specific factors like existing rules and regulations of
the country, availability of financial resources required to implement BPR, and lack of
implementation that nurturing uncertainty and resistance to future programs.

Besides, to make clear about the study, the cover page of the instrument indicated study‟s
objectives, importance of their responses to the study along with confidentiality matter
and procedures to mark their responses. Moreover, to ensure highest response rate,
respondents were asked their willingness to participate in the study before the
questionnaire distributed. After getting their willingness, the researcher personally
distributed the instrument, while to those respondents who were not available at their
university premises, the instrument forwarded through their email address.

Variables, research questions and items on the survey instrument relationship

With respect to the dependent variable of the study, item number four in part two of the
survey instrument, i.e., the extent of redesigned processes implemented at the university,
considered as dependent variable. All items in part three of the survey instrument, except
the item of BPR project cost, also considered as the dependent variable. Because,

30
expected benefits of BPR translated in to improved performance when universities
implemented the redesigned processes, whereas if universities challenged to implement
BPR due to various factors, they will lose the expected benefits.

On the other hand, all items in part four considered as independent variables of the study.
Table 3.1 presents the independent variable and dependent variable of the study with the
research questions and items on the survey instrument.

Table 3.1: Variables, research questions and items on a survey

Variable name Research questions Items

Independent variable: Research question: Survey instrument
Challenging factors to  What are the challenging factors question: 14 to 43
implement BPR that the university faced to
implement BPR?
 What are the challenging factors
affect BPR implementation at elder
universities and new universities?
Survey instrument
Dependent variable: Research question: How do those
question: 4, 9, 10, 11,
Lack of implementation factors affect BPR implementation?
12, and 13

Data analysis
Data obtained from the survey instrument were analyzed using quantitative data
techniques. To analyze data obtained from the survey instrument, descriptive statistics
were used, such as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation. Specifically, to
rank the relative severity of thirty challenging factors of BPR implementation
incorporated in the part 4 of the instrument, respondents rated scale percentage used. In
addition, to analyze data obtained from part 4 of the survey instrument, inferential
statistic (i.e., Chi-square with significance level) used to refine the relative severity of
various challenging factors among university type, i.e., elder universities and new
universities group.
31
In order to give a clear view of the finding, tables and graphs were used. In general, the
survey instrument responses keyed into Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS)
(version 19), to generate quantitative data output.

3.2.2. Qualitative feature of mixed method

As earlier mentioned, this study employed two phase- sequential explanatory strategy. In
a first phase, quantitative data were gathered through survey instrument and results
further used in a second phase of qualitative research. Accordingly, the connection or
mixing occurred between quantitative data analysis and the data collection of second
phase research. The analysis of quantitative data and its results helped to prepare
qualitative interview questions. Thus, the identified factors that impeded BPR
implementation further used to better understood their magnitude as challenging factors
of BPR implementation in Ethiopian public universities.

To gather data for the second phase, face-to-face interviews with selected interviewees
were held. Hence, in qualitative design, the sampling design is purposeful sampling
design, three interviews were held with Ethiopian Ministry of Education officer for
Higher Education Capacity Building, Higher Education Strategic Center officer, and Ex-
Vice President of ABC (anonymous) University.

It was believed that interviewees have had better knowledge about BPR project of
universities. Thus, the researcher interviewed three interviewees on issues based on the
results of the first phase. Interview questions were prepared prior to conducting the
interviews, while emerging questions also rose during the interview. In addition, before
conducting the interviews, respondents‟ willingness asked first. After getting their
willingness and schedules, the researcher interviewed the respondents using interview
protocol and by making handwriting notes.

Qualitative data collected from interviewees were noticed in to appropriate contexts,

written down, and thematically analysed. Potentially, the themes helped to analyse
qualitative data for the second phase of the study.

32
Chapter 4: Results and analysis

The preceding chapter presented some principles of research methodology and the
adopted research method for the study along with its rationale. This chapter presents the
results and analysis of findings for the adopted sequential explanatory mixed method
design in two sections. The first section presents the results and analysis of findings for
the quantitative future of mixed method. Then, section two presents the results and
analysis of findings for the qualitative future of mixed method.

4.1. Results and analysis: quantitative future of mixed method

The first phase (quantitative) of this study objective is to identify various challenging
factors of BPR implementation in Ethiopian public universities. As indicated in chapter
three, this study selected four public universities of Ethiopia. Namely, Addis Ababa
University and Hawassa University were selected from elder universities group and
Samara University and Wollo University were selected from newly established
universities group. Henceforth, to present the results and analysis of findings for the
selected universities, a general term, that is „universities‟ used unless indicated.

To achieve the first phase research objective, survey was conducted on four universities
Forty BPR project redesign and implementation team members in the universities were
subjects of the study. Hereunder, results for the first phase of the study presented into five
headings: respondents‟ profiles, BPR implementation at universities, BPR cost and
benefits, BPR implementation challenging factors, and further refinements of BPR
implementation challenging factors.

4.1.1. Respondents’ profile

Part 1 of the survey instrument attempted to acquire respondents‟ profile with respect to
their current educational level, their position at university, and their roles during BPR
project. Of the forty respondents, about 83 percent were postgraduate and 15 percent
were undergraduate (see Table 4.1). While only one respondent were PhD holder and no
one accounted to the diploma or certificate educational level choice of item one in the
survey instrument.

33
 Table 4.1: Survey respondents by educational level
Educational level Frequency Percent
Undergraduate 6 15.0
Postgraduate 33 82.5
PhD or above 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

As Table 4.2 shows, of the forty respondents, 67.5 percent were academic staff, 12.5
percent were administrative, and 20 percent shared both positions at their respected
universities.

Table 4.2: Survey respondents’ position at their universities

Position Frequency Percent

Academic staff 27 67.5
Administrative staff 5 12.5
Academic and administrative staff 8 20.0
Total 40 100.0

In terms of respondents‟ role during their universities engaged with BPR project, of the
forty respondents, 67.5 percent were redesign team members, 32.5 were redesign and
implementation team members. Whereas, no respondent accounted as only
implementation team member of BPR project (see Table 4.3).

Table 4.3: Survey respondents’ role in BPR project

Role Frequency Percent

Redesign team 27 67.5
Redesign and implementation team 13 32.5
Total 40 100.0

Generally, most of respondents for this study had Master Degree, who were academic
staffs of the four universities. In addition, most of them were redesign team members
when their universities engaged with BPR project. The following part of this section
presents the results and analysis related to BPR implementation in Ethiopian public
universities.
34
4.1.2. BPR implantation in Ethiopian public universities
In BPR principles, redesigned processes piloted before full-scale implementation at the
organization. The pilot tests help the organization to assess the performance of
redesigned processes and to take revision and improvement actions for organization wide
implementation. However, the implementation phase of BPR is not a straightforward
activities, which involves a complex and intricate activities for its success. As indicated
in the problem statement section of chapter one, Ethiopian universities had finished the
redesigned phase of BPR before the end of 2009. Based on the researcher knowledge, up
to this study completed there was no exemplar university in Ethiopia who implemented
the redesigned processes entirely. Debela and Hagos (2011) also claimed the existence of
pace variation in Ethiopian public universities to implement the redesigned processes.

In order to measure the progress of BPR implementation at universities, respondents were

asked in the survey instrument to rate the perceived level of redesigned processes
implemented in their respected universities. Before presenting the aggregate results, the
extent of BPR implementation in each university presented hereunder, based on 10
respondents at each university.

As Figure 4.1 shows, based on respondents‟ rated percentage of BPR implementation in

their respected universities, the extent of redesigned processes implemented varied
among universities. For the scale category of 11-20 percent of BPR implementation, 60,
50, 20 and 20 percent of Samara, Addis Ababa, Wollo and Hawassa University
respondents rated their university in this category, respectively. For the scale category of
21-30 percent of BPR implementation, 60, 40, 40 and 30 percent of Wollo, Samara,
Addis Ababa, and Hawassa University respondents rated their university in this category,
respectively. For the scale category of 31-40 percent of BPR implementation, 40, 20 and
10 percent of Hawassa, Wollo, and Addis Ababa University respondents rated their
university in this category, respectively. One respondent from Hawassa University rated
the scale category of 41-50 percent of BPR implementation for the university.

35
 Figure 4.1: Redesigned processes implemented at each university

Frequency (respondents)
7
6
Wollo University
5
4
Samara University
3 Hawassa University
2 Addis Ababa University
1
0
0 – 10% 11- 20% 21- 30% 31- 40% 41- 50%

Extent of redesigned processes implemented

Taking all respondents‟ (i.e., forty respondents) rate, the extent of redesigned processes
implemented at four universities lied between 11 to 50 percent (see Figure 4.2). In this
case, of the forty respondents, 80 percent of respondents rated 21-30 percent and 11-20
percent extent level of BPR implementation at universities. The remaining respondents,
i.e., 17.5 percent and 2.5 percent of respondents rated 31-40 percent and 41-50 percent
extent level of BPR implementation, respectively.

Figure 4.2: Redesigned processes implemented at universities

18 42.5%
37.5%
Frequency (40 respondents)

16
14
12
10
8 17.5%
6
4
2.5%
2
0
0 – 10% 11- 20% 21- 30% 31- 40% 41- 50%
Extent of redesigned processes implemented

Generally, most of respondents‟ responses pattern indicates that 11 to 40 percent of

universities‟ redesigned processes implemented, because all respondents, except one
respondent, perceived that their universities implemented the redesigned processes within
this extent. Thus, 60 percent of the redesigned processes not implemented so far.
36
The above discussion evidenced that the redesigned processes of Ethiopian public
universities lack implementation. As such, universities not achieved the intended
objectives of BPR. Unless the universities radically and fundamentally changed their
business processes, they cannot achieve dramatic performance improvements using BPR.

In line with BPR implementation extent level at universities, the survey instrument
attempted to capture the periods required to implement the entire redesigned processes of
universities. As Table 4.4 presents, of the forty respondents, 35 percent and 30 percent of
respondents believed universities to implement the entire redesigned processes between
three-to-four years and two-to-three years, respectively. For the periods that covers less
than two years and more than four years, 15 percent and 20 percent respondents
considered universities to implement the entire redesigned processes in these periods,
respectively. Generally, 45 percent of respondents believed that universities to implement
the redesigned processes within one to three years, while 55 percent of respondents
believed the implementation to take more than three years.

Table 4.4: BPR implementation periods

Period Frequency Percent

Between 1 year to 2 years 6 15.0
Between 2 years to 3 years 12 30.0
Between 3 years to 4 years 14 35.0
More than 4 years 8 20.0
Total 40 100.0

As indicated in subsection 2.1.1, arguments exist regarding to BPR applicability in higher

education. The arguments emanated from whether BPR used to reengineer the academic
processes (core processes)1 or administrative processes (support processes) 2
of higher

1
Core processes are those processes that are the reason an organization exists (Linden, 1998,
pp.9), in case of higher education, teaching-learning (academic) process and research and
community services indicated as core processes.
2
Support processes are those processes internally focused and they are necessary, but they are not
the purpose of the organization created to serve (Linden, 1998, pp.9). Administrative processes
such as human resource management, finance and budget, facility management and so on
indicated as support processes of higher education.
37
education. Porter (1993) claimed that administrative processes of higher education could
be redesigned rather than the academic processes. On the other hand, Stahlke and Nyce
(1996) argued Porter‟s (1993) position and they stressed the use of BPR to start first in
the academic processes of higher education than the administrative processes. Due to
these arguments, the survey instrument attempted to identify the most difficult process to
implement at universities. As Table 4.5 shows, of the forty respondents, 72.5 percent of
them claimed support processes as the most difficult to implement at universities, while
27.5 percent of them claimed core processes of universities as difficult to implement.
Thus, it is evident that core processes of higher education not difficult to implement
compared to support processes and it is in line with Stahlke and Nyce (1996) argument.

Table 4.5: Difficult process of to implement

Type of process Frequency Percent

Core processes 11 27.5
Support processes 29 72.5
Total 40 100.0

With respect to the responsibility to implement the redesigned processes of universities,

most of respondents (above 50 percent) consented implementation team members, top
management and employees of universities as responsible to implement the redesigned
processes (see Table 4.6). However, none of respondents considered external consultants
as a responsible to implement the redesigned processes.

Table 4.6: Responsible to implement BPR

Yes No
Responsible to implement (n=40)
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Redesign team members selected as
implementation team members 20 50.0 20 50.0
Top managements of the university
other than redesign team members 31 77.5 9 22.5
University‟s employees other than
redesign team members 27 67.5 13 32.5
External consultants 0 0.0 40 100.0

38
The above discussions attempted to present BPR implementation in Ethiopian public
universities that related to the extent of the redesigned processes implemented, the period
required for full-scale implementation of processes, the difficult process to implement,
and the responsible body to implement the processes. The following subsection presents
BPR project cost and benefits of implementing the redesigned processes.

4.1.3. BPR project cost and benefits from implementation

To undertake BPR project, organizations incur financial and nonfinancial costs. In this
regard, Wu and Du (2010) and Ahmad et al. (2007) noted BPR as advocates of a
thorough reform that requires a lot of money and time. Fees for consultants and bonuses
for redesign team members to cultivate their energy indicated as financial costs. Devoting
time by senior managements to discuss issues on the project indicated as nonfinancial
costs. However, these costs not incurred without benefit. The objective of BPR is to
enhance organization‟s performance in terms of reducing business processes cost and
cycle time, and increasing service quality and customer satisfaction. Despite the fact that
organization incurs costs related to the project, the benefits gained from implementing the
redesigned processes outweigh.

Data obtained from part 3 of the survey instrument helped to highlight universities‟ BPR
project cost and benefits. To identify whether BPR project of universities cost a lot or
not, respondents were asked to rate a five-point scale („strongly agree‟ to „strongly
disagree‟). In addition, to identify the benefits of BPR projects, respondents were asked
to rate the expected benefits (cost reduction, process cycle time reduction, increasing
service quality, and increasing customers and employees satisfaction) of redesigned
processes when implemented.

As shown in Table 4.7, of the forty respondents, 45 percent of respondents claimed the
consensus with „BPR project of universities cost a lot‟, while 17.5 percent of respondents
were undecided about the consensus and 37.5 percent of respondents denied the
consensus. However, taking the frequency mean (i.e., 3.1), the responses inclined to the
agreement scale (i.e., more than 3). In this case, universities BPR project had cost a lot.

39
Since universities engaged with BPR to improve their performance dramatically, the
benefits gained when universities implemented the redesigned processes could outweigh
the costs incurred to the project. In line with this, Balaji (2004) finding also indicated that
ABC College‟s (anonymous) BPR project had been very costly undertaken, but the
management aimed to recover the costs and earn increased profits.

Table 4.7: BPR project cost

Frequency Percent

BPR project of the Strongly disagree 5 12.5

University cost a lot Disagree 10 25.0
(n=40) Neutral 7 17.5
Agree 12 30.0
Strongly agree 6 15.0
Mean 3.1
Standard Deviation 1.297

With respect to the benefits of implementing the redesigned processes, Table 4.8 presents
the five expected benefits based on the rated scale mean in descending order. As the table
shows, when universities‟ processes redesigned, more weights have been given to reduce
the process cycle time, increasing service quality, and increasing customers‟ satisfaction,
sequentially. However, cost reduction and increasing employees‟ satisfaction have not
given much emphasis compared to the aforementioned benefits.

Table 4.8: Expected benefits of BPR

Expected benefits (n=40) Mean Sta. Deviation

Process cycle time reduction 4.30 .687
Increasing service quality 4.25 .870
Increasing customers‟ satisfaction 4.20 .939
Processes‟ cost reduction 3.83 .903
Increasing employees‟ satisfaction 3.83 1.083

Although the benefits of cost reduction and increasing employees‟ satisfaction have the
same mean value (3.83), they differ in terms of their standard deviations (see Table 4.8).

40
This suggest that when universities‟ processes redesigned, cost reduction have been given
much emphasis (i.e., .903 sta. deviation) than increasing employees‟ satisfaction (1.083
sta. deviation). Because the standard deviation of cost reduction is low compared to
employees‟ satisfaction, thus it indicates that most of responses clustered around the
mean.

Generally, universities incurred a lot of cost for their BPR project; however, they had
been anticipated to offset the costs and to improve their performance when redesigned
processes implemented. On the other hand, results presented in section 4.1.2 indicates
that public universities had not realized the expected benefits, because the redesigned
processes not substantially implemented (i.e., less than 40 percent of the redesigned
processes implemented). The following subsection presents the causes for this problem.

4.1.4. BPR implementation challenging factors

Organizations used BPR to improve their performance by changing business processes
radically and fundamentally, however, its implementation phase is the most challenging
one. In connection with this, Attaran and Wood (1999) indicated five primary obstacles
for effective BPR implementation, namely misunderstanding of BPR concept,
misapplication of BPR term, lack of proper strategy, management failure to change, and
failing to recognize the importance of people.

In addition, Al-Mashari and Zairi‟s (1999) article categorized five success and failure
factors of BPR implementation with thirty-three and twenty-two items, respectively. The
five successes and failure factors are change-management and culture, management
competency and support, organizational structure, project planning and management, and
IT infrastructure. The findings of Grover et al. (1995) also noted BPR implementation as
complex, i.e., it involves many challenging factors. As the authors suggested, to succeed
with BPR implementation, organizational change has to be essentially managed and
balanced attention to be paid for management support and technological competence
factors. As well as, factors that pertain directly to the conduct of the project (e.g., project

41
management and process delineation) have to be given emphasis for successful BPR
implementation.

The above inductions highlighted that BPR implementation constrained by various

challenging factor. The first phase of this study objective is to identify various
challenging factors of BPR implementation in Ethiopian public universities. To address
this objective and to answer research question 1, thirty items in part four of the survey
instrument developed from various literatures, mostly from Grover et al. (1995) and Al-
Mashari and Zairi (1999), using five-point Likert-type scales („strongly agree‟ to
„strongly disagree). Hereunder, results and analysis of findings related to challenging
factors of BPR implementation at universities presented.

To identify the challenging factors of BPR implementation among the thirty items, their
relative severity were used. Thus, the thirty items responses in part four of the survey
instrument ranked according to their rated percentage. In other word, the sum of
respondents percentage who were either strongly agreed or agreed (i.e., 5 or 4 on a 5
point scale) with the items used. Using this method, Grover et al. (1995) also abled to
rank the relative severity of sixty-four BPR implementation problems.

As Table 4.9 shows, 75 percent of respondents considered „lack of creating

organizational culture and values for change‟ and „problems related to rigid hierarchical
structure, job definition, and responsibility allocation‟ as the first challenging factors of
BPR implementation at universities (both ranked first). As rated by 72.5 percent of
respondents, the next challenging factor of BPR implementation was „absence of
incentive, training and education‟. As rated by 70 and 65 percent of respondents, the
fourth and fifth challenging factors were „lack of necessary changes in human resource
policies‟ and „lack of leadership, commitment and support by senior management‟,
respectively.

42
Table 4.9: BPR implementation challenging factors rank
Percent***
Rank* Category** Problems that affect BPR implementation
(n=40)
1 CMF Lack of creating organizational culture and 75.00
values for change
1 OF Problems related to rigid hierarchical 75.00
structures, jobs definition, and responsibility
allocation
3 CMF Absence of incentive, training and education 72.50
to cultivate the required values of redesigned
processes
4 CMF Lack of necessary changes in human resource 70.00
policies for BPR implementation
5 TMSF Lack of leadership, commitment and support 65.00
by senior management
6 OF Lack of organizational readiness to change 62.50
prior to BPR project start
6 CF Lack of financial resources 62.50
8 TMSF Top management's insufficient understanding 60.00
about BPR
9 TMSF Top management fears to support the new 57.50
values and beliefs required by the redesigned
processes
9 ITF Employees‟ and customers‟ know-how 57.50
deficiency about the use of IT in the
redesigned processes
9 CF Existing proclamations, regulations, rules and 57.50
directives of the country delayed BPR
implementation
9 CF Cascading of policies impede BPR 57.50
implementation
13 CF BPR considered as a passing managerial fancy 55.00
(e.g., it will go away, ignore it)
14 TMSF Top management does not change their value 52.50
unlike the redesigned processes
14 CMF Fears about political, economic, and 52.50
organizational risks due to change initiative of
BPR
14 BPRPMF Insufficient trainings on BPR implementation 52.50
and absence of consultants‟ advice to
implement BPR
14 ITF IT has significant role for the redesigned 52.50
processes

43
Table 4. 9: Continued
Percent***
Rank* Category** Problems that affect BPR implementation
(n=40)
18 TMSF Lack of total involvements of top management 47.50
who have real power to change
19 OF Existing infrastructures impede BPR 42.50
implementation
20 BPRPMF Employees and customers not openly and 40.00
actively involved and consulted at all stages of
BPR
20 ITF Problems related to IT infrastructures 40.00
investment and sourcing decision
20 ITF Problems related to training provision about 40.00
IT use in the redesigned processes
23 OF BPR project initiatives not caused by the felt 35.00
needs of change
24 BPRPMF Ineffective redesign team members 30.00
25 CMF Employees‟ resistance to change 27.50
25 OF Larger organizational size impede BPR 27.50
implementation
27 BPRPMF Processes extremely redesigned 22.50
28 BPRPMF Processes ineffectively redesigned 17.50
29 ITF IT role not considered as enabler of BPR 15.00
during redesign phase
30 CF BPR cannot be applied in case of Ethiopian 12.50
universities
* Items that have similar percentage, ranked similarly and the next rank number jumped
**TMSF= top management support factors; CMF= change-management factors; OF=
organizational factors; BPRPMF= BPR project management factors; ITF= Information
technology factors; CF= country factors.
*** The percentage of respondents who were either strongly agreed or agreed with the item
as challenging factor of BPR implementation at universities.

Table 4.9 also shows that of the top five challenging factors of BPR implementation,
three of them belong to change-management category. More than 70 percent of
respondents showed a higher degree of agreement with these challenging factors to
delayed BPR implementation at universities. Change-management emphasized by many
researchers as a vital factor for BPR success/failure. For instance, Allen and Fiefield‟s
(1999) study found that organizational culture, insufficient attention to the human
resources side, and organizational structure significantly limited the degree of change
44
sought from BPR in UK higher education institutes. This study finding also showed that
three of the top five challenging factors are in line with the first two findings of Allen and
Fiefield (1999). In addition, over 52 percent of respondents either strongly agreed or
agreed with all factors of change-management, except the factor of „employees resistance
to change‟ (27.5 percent) as contributors to delay BPR implementation at universities.

With respect to top management support category, over 52.5 percent of respondents also
showed a higher degree of agreement with four factors (see Table 4.9). Namely, „lack of
leadership, commitment and support by senior management‟, „top management's
insufficient understanding about BPR‟, „top management fears to support new values and
beliefs‟, and „top management does not change their value unlike the redesigned
processes‟ were considered as challenging factors of BPR implementation. The first three
factors also ranked within top ten challenging factors. Confirming this, Kontio (2007)
noted the essential role of management support for the success of BPR implementation at
Turku University, because unless top managements supported the project, employees of
the organization could lose their willingness on the project.

For the organizational factors category, two problems rated by over 62.5 percent of
respondents (see Table 4.9), i.e., „problems related to rigid hierarchical structures, jobs
definition and responsibility allocation‟ (ranked second) and „lack of organizational
readiness to change prior to BPR project start‟ (ranked sixth). In the findings of Grover
et al. (1995), rigid hierarchical structure ranked third and the authors claimed this
problem to inhibit the change initiatives of BPR. With respect to lack of organizational
readiness, Wu and Du (2010) claimed this factor as not only cause the project to fail, but
also create problems to lose businesses, unless the organization ready to change.

All factors related to BPR project management ranked below 14 (see Table 4.9). 52.5
percent of respondents showed a higher degree of agreement to the factor of „insufficient
trainings on BPR implementation and absence of consultants‟ advice to implement BPR‟.
In connection with this, Debela and Hagos‟s (2011) finding advocated the importance of
consultants‟ advices and training provision for the success of BPR. However, in case of

45
this study, most of the respondents agreed with lack of trainings and advices to
implement the redesigned processes that in turn impeded the implementation phase of
BPR at universities.

Among the top ten challenging factors of BPR implementation, one of the IT category
factor ranked at nine (see Table 4.9). That is, „employees and customers know-how
deficiency about the use of IT in the redesigned processes‟ considered by 57.7 percent of
respondents as the challenging factor to delay the implementation phase. That is why
various literatures on BPR emphasized IT to be incorporated in the redesigned processes
as enabler for better performance. Results for the items like „significant role of IT‟ (52.5
percent) and „not considering IT as enabler‟ (15 percent) showed that the redesigned
processes of universities enabled by IT, while IT has significant role. However, Grover
et al. (1995) study findings showed that IT correlated the least with BPR success. This
indicates that universities might confront difficulties of IT related skills, but the existence
of such problems might not impede the redesigned processes from implementation.

Three of the top ten challenging factors concern to the country factors category (see
Table 4.9). Among the country factors, 62.5 percent of respondents regarded „lack of
financial resources‟ as the most challenging factor. In connection with this, Al-Mashari
and Zairi (1999) noted the importance of adequate budget and proper allocation of
resources for the success of BPR, because large investment in new resources needed to
implement the redesigned processes. Since Ethiopian public universities depend on
government budget, it is evident that most of the respondents showed a higher degree of
agreement with the factor of „lack of financial resources‟ to impede universities‟
redesigned processes from implementation. Next to this, 57.5 percent of respondents
considered „existing proclamations, regulations, rules and directives of the country‟ as
impediment for successful BPR implementation. Hence, BPR principles require old
business processes‟ rules and assumptions breakdowns to redesign processes radically
and fundamentally. Since Ethiopian public universities operate under the government
rules and regulations, it is difficult to implement the redesigned processes unless the
government amended its rules and regulation to accommodate BPR implementation. That
46
is why 57.5 percent of respondents considered existing rules and regulations of the
country as challenging factor.

As indicated previously, BPR is a radical and fundamental change of existing processes.

After the redesigned processes implemented, some performance measurement (e.g.,
Balanced Scorecard) and incremental improvement (e.g., TQM) management tools
required (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999). However, it is evident that Ethiopian public
universities lack BPR implementation and they were ordered to use Balanced Scorecard
for their performance measurement. This highlighted that the existence of policy/program
cascading nature and this can nurture uncertainty and resistance to future
policies/program implementation. In these regard, 57.5 and 55 percent of respondents
showed a higher degree of agreement with the factors of „cascading of policies‟ and
„considering BPR as a passing managerial fancy‟. These imply that before the actual
policy/program implemented, universities engaged with another policy/program whether
the prior policy/program adds value or not. As a result, uncertainty and resistance to
future policies/programs implementations emanated.

To comprehend the relative severity of the thirty challenging factors of BPR

implementation, average values calculated for each six-category factors based on the
percentage value in column four of Table 4.9. The percentage value was calculated based
on the respondents‟ degree of agreement, i.e., either strongly agree or agree (5 or 4 in 5
point scale). The percentage average values of the six-category factors in descending
order are: 1) change-management factors (59.5 percent); 2) top management support
factors (56.5 percent); 3) country factors (49 percent); 4) organizational factors (48.5
percent); 5) IT factors (41 percent); and 6) BPR project management factors (32.5
percent).

It is noticeable from the above average values that project specific factors (i.e., IT and
BPR project management factors) ranked at bottom, while factors related to managing
change initiative (i.e., change-management and top management support factors) ranked

47
at the top. In addition, factors originated from beyond the organization and the
organization itself (i.e., country and organizational factors) ranked at the middle.

So far, results and analysis related to various challenging factors presented. The finding
suggests that BPR implementation at universities were constrained by various
challenging factors. As Table 4.9 shows, among the thirty challenging factors, 17 of them
were rated by more than 50 percent of respondents as the most challenging factors. In the
context of redesigned processes implemented at universities, these 17 factors were
accounted to limit the extent between 11 to 40 percent. This also implies that the benefits
expected from BPR were not adequately realized due to 17 challenging factors. Thus, the
research question 2 answered in these regards. The following subsection also attempted
to refine those challenging factors by universities type.

4.1.5. Further refinements of BPR implementation challenging factors

To add insight in to the profiles of challenging factors that impeded BPR implementation
in Ethiopian public universities, this subsection attempted to refine various challenging
factors based on universities type. Thus, this subsection tried to answer the sub research
question 1, i.e., „what are the challenging factors that affect BPR implementation at elder
universities and new universities?‟ As indicated in section 3.3, four universities were
taken in this study. Of the four universities, two of them considered as elder universities
(i.e., Addis Ababa University and Hawassa University) and the remaining two considered
as newly established universities in Ethiopia (i.e., Samara University and Wollo
University). Thus, to further refine the challenging factors of BPR implementation,
respondents were dichotomized, i.e., Addis Ababa University and Hawassa University
respondents grouped in to „elder universities‟ group, and Samara University and Wollo
University respondents grouped in to „new universities‟ group.

To compare and analyze the groups‟ responses for the items in part 4 of the survey
instrument, mean values were calculated based on the scores on a five-point scale (Likert
scale). In addition, chi-square statistic along with significance level was used to see if
both groups‟ respondents were responded different from each other. Since Likert-scale

48
questions have a range of answers that is discrete, not continuous, it was appropriate to
use chi-square statistic, because it assumes a discrete distribution rather than a normal
distribution (ITS, 2011). Hereunder, results and analysis of findings presented based on
the six categories of BPR implementation challenging factors heading.

a. Top management support factors

According to Attaran (2000), BPR changes all aspects of a business, but more than
changing jobs and skills, it forces changes in management style. As the author further
noticed, it forces managers to reevaluate not only what they do, but also who they are
because new processes require new management philosophy. Therefore, top management
support is required for successful BPR implementation, otherwise implementing the
redesigned processes could be a challenging endeavor. In connection with this, Table
4.10 presents the rated responses for the items related to top management support factors.
Taking the mean values of each challenging factor, most of respondents from each group
showed a higher degree of agreement with the five challenging factors. In other words, all
items‟ mean values are above three, this indicates that most of respondents either strongly
agreed or agreed with the items.

On the other hand, the significance column of Table 4.10 shows that respondents from
both universities groups similarly rated the five factors (i.e., there is insignificant
difference in the patterns of responses to the items among elder and new universities‟
respondents). This indicated that the five challenging factors related to top management
support category contributed to delay the implementation of redesigned processes in both
groups.

Generally, Table 4.10 evidenced that top management‟s total support and commitment,
sufficient understanding of BPR concepts, and changing the entrenched values can help
to implement BPR successfully. Otherwise, the existence of problems related to top
management support could endanger the implementation phase; these were also the case
for both universities groups.

49
 Table 4.10: Top management support factors
Percent (Elder n=20, New n=20 )
Chi-
Factors University Strongly Strongly Mean Sig.
Disagree Neutral Agree square
Group disagree agree
Lack of leadership, commitment and Elder 0 20 25 45 10 3.45
4.003 .261
support by senior management New 0 10 15 40 35 4
Top management's insufficient Elder 10 20 20 40 10 3.2
3.175 .529
understanding about BPR New 0 15 15 50 20 3.75
Top management fears to support Elder 15 15 20 40 10 3.15
the new values and beliefs required 3.725 .444
by the redesigned processes New 0 15 20 45 20 3.7
Lack of total involvements of top Elder 15 10 30 30 15 3.2
management who have real power to 2.763 .598
change New 5 25 20 35 15 3.3
Top management does not change Elder 10 20 25 30 15 3.2
their value unlike the redesigned 1.355 .852
processes New 10 10 20 35 25 3.55

50
 b. Change-management factors
As Debela and Hagos (2011) indicated, BPR by itself is a change project that needs to be
managed appropriately. Therefore, the change initiative of BPR requires adequate risk
management (for instance, economic, political, organization and employees‟ resistance
risk management), creating a culture of change and new values, and developing policies
and strategies for new processes. In connection with this, Table 4.11 shows the rated
responses for the items related to change-management factors for both groups.

As the mean values column of Table 4.11 shows, except the factor of „employees‟
resistance‟, most of respondents from each group maintained a higher degree of
agreement to all challenging factors of BPR implementation. That is, four challenging
factors on average rated above three, while „employee‟s resistance to change‟ on average
rated at 2.55 and 2.8 by elder and new universities respondents, respectively. These
indicate that to implement the redesigned processes, problems related to change-
management contributed to delay the implementation, while „employees‟ resistance‟ not
contributed to delay the implementation.

Both groups‟ respondents were responded in similar patterns to the items, i.e., there were
insignificance differences in the pattern of responses between both groups. Thus, for both
groups, each challenging factors had similar impact (see Table 4.11 significance column)
on the project.

Among the five challenging factors of change management, the pattern of responses for
factor of „absence of incentive, training and education to cultivate required values of
redesigned processes‟ is surprisingly insignificant between the groups and scored high
mean value (see Table 4.11). In line with this finding, Mengesha and Common (2007)
finding also claimed that nonexistence of appropriate rewards and motivational
instruments in Ethiopian public organizations caused to sluggish BPR change initiatives.

In addition, Debela and Hagos‟s (2011) study finding indicated that employees‟
resistance was not strong during BPR implementation at the case studies of four

51
 Table 4.11: Change-management factors

University Percent (Elder n=20, New n=20)

Chi-
Factors Group Strongly Strongly Mean Sig.
Disagree Neutral Agree square
disagree agree
Fears about political, economic, and Elder 10 15 25 50 0 3.15
organizational risks due to change 5.117 .276
initiative of BPR New 5 20 20 35 20 3.45

Lack of creating organizational Elder 0 15 10 60 15 3.75

2.015 .733
culture and values for change New 5 15 5 50 25 3.75
Elder 20 40 15 15 10 2.55
Employees‟ resistance to change 2.668 .615
New 15 25 30 25 5 2.80
Lack of necessary changes in Elder 15 5 15 55 10 3.40
human resource policies for BPR 4.476 .345
implementation New 0 5 20 50 25 3.95
Absence of incentive, training and Elder 5 15 10 40 30 3.75
education to cultivate required 1.713 .788
values of redesigned processes New 0 10 15 50 25 3.90

52
public organizations of Ethiopia. In line with this, the present study also finds employees‟
resistance to change not contributed to impede redesigned processes from implementation
in both groups.

c. Organizational factors
As Wu and Du (2010) noted, prior to BPR project undertaken, organizations must be
carefully think the necessity of BPR to determine their readiness to change. If BPR
project begin due to the felt needs of changing the old processes for improved
performance, organizations can quickly change the old processes with new processes. In
addition, to implement new processes successfully, new organizational structures, jobs
definition and responsibility allocations, and infrastructures adjustments are required.

Table 4.12 presents the results for the five organizational factors and their statistical
summaries. Considering the mean values for each item and the pattern of responses
between the two groups, it is interesting to note that differences exist among elder
universities and new universities in case of organizational factors than the previously
presented two factors categories. With the factor, i.e., „lack of organizational readiness to
change‟, both universities groups‟ respondents rated on average above three.
Organization‟s readiness to change helps in determining the capabilities that the
organization possessed to implement BPR initiatives, which requires change in a cultural,
human resource, financial or technological standpoint (Ahmad et al., 1999). Thus, it is
critical to assess organizational readiness prior to the project start. However, this was not
the case, because the mean value (above 3) for this factor indicates that most of
respondents showed a higher degree of agreement that their universities were not ready to
change prior to the project started, which in turn resulted to impede redesigned processes
from successful implementation.

To implement new processes, Wu and Du (2010) indicated to consider organizational

size and historical factors. As the authors suggested for organizations those are larger or
have more long time history, gradual method should be taken to implement new
processes, because they have more rigid and complex organizational structures and
business processes, whereas smaller size organizations should take a revolutionary
53
 Table 4.12: Organizational factors
Percent (Elder n=20, New n=20)
University Chi-
Factors Strongly Strongly Mean Sig.
Group Disagree Neutral Agree square
disagree agree
Lack of organizational readiness to Elder 0 35 10 45 10 3.30
1.22 0.75
change prior to BPR project start New 0 20 10 55 15 3.65
BPR project initiatives not caused by Elder 30 20 15 25 10 2.65
9.55 0.05*
the felt needs of change New 0 25 40 15 20 3.30
Larger organizational size impede Elder 10 55 0 20 15 2.75
8.14 0.09**
BPR implementation New 20 40 20 20 0 2.40
Existing infrastructures impede BPR Elder 5 35 30 20 10 2.95
6.93 0.14
implementation New 20 15 10 40 15 3.15
Problems related to rigid hierarchical Elder 5 10 25 45 15 3.55
structures, jobs definition, and 8.56 0.07**
responsibility allocation New 10 0 0 65 25 3.95

*significant at p = 0.05 level of significance; ** significant at p = 0.10 level of significance

p = refers to probability

54
implementation method. In connection with this, both groups‟ respondents rated the
factor, i.e., „problems related to rigid hierarchical structures, jobs definition, and
responsibility allocation‟ on average above three, but there exist significant difference in
terms of response patterns between the two groups. The mean values rated by elder and
new universities‟ respondents are 3.55 and 3.95, respectively (see Table 4.12). These
values can raise question, because rigid hierarchical structure believed to exist in elder
universities than new ones. However, since newly established universities of Ethiopia
adopted their ways of doing businesses from elder universities, such a rigid hierarchical
structure also exist in newly established universities. Generally, factors like rigid
hierarchical structure impeded the implementation of redesigned processes in both
groups.

As indicated above, the other notable factor is needs for change. Most of elder
universities respondents either strongly disagreed or disagreed (mean value of 2.65) with
the factor i.e., „BPR project initiatives not caused by the felt needs of change‟, while most
of new universities respondents showed a higher degree of agreement (mean value of 3.3)
with the factor (see Table 4.12). These results also statistical significant at p = 0.10 level
of significance. In this case, it implies that new universities‟ respondents might consider
their universities‟ being a recently established one that cannot afford the change
initiatives of BPR. However, it was earlier noted that all new universities of Ethiopia
adopted the ways of doing business from elder universities, as a result problems existed
in elder universities also exist in new universities.

With respect to the factor of „large organizational size‟, respondents of both universities
groups either strongly disagreed or disagreed (below mean value of 3), but there was a
significant differences in terms response patterns among the groups to the item. Even
though Wu and DU (2010) indicated to consider organizational size during the
implementation phase, the earlier work of Attaran (2000) claimed that, the difference
between success and failure of BPR not depend on organizational size or resources, but
on appropriate planning and avoidance of pitfalls. Thus, in line with Attaran (2000)

55
assertions, this study finding also evident that organizational size had no impact to
implement the redesigned processes in both groups.

The other organizational factor is „existing infrastructure‟. Most of respondents from

elder universities were either strongly disagreed or disagreed (a mean value of 2.95) with
this challenging factor. On the other hand, respondents from new universities were either
strongly agreed or agreed (a mean value of 3.15) with the factor. Therefore, it is evident
that elder universities‟ infrastructures not impeded the implementation of redesigned
processes, whereas new universities‟ infrastructures posed problems to implement the
redesigned processes. This also indicates the fact that new universities infrastructures
provided by MoE, whereas elder universities acquires their infrastructures themselves.
Thus, the mandates of MoE for new universities posed problems to implement the
redesigned processes due to the inflexibilities of infrastructures.

d. BPR project management factors

Table 4.13 presents the results related to BPR project management factors for elder and
new universities. To succeed with BPR implementation, active and strong organizational
communication at all stage of BPR project required with different stakeholders of the
organization. As the table shows, the item, i.e., „employees and customers not actively
and openly involved and consulted at all stages of BPR‟, rated on average 2.7 and 3.2 by
elder and new universities‟ respondents, respectively. Thus, it was apparent that new
universities‟ employees and customers were not actively and openly involved on the
project, while the reverse was true for elder universities.

The other project management factors are designing effective, efficient and economical
processes for the organization. These could be achieved when the redesign team members
were interdisciplinary. In connection with this, Allen and Fiefield‟s (1999) finding
indicated that the purpose of establishing interdisciplinary teams to work on BPR project
of NW (anonymous) University were two-fold: first, the team members could take an
overall perspective of their particular area; secondly, team members abled to consult
widely with various groups of people involved in the process, to gain a diagnosis

56
 Table 4.13: BPR project management factors
Percent (Elder n=20, New n=20)
University Chi-
Factors Strongly Strongly Mean Sig.
Group Disagree Neutral Agree square
disagree agree
Employees and customers not openly Elder 10 45 15 25 5 2.70
and actively involved and consulted at 1.959 .743
all stages of BPR New 5 30 15 40 10 3.20
Elder 5 45 35 15 0 2.60
Processes extremely redesigned 5.419 .247
New 20 25 25 20 10 2.75
Elder 20 45 20 15 0 2.30
Processes ineffectively redesigned .286 .963
New 15 45 20 20 0 2.45
Elder 15 50 20 10 5 2.40
Ineffective redesign team members 4.810 .307
New 15 25 15 30 15 3.05
Insufficient trainings on BPR Elder 10 25 20 35 10 3.10
implementation and absence of 6.642 .156
consultants advice to implement BPR New 5 30 5 20 40 3.60

57
of the situation. The same thing also found in this study. That is, most of the respondents
from both groups were either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the factors of
„processes extremely redesigned‟ and „ineffectively redesigned‟ (between mean values of
2.75 and 2.3, see Table 4.13). However, most of new universities‟ respondents showed a
higher degree of agreement, on average, 3.05 point given for the factor of „ineffective
redesign team members‟, but elder universities respondents showed a higher degree of
disagreement (2.4 mean value) to the factor. This could be accounted to the fact that most
of newly established universities of Ethiopia lack experienced employees compared to
elder universities, that resulted to have ineffective team members in new universities.

With respect to the factor of „lack of training and absence consultants‟ advice‟, most of
respondents demonstrated a higher degree of agreement to the factor as barrier for
successful implementation. Generally, for the items included in BPR project management
categories, there are insignificant response pattern differences between the two groups‟
respondents (see Table 4.13, significance column).

e. IT factors
As O‟Neill and Sohal (999) noted, the common theme running through BPR or
breakthrough improvements is technology, in particular IT. However, the authors noted
that BPR is not necessarily depends on IT solutions. IT considered as enabler of the
redesigned processes, because instead of automating the processes by IT, BPR principles
require to design the processes in simplified ways. Having this, Table 4.14 shows the
results related to IT factors for both universities groups.

As the table shows, most of the respondents manifested a higher degree of agreement
with IT as enabler of the redesigned processes. In other word, with a mean value
approximately 2, both groups‟ respondents disagreed with the factor of „IT role not
considered as enabler of BPR during redesign phase‟. However, IT had a significant role
for elder universities‟ processes (3.55 mean value) compared to new universities (2.9
mean value). This indicates that unless elder universities had invested on IT
infrastructures and provided trainings on IT use, change through BPR could not occur.
Mean value of 3.55 for elder universities about significant role of IT in the processes
58
 Table 4.14: IT factors
Percent (Elder n=20, New n=20)
University Chi-
Factors Strongly Strongly Mean Sig.
Group Disagree Neutral Agree square
disagree agree
IT role not considered as enabler of Elder 30 40 20 10 0 2.10
1.172 .760
BPR during redesign phase New 35 30 15 20 0 2.20
IT has significant role for the Elder 5 20 10 45 20 3.55
3.104 .541
redesigned processes New 15 35 10 25 15 2.90
Problems related to IT Elder 20 25 20 25 10 2.80
infrastructures investment and 1.191 .880
sourcing decision New 15 30 10 30 15 3.00
Employees‟ and customers‟ know- Elder 0 20 20 50 10 3.50
how deficiency about the use of IT .595 .897
in the redesigned processes New 0 15 30 45 10 3.50
Problems related to training Elder 5 30 30 35 0 2.95
provision about IT use in the 3.091 .543
redesigned processes New 0 30 25 35 10 3.25

59
also indicates their complex information requirements, because elder universities have
numerous departments or units that require information sharing among them and
information integration compared to new universities.

Although elder universities considered the use of IT significantly in the redesigned

processes, most of respondents from elder universities demonstrated nonexistence of
problems related to „IT infrastructures investment and sourcing‟ for the redesigned
processes. Whereas, new universities respondents‟ response distributions showed that
they were neither disagreed nor agreed with this factor, i.e., mean value of 3 (see Table
4.14). Thus, it is difficult to say that new universities were confronted problems in the
area of „IT infrastructures investment and sourcing‟.

With respect to „know-how deficiency about IT use‟, both universities‟ respondents

manifested a higher degree of agreement. As Table 4.14 shows, the mean value of this
factor is the same (i.e., 3.5) for both groups. However, its severity weighted to elder
universities than new universities, because elder universities‟ redesigned processes
significantly relied on IT (mean value of 3.55) compared to new universities (mean value
of 2.9). On the other hand, problems related to „training provision about IT use‟ were
immaterial to elder universities compared to new universities. This can be accounted to
the fact that elder universities accommodated experienced IT experts, as such training
provision were not their problems. Generally, there were insignificant differences in the
pattern of responses between the two groups‟ respondents.

f. Country factors
The last challenging factors category in this study is country factors. Table 4.15 presents
the results related to country factors. As it was indicated in subsection 4.1.4, Ethiopian
public universities depend on government budget, operate under various rules and
regulations that govern public organization and implement government
policies/programs. In connection with these, various problems raised to implement the
redesigned processes of universities. Most of both universities groups‟ respondents
showed a higher degree of agreement with the item of „existing proclamations,
regulations, rules and directives of the country delayed BPR implementation‟. Thus,
60
 Table 4.15: Country factors
Percent (Elder n=20, New n=20)
University Chi-
Factors Strongly Strongly Mean Sig.
Group Disagree Neutral Agree square
disagree agree
Existing proclamations, regulations, Elder 10 20 30 30 10 3.10
rules and directives of the country 6.677 .154
delayed BPR implementation New 5 10 10 35 40 3.95
Elder 20 5 25 35 15 3.20
Lack of financial resources 7.952 .093*
New 0 15 10 40 35 3.95

Cascading of policies impede BPR Elder 5 5 30 55 5 3.50

5.540 .236
implementation New 0 25 20 40 15 3.45
BPR considered as a passing Elder 5 30 25 30 10 3.10
managerial fancy (e.g., it will go 7.667 .105
away, ignore it) New 5 0 25 50 20 3.80

BPR cannot be applied in case of Elder 55 30 10 5 0 1.65

5.069 .280
Ethiopian universities New 25 40 15 10 10 2.40

*significant at p = 0.10 level of significance

p = refers to probability

61
unless existing rules and regulations of the country amended to accommodate BPR
principles, this item considered as challenging factor to implement redesigned processes
successfully.

With respect to „lack of financial resources‟, both universities groups‟ respondents

considered this problem as impediment to successful BPR implementation. However, as
the significance column of Table 4.15 shows, this problem was more decisive to new
universities. Thus, the mean value of 3.95 for new universities indicates that they were
suffered from lack of financial resources to implement the redesigned processes; while
elder universities mean value of 3.2 indicates that they were in a better position in terms
of financial resources to implement the redesigned processes. This indicates the fact that
elder universities have influence to get favorable budget from government and their
abilities to generate funds from donors and business activities compared to new
universities.

For the factor, i.e., „cascading of policies‟, most of respondents from both groups showed
higher degree of agreement (see Table 4.15). This problem also nurtures future
policies/programs implementation failure, because before the fruits of BPR exhibited,
adding another program (e.g., Balanced Scorecard) would create frustrations. That is why
most of respondents considered BPR as a managerial fancy (above a mean value of 3).
Despite the fact that lack of implementing the redesigned processes existed in Ethiopian
public universities, most of respondents believed BPR applicability in Ethiopian public
universities. Generally, factors related to country specific impeded BPR implementation
at universities, but lack of financial resources were severe to new universities compared
to elder universities.

To sum up, the above findings suggest that most of the challenging factors of BPR
implementation were common to elder universities and new universities. Specifically, top
management factors and change-management factors, except employees‟ resistance, were
common challenging factors to both groups BPR implementation. In the organizational
factors category, problems originated from lack of organizational readiness and
organizational structures were common to both groups, though the latter one was
62
significant to new universities. On the other hand, problems originated from engaging
with BPR project without the felt needs of change and existing infrastructures were
challenging factors to new universities, but they were not to elder universities.

In the category of BPR project management factors, insufficient trainings and absence of
consultants‟ advice about BPR implementation was common to both groups. On the other
hand, lack of communication with employees and customers at all stages of BPR and
ineffective redesign team members were not challenging factors to elder universities, but
they were to new universities. Among the five IT factors, employees‟ and customers‟ IT
use know-how deficiency was the common problems to both groups. Although elder
universities were not challenged to provide IT related trainings, their redesigned
processes were relied significantly on IT, whereas the reverse was true to new
universities. Despite the fact that the consensus of BPR applicability in Ethiopian public
universities, the four country specific factors were common challenging factors to both
groups, while lack of financial resource was significant to new universities.

4.2. Results and analysis: qualitative future of mixed method

The preceding section has presented the results and analysis of findings for the first phase
(quantitative) of the study. This section then used the identified factors i.e., challenging
factors of BPR implementation in Ethiopian public universities. As it was indicated in
section 1.3, the objective of this second phase of the study was to better understand the
magnitude of the identified factors. To address this objective and to answer research
question 3 and 4, interviews were held with Ethiopian Ministry of Education officer for
Higher Education Capacity Building, Ethiopian Higher Education Strategic Center
officer, and Ex-Vice President of ABC (anonymous) University (Ethiopian public
university). These respondents were selected purposefully, because it was believed that
they have had better knowledge about BPR project of universities. Thus, the researcher
interviewed three interviewees on the issues related to BPR implementation challenging
factors magnitudes in case of Ethiopian public universities.

63
Results from the first phase showed that BPR project still being implemented at
universities, i.e. most of respondents perceived that 11 to 40 percent of the redesigned
processes implemented at universities. For this reason, more than 50 percent of
respondents claimed seventeen challenging factors of BPR implementation (of the thirty)
as impediments for successful BPR implementation.

As it was noted in the first phase, challenging factors of BPR implementation have been
grouped in to six categories, namely top management support factors, change-
management factors, organizational factors, BPR project management factors, IT factors,
and country factors. Thus, the results and analysis of findings for the second phase of the
study, thematically presented hereunder based on the six categories headings.

a. Top management support factors

Although all public universities of Ethiopia finished process-redesigning phase of BPR,
implementing the redesigned processes pointed as a difficult phase for most universities.
As the interviewee noted, the management body of universities‟ had exerted significant
potential when their respective universities conducted the redesigning phase of BPR,
however, after the processes being redesigned, the implementation phase totally lacked
support and commitment from top management. Because all universities had placed their
first agenda on BPR project during redesigning phase, whereas implementing the
redesigned processes had not been their first agenda. As the interviewee commented:

„Unless top management of universities totally supported and committed by

providing the necessary time, financial and other resources, implementing
the redesigned processes could be unthinkable. Without top management
willingness for the project, implementing BPR could be unlikely.‟

On the other hand, to daunt the status quo of the organization, BPR principles require
new values and beliefs for the redesigned processes. However, two interviewees claimed
that top management‟s fears about new values and beliefs required by BPR as the major
cause to delay the implementation phase. In line with this view, Reyes (2001) noted about
government organizations‟ change initiatives like any deviation from the status quo
64
considered as a threat. Debela and Hagos (2011) finding also confirmed that
implementing BPR in public organization of Ethiopia accompanied by doubt, skepticism,
and fear of losing the status quo.

With respect to insufficient understanding of BPR concepts by top management, one

interviewee suggested this problem to contribute to delay the implementation phase.
However, the interviewee claimed that most of top managements were familiar with BPR
concepts, even though they were busy with various activities of their universities. In this
case, it is evident that top managements‟ being busy could cause to lose their active
support and commitment to the project that in turn leads to delay the implementation
unless they have given their full insight to the project.

Generally, lack of support and commitment by top management and their fear about new
values and beliefs required by BPR were the most challenging factors to implement the
redesigned processes successfully. Thus, these problems seem to as earlier indicators to
delay the implementation of redesigned processes in Ethiopian public universities.

b. Change-management factors
BPR recognized as redesigning of processes and implementing them into the organization
for dramatic performance improvement. As such, it needs adequate change-management
actions to transform the organization‟s old business processes to a new one. In connection
with this, Corran and Bryan (2010) indicated that successful change management focuses
on communicating, motivating and establishing processes that primarily put the people
who must undertake the processes at their forefront.

However, findings in the first phase of this study showed that redesigned processes of
universities lack implementation and for this problem, various factors of change-
management contributed. As one interviewee considered, change-management factors are
the most challenging factors compare to others and that inevitably exist at all public
universities of Ethiopian. This indicates that unless various change-management factors
appropriately handled, implementing BPR in Ethiopian public universities disposed to
failure.
65
The other interviewee also agreed with the above discussion. Hence, the interviewee
argued that creating a culture of change in Ethiopian public universities is difficult,
because most universities considered themselves as a center of excellence. In connection
with this, Allen and Fifield (1999) mentioned that inertia and reluctance to change were
the problems to implement BPR in UK higher education. When change initiatives of BPR
introduced in Ethiopian public universities, inertia and reluctance to change also
manifested by just considering themselves as a center of excellence that in turn initiated
problems to create a culture of change. It is also clear from the findings of the first phase
of this study, most of respondents agreed with the problems related to creating a culture
of change. Supporting this, interviewees stressed how a culture of change influenced BPR
implementation.

On the other hand, to create a culture of change and to implement the redesigned
processes, teamwork needed. However, teamwork could not be exercised in the absences
of incentive, training and appropriate human resource policies. As the interviewee
claimed, these problems also existed in Ethiopian public universities and contributed to
delay BPR implementation.

Interviewees have not given much emphasis on problems related to fears emanated from
political, economic, and organizational risk. As one interviewee commented:

„Unless universities implemented the entire processes, risks could not have
significant impact on the organization, including employees‟ resistance to
change.‟

Generally, the findings show that problems to create a culture of change, absence of
incentive, training, and appropriate human resource policies were the fundamental
challenging factors in the change-management category. However, fears about risk
management due to the change initiatives of BPR and employees‟ resistance to change
were not the fundamental challenging factors for the success of BPR implementation in
Ethiopian public universities.

66
 c. Organizational factors
Flexible organizational structures noted by various authors (e.g., Ahmad et al., 2007;
Allen and Fifield, 1999; Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999) as a receptive for change.
Specifically, Hammer and Champy (1993) suggested that to ensure successful
fundamental change using BPR, it is necessary to change the organizational structure of
the organization. However, as Allen and Fifield (1999) indicated, the autonomous nature
of various departments or units of higher educations, disrupt any change in the
organizational structures. In line with this, interviewees also claimed that problems
related to rigid organizational structures, jobs definition and responsibility allocation in
Ethiopian public universities caused to delay BPR implementation, because the
autonomous nature of various departments or units in universities could not allow the
dictation of actions from top management.

All interviewees also remarked the fact that lack of organizational readiness to change
existed prior to BPR project started at universities. As it was mentioned in the change-
management factors category, lack of creating a culture of change had been blamed by
interviewees‟ as a fundamental challenging factor of BPR implementation. This also
indicates that universities were not ready to use BPR as a performance enhancement tool
prior to engaged with the project. Thus, lack of organizational readiness considered as a
challenging factor for successful BPR implementation.

On the other hand, one interviewee acknowledged the fact that BPR project initiative of
universities not caused by the felt needs; rather it was a compulsory order by MoE.
However, universities had believed their poor performance or for better performance and
engaged with BPR project, even though the implementation phase challenged with
various factors. In this regard, the other interviewee commented that:

„Although MoE ordered (initiated from top to down) public universities to

undertake BPR project, the need of transformation in Ethiopian higher
education is absolute. Since public universities operated under MoE and
depend on government budget, thus, MoE order was appropriate.‟

67
With respect to problems originated from larger organizational size and existing
infrastructures, all interviewees denied these challenging factors as impediments for
successful BPR implementation. As interviewee commented:

„Since BPR used to change business processes of universities,

infrastructures have to be in line with the redesigned processes. However,
those redesigned processes that only change the old processes without
infrastructure adjustments could be implemented, instead of pointing upon
organization size and infrastructures.‟

Generally, in the organizational factors category, the severities of problems related

to rigid organizational structure, jobs definition and responsibility allocation and
lack of organizational readiness were significant on the implementation phase of
BPR compare to other organizational factors.

d. BPR project management factors

According to Al-Mashari and Zairi (1999), successful BPR implementation is highly
dependent on an effective project management. This is due to the fact that unless
processes effectively redesigned, implementing ineffective processes leads to lose
businesses. Thus, to redesign processes effectively, the project needs establishing
interdisciplinary redesign team members. However, establishing only interdisciplinary
redesign team members could not guarantee this, it needs adequate consultation,
communication with employees and customers, commitment and support by top
management and so on.

Having this, results from the first phase showed that, of the thirty challenging factors of
BPR implementation, all five factors of BPR project management ranked below 14 (see
Table 4.9). In addition, of the five factors of BPR project management category, only the
factor, i.e., „insufficient trainings on BPR implementation and absence of consultants‟
advice to implement BPR‟ rated by over 50 percent of respondents as impediments of
successful BPR implementation and others factors were rated by below 40 percent of
respondents. Hence, all interviewees contend that none of all factors related to BPR
68
project management, including insufficient trainings and absence of advice, were the
problems of universities to implement the redesigned processes. As one interviewee
claimed:

„Most universities redesign team members were interdisciplinary,

experienced and committed for the project. In addition, they had taken
training on BPR and they were enthusiastic about BPR.‟

Since BPR used to improve organization‟s performance dramatically, processes

fundamentally and radically redesigned. Thus, as one interviewee stressed, universities‟
processes neither extremely nor ineffectively redesigned, because BPR by nature is a
fundamental and radical change in processes. In addition, the same interviewee claimed
that employees and customers were adequately involved during processes redesigned,
because BPR principles require that employees and customers inputs to be incorporated
during designing phase. As the interviewee noted:

„If universities believed that their processes redesigned extremely, they

must had to set parameters of effective redesign methodology. However,
this was not the case; redesign team members had listened employees‟ and
customers‟ opinions and redesigned effective processes for their
universities.‟

Generally, in views of interviewees, none of all BPR project management factors were
problems that delayed the implementation of redesigned processes at universities.
Instead, other factors that were not belong to this category contributed to delay the
implementation phase.

e. IT factors
As Corran and Bryan (2010) indicated, the more complex an organisation, the more
apparent is the need for a system to pull together overall operational processes. As a
result, the system helps to integrate and disseminate information for various units of the
organization. To achieve the intended objectives of BPR, the integration of IT needed in

69
the redesigned processes. However, the integration of IT have to be considered as
enabler, rather than automating the processes by using IT.

All interviewees believed that IT considered as enabler when universities‟ processes

redesigned, however, significantly incorporating IT in the redesigned processes created
problems to implement. Because IT needs huge investments starting from software and
hardware acquisitions and installations to IT related trainings and maintenance
provisions. However, one interviewee claimed that since universities have fund-
generating office, these problems could not be attributed to delay the implementation.
Similarly, the finding of Grover et al. (1995) indicated that difficulty in obtaining IT-
related skills and infrastructures to implement the redesigned processes, but the lack of
such problems would by no means guarantee project success.

In addition, one interviewee noted that lack of skills by employees and customers to use
IT in the redesigned processes could obstruct the implementation, because universities
processes redesigned in view of significantly integrating IT in the processes. However,
the interview revealed that employees and customers know-how deficiency about IT use
could not be considered as challenging factors to implement the redesigned processes. As
interviewee commented:

„…because employees and customers (i.e., students) could be familiarized

with IT use if IT skill trainings provided to them.‟

Generally, interviewees stressed that IT related factors could not obstruct universities to
implement the redesigned processes, because IT helps to enable processes and to
integrate various departments or units of universities that in turn reduce processes‟ cost
and cycle time.

f. Country factors
It was indicated that to redesign processes fundamentally and radically, BPR principles
require breakdowns of old processes‟ rules and assumption. In addition, adequate
financial resources are important for successful implementation of BPR, and after

70
implementation, other supporting tools and techniques (e.g., Balanced Scorecard and
TQM) integrated with BPR. However, these were not the cases for Ethiopian public
universities. As indicated in the first phase, of the forty respondents, over 55 percent of
respondent rated four challenging factors related to the country factors category as
impediments of successful BPR implementation in Ethiopian public universities. In line
with this, interviewees also agreed that, except the problem originated from lack of
financial resources and considering BPR as a managerial fancy, the other two factors
caused to delayed the implementation phase of BPR.

One interviewee noted about the existence of contradiction between existing rules and
regulations of the country and the redesigned processes‟ requirements. In other word,
processes of the universities redesigned without considering the existing rule and
regulation of the country. Accordingly, implementing the redesigned processes was a
difficult proposition. As interviewee indicated among the contradictions:

„… almost all universities redesigned their student recruitment process to

recruit students themselves, however in the presence case of Ethiopia, MoE
assigns students to each university.‟

During the interview, one emerging question raised, i.e., „why support processes of
universities considered as the most challenging to implement compared to core
processes?‟As the interviewee commented:

„Most support processes require amendments of various rules and

regulations (e.g., government organization procurement and expenditure
regulations, budget allocation because universities need block budget, and
salary and incentive rules) compared to core processes (e.g., students
recruitment rule).‟

In addition, interviewees claimed that cascading of policies manifested when universities

were ordered to use Balanced Scorecard before they entirely implemented the redesigned
processes. This can create a problem to consider BPR as a managerial fancy. However,

71
one interviewee denied this and acknowledged the fact that BPR in other public
organization of Ethiopia had been implemented and most organization (for instance,
Commercial Bank of Ethiopia) had achieved the intended objectives of BPR. Inductively,
it can be said that BPR can be applied in Ethiopian public universities.

With respect to lack of financial resources, earlier it was discussed in the IT factors. That
is, since universities abled to generate funds themselves, in addition to government
budget allocations, this problem could not be regarded as challenging factor to delay the
implementation, rather lack of commitments to raise funds. In the context of obtaining
resources, all interviewees acclaimed as obstacles due to none standing out universities,
except some universities, attempted to raise funds for their BPR project.

In general, existing rules and regulations of the country and cascading of policies were
the major causes in the country factors category to delay the implementation. However,
lack of financial resource and considering BPR as a managerial fancy were not the factors
that led to delay the implementation phase. Hence, BPR applicability in Ethiopian public
universities claimed to be possible if universities mitigate with the aforementioned
challenging factors.

To sum up the findings, results in the second phase revealed that not all seventeen factors
that were identified in the first phase contributed to delay the redesigned processes from
implementation. Based on the findings of the second phase, the magnitudes of top
management factors (i.e., „lack of leadership, commitment and support by senior
management‟ and „top management fears of new values and beliefs‟), change-
management factors (i.e., „lack of creating organizational culture and values for change‟,
„absence of incentive, training and education‟, and „lack of necessary changes in human
resource policies‟), organizational factors (i.e., „problems related to rigid hierarchical
structures, jobs definition, and responsibility allocation‟ and „lack of organizational
readiness to change‟), and country factors (i.e., „existing proclamations, regulations,
rules and directives of the country‟ and „cascading of policies) were severe to implement
the redesigned processes successfully in Ethiopian public universities.

72
Chapter 5: Conclusions

So far, results and analysis of findings presented for the first phase (i.e., quantitative) and
second phase (qualitative) of this study. The purpose of this last chapter is to present
summaries of major findings, concluding remarks, implications of the study, and to
highlight future research directions on the topic. Thus, the first section presents the
study‟s major findings summaries. The second section presents conclusions. The third
section present discussions about the implications of the thesis. Finally, section four
presents the study‟s significance and delimitation along with its contribution to the
literature and future research directions.

5.1. Summaries
Using a sequential explanatory mixed method design, this study attempted to achieve its
objectives. The objective of the first phase of this study was to identify various
challenging factors of BPR implementation in Ethiopian public universities. To achieve
this objective, survey was conducted in four universities. Forty BPR project redesign and
implementation team members in the universities were subjects of the study. On the
other hand, the objective of the second phase was to better understand the magnitude of
the identified factors in the first phase. To achieve this objective, interviews were held
with three interviewees. Hereunder, both phases‟ summaries of major findings
synchronously presented.

Findings in the first phase of the study showed that most of respondents perceived their
universities implemented the redesigned processes between 11 to 40 percent. This
indicates that about 60 percent of the redesigned processes were not implemented at
universities. Hence, to implement the redesigned processes at universities, most of
respondents (55 percent) believed that the implementation phase to take more than three
years. Although BPR literature not indicated the appropriate period that the
implementation phase should take, it is evident from the finding that implementing the
redesigned processes at universities was time taking endeavor. Thus, universities‟
redesigned processes being lacked implementation. The study also found that support

73
processes (i.e., administrative processes) of universities as the most challenging process
to implement compared to core processes (i.e., academic processes). In this case, result
obtained from the interviews in the second phase of the study showed that most support
processes requires amendments of various rules and regulations of the country compared
to core processes. Thus, implementing support processes could be difficult unless
existing rules and regulations of the country amended in line with the redesigned
processes requirements.

As the first phase findings showed, huge costs incurred on BPR project of universities,
nevertheless, the benefits gained from the project outweigh the costs when universities
implemented their redesigned processes. However, universities were not realized the
benefits of BPR, because the implementation phase of BPR has been confronted with
various challenging factors. To identify the challenging factors of BPR implementation,
thirty factors were incorporated in part 4 of the survey instrument and respondents rated
each item using five-point Likert scale („strongly agree‟ to „strongly disagree‟).

As it was presented in Table 4.9, more than 50 percent of respondents showed a higher
degree of agreement with seventeen challenging factors of BPR implementation. These
seventeen challenging factors in descending order are: (1) lack of creating organizational
culture and values; (2) problems related to rigid hierarchical structures, jobs definition
and responsibility allocation; (3) absence of incentive, training and education; (4) lack of
necessary changes in human resource policies; (5) lack of leadership, commitment and
support by senior management; (6) lack of organizational readiness to change; (7) lack of
financial resources; (8) top management's insufficient understanding about BPR; (9) top
management fears to support new values and beliefs; (10) employees‟ and customers‟ IT
use know-how deficiency; (11) existing proclamations, regulations, rules and directives
of the country; (12) cascading of policies; (13) considering BPR as a passing managerial
fancy; (14) top management not change their value; (15) fears about political, economic,
and organizational risks; (16) insufficient trainings on BPR implementation and absence
of consultants‟ advice; and (17) significant role of IT.

74
Thus, in view of the survey respondents, the aforementioned seventeen factors limited the
percentage of redesigned processes implemented at universities between 11 to 40 percent.
However, findings of the second phase showed that not all of the seventeen factors
challenged universities to implement the redesigned processes.

In the first phase, the study found that most of the challenging factors were common to
elder universities and new universities and sometimes the severities of the challenging
factors varied between the two groups. For instance, elder and new universities‟
respondents similarly rated all factors related to top management support. According to
the mean values of the five top management support factors, most of respondents showed
a higher degree of agreement with all factors as challenging to implement the redesigned
processes. However, results from the second phase of the study emphasized that only the
severities of two factors magnitude to challenge the implementation phase were decisive.
The two factors are „lack of leadership, commitment and support by senior management‟
and „top management fears about new values and beliefs required by the redesigned
processes‟.

For change-management factors, elder and new universities‟ respondents also rated all
factors similarly. Taking the mean values for the five change-management factors, all of
them, except „employees‟ resistance‟, were agreed by the two groups respondents.
Results in the second phase also confirmed that, except „employees‟ resistance‟ and
„fears about political, economic, and organizational risks‟, all factors magnitude to
obstruct the implementation phase were significant. These factors are „lack of creating
organizational culture and values for change‟, „absence of incentive, training and
education‟, and „lack of necessary changes in human resource policies‟.

The severities of organizational factors differ among elder and new universities.
Comparing the mean values and the pattern of responses for the factor of „BPR project
initiatives not caused by the felt needs of change‟, indicates that it was significant to new
universities than elder universities. Although both universities group respondents
considered the factor, i.e., „problems related to rigid hierarchical structures, jobs
75
definition, and responsibility allocation‟ as challenging factor, it was significant to new
universities. This was the fact that new universities adopted their businesses processes
from elder universities when they commenced their businesses. On the other hand, „lack
of organizational readiness‟ was considered as challenging factor to implement the
redesigned processes by two groups, while „larger organizational size‟ had no impact on
BPR implementation for both groups. Taking the mean value for the factor, i.e., „existing
infrastructures‟ had impact for new universities (3.15) than elder universities (2.95).
Generally, four organizational factors were challenging factors to new universities, while
elder universities were challenged by two organizational factors. Even though the second
phase not attempted to understand the magnitudes of challenging factors by universities
type, its results showed that only two organizational factors contributed to delay the
implementation of BPR at universities. Thus, in this category, the magnitudes of two
factors were substantial compared to others. These factors are „problems related to rigid
hierarchical structures, jobs definition, and responsibility allocation‟ and „lack of
organizational readiness to change‟.

The severities of two factors related to BPR project management have considerable
differences between the two groups. In this case, the mean values for the factors of
„employees and customers not openly and actively involved and consulted at all stages of
BPR‟ and „ineffective redesign team members‟ showed that they had impacts on new
universities‟ BPR implementation (3.2 and 3.05, respectively), while they had no impact
on elder universities. On the other hand, two factors had no impact on both groups‟
redesigned processes, i.e., „processes extremely designed‟ and „ineffectively designed‟.
The other project management factor, i.e., „insufficient trainings on BPR implementation
and absence of consultants‟ advice‟ challenged both groups to implement their processes.
However, results obtained from the interviews in the second phase indicated that none of
the factors included in this category contributed to delay the implementation of
redesigned processes at universities.

For IT factors, problems related to „employees and customers know-how deficiency about
IT use‟ had impact for both groups to implement the redesigned processes. As the mean
76
value of 2.1 and 2.2 for the factor, i.e., „IT role not considered as enabler‟ indicates that
both groups considered IT as enabler of BPR, while „IT has significant role‟ for elder
universities compare to new universities. However, compared to elder universities, new
universities have been confronted with problem to „provide training on IT use‟. On the
other hand, problems related to „IT infrastructures investment and sourcing decision‟
were not elder universities‟ concern, while it was difficult to decide about new
universities for this problem. Conversely, results in the second phase showed that none of
all IT factors challenged universities to implement redesigned processes.

For the factors included in the country category, most of survey respondents in the first
phase showed a higher degree of agreement for all factors, except for the item „BPR
cannot be applied in Ethiopian public universities‟. As such, all respondents considered
the four factors as impediments to successful BPR implementation, while the factor, i.e.,
„lack of financial resources‟ severity was decisive for new universities compared to elder
universities. On the other hand, results obtained from the interviews in the second phase
revealed that only two country factors, i.e., „existing proclamations, regulations, rules
and directives of the country‟ and „cascading of policies‟ delayed the implementation
phase, whereas „lack of financial resource‟ were not challenging factors to implement the
redesigned processes at universities.

5.2. Conclusions
In general, Ethiopian public universities used BPR to enhance their performances. Thus,
implementing the redesigned processes at universities indicates that BPR efforts can yield
better performance in terms of reducing processes‟ cycle time, increasing services‟
quality, increasing customers‟ satisfaction, reducing processes‟ cost, and increasing
employees‟ satisfaction. However, universities have been challenged to implement the
redesigned processes by various factors. In relation to research question 1, the research
findings indicate that seventeen challenging factors impeded successful BPR
implementation in Ethiopian public universities. In addition, in relation to research
question 3, results from the interviews revealed that not all seventeen factors impeded the
implementation phase.
77
The study clearly demonstrated that universities‟ BPR project success depends largely on
change-management factors. BPR success can be ensured if change-management factors
appropriately handled, such as creating organizational culture and values for change;
arranging appropriate incentives, trainings and education for new processes; and
necessary changes in human resource policies of the universities. On the other hand, top
management support factors, organizational factors and country factors also influenced
universities‟ BPR project success.

From top management support factors, senior management‟s appropriate leadership style,
commitment and support for the project and accepting and assuring new values and
beliefs required by the redesigned processes manifested as indicators of successful BPR
implementation, even though these were not the case for Ethiopian public universities‟
BPR project. From organizational factors, appropriate organizational structures, jobs
definition, and responsibility allocation to new processes and organizational readiness to
change, are indicators of successful BPR implementation. From country factors,
amending existing rules and regulations of the country in line with the redesigned
processes‟ requirements and avoiding the nature of policies/programs cascading nature
are required to implement the redesigned processes in Ethiopian public universities.

However, BPR project management factors and IT factors were viewed as challenging
factors, but they had the least potential influence on BPR implementation success at
universities compared to the above-mentioned factors. Thus, except project specific
factors, the others factors have been recognized in common by the survey respondents
and interviewees as impediments of successful BPR implementation in Ethiopian public
universities.

5.3. Implications
BPR is not incremental performance improvement, rather it dramatically improve
performance by obliterating business processes radically and fundamentally. However,
there appear to be a number of aspects in Ethiopian public universities‟ BPR project that
needs certain actions. Universities‟ management body and MoE can possibly overcome

78
some aspects of the challenging factors that the project confronted. Thus, to achieve the
intended objectives of BPR, moving universities‟ redesigned processes in to actually
implementing is worthwhile. Based on the analysis of results in the preceding chapter,
this study suggests that several challenging factors of BPR implementation to be settled.
Thus, the following points suggested to ensure successful BPR implementation in
Ethiopian public universities:

 With respect to change-management, several researchers considered as a crucial

component to succeed with BPR efforts. However, results of the analysis in the
previous chapter indicated that change-management factors were the most
challenging factor to implement BPR at universities. To succeed in implementing
BPR at universities, thus, it is critical to handle change-management factors
appropriately. Existing universities‟ culture has beliefs and values that have been
created to fit the old processes. As a result, existing universities culture no longer
appropriate for the redesigned processes. Therefore, universities shall create and
appreciate new values and beliefs for the redesigned processes and this can help to
create a culture of change to implement the redesigned processes at universities.

In addition, in newly redesigned processes, teamwork and empowering employees

to make decision required. These also require providing appropriate incentive and
training, because the redesigned processes brings different job for employees.
Unless employees rewarded and take training about the job, they can consider the
new job as a burden. Thus, universities shall to consider their incentives and
training system because they are important to cultivate teamwork sprits. In this
case, Al-Mashari and Zairi (1999) suggested that reward systems should be
revised as part of the BPR effort and the new reward and incentive system must
be widespread, fair and encourage harmony among employees.

Moreover, since redesigned processes required new job, it is appropriate to

change existing human resource policies in line with their requirements. Thus,
unless universities changed the existing human resource policies, implementing

79
 the redesigned processes could be infeasible. The human resource policies change
shall to consider empowering employees, making employees more responsible
and accountable, and creating a culture of teamwork.

 The results of the analysis in the previous chapter indicated that lack of top
management support to BPR project delayed the implementation phase. Various
researchers also claimed that lack of support by top management to BPR project
cause to failure. Thus, universities‟ top management shall demonstrate active
interest on the project. This encompasses top management appropriate style of
leadership, commitment and support, and accepting and supporting new values
and beliefs that are required by the redesigned processes. As Al-Mashari and Zairi
(1999) indicated, the appropriate leadership style shall be effective, strong and
creative in thinking and understanding to provide a clear vision of the future. The
vision also needs clear communication to employees of the universities;
otherwise, they will lose their motivation. In addition, top management shall
demonstrate commitment and support to implement the redesigned processes. If
not, employees could manifest resistance to change during implementation and
they will be skeptic about the implementation of the redesign processes.

 Organizational factors also contributed to delay the implementation phase,

because the redesigned processes need flattened organizational structure and
readiness to accept new processes. Thus, to implement the redesigned processes,
it is suggested that universities to flattened their organizational structure to tap
new jobs and responsibilities that were created when processes redesigned. Before
this, universities shall be ready to accept new processes for their businesses. Thus,
preparing to accept BPR related changes could ensure implementation successes,
because the change could not be accidental to universities communities. In
addition, appropriate job definition and responsibility allocation for the
redesigned processes is necessary to succeed with BPR, because the new
organizational structure created based on employees‟ jobs and responsibilities.

80
  Results of analysis in the previous chapter showed that country factors also
contributed to delay the implementation of redesigned processes. Since old
processes‟ rules and assumptions breakdowns made during the redesigning phase
of BPR, existing rules and regulations delayed the implementation. Thus, to avoid
such aspects, it is suggested that MoE to make arrangements with government to
amend rules and regulations that conflicted with the redesigned processes
requirements. For instance, Debela and Hagos (2011) findings indicated that
Ethiopian Revenue and Custom Authority, to accommodate BPR project
requirements, abled to change employees‟ salary after studying its own salary
scale and approved by Ethiopian Council of Ministers. Therefore, MoE can able
to study rules and regulations that needs amendments and can approve the
amendments by the appropriate government body in order to ensure successful
BPR implementation in Ethiopian public universities. The other aspect is MoE
shall issue and order various policies/programs on appropriate time to Ethiopian
public universities in order to reduce the nature of cascading effects.

Generally, ensuring the success of BPR implementation by avoiding pitfalls could help
Ethiopian public universities to achieve their BPR project‟s objectives. If universities
abled to implement the redesigned processes, they can improve their performances in
terms of reducing processes cost and cycle time, increasing service quality, and
increasing customers‟ and employees‟ satisfactions.

5.4. Significance of the study and its delimitations

This study could benefits different classes of groups, including Ethiopian public
universities, because it can draw attention where corrective actions are necessary to
implement BPR. It also adds value to those who would like to pursue their research on
BPR, particularly BPR implementation in context of Ethiopia, because the introduction of
BPR in Ethiopia is a recent phenomenon. Thus, this study attempted to contribute to the
body of literature.

81
However, the findings are not without limitations, because the study only taken four
universities out of twenty-two. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to all
Ethiopian public universities. Nevertheless, this study could provide insights to develop
framework for future research to explore the public universities‟ BPR project along with
the documents prepared by the process redesign team members in which this study not
considered. In addition, future researcher advised to make interview with universities‟
management body to have their ideas about BPR implementation progress.

82
References

Addis Ababa University 2009, „Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) of Addis Ababa
University‟, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Available at, <http://www.aau.edu.et/AAUBP
R%20TOBE/AAU_BPR_Summary_Report_Draft.pdf>, Accessed in February
2011

Adenso-Diaz, B. and Canteli, A. 2001, „Business Process Reengineering and University

Organisation: a normative approach from the Spanish case‟, Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, Volume 23, Issue 1, pages 63 – 73, Available
at, <http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/827202788608769713678150.pdf>,
Accessed in June 2010

Ahmad, H., Francis, A. and Zairi, M. 2007, Business process reengineering: critical
success factors in higher education, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13
Iss: 3, pp.451–469, Available at, <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.h
tm?issn=14637154&volume=13&issue=3&articleid=1610786&show=pdf>,
Accessed in June 2010

Allen, D. and Fifield, N. 1999, Re-engineering change in higher education‟, Information

Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, Available at, <http://informationr.net/ir/43/paper5 6.html>,
Accessed in June 2010

Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. 1999, BPR implementation process: an analysis of key

success and failure factors, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 5 Iss: 1,
pp.87 – 112, Available at, <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=
14637154&volume=5&issue=1&articleid=843427&s how=pdf>, Accessed in June
2010

Assefa, B. 2009, Business Process Re-engineering in Ethiopia, Available at,

<http://www.grips.ac.jp/forum/af-growth/support_ethiopia/document/May09_ber
ihu_bpr.pdf> Accessed in March 2011

Attaran, M. 2000, Why does reengineering fail? A practical guide for successful
implementation, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 19 Iss: 9, pp.794–801
Available at, < http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/html/Output/.../02601909
04.pdf>, Accessed in June 2010

Attaran, M. and Wood, G. 1999, How to succeed at reengineering, Journal of

Management Decision, Vol. 37 Iss: 10, pp.752–757, Available at,
<http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=00251747&volume=37&issue
=10&articleid=865108&how=pdf>, Accessed in June 2010

Balaji, M. 2004, Reengineering an Educational Institute: a Case Study in New Zealand,

Working Paper No. 2 Available at, <http://www.crie.org.nz/research_paper/M.B
alaji_WP2.pdf>, Accessed in June 2010

83
Casey, J. 1995, A Strategic Business Improvement Model for Higher Education. Move
Over TQM--Here Comes BPR, Education Resource Information Center, Available
at, <http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED388126.pdf>, Accessed in June 2010

Corran, J. and Bryan, S. 2010, Opportunities for re-engineering business processes in

education, Harnessing Technology research project, Available at, <http://www.bee-
it.co.uk/Guidance%20Docs/Becta%20Files/Current%20research/Research%20to%
20support%20the%20Harnessing%20Technology%20strategy/001%20Opportuniti
es%2002.pdf> Accessed in March 2011

Creswell, J. 2009, Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, third edition,
SAGE Publication Inc., United State of America

Davenport, T. and Short, J. 1990, The New Industrial Engineering: Information

Technology and Business Process Redesign, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Available at, <http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/articles/199 0/summer/31
41/the-new-industrial-engineering-information-technology-and-business-process -
redesign/>, Accessed in June 2010

Debela ,T. 2009, Business process reengineering in Ethiopian public organizations: the
relationship between theory and practice, Journal of Public Management and
Development, Vol.1 No.2, Available at, <http://www.ajol.info/index.php/jbas/arti
cle/viewFile/57348/45731 >, Accessed in March 2011

Getaneh, K. 2009, Business Process Reengineering: Key for Sustainable Development,

Walta Information Center, Available at, <http://www.waltainfo.com/index2
.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=10015>, Accessed in February 2011

Grover, V., Jeong, S., Kettinger, W. and Teng, J. 1995, The Implementation of Business
Process Reengineering, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12, No.
1, pp. 109-144, Available at, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/40398155.pd
f?acceptTC=true>, Accessed in April 2011

Guimaraes, T. 1998, Important factors for BPR success in manufacturing firms, Gestão &
Produção, V.5, n.1, p.1-17, Available at, < http://www.scielo.br/pdf/gp/v5n1/a01v
5n1.pdf>, Accessed in April 2011

Hammer, M. 1990, Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate, Harvard Business

Review, Available at, <http://www3.uma.pt/filipejmsousa/ge/Hammer,%20199
0.pdf>, Accessed in June 2010

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. 1993, Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for

Business Revolution, Nicholas Brealey Publishing: Allen and Urwin, London

84
Information Technology Services (ITS), 2011, SPSS Techniques Series: Statistics on
Likert Scale Surveys, University of Northern Iowa, Available at,
<http://www.uni.edu/its/support/statistical-software/spss>, Accessed in May 2011

Kate, A. 2010, ETHIOPIA: Dilemmas of higher education massification, Available at,

<http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100903174508343>,
Accessed in February 2011

Klein, K. and Knight, A. 2005, Innovation Implementation: Overcoming the Challenge,

Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 14, No. 5 (Oct., 2005), pp. 243-
246, Available at, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20183036>, Accessed in April 2011

Klein, K. and Sorra, J. 1996, The Challenge of Innovation Implementation, The Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 1055-1080, Available at,
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/259164>, Accessed in April 2011 .

Kontio, J. 2007, Business Process Re-Engineering: A Case Study at Turku University of

Applied Sciences, Proceedings of European and Mediterranean Conference on
Information Systems, Available at, <http://www.iseing.org/emcis/EMCIS2007/em
cis07cd/EMCIS07-PDFs/631.pdf>, Accessed in March 2011

Linden, M. 1998, „Workbook for Seamless Government‟, Jossey-Bass Inc., San

Francisco, California

McAdam, R. and Bickerstaff, I. 2001, Reengineering based change in the further

education sector in Northern Ireland: a qualitative study, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, 2001, pp. 50-64, Available at,
<http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=843467&show=pdf>,
Accessed in March 2011

Mekelle University 2008, „Business Process Re-engineering /BPR/, Academic Core

Process Re-engineering (ACPR)‟ Mekelle, Ethiopia

Mengesha, G. and Common, R. 2007, Public sector capacity reform in Ethiopia: A tale of
success in two ministries?, Public Administration and Development, V. 27, 367–
380, Available at, <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pad.456/pdf>,
Accessed in March 2011

Motwani, J., Kumar, A., Jiang, J. and Youssef, M. 1998, Business process reengineering:
a theoretical framework and an integrated model, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 9/10, 1998, pp. 964-977,
Available at, <http://www.plus.ie/bpr/papers/A%20theoretical%20framework%2
0and%20anintegrated%20model.pdf>, Accessed in March 2011

Nagy, S. 2010, Mixed methods research: merging theory with practice, The Guilford
Press., New York
85
National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE), 2009, Annual Report: 2008/09 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
available at <http://www.nbe.gov.et/pdf/annualbulletin/Annual%20Report%20
2008-09/NBE%20Anual%20Report.pdf> accessed February in 2011

Nuffic 2011, Country module – Ethiopia, Evaluation of foreign degrees and

qualifications in the Netherlands, 2nd edition, Available at, <http://www.nuffic
.nl/international-organizations/docs/diplomarecognition/coun try-modules/country-
module-ethiopia.pdf>, Accessed in February 2011

O‟Neill, P. and Sohal, A. 1998, Business process reengineering: application and success-
an Australian study, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 18 No. 9/10, 1998, pp. 832-864, Available at, <http://www.em
eraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=01443577&volume=18&isue=9/10&articleid=
849138&show=pdf>, Accessed in June 2010

O‟Neill P and Sohal A S, 1999, Business Process Reengineering: A review of recent

literature, Technovation 19 (1999) 571–581, Available at, <http://asia.edu.tw
/~psuhjw/paper/bpr-3.pdf, Accessed in May 2011

Porter, J. 1993, Business Reengineering in Higher Education: Promise and Reality,

CAUSE/EFFECT, Volume 16, Number 4, Available at, <http://net.educause.edu /ir
/library/text/cem934a.txt>, Accessed in March 2011

Revenaugh, D. 1994, Business Process Re-engineering: The Unavoidable Challenge,

Management Decision, Vol. 32 Iss: 7, pp.16 – 27, Available at,
<http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=00251747&volume=32&issue
=7&articleid= 864723&show=pdf>, Accessed in June 2010

Reyes, D. 2001, Public Sector Reengineering: Practice, Problems and Prospects, Asian
Review of Public Administration

Sepehri, M., Mashayekhi, A. and Mozaffar, A. 2004, Transformation of Higher

Education System in a Developing Country: Case of Decentralization and
Reengineering of Faculty Hiring Process

Sohail, M., Daud, S. and Rajadurai, J. 2006, Restructuring a higher education institution:
A case study from a developing country, International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 20 Iss: 4, pp.279 – 290, Available at, <http://www.emeraldins
ight.com/journals.htm?issn=0951354X&volume=20&issue=4&articleid=1556824
&show=pdf&PHPSESSID=oo9vdonkkvlb9ltoul4qjbmle0>, Accessed in June 2010

Stahlke, H. and Nyce, J. 1996, Reengineering Higher Education: Reinventing Teaching

and Learning, CAUSE/EFFECT, Winter 1996, Available at, <http://www.ryerson.c
a/ac tivelearning/files/stahlke.pdf>, Accessed in June 2010

86
Swanson, R. and Holton, E. 2005, Research in Organizations, Berrett-Koehler Publishers,
San Francisco

Tanoglu, I. 2004, Business Process Reengineering: A literature survey report, Available

at, <http://www.mis.boun.edu.tr/erdem/mis517/projects03/BPR.doc>, Accessed in
June 2010

Tennant, C. and Yi-Chieh, W. 2005, The application of business process reengineering in

the UK, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17 Iss: 6, pp.537 – 545, Available at,
<http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0954478X&volume=17&issue
=6&articleid=1524121&show=pdf>, Accessed in June 2010

Terziovskia, M., Fitzpatrick, P. and O‟Neill, P. 2002, Successful predictors of business

process reengineering (BPR) in financial services, Int. J. Production Economics 35–
50, Available at, <http://asia.edu.tw/~psuhjw/paper/bpr-7.pdf>, Accessed in June
2010

Teshome, Y. 2005, Policy Development in Higher Education in Ethiopia and the Role of
Donors and Development Partners, Available at, <http://www.nuffic.nl/pdf/os/em/
yizengaw.pdf>, Accessed in March 2011

United States General Accounting Office (GAO) 1997, Business Process Reengineering
Assessment Guide, Accounting and Information Management Division, Available
at, <http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/gao/bprag.pdf>, Accessed in June
2010

Walker, K. and Black, E. 2000, Reengineering the undergraduate business core

curriculum: aligning business schools with business for improved performance,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, 2000, pp. 194-213, Available
at, <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=14637154&volume=6&i
ssue=3&articleid=843449&show=pdf>, Accessed in March 2011

Walonick, S. 2005, Elements of a research proposal and report, Available at,

<http://www.statpac.com/research-papers/research-proposal.htm#chapter-1>,
Accessed in March 2011

Whalen, T. and Wright, D. 1999, Business Process Reengineering for the Use of Distance
Learning at Bell Canada, Idea Group Publishing, Available at, < http://www.irma-
international.org/viewtitle/6286/>, Accessed in April 2011

Wu, Y. and Du, J. 2010, The analysis of Business Process Reengineering applicability
and process of implementation, Available at, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp
/stamp.j sp?tp=&arnumber=5575862s>, Accessed in March 2011

87
 Appendix 1: Summary of key success/failure factors of BPR

A summary of key success/failure factors of BPR (source: Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999)

88
Appendix 2: Potential problems of BPR implementation
1. Management support problems
 Lack of top management support in business reengineering efforts
 Managers' failure to support the new values and beliefs demanded by the
redesigned processes
 Lack of senior management leadership for reengineering efforts
 Lack of business reengineering project champion
 Top management's insufficient understanding about business reengineering
 Insufficient understanding about the goals of top management in relation to
business reengineering
2. Technological competence problems
 Lack of expertise in IT in the organization
 Limited telecommunication infrastructure
 Limited database infrastructure
 Limited IS application infrastructure
 Insufficient understanding about existing data, applications, and IT across the
organization
 Failure to continually assess emerging IT capabilities
 Lack of IS participation and assistance in the reengineering project
 Failure to aggressively use IT enablers
3. Process delineation problems
 Scope of reengineered process was inappropriately
 Failure to identify process owners who are responsible for entire business process
 Difficulty in establishing performance improvements goals for the redesigned
process
 Failure to include process owners throughout the business reengineering effort
 Difficult to forecast human resources, financial and other resource requirements
 Focusing only on evaluation criteria that are easily measured and quantifiable
 Approach to reengineering was too radical
 Proposed changes to the process were too incremental, not radical enough
4. Project planning problems
 Lack of strategic vision
 Lack of appropriate planning
 Lack of alignment between corporate planning and IT planning
 Top management's short-term view and quick fix mentality
 Identification of candidate process for reengineering not based on strategic
planning
89
  Failure to understand the customers' viewpoints in the business reengineering
efforts
 Absence of appropriate training for BPR team members
 Failure to commit the required resources (financial, human resources, etc.) to
business reengineering efforts
 Difficulty in finding business reengineering team members who have required
skills and knowledge
 Lack of authority given to reengineering team
 Lack of experience in business reengineering
 Lack of external consultant support for business reengineering efforts
 Difficulty in financially justifying benefits of business reengineering
5. Change-management problems
 Failure to anticipate and plan for the organizational resistance to change
 Failure to consider politics of the business reengineering efforts
 Senior management's failure to commit to new values
 Absence of management systems (e.g., incentive, training system) to cultivate
required values
 Failure to consider existing organizational culture
 Difficulty in gaining cross functional cooperation
 Need for managing change is not recognized
 Necessary changes in human resource policies for business reengineering
implementation were not made
 Rigid hierarchical structures
 Line managers in the organization unreceptive to innovation
 Unreasonable expectations attributed to business reengineering as a solution for all
organizational problems
 Failure to communicate reasons for change to members of the organization
 Lack of appropriate employee compensation incentives in the new process
 Inadequate training for personnel affected by the redesigned process
 Not enough time to develop new skills the redesigned process
 Failure to build support from line managers
6. Project management problems
 Failure to assess project performance in the early stages of business reengineering
efforts to provide feedback
 Reengineering team member's conflict between team responsibilities and
functional responsibilities
 Too much emphasis on analyzing the existing process

90
  Poor communication among reengineering team members
 Difficulty in measuring reengineering project performance
 Ambiguity in job expectations for reengineering team members
 Lack of appropriate BPR methodology
 Difficulty in gaining control of reengineering efforts
 Failure to effectively monitor progress of project according to the schedule
 The business reengineering effort takes too much time
 Uncertainty about the reengineering project's time-frame
 Poor communication between reengineering team members and other
organizational members
 Difficulty in modeling and simulating the proposed change to the business process

List of potential problems in BPR implementation (Source: Grover et al., 1995)

91
Appendix 3: Survey instrument

The study is entitled “Prospects and Challenges to Implement Business Process

Reengineering (BPR) in Ethiopian Public Universities”. The researcher is Naod
Mekonnen, who is currently postgraduate student of Accounting and Finance at Addis
Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The objective of the study is to identify the factors that lead to face challenges to
implement BPR in public universities and to better understand the magnitude of the
identified factors. To carry out this study, sample of BPR redesign and implementation
team members of public universities selected. Thus, the study needs your participation to
respond for the questionnaire and the results obtain from the questionnaire will be further
studied to better understand the magnitude of challenging factors that public universities
faced to implement BPR.

The questionnaire responses will be analyzed anonymously in order to preserve

confidentiality. Thus, respondents‟ name will not be included in the study report. At the
end of the study, the summery of findings will be forwarded if you deserve it through
your e-mail address.

Thank you in advance

Naod Mekonnen
Mobile: +251911079315
E-mail: [email protected]

92
Part 1: Respondent’s profile (please tick the box that best describes your response)
1. Which of the following best describes your current educational level?
□ Diploma or certificate
□ Undergraduate
□ Postgraduate
□ PhD or above
2. What is your position at your university:
□ Academic staff
□ Administrative staff
□ Academic and administrative staff

3. What was/were your role during your university engaged with BPR project?
□ Redesign team member
□ Implementation team member
□ Redesign and implementation team member
Part 2: BPR implementation at the university (please tick the box that best describes your
response)

4. To what extent the redesigned processes of the university implemented? (Based on your
perception)
□ 0 – 10% □ 51- 60%
□ 11- 20% □ 61- 70%
□ 21- 30% □ 71- 80%
□ 31- 40% □ 81- 90%
□ 41- 50% □ 91-100%

5. Which one best describe the time frame to implement BPR fully at your university?
□ Less than one year
□ Between one year - to - two years
□ Between two years – to – three years
□ Between three years – to – four years
□ More than four years

6. Which process of the university do you suppose as the most challenging to implement?
□ Core processes
□ Support processes

93
7. Who is responsible to implement BPR (you can choose more than one item)?
□ Redesign team members selected as implementation team members
□ Top managements of the university other than redesign team members
□ University‟s employees other than redesign team members
□ External consultants
Part 3: BPR project cost and benefits (please tick the box that best describes your
response)

8. BPR project of the University too costly undertaken.

□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree

9. Cost reduction of the processes expected as a result of implementing the redesigned
processes:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
10. Process cycle time reduction expected as a result of implementing the redesigned processes:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
11. Increased service quality expected as a result of implementing the redesigned processes:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
12. Increased customers‟ satisfaction expected as a result of implementing the redesigned
processes:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
13. Increased employees‟ satisfaction expected as a result of implementing the redesigned
processes:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
Part 4: BPR implementation success/failure factors (please tick the box that best describes
your response)

Section A: Top management support factors

14. Failure to implement BPR caused by lack of leadership, commitment and support
demonstrated by the university‟s highest level management:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree

94
15. Top management's insufficient understanding about BPR:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
16. Top managers' fear to support the new values and beliefs required by the redesigned
processes:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree

17. Lack of total involvements of top management who have real power to change:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
18. The fundamental source of difficulty for the university to implement BPR is the fact that
processes get reengineering and management does not:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
Section B: Change-management factors

19. Fears about political, economic, and organizational risks due to change initiative of BPR:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
20. Lack of creating organizational culture and values for change:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
21. Employees‟ resistance to change due to job displacement:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
22. Lack of necessary changes in human resource policies of the university for BPR
implementation:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
23. Absence of management systems (e.g., incentive, training and education) to cultivate the
required values of redesigned processes:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
Section C: Organizational factors

24. Lack of organizational readiness to change prior to BPR project start:

□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree

95
25. BPR project initiatives of the university not caused by the felt needs of change the university:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
26. Larger organizational size of the university impede BPR implementation:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
27. Existing infrastructures of the university impede BPR implementation:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
28. Problems related to rigid hierarchical structures, jobs definition, and responsibility allocation:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
Section D: BPR project management factors

29. University‟s employees and customers not openly and actively involved and consulted at all
stages of BPR:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
30. Processes of the university extremely redesigned:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
31. Processes of the university ineffectively redesigned:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
32. Ineffective BPR teams members of the university:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
33. Insufficient trainings on BPR implementation and absence of consultants advice to implement
BPR:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
Section E: Information technology (IT) factors

34. IT role not considered as enabler of BPR during redesign phase:

□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
35. IT has significant role for the redesigned processes of the university:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree

96
36. Problems related to IT infrastructures investment and sourcing decision impede BPR
implementation:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
37. Employees‟ and customers‟ know-how deficiency about the use of IT in the redesigned
processes impede BPR implementation:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
38. Problems related to training provision about IT use in the redesigned processes:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
Section F: Country factors

39. Existing proclamations, regulations, rules and directives of the country contribute to delay
BPR implementation at the university:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
40. Lack of financial resources contribute to the failure of BPR:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
41. Cascading of policies impede BPR implementation:
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
42. BPR considered as a passing managerial fancy (e.g., it will go away, ignore it):
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
43. BPR cannot be applied in case of Ethiopian universities:

□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree

Note: If you deserve to have study’s summery report at the completion of the study, please
provide you email address in the space provided (your address will be confidentially
handled): ………………………………………………………………………

Thank You

97