Today, more than ever before, the business environment is characterized by intense competition, shifts in customer demands and expectations, rapid globalization trends, and the ever domineering convergence of technology. To maintain a competitive lead under these conditions, many organizations have turned to business process reengineering to fundamentally revamp critical business processes that have become outdated and are no longer efficient or economical to maintain (Angus & Goodman 2). Too wade through the harsh economic waters presented by the complex interplay of the stated micro and macro factors, many enterprises globally have adopted process-based thinking and transformation as a business strategy aimed at bringing about change (Tarantino 76), and trigger revenue growth and competitiveness (Jeston & Nelis 23). However, it intrigues many scholars and practitioners why many organizations, in spite of developing exceptional process redesign plans, fail in producing the kind of fundamental change required to drive revenues and maintain competitive advantage (Tarantino 76; Grover & Kettinger 34). This paper therefore purposes to bring into the limelight factors that make many business reengineering initiatives to be unsuccessful. It is believed that the knowledge of the factors that contribute to the failure of most business redesigns will go a long way in assisting practitioners to effectively implement process redesigns aimed at assisting enterprises to adapt to changes presenting in the internal as well as the external environment. The most prevalent definition of the term ‘reengineering’ comes from Michael Hammer and James Champy, the chief architects of the concept (Morgan & Smit 187), who describes it as “…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” (Angus & Goodman 2). This definition illuminates the fact that business process reengineering (BPR), if implemented effectively, can serve as a business strategy intended to maximize performance while maintaining competitive advantage. A multiplicity of factors, however, continue to work against the spirit of BPR, ensuring that organizations do not achieve the gains or benefits promised by this strategic initiative, with statistics demonstrating that three out of four reengineering initiatives fail (Manganelli & Klein 10). Why, then, do these projects fail? These authors posit that for successful reengineering to be realized, an organization first must be completely clear about what it is attempting to realize and how it will go about realizing the objectives. As it turns out, many organizations develop ambiguous objectives and immeasurable goals, precipitating failure (Jarrar & Aspinwall 175). Weak process enablers and immature enterprise capabilities have also been blamed for excessive failures of reengineering projects. Hammer proposed five process enablers (design, performers, owners, infrastructure, and metrics) and four enterprise capabilities (culture, leadership, expertise, and governance) as critical to the success of business reengineerin