Talk:Business process re-engineering

message: This might happen as part of re-engineering (above) but this page is also in desperate need of wikification (particularl adding internal wiki links) so I've added the tag Madmedea 12:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikification

message: The diagram shows steps labeled "non-value added tasks" being removed from a process. Without knowing what those steps are, it's hard to say if those tasks do or don't add value to that process. To a BPR skeptic, it looks like carelessness rather than efficiency. Maybe more needs to be said about the steps that have been removed from the process in the caption of the diagram. Oicumayberight 17:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I created the diagram, I might also be the one replying to your comment: This high-level picture is meant to explain the basic concept. If you look at the methodology steps to its left, you will see a step 3.2 Uncover pathologies in existing processes. This is where you identify improvement potentials, such as removing tasks from a process that are no longer required. Let me use the clinical development process as an example. If you collect the clinical data from study centers by means of EDC (Electronic Data Capture), i.e. the data is entered directly into a web-based system instead of being written down on paper and then transcribed into a clinical database, you can remove the work step data transcription, since it no longer adds value to the process. Of course, you cannot always know if there any activities that can be obliterated, but this is, as mentioned above, part of the process analysis. Kai A. Simon 19:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was speaking for speculators who may read too much into just the diagram or glance at it. Maybe it's a case of too much information for the example instead of a case of missing information that I mentioned above. Maybe the diagram should have more generic examples like "step 1, 2, 3" or "Department A, B, C" instead of "Discover, Pre-Clinical Research, ect". Then there would be no reason for people like myself to speculate on how important the tasks are or if they can afford to be removed. Oicumayberight 20:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see, you may be right. :-) This diagram was a standard slide from one of my presentations. When I find the time, I will change it into a more generic diagram and replace it, even though I don't think it is a major problem, because the tasks as such are not labeled. And, let me assure that you will always find a task to obliterate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kai a simon (talk • contribs) 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram missing information

message: it's REBUS APPROACH the same thing? http://www.citeulike.org/user/wigelius/article/1526778
--151.53.234.136 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The WP article describes the phenomenon BPR as such, whereas as the article behind the above link describes a research approach used to analyze BPR projects. Kai A. Simon 20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: REBUS

message: A year ago, I wrote an article titled "Hammering Hammer: A Critical Analysis of Process Enterprise," which was publised at RogueProjectLeader.com, a program management webzine. The webzine has since closed shop, but the article is still available at http://danwardonline.googlepages.com/rpl1hammeringhammer. However, since that is a googlepages site, Wikipedia will not allow anyone to link to it in the body of an article. 
The article was very well recevied, and I wonder if there is any way to include a reference to it from this page?129.92.250.39 (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume from the fact that the author of the cited article appears to be Dan Ward, that the above entry was written by the same Dan Ward.  Dan: if the article was published in a webzine that has since closed, why not revise the article and submit it to a wider publication or even a conference?  Larger magazines will perform editorial review, and conferences will perform peer review, both of which increase the credibility (and editorial content) of your article.  If you succeed in getting the article published through a citable source, there is no reason that we couldn't cite the article at that time.  With respect. Nickmalik (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hammering Hammer 

message: This article is truly amazing.  While there are plenty of notes about "who said what," there are nearly no actual citations to where that person actually said the thing that they are attributed to say.  There are also plenty of claims about the history, adoption, and use of business process engineering that are not substantiated.  Cite Sources, people!  In my edit, I added tags for required citations for the variety of claims.  
I am also concerned about the reference to a set of white papers written by Kai Simon, Ph.D. and linked from the article.  Those white papers, while likely authentic and earnest, are not published.  They appear as pages on a blog.  This violates the guideline on reliable sources.  I didn't remove them (yet) but plan to when I return unless someone can show that this material was used by a notable or reliable source.  No offense against Dr. Simon.  Wikipedia is not a place to cite original research.
Nickmalik (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rife with uncited statements and claims 

message: This entire article is a total mess -- it looks like more than one person just pasted in essays from other places. The entire overview was plagiarized from a GAO report. There's a lot of work left to do but I started by cleaning up what I could, adding in a bunch of citations, and removing a few very long-standing uncited claims:
*The cross-functional team, for example, has become popular because of the desire to re-engineer separate functional tasks into complete cross-functional processes. Also, many recent management information systems developments aim to integrate a wide number of business functions. Enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, knowledge management systems, groupware and collaborative systems, Human Resource Management Systems and customer relationship management.
*There was considerable hype surrounding the introduction of Reengineering the Corporation (partially due to the  fact  that the authors of the book reportedly  bought numbers of copies to promote it to the top of bestseller lists).
66.65.171.9 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I restored the overview section, you removed here. Just as Wikipedia can use images from US-Gov sources, NASA, NIST etc. it can incorporate text from these sources as well. -- Mdd (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: On October 14, 2013, three edits were placed by the same unsigned user.  The first of the edits was a reasonable re-editing for improving the content.  The result of the remaining two edits was the deletion of substantial portions of the article.  
As no attempt was made to discuss why these changes were necessary or to respond to criticism of the article, and as these changes were made by an individual that was not logged in, I will restore the sections deleted by the last two edits.  
If the individual who made these changes decides that he or she wants to discuss why these changes were necessary, or how they improve the article, I would ask that individual to share their thoughts here.  Nickmalik (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Nick, I was wondering the same thing, and agree with your course of action. -- Mdd (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section deletes restored 

message: A simple "Covert, 1997" or "Motwani 1998" is not useful. Please provide complete citations - title of paper, journal, URL etc., so that the reader can go to the original source for more information. Merely including an author's last name and year is worse than no citation at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakash Nadkarni (talk • contribs) 23:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix the references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Business process reengineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928025037/http://www.instant-science.net/pub/intro.pdf to http://www.instant-science.net/pub/intro.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928024955/http://www.instant-science.net/pub/ac.pdf to http://www.instant-science.net/pub/ac.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928025030/http://www.instant-science.net/pub/bain.pdf to http://www.instant-science.net/pub/bain.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928025052/http://www.instant-science.net/pub/bcg.pdf to http://www.instant-science.net/pub/bcg.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928025023/http://www.instant-science.net/pub/mck.pdf to http://www.instant-science.net/pub/mck.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070110211423/http://www.instant-science.net:80/pub/comparison.pdf to http://www.instant-science.net/pub/comparison.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928024948/http://www.instant-science.net/pub/guidelines.pdf to http://www.instant-science.net/pub/guidelines.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://www.xoriant.com/sites/default/files/Xoriant-Product-Eng-Services.PDF to https://www.xoriant.com/digital-product-engineering/overview
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Business process reengineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140311194739/http://aaaipress.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/download/1113/1031 to http://aaaipress.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/download/1113/1031
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified