I NEED A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER. I have attached one of the pdf which given information about the implementation of Business Process Redesign at Ethiopian Higher Education Institutions, use if needed a

Some of the author s of this public ation are also w orking on these r elated pr ojects: Open inno vation in SMEs V ie w pr oject Hailekir os Sibhat o Gebremichael Mekelle Univ ersity 7 PUBLICA TIONS    12 CITATIONS     SEE PROFILE Ajit P al Singh 7 PUBLICA TIONS    66 CITATIONS     SEE PROFILE All c ontent f ollowing this p age w as uplo aded by Hailekir os Sibhat o Gebremichael on 03 F ebruary 2016. The user has r equested enhanc ement of the do wnloaded file. © 2012. Hailekir os Sibhato & Ajit Pal Singh . This is a research/review paper, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by -nc/3.0/), permitting all non- commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Global Journ al of Management and Business Research V olu m e 12 Issu e 11 Ve rsion 1.0 July 2012 Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA) Online ISSN: 2249- 4588 & Print ISSN: 0975-5853 Evaluation on BPR Implementation in Ethiopian Higher Education Institutions By Hailekiros S ibhato & Ajit Pal Singh Mekelle Univ ersity, Mekelle Abstract - This paper an alyzes business process re -engineering (BPR) implementation at Ethiopian higher education institutions (EHEI’s) i.e., Mekelle University, Mekelle, and Aksum University, Aksum. It investigates the current status and effectiveness of BPR implementations at the EHEI’s. It reviews the literature relating to the hard and soft factors that cause success and failure for BPR implementations, classifies these factors into subgroups, and identifies critical success and failure factors. Finally, it explains how these factors influence the process of BPR implementation in the higher institutions. Primary data were collected by means of survey questionnaires from academic staff members and interviews with the academics core process owners. One hundred sixty survey questionnaires were distributed to Mekelle (110) and Aksum (50) universities. Keywords : B usiness process reengineering, Ethiopian Ethiopian higher education institutions. GJMBR -A Classif ic ation : FOR Code: 150403 JEL Code: I23, I25 EvaluationonBPRImplementationinEth iopianHigherEducationInstitutions Strictly as pe r th e compliance and regulations of: Evaluation on B PR Implementation in Ethiopian Higher Education Institutions Hailekiros Sibha to α & Ajit Pal Singh σ Abstract - This paper anal y zes business process re - engineering (BPR) implementation at Ethiopian higher education institutions (EHEI’s) i.e., Mekelle University, Mekelle, and Aksum University, Aksum. It investigates the current status and effectiveness of BPR implem entations at the EHEI’s. It reviews the literature relating to the hard and soft factors that cause success and failure for BPR implementations, classifies these factors into subgroups, and identifies critical success and failure factors. Finally, it expla ins how these factors influence the process of BPR implementation in the higher institutions. Primary data were collected by means of survey questionnaires from academic staff members and interviews with the academics core process owners. One hundred sixty survey questionnaires were distributed to Mekelle (110) and Aksum (50) universities. All the questionnaires were filled and properly received from both universities. The respondents for the survey were all academic staff members from all departments and posts (technical assistant, graduate assistant, assistant lecturer, lecturers and professors). The findings of the research show that the institutions’ performance is not effective in terms communicating and accomplishing the goals and objectives of BPR. T he current progress of BPR in the institutions is also at low level. The findings also show that effective utilization of resources, having BPR motivated by customer demands, good information exchange and flow, continuous performance improvement, using technology as enabler not as solution, developing and communicating clear written goals and objectives, proper alignment of BPR strategy with the corporate strategy, using progress evaluation are the most important factors that enable BPR implementation to be successful, whereas lack of employee training, unrealistic report to outsiders that hide actual progress of BPR implementation, management frustration with slow business results, lack of management determination, top management reluctance to fund BPR implantations, lack of senior management enthusiasm, incapability of information technology (IT) to support BPR requirements are negatively associated with successful implementation of BPR in education higher institutions. Keywords : Busi ne ss process r eengineering, Ethiopian Ethiopian higher education institutions. Author α :

Industrial Enginee r ing Department, Ethiopia Institute of Technology, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia, Africa. E- mail : [email protected] Author σ :

Mechanical & Vehic le Engineering Department, School of Engineering & Information Technologies, Adama Science & Technology, Adama, Ethiopia, Africa .

E- mail : [email protected] I.

Introduction usiness process r e engineering is dramatic change that represents the overhaul of organizational structures, management systems, employee responsibilities and empowerment, performance measurements, incentive systems, skills development, and the use of information technology.

Successful BPR model can result in great reductions in cost or cycle time, and improvements in quality and customer services. On the other hand, BPR projects can fail to meet the inherently high expectations of reengineering. Some organi zations even destroy the morale and momentum of employee built up over their lifetime because of poor BPR implementation. According to Ranganathan & Dhaliwal (2001), BPR is a popular management tool for dealing with rapid technological and business changes. As per Al - Mashari & Zairi (2000), BPR creates changes in people, processes and technology. It tries to integrate stakeholders and get a better way of doing things, Siha & Saad (2008) and Cheng et al. (2006). Shin & Jemella (2002) stated that Successful BPR implementation enables organizations to improve their performances. According to Hammer (1990), Davenport & Short (1990), many organizations have reported dramatic benefits gained from the successful implementation of BPR. However, not all organizations implementing BPR projects achieve their desired results.

According to Hammer & Champy (1993) 70% and Hall et al. (1993), 50- 70% of BPR initiatives fail to deliver the expected results. Implementation of BPR requires fundamental organizational transformations. Thus the implementation process is complex, difficult and needs to be checked against several success and failure factors. As per Remenyi & Heafield (1996), the failure of BPR projects is costly, because of the resources invested, the disruption it brings to the organizations and the adverse effect to the morale of the workers. This effect will be more adverse to higher institution like Ethiopia’s whe re the economic and human resources are limited and underdeveloped. Since 2008, many studies have been done focusing on reengineering and implementing BPR in EHEI’s. But little focus was given to the investigation of the progress or effectiveness of BPR implementations at the universities. This study fills B 1 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (U S) July the gap by asse ssing the effectiveness of BPR implementation in the EHEI’s. A ccording to Al -Mas h ari & Zairi (1999) to ensure success, one should adopt certain best practices and watch out for certain pitf alls. As Davenport (1998) stated, all over the world and also in Ethiopia BPR is a big catchphrase in the business environments and so popular that one wonders if it actually delivers value or is just propaganda. According to Mayer & DeWitte (1998), many o rganizations even use improperly or are simply adopting BPR without analyzing their business environments. Many studies have shown that success in BPR is not easy and indeed failure is not an exception, Marchand & Stanford (1998). According to Girmay et al .

(2009), Ethiopian universities are not able to effectively discharge their national responsibilities in producing qualified human power and BPR was started to solve the problem and enhance the universities performance.

The general objective of this stud y is to identify critical success factor’s (CSF’s) and examine the effectiveness of BPR implementations in EHEI’s. The specific objectives of the study are to evaluate and examine the current status of BPR, identify major factors that affect BPR implementa tion at EHEI’s, and evaluate the methodologies followed while implementing BPR at EHEI’s.

The practice and effectiveness of BPR implementation at EHEI’s is assessed with respect to:

• What was planned to be achieved through BPR?

• What is accomplished so fa r? Did BPR implementation bring improved performance?

• What are the key success or failure factors for BPR implementations?

According to Porter (1990), the performance of higher education is very critical for the competitiveness of nations. Therefore, asse ssing BPR implementation and identifying the success factors at universities is highly significant. First, the impact of the different factors on the implementation of BPR was not adequately investigated empirically. Second, the paper investigates the issu e from a public institution of a developing country, which most past literatures did not yet give enough attention. Thus, the paper will contribute to the body of knowledge of the existing literature and provide a decision support system for decision maker s.

Existing literature, like Hall et al. (1993), Ascari et al. (1995), and Altman & Iles (1998), suggest that the assessment of BPR in organizations, also in EHEI’s, would benefit more by investigating in depth the real experience of implemented BPR. In t his study Mekelle and Aksum Universities are selected for detail analysis of the academic core business process.

As per Davenport & Short (1990) BPR is defined as the analysis and design of work flows and processes within and between organizations. Hammer & Champy (1993) have defined as the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance. Talwar (1993) has focused on the rethinking, streamlining of the busi ness structure, processes, methods, management systems and external relationships through which value is created and delivered. Hammer & Champy (1993) stated that BPR is not about fixing anything, it means starting from scratch. Petrozzo & Stepper (1994) s ee BPR as harmonized redesign of processes, organizational structures, and supporting systems to achieve improvements. According to Lowenthal’s (1994), the rethinking and redesign of operating processes and organizational structure is focused on core compe tencies to achieve dramatic progress in organizational performance. BPR can bring critical performance improvements, but its proper implementation is difficult and complex hence the success and failure factors should be critically assessed and evaluated.

a) BPR Implementati o ns As per Furey & Ti m othy (1993), the implementation stage is where reengineering efforts meet the most resistance and by far the most difficult stage. According to Obolensky & Nick (1994), it would indeed be sensible to run a culture chang e program simultaneously while analyzing, redesigning, and planning the migration. Moreover corporate culture, change management and government and organizational policies had significant roles in BPR acceptance in various organizations and countries, Hua ng & Palvia (2001) and Sheu et al. (2003).

b) Success Factors o f BPR Implementations According to Pep pard & Fitzgerald (1997), ambitious objectives, creative teams, process based approach and integration of IT are among the main success factors. Ascari et a l. (1995) had also added culture, processes, structure, and technology as success factors. According to Al -Mashari & Zairi (1999), the dimensions of the CSFs for BPR includes: change management, competency and support in management, information infrastruct ure, and project planning and management system. Since the CSFs may differ based on the type of organization, it is indispensable to understand the nature of organization.

As described by Hutton (1996), many factors including rigid hierarchy and culture, varied stakeholders, changes in policy direction, overlapping of initiatives, broad scope of activities, and above all the staff resistance are crucial parts of public sectors. As higher institutions naturally are gifted with the above factors more emphasis should be given for these factors to achieve the radical changes. Hutton (1996) suggested that human issues should be given more due for BPR to be performed in this sector.

Evaluation on BP R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 2 2012 July © Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Gl ob al Journals Inc. ( US) c)Failure Fact or s of BPR Many authors a l so highlighted some failure factors in implementing BPR. According to Aggarwal cost, vision; Hammer & Champy (1993), failure to have a process perspective, flexible and responsive condit ion; Aggarwal (1998), Ranganathan & Dhaliwal (2001), lack of support from organization members and strategic vision; Aggarwal (1998), Al -Mashari & Zairi (1999), lack of top management support and financial resources; Stoddard et al. (1996), Peppard & Fitz gerald (1997), Mumford (1999) and Ranganathan & Dhaliwal, (2001), people resistance; Al -Mashari & Zairi (1999), Ranganathan & Dhaliwal (2001), Smith (2003), IT related problems; and Al -Mashari & Zairi (1999) and Smith (2003), lack of project management systems are some of the critical failure factors.

II.

Research M ethodology Accord i ng to Hall et al. (1993), Ascari et al.

(1995), Altman & Iles (1998), the assessment of BPR implementation in higher institutions (HIs) and other organizations, would give more benefit by investigating the real experience of implemented BPR. Therefore, in this study two EHEI’s which had embarked on BPR are cons idered for detailed study. These universities are selected based on accessibility for data collection, BPR implementation progress, representativeness of both the new and old universities and international recognitions. Mekelle University, which has abou t one thousand and three hundred academic staff members, is one of the fast growing universities and is among the first universities which had studied and implemented BPR in the academic core process (CC & M, 2009). Aksum University, with about four hundre d and fifty academic staff members, is among the newly established universities and implementing BPR.

a) Ta rg et Po pul a ti o n In this stud y Mekelle Univerity, Mekelle, and Aksum University, Aksum are taken as cases and assessment was done only on the academic c ore process reengineering. As academic staff members are more involved in the academic core process, data are gathered from academic staff members of universities through questionnaire with questions rated from 1 to 5 Likert scale. A total population of on e hundred and sixty, sum of academic staff members from the two universities is taken for the research.

b) Data Type and C ollection This study is d e scriptive study, taking the EHEI’s as a case, it assessed the status of BPR implementation in detail and described various factors that would have significant impact on BPR implementations. In order to achieve the stated objectives, primary data both quantitative and qualitative are used. Quantitative data is collected from academic staff members using self admini stered questionnaires.

And the qualitative data is collected through interviews of officials and reengineering teams from the respective universities. Theoretical reviews, BPR reports, the strategic plan of the Ministry of Education and universities and ot her relevant BPR documents are used to collect further information related to BPR implementations in the higher institutions.

c) Sampling and Sampling Techniques In th i s stu dy , c lu ste r s am pli n g i s a ppl ie d to s e le ct t he u n iv e rs itie s, a cademic core process and the academic staff members as population to be considered. Stratified sampling technique is also used to classify academic staff members in to sub groups based on their exposure, involvement to BPR implementation and related responsibilities. Based on th ese staff members with position of lecturer and above was consider as one group, graduate assistant -II and assistant lecturers as second, and technical assistant and graduate assistant -I as the third group.

The sample size is determined using the standard tables for sampling using the confidence level of 95% and 10% confidence interval. Based on the standard the sample size for a population of one thousand and three hundred for Mekelle University is ninety. And for Aksum University a population of four hund red and fifty the sample size needed is forty. To minimize the error a 25% percentage of the total population is added to each sample. The samples for both universities is summarize in Table1.

Table 1: Sample size fr o m each university.

Name of univers i ty Number of academic staff members (on duty) Sample size from respective university Mekelle Univers ity 1300 110 Aksum Universit y 450 50 To t al 1750 160 d) Data Process ing and Analysis Method In the data process ing phase data editing, coding, entering, and cleaning have been made so as check the consistency and validity of data collected with different tools. In analyzing the data both quantitative and qualitative methods are used. Qualitative analysis is employed for the data collected through interviews.

SPSS is used to make the quantitative analysis of data that has been collected through questionnaires. Simple descriptive statistics relative importance index (RII), are employed to summarize the data or to describe the relationship between the key parameters and implementation progress of BPR in the institutions. RII is Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions 3 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (U S) July (1998), managers’ a rrogant behavior, rigid resistance, given in terms of weight, number of respondents and scale level as follows. NAW RII × ÷= ∑ W here :

W=total weig h t, A=highest value of the scaled used 5 (for 5 -points Likert), N=number of active respondents III.

Result And D iscussion a) Research Strat eg y According to S w anson & Holton (2005) survey studies are relevant when conducting research in organizations where the intent is to study systems, individuals, programs, and events. Yin (2003) stated that surveys are appropriate when an in -depth understanding of a phenomenon or p rocess is required.

The objective of the research is to examine if the BPR implementation in EHEI’s is effective or not. The other objective of the study is to identify, and provide in -depth insights to the key success or failure factors that determine the success or failure of higher institution in their BPR implementation efforts. Both of these objectives require a detailed understanding of the institutions’ processes and systems; hence the survey study is used for this research.

The primary data is collected using a structured questionnaire; the respondents are provided with a 1 to 5 Likert scale statements to select their extent of agreement to close ended questions. The questionnaires are intended to gather the respondents’ opinion in the effectiveness of BPR implementation, and its current status in the higher institutions. Lastly, the respondents are requested to provide their extent of agreement or disagreement to a number of statements framed to identify BPR critical success or failure factors.

Acco rding to Swanson & Holton (2005) the purpose of data analysis is to search for important meanings, patterns, and themes in the researcher’s area of study. The data collected from the questionnaires are coded using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is coded for s trongly disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 for neutral, 4 for agree and 5 for strongly agree. According to Swanson & Holton (2005), coding breaks up and categorizes the data into more simplified categories. Once the data are coded and fed in to the SPSS workshee t it is analyzed and studied for patterns and actual performance of BPR implementation in the higher institutions. Simple descriptive statistics like measures of frequency, weighted mean, standard deviation, percentages and RII are used for analyzing the d ata.

b) Data Analysis, R e sults and Discussions The study present s the findings on the effectiveness, and critical success and failure factors of BPR while implementing in the academic core business process of Mekelle and Aksum Universities. The data are anal yzed in order to understand the key objective of the study, which is to evaluate and examine whether BPR implementation in higher institution is effective or not. In addition, the responses are analyzed for potential reasons for the success or failure of t he BPR initiative against the key success or failure factors for implementing BPR.

c) Extent to Which G oals and Objectives are Communicated in BPR Plans The respondents are asked to state their extent of agreement with different statements relating to the ex tent to which goals and objectives are communicated in BPR project plans before the implementation phase.

Each of the questions is framed in a 5 –point Likert scale ranging from not at all to highest extent. The data are then coded with a weight of 1 for not at all, 2 for smaller extent, 3 for moderate extent, 4 for higher extent and 5 for highest extent. The percentages, means and RII’s of all responses for each question from both universities are shown in the following tables.

Table 2, shows the level of respondents’ agreement in percentages. Accordingly, 34.9% agreed to a moderate, 27.9% to smaller extent. 22.3% the respondents rated the communication as higher level.

While 8.7% of the respondents in Mekelle University believe that no goals and objective are communicated, only 6.5% deemed that it is communicated to the highest level. Generally, 71.55% of the total respondents in Mekelle University rated the communication of goals and objectives in the BPR plan to maximum of moderate extent.

Table 3, shows that 28.2% of the respondents agreed to moderate, 24.4% to smaller extent, 20.4% of the respondents generally seeing no goals and objectives, and 18.6 % to major extent. Only 8.4% of the respondents agreed to highest extent. In Aksum University, 71.2% of the total respondents rate the communication, of goals and objectives in the BPR plan from smaller to higher extent. According to Davenport (1993) & Jackson (1997), effective communication is considered a major key to successful BPR -related change efforts.

It is needed throughout the change process at all levels and for all audiences even with those not involved directly in the re -engineering project. But this is not followed by both universities. Although there is a small variation in the percentages of respondent’s agreement, majority of respondents from the universities, 73% from Aksum University and 71.55% from Mekelle University agreed that the goa ls and objectives are communicated below moderate level.

Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 4 2012 July © Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Gl ob al Journals Inc. ( US) Table 2 : Responses wit h regard to the extent to which goals and objectives of BPR are communicated at Mekelle University. Questions Res p onses Total Not at all Smaller ex t ent Moderate extent Higher extent Highest extent Ensure quali t y of teaching -learning Frequ ency 7 35 34 26 8 110 Percent 6.36 31.82 30.91 23.64 7.27 100 C um . p e rc e nt 6.36 38.18 69.09 92.73 100 Assess education a l needs of society regularly Frequ ency 8 28 48 20 6 110 Percent 7.27 25.45 43.64 18.18 5.45 100 Cum. percent 7.27 32.73 76. 36 94.55 100 Satisfy educ at ional needs of society Frequ ency 9 35 36 25 5 110 Percent 8.18 31.82 32.73 22.73 4.55 100 Cum. percent 8.18 40 72.73 95. 45 100 Ensure internat i onal recognition of academic programs Frequ ency 8 29 49 19 5 110 Percent 7.27 26.36 44.55 17. 27 4.55 100 C u m . p er c e nt 7.27 33.64 78.18 95.45 100 Recruit compe te nt Students Frequ ency 12 34 30 26 8 110 Percent 10.9 30.91 27.27 23.64 7.27 100 Cum. percent 10.9 41.82 69. 09 92.73 100 Provide seaml e ss services to students Frequ ency 12 22 44 26 6 110 Percent 10.9 20 40 23.64 5.45 100 Cum. percent 10.9 30.91 70. 91 94.55 100 Recruit qual i fied academic staff Frequ ency 6 23 42 30 9 110 Percent 5.45 20.91 38.18 27. 27 8.18 100 C u m . p er c e nt 5.45 26.36 64.55 91.82 100 Provide state -of - th e-a rt infrastructure Frequ ency 16 36 32 22 4 110 Percent 14.5 32.73 29.09 20 3.64 100 Cum. percent 14.5 47.27 76. 36 96.36 100 Establish teac h ing learning quality assurance system Frequ ency 11 31 29 30 9 110 Percent 10 28.18 26.36 27.27 8.18 100 Cum. percent 10 38.18 64.55 91. 82 100 Recruit qual i fied support staff Frequ ency 7 34 40 21 8 110 Percent 6.36 30.91 36.36 19. 09 7.27 100 Cum. percent 6.36 37.27 73. 64 92.73 100 Overall perc e nt 8.73 27.91 34.91 22.27 6.18 100 Overall cumula tive (Cum.) percent 8.73 36.64 71.55 93.82 100 Scale: 1=No t at all, 2=Smaller extent, 3=Moderate extent, 4=Higher extent, 5=Highest extent. Source: Own s urvey, 2011. Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions 5 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (U S) July Table 3 : R esponses with r egard to the extent to which goals and objectives of BPR are communicated at Aksum University. Questions Resp o nses Total Not at all Smaller e xtent Moderate extent Higher extent Highest extent Ensure quali t y of teaching -learning Frequ ency 8 8 22 10 2 110 Percent 16 16 44 20 4 100 Cum. percent 16 32 76 96 100 Assess education a l needs of society regularly Frequ ency 11 12 11 11 5 110 Percent 22 24 22 22 10 100 C u m . p er c e nt 22 46 68 90 100 Satisfy educ at ional needs of society Frequ ency 3 22 14 8 3 110 Percent 6 44 28 16 6 100 Cum. percent 6 50 78 94 100 Ensure internat i onal recognition of academic programs Frequ ency 14 18 10 3 5 110 Percent 28 36 20 6 10 100 Cum. percent 28 64 84 90 100 Recruit compe te nt students Frequ ency 18 19 8 5 0 110 Percent 36 38 16 10 0 100 Cum. percent 36 74 90 100 100 Pro vi d e se am le ss s e rv ic es t o s t u d en ts F r e q ue nc y 7 7 20 16 0 110 Percent 14 14 40 32 0 100 Cum. percent 14 28 68 100 100 Recruit qual i fied academic staff Frequ ency 6 4 22 10 8 110 P e rc en t 12 8 44 20 16 100 Cum. percent 12 20 64 84 100 Provide state -of - th e - a rt infrastructure Frequ ency 17 4 21 5 3 110 Percent 34 8 42 10 6 100 Cum. percent 34 42 84 94 100 Establish teac h ing learning quality assurance system Frequ ency 7 14 3 16 10 110 P er c e nt 14 28 6 32 20 100 Cum. percent 14 42 48 80 100 Recruit qual i fied support staff Frequ ency 11 14 10 9 6 110 Percent 22 28 20 18 12 100 C um . p e rc en t 22 50 70 88 100 Overall percent 20. 4 24.4 28.2 18.6 8.4 100 Overall cum u lative (Cum.) percent 20.4 44.8 73 91.6 100 Scale: 1=Not a t all, 2=Smaller extent, 3=Moderate extent, 4=Higher extent, and 5=Highest extent.

Source: Own survey, 2011.

From the respon s es in Table 4, the objectives to recruit qualified academic staff (RII=0.624), establish teaching learning quality assurance system (RII=0.59), ensuring quality of teaching -learning (RII=0.588), provide seamless services to students (RII=0. 586), are communicated to a moderate extent. The plan or objective to provide state -of -the -art infrastructure was communicated smaller extent. A weighted mean of 2.5 and above is accepted level of significance for Likert means. Therefore, using the weighted mean of 2.89 and Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 6 2012 July © Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Gl ob al Journals Inc. ( US) RII values for t he case it can be said that the overall goals and objectives of BPR are communicated only to a moderate extent. Table 4 : Mean, standar d de viation (Std. Dev.), and RII for the response with regard to the extent to which goals and objectives of BPR are communicated at Mekelle University.

Q.No.

Questions Me an S td. Dev.

RII Q1 Ensure quali t y of teaching -learning 2.94 1.05 0.588 Q2 Assess education a l needs of society regularly 2.89 0.97 0.578 Q3 Satisfy educ a tional needs of society 2.84 1.02 0.568 Q4 Ensure intern ation al recognition of academic programs 2.85 0.95 0.57 Q5 Recruit comp e tent students 2.85 1.12 0.57 Q6 Provide seaml e ss services to students 2.93 1.05 0.586 Q7 Recruit qual i fied academic staff 3.12 1.01 0.624 Q8 Provide sta te -of -the -art infrastructure 2.65 1.07 0.53 Q9 Establish t e aching learning quality assurance system 2.95 1.14 0.59 Q10 Recruit qua l ified support staff 2.9 1.02 0.58 Weighted mean 2.89 0.

53 Scale: 1=Not a t a ll, 2=Smaller extent, 3=Moderate extent, 4=Higher extent, and 5=Highest extent.

Source: Own survey, 2011.

As it is shown i n Table 5, the objectives to recruit qualified academic staff (RII=0. 64), establish teaching learning quality assurance system (RII=0.632), provide seamless services to students (0.58), ensure quality of teaching -learning (RII=0.56) are communicated to a moderate extent. The plan or objective to recruit competent students i s communicated to m inor extent. A weighted mean of 2.70 shows that the goals and objectives are communicated to a maximum of moderate extent. Comparatively, the mean and RII values of the goals and objectives are higher at Mekelle University than at Aksum University. This implies that, though the goals and objectives are communicated below moderate extent, Mekelle University communicates better than Aksum University about the goals and objectives.

T able 5 : Mean, standard de viation (Std. Dev.), and RII for the responses to extent to which goals and objectives are communicated at Aksum University.

Q. N o.

Q u es t io ns M e an S t d . D ev .

R II Q1 Ensure quali t y of teaching -learning 2.8 1.07 0.56 Q2 Assess educatio n al needs of society regularly 2.74 1.31 0.548 Q3 S at is fy e d uc at io na l n ee d s o f so ci e t y 2.

72 1.

01 0.

544 Q4 Ensure internat i onal recognition of academic programs 2.34 1.24 0.468 Q5 Recruit comp e tent students 2 0.97 0.4 Q6 Provide seaml e ss services to students 2.9 1.02 0.58 Q7 Recruit qual i fied academic staff 3.2 1.18 0.64 Q8 Provide state -of -th e-a rt infrastructure 2.46 1.23 0.492 Q9 Establish t e aching learning quality assurance system 3.16 1.4 0.632 Q10 Recruit qua l ified support staff 2.7 1.33 0.54 Wei g h te d m ea n 2.

70 0.

54 Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions 7 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) July Scale: 1=Not a t a ll, 2=Smaller extent, 3=Moderate extent, 4=Higher extent, and 5=Highest extent.

Source: Own su rvey, 2011.

d) The Extent to Which BPR Goals and Objectives are Accomplished The same questio n s used for rating the extent to which goals and objectives are communicated as in the project plan of BPR are used for respondents to rate the extent to which these goals and objectives are actually accomplished. The responses are summariz ed in Tables 6 to 9. Analyzing the detailed responses from Table 6, shows t h at 34.36% of the respondents agreed that the goals and objectives are accomplished to a moderate extent, 29.5% to smaller extent 19% to higher extent and 13% of the respondents de emed that the goals and objectives were not accomplished. Only 3.7% are in agreement that the accomplishment was to highest extent. Generally, 83.3% of the respondents believe that the accomplishment is from smaller to higher extent.

Table 6 : R esponses to exten t to which goals and objectives are accomplished at Mekelle University.

Questions Questions Res p onses Total Not at all Smaller e x tent Moderate extent Higher extent Highest extent Quality of t e aching - learning ensured Frequ ency 20 32 30 24 4 110 Percent 18.18 29.09 27.27 21.82 3.

64 100 Cum . p e rc en t 18.

18 47.

27 74.

55 96.

36 100 Assess education a l needs of society regularly Frequ ency 13 37 37 16 7 110 Pe rc en t 11.

82 33.

64 33.

64 14.

55 6.

36 100 Cum. percent 11.82 45.

45 79. 09 93.64 100 Satisfy educ at ional needs of society Frequ ency 18 30 45 14 3 110 Percent 16.36 27.27 40.91 12.73 2.

73 100 Cum. percent 16.36 43.

64 84. 55 97.27 100 Ensure internat i onal recognition of academic programs Frequ ency 15 35 36 24 0 110 Percent 13.64 31.82 32.73 21.82 0 100 Cum. percent 13.64 45.

45 78. 18 100 100 Recruit compe te nt students Frequ ency 14 35 40 18 3 110 Percent 12.73 31.82 36.36 16.36 2.

73 100 Cum. percent 12.73 44.

55 80. 91 97.27 100 Provide seaml e ss services to students Frequ ency 12 25 43 26 4 110 Percent 10.91 22.73 39.09 23.64 3.

64 100 Cum. percent 10.91 33.

64 72. 73 96.36 100 Recruit qual i fied academic staff Frequ ency 11 33 36 23 7 110 Percent 10 30 32.73 20.91 6.36 100 Cum. percent 10 40 72. 73 93.64 100 Provide state -of -the - a rt infrastructure Frequ ency 15 39 33 21 2 110 Percent 13.64 35.45 30 19.09 1.82 100 Cum. percent 13.64 49.

09 79. 09 98.18 100 Est ab l i s h t eac hi n g l e ar n in g q ua lit y a ss u ra n c e s y st e m F r e q ue nc y 12 29 33 26 10 110 Percent 10.91 26.36 30 23.64 9.09 100 Cum. percent 10.91 37.

27 67. 27 90.91 100 Recruit qual i fied support staff Frequ ency 13 30 45 21 1 110 Percent 11.82 27.27 40.91 19.09 0.

91 100 Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 8 2012 July © Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Gl ob al Journals Inc. ( US) Cum. percent 11.82 39. 09 80 99.09 100 Overall perc e nt 13 29.55 34.36 19.36 3.73 100 Overall cumu l ative (Cum.) percent 13 42.55 76.91 96.27 100 Scale: 1=Not at a ll, 2=Smaller extent, 3=Moderate extent, 4=Higher extent, 5=Highest extent. Source: Own survey, 2011. Table 7, indic a tes that 29.2% of the respondents agreed that the goals and objectives are accomplis hed to smaller extent, 25.2% to moderate extent, 14.6% to higher extent and 19.2% of the respondents deemed that the goals and objectives are not accomplished at all. Only 11.8% were in agreement that the accomplishment is to highest extent. Generally, 6 9% of the respondents believe that the accomplishment is from smaller to higher extent.

T able 7 : Responses to exte nt to which goals and objectives are accomplished at Aksum University.

Questions Resp o nses Total Not at all Smaller e xtent Moderate extent Higher extent Highest extent Quality of tea c hing - learning ensured Frequ ency 16 17 9 3 5 50 Percent 32 34 18 6 10 100 Cum. percent 32 66 84 90 100 Assess education a l needs of society regularly Frequ ency 8 20 14 3 5 50 Percent 16 40 28 6 10 100 Cum. percent 16 56 84 90 100 Satisfy educ at ional needs of society Frequ ency 4 19 16 6 5 50 Percent 8 38 32 12 10 100 Cum. percent 8 46 78 90 100 Ens ur e i nt e rna ti o na l r e c og ni t io n o f ac ad em ic p r o g ra m s F re q uenc y 20 14 4 7 5 50 Percent 40 28 8 14 10 100 Cum. percent 40 68 76 90 100 Recruit compe te nt Students Frequ ency 13 19 13 5 0 50 Percent 26 38 26 10 0 100 Cum. percent 26 64 90 100 100 Provide seaml e ss services to students Frequ ency 6 3 29 3 9 50 Percent 12 6 58 6 18 100 Cum. percent 12 18 76 82 100 Recruit qual i fied academic staff Frequ ency 7 6 16 12 9 50 Percent 14 12 32 24 18 100 Cum. percent 14 26 58 82 100 Provide state -of - th e-a rt infrastructure Frequ ency 8 23 2 12 5 50 Percent 16 46 4 24 10 100 Cum . p e rc en t 16 62 66 90 100 Establish teach i ng learning quality assurance system Frequ ency 5 13 8 16 8 50 Percent 10 26 16 32 16 100 Cum. percent 10 36 52 84 100 Recruit qual i fied support staff Frequ ency 9 12 15 6 8 50 Percent 18 24 30 12 16 100 Cum. percent 18 42 72 84 100 Overall perc e nt 19.2 29.2 25.2 14.6 11.8 100 Overall cum u lative (Cum.) percent 19.2 48.4 73.6 88.2 100 Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions 9 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (U S) July Scale: 1=Not a t a ll, 2=Smaller extent, 3=Moderate extent, 4=Higher extent, 5=Highest extent.

Source: Own survey, 2011. As per the data on T able 8, goals and objectives are deemed by the respondents to have accomplished with an overall weighted mean of 2.72.

That is, the goals and objectives are accomplished to a maximum of moderate extent. Establishment of teaching learning quality assurance system (RII=0.588), provisio n of improved services to students (RII=0.572), recruitment of qualified academic and support staff (RII=0.568), and regular assessment of educational needs of society (RII=0.54) are the top ranked responses. The r espondents are in agreement that these goa ls and objectives were accomplished more or less to moderate extent. In addition to the mean value the standard deviations have very small differences and this implies that there is less variation on the understanding or assessment of respondents on the ac complishment status of the goals and objectives.

Table 8 : R e sp o nse s t o e xt e nt to w h ic h B PR g o al s a nd o bj ec ti v es ar e a cc o m pl is h ed a t Mekelle University.

Q.No.

Questions Mean Std. Dev.

RII Q1 Ensure quali t y of teaching -learning 2.64 1.12 0.528 Q2 A sse ss e du cat io na l n e ed s o f so ci e t y re gu la rl y 2.

7 1.06 0.54 Q3 Satisfy educ a tional needs of society 2.

58 1 0.516 Q4 Ensure internat i onal recognition of academic programs 2.63 0.98 0.526 Q5 R e c ru it c o m pe te n t s tu de nts 2.

65 0.99 0.53 Q6 Provide seaml e ss services to students 2.

86 1.02 0.572 Q7 Recruit qua lified academic staff 2.84 1.07 0.568 Q8 Provide state -of -th e-a rt infrastructure 2.6 1.01 0.52 Q9 Establish t e aching learning quality assurance system 2.

94 1.14 0.588 Q10 Recruit qu alified support staff 2.7 0.94 0.54 Weighted mea n 2.72 0.544 Scale: 1=Not a t all, 2=Smaller extent, 3=Moderate extent, 4=Higher extent, and 5=Highest extent. Source: Own sur v ey, 2011. A s per the data on T able 9, goals and objectives were deemed by the respondents to have been accomplished with an overall weighted mean of 2.72. The accomplishment overall rate was to a moderate extent. Recruiting qualified academic staff (RII=0.64), estab lishing teaching learning quality assurance system (RII=0.636), providing seamless Table 9 : Responses to Exte n t to which goals and objectives are accomplished at Aksum University.

Q.No.

Questions Mean Std. Dev.

RII Q1 Ensure quali t y of teach ing -learning 2.28 1.26 0.456 Q2 Assess education a l needs of society regularly 2.54 1.15 0.508 Q3 Satisfy educ a tional needs of society 2.78 1.09 0.556 Q4 Ensure internat i onal recognition of academic programs 2.

26 1.

38 0.

452 Q5 Recruit compete nt students 2.

3 1.

16 0.

46 Q6 Provide seaml e ss services to students 3.

12 1.15 0.624 Q7 Recruit qua lified academic staff 3.

2 1.28 0.64 Q8 Provide state -of -th e-a rt infrastructure 2.66 1.29 0.532 Q9 Establish t e aching learning quality assurance system 3.18 1.27 0.636 Q10 Recruit qua l ified support staff 2.84 1.31 0.568 Weighted mea n 2.72 0.544 Scale: 1=Not a t all, 2=Smaller extent, 3=Moderate extent, 4=Higher extent, and 5=Highest extent. Source: Own s u rvey, 2011.

se rv ice s t o s tu d en ts ( RII = 0 .6 24 ), r e cr u itin g q ua lif ie d s u ppo r t s taf f (RII=0.568) are the top ranked responses.

The respondents were in agreement that these goals and objectives are accomplished more than moderate extent.

Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 10 2012 July © Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Gl ob al Journals Inc. ( US) Figure 1, shows that more or less there is direct relationship between the extent of accomplishment a nd the degree of communication of goals and objectives.

That is the higher the extent of goals and objectives are communicated the higher will be the extent of accomplishment. In all the responses given the extent to which goals and objectives are accompl ished is below the extent to which goals and objectives are included and communicated. Fig.1 : Comparison of pl a n versus accomplishment of goals and objectives at Mekelle University.

From the weighted means, percentages, RII and the graphs, while Aksum University performance and accomplishment rate in eight of the goals and objectives is above the planned rate, Mekelle University accomplishment level is below the plan. In both cases th e accomplishment rates are below moderate level.

According to Talwar (1993) & Hinterhuber (1995), effective communication between stakeholders inside and outside the organization is necessary to make BPR program effective, to ensure patience and understanding of the structural and cultural changes needed, as well as the organization’s competitive situation. Therefore, organizations, implementing BPR should openly communicate about the radical change.

But in these cases, the goals and objectives of BPR were not well communicated at the planning phase and consequently low accomplishment rates.

e) Important Factors for Successful BPR Implementation in Education Higher Institutions The respondents were asked to state their extent of agreement with thirty different statements related to important factors that determine the success of BPR implementations. Each of the questions was rated in a 5 –point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The frequency and mean of all responses for each question is shown in Tables 9 and 10.

Figure 2, shows that the accomplishment is less than the plan in ensuring the quality of teaching -learning and regular assessment of educational needs of society. In all the other goals and objectives, the extent to which goals and objectives are accomplished is greater than the extent to which goals and objectives are communicated. Fig. 2 : Comparison of p lan versus accomplishment of goals and objectives at Aksum University.

As shown in Table 10, the success factors have been classified in to six major success categories viz., external factors, employee empowerment, operational factors, and communication, methods and tools, leadership. Some factors have effects on more than one category, thus they are inclu ded in more than one category. As shown in Table 10, the average weighted value of almost all the factors is above 3. Although the degree of importance is somewhat different, this implies that all respondents deemed that the factors are important for the s uccess of BPR implementation in higher institutions. Looking the factors under external category using industry specialist and having the BPR motivated by customer demand on average are considered to be more important success factor than having BPR motivat ed by competitive pressure. In terms of operational factors, focusing on outcomes than on task, adequate job integration approach, creating supportive teaching learning environment, effectively utilization of resources, implementing continuous performance improvement are five top rated success factors. Similarly active involvement of staff members and empowering workers in decision making deemed to be more important than training and motivational factors. In the communication category use of progress evalua tion to determine what is working and what is not, developing and communicating mission and vision statements, sharing and exchanging information are considered to be relatively important. Continuous 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 13579 Rate Question number Mean - Included Mean - Accomplish ed 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 13579 Rate Question number Mean - Included Mean - Accomplish ed Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions 11 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (U S) July performance im p rovement, targeting critical processes fi rst, adequate job integration approach, progress evaluation to determine what is working and what is not are rated high in th e methods and tools category.

Finally, targeting critical processes first, proper alignment of BPR strategy with the corporate str ategy, regular revision of implementation procedures are consider important in the leadership of BPR implementation p rocess. Generally, all the factors are rated by the respondents above 3. Based on the RII values on Table 10, continuous performance improv ement, active involvement of staff members, progress evaluation, creating supportive teaching learning environment, developing and communicating the mission and vision statements, effective utilization of resources are top rated success factors in the impl ementation of BPR in higher education institutions.

Category wise, operational (RII=0.66), and methods and tools (RII=0.656) related factors have the highest RII values. This is in line with the theoretical frameworks. Continuous improvement, proper use of IT, proper utilization of resources and other factors under these categories are consider to basic requirements for the effective BPR implementations.

Table 11, outlines the success factors classified in to six majored mutually inclusive success categorie s same classification as Table 10. As it can be seen from Table 11, the average weighed value of all the factors is above 2 and below 4. That means all respondents deemed that the factors are important for the success of BPR implementation at Aksum Univer sity. Looking the factors under external category having BPR motivated by customer demands is considered to be most important success factor than having BPR motivated by competitive pressure and using industry specialist. In the operational related facto rs; effective utilization of resources, using technology as enabler, reducing cost by automation, focusing on outcomes than on task, implementing continuous performance improvement are among top rated success factors. Similarly training of employees on what BPR and active involvement of staff members are deemed to be more important than empowering workers and motivational factors in the employee empowerment category. In the communication category sharing and exchanging of information, use of progress ev aluation to determine what is working and what is not, developing and communicating mission and vision statements are considered to be relatively important. Outcome and group technology oriented, proper design and continuous performance improvement methods and tools are considered to be important success factors.

Finally, proper alignment of BPR strategy with the corporate strategy, targeting critical processes first, use of group technology and motivated and accountable top managers are consider to be relatively important in the leadership of BPR implementation process.

As can be seen from Tables 10 and 11, having BPR motivated by customer demands, effective utilization of resources, good information exchange and flow, continuous performance improvement , using technology as enabler not as solution, developing and communicating clear written goals and objectives, proper alignment of BPR strategy with the corporate strategy, using progress evaluation are the most important critical success factors at both universities. In addition to this, the weighted average and RII values show slight differences between the universities.

Therefore, to have effective BPR implementations, the success factors should be analyzed and fitted to the organizations working condition and handled properly.

Evaluation on BP R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 12 2012 July © Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Gl ob al Journals Inc. ( US) Ta ble 10 : Classification o f BPR implementation success factors at Mekelle University. Factors MeanStd. De v.

RII Ex te r n a l f ac to r s :

Using industry specialist 3.27 1.13 0.654 BPR motivated by customer demands 3.26 1.27 0.652 BPR motivated by competitive pressure 3.13 1.1 0.626 Overall 3.22 0.644 E m pl o y e e e m po w e rm en t:

Empower worke rs to be decision makers 3.28 1.28 0.656 Active involv ement of staff members 3.49 1.25 0.698 Staff motivation through a reward program 31.44 0.6 Train and ret a in employees on what BPR actually is 3.1 1.3 0.62 Overall3.22 0.6435 Operational fact ors: Use resourc e s effectively 3.37 1.21 0.674 Implementing BP R as planned and scheduled 3.18 1.28 0.636 Reduce cost by a utomation 3.19 1.18 0.638 Reduce time by a utomation 3.15 1.19 0.63 Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions 13 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (U S) July Technology as e n abler not as solution 3.27 1.12 0.654 Target critical processes first 3.32 1.11 0.664 Accept continu ous performance improvement 3.52 1.12 0.704 Foc us on ou tc om es th an on t as k 3.32 1.

28 0. 664 Adequate job i ntegration approach 3.33 1.17 0.666 Create suppo rtive teaching learning environment 3.42 1.27 0.684 P ro p er u nd e rst an d i ng of BPR projects 3.25 1.26 0.65 Overall 3.3 0.660364 Communicatio n: Share and exch a nge information willingly 3.26 1.23 0.652 Regular and sc heduled meeting of project managers to get feedback on BPR implementation progresses 3.01 1.15 0.602 Develop and com municate clear written mission and vision statements 3.39 1.18 0.678 Use progress evalu ation to determine what is working and what is not 3.47 1.22 0.694 Use of group tech nology to simplify operations 3.16 1.2 0.632 Ove ra ll 3.

26 0.

6516 Methods and t ools: Regular and sc h eduled meeting of project managers to get feedback on BPR implementation progresses 3.01 1.15 0.602 Us e p rogress eva luation to determine what is working and what is not 3.47 1.22 0.694 Adequate job i ntegration approach 3.33 1.17 0.666 Ta rg e t c rit ic al p ro ce sses first 3.32 1.11 0.664 Focus on outcom es than on task 3.32 1.28 0.664 Ac cep t c on ti n u ou s p erformance improvement 3.52 1.12 0.704 Use of group tech nology to simplify operations 3.16 1.2 0.632 Revise implem entation procedures regularly 3.25 1.26 0.65 Use proper desig n to identify major issues 3.16 1.23 0.632 Overall3.28 0.656 Scale: 1=Stron g ly disagree, 2=Disagree. 3 =Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree.

Source: Own survey, 2011. Leadership: BPR motivate d by top manager and should be held accountable 3.18 1.02 0.636 Effective BPR Te ams 3.2 1.17 0.64 Proper alignm ent of BPR strategy with the corporate strategy 3.27 1.19 0.654 Target critical processes first 3.32 1.11 0.664 Revise implem entation procedures regularly 3.25 1.26 0.65 Determine the quality expected before implementation 3.22 1.30.644 Use of group tech nology to simplify operations 3.16 1.20.632 Staff motivation through a reward program 31.44 0.6 BPR initiate d and led using top down system 2.93 1.13 0.586 Overall 3.17 0.634 Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 14 2012 July © Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Gl ob al Journals Inc. ( US) Table 11 : Cla ss ifi ca t io n o f B P R im ple m e n t a t io n s u cce ss f a ct o rs a t A ks u m U n iv e r sity.

Factors Mean Std. Dev. RII External facto r s: Using industry sp e cialist 2.6 1.47 0.52 BPR motivated by c ustomer demands 3.56 1.46 0.712 BPR motivated b y competitive pressure 2.6 1.34 0.52 Overall 2.92 0.584 Employee empowerm ent: Empower workers t o be decision makers 2.6 1.43 0.52 Active involve ment of staff members 2.82 1.44 0.564 Staff motivati on through a reward program 2.22 1.58 0.444 Tr a i n a nd re ta in e mp lo yees on what BPR actually is 2.96 1.26 0.592 Overall 2.65 0.53 Operational fac tors: Use resources eff ec tively 3.24 1.32 0.648 Im pl e m ent ing BP R a s p lanned and schedule d 3.04 1.43 0.608 Reduce cost by au tomation 3.16 1.22 0.632 Reduce time by aut omation 2.3 1.2 0.46 Technology as en abler not as solution 3.18 1.32 0.636 Target critical p rocesses first 2.82 1.48 0.564 Accept continuou s performance improvement 3.021.39 0.604 Focus on outcom e s than on task 3.06 1.35 0.612 Adequate job integr a tion approach 2.76 1.24 0.552 Create supportive teaching learning environment 2.6 1.54 0.52 Proper understa nding of BPR projects 2.86 1.26 0.572 Overall 2.91 0.582 Communication:

Share and exch ange information willingly 3.28 1.29 0.656 Regular and sch eduled meeting of project managers to get feedback on BPR implementation progresses 2.68 1.32 0.536 Develop andcomm unicate clear written mission and vision statements 3.04 1.41 0.608 U se p ro g r es s ev a lu at i on to determine what is working and what is not 2.84 1.46 0.568 Use of group tech nology to simplify operations 2.84 1.42 0.568 Overall 2.936 0.5872 Met h ods an d t ool s:

Regular and sc h eduled meeting of project managers to get feedback on BPR implementation progresses 2.68 1.32 0.536 Use progress eval uation to determine what is working and what is not 2.84 1.46 0.568 Adequate job integr a tion a pproach 2.6 1.54 0.52 Target critical p rocesses first 2.82 1.48 0.564 Focus on outcome s than on task 3.06 1.35 0.612 Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions 15 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (U S) July S ca le: 1= St r o ng ly d i s a gr ee, 2 = D is a g ree, 3=Neutral , 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree.

Source: Own survey, 2011.

f) Current Status of the BPR Implementation Th e r esp on d en ts a r e a s ked twenty five questions related to the expected output of BPR implementation, which can be used to evaluate the current status of BPR implementation at Mekelle University and Aksum University. The questions, weighted mean, RII and s tandard deviation are outlined in Tables 12 and 13. From the responses in Table 12, most respondents rated the implementation status below 3 and the weighted mean is 2.64. Thus, the implementation of BPR at Mekelle University is at lower status. This is further supported by the detailed analysis of Annex -1, where over 75% of the respondents do not know or disagree with questions on the status of BPR implementation.

Table 12 : Responses to curr e nt status of BPR implementation at Mekelle University. Q u es t io ns M ean S td . D e v.

R II Continuous as se ssment being practiced 3.43 1.13 0.686 Su m mative exams g iven based on student convenience 3.29 1.1 0.658 Student cente red teaching learning processes are installed 2.9 1.2 0.58 All academic r ecruitment are made based on open competitions 2.87 1.23 0.574 S tu d e nt s a re as si g ne d t o d ep art m e nt s b a se d on their intere st 2. 86 2.11 0.572 Efforts are mad e to raise staff commitment to implement BPR recommendations 2.85 1.13 0.57 Academic sta ff members devote 75% their time on academics researches and community services 2.83 1.29 0.566 Proper docume ntation of academic related documents 2.83 1.19 0.566 Flatorganizat i onal structure developed 2.82 1.12 0.564 There is conti nuous staff training and upgrading 2.75 1.26 0.55 There is st able course schedule 2.73 1.2 0.546 Demand driven programs are being designed and developed 2.7 1.12 0.54 Accept continuou s performance improvement 3.02 1.39 0.604 Use of group tech nology to simplify operations 2.84 1.42 0.568 Revise implement ation procedures regularly 2.62 1.47 0.524 Use proper desig n to identify major issues 2.9 1.31 0.58 Overall 2.82 0.564 Leadership:

BPR motivated b y top manager and should be held accountable 2.76 1.36 0.552 Effective BPR teams 2.56 1.42 0.512 Proper alignmen t of BPR strategy with the corporate strategy 3.12 1.35 0.624 Target critical p rocesses first 2.86 1.26 0.572 Revise impleme ntation procedures regularly 2.62 1.47 0.524 Determine the qual ity expected before implementation 2.741.45 0.548 Us e of gr ou p te ch nol og y to simplify operations 2.84 1.42 0.568 Staff motivati on through a reward program 2.22 1.58 0.444 BPR initiated a nd led using top down system 2.52 1.46 0.504 Ov e r a ll 2.

69 0.538667 Efforts are made to assess training needs 2.69 1.18 0.538 Remedial prog rams are given regularly 2.63 1.15 0.526 Continuous care er guidance and support provided to students 2.62 1.06 0.524 Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 16 2012 July © Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Gl ob al Journals Inc. ( US) Ac ad em ic s ta ff m em bers devote 25% their time on researches and community services 2.62 1.18 0.524 The leaders ar e role models in implementing BPR 2.56 1.27 0.512 Committed and st rong leadership 2.48 1.13 0.496 Up-to -date learning m at erials are available 2.46 1.15 0.492 There is suffic ient ICT support for teaching learning process 2.42 1.13 0.484 There is on lin e registration to students 2.25 1.21 0.45 There is 24 hours a day and 7 days a week information access to students 2.25 1.02 0.45 Staff members are motivated with BPR progress 2.12 0.95 0.424 Staff complain s are handled properly 2.11 1.07 0.422 There is onlin e grade submission system 1.0 1.07 0.2 Overall impleme ntation status 2.64 0.528 Scale: 1=Stro n gly disagree, 2=Disagree. 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree.

Source: Own survey, 2011. Generally, m o re than 28% of the respondents are neutral to the status of the implementations. 25% disagree that BPR implementation was installed as per the recommendations of BPR. 21% of the respondents strongly disagree that BPR recommendations are being implemented and practiced. About 18% agree with the implementation, but only 6.5% of respondents rated implementation as very high. From the mean and percentage figures it can be concluded that BPR recommendations are not installed and practiced as expecte d at Mekelle University. Only two parameters (the practice of continuous assessment and giving summative examinations based on student convenience) are rated above 3. As it can be seen from Table 12, standard deviation for the assignment of students to departments is high; respondents have great differences on this issue.

From the responses shown in Table 13, most respondents from Aksum University rated the implementation status below 3 with a weighted mean of 2.44. This implies that implementation of BPR at Aksum University is at lower status. This is further supported by the detailed analysis of Annex -2; over 57% of the respondents disagree with questions on the status of BPR implementation. That is 36.96% of the respondents strongly disagree and 20.24% disagree that the implementation is as per the BPR recommendations.

Wh ile 17.12% of the respondents are neutral to the status of the implementations, 14.16% of the respondents agree that BPR recommendations are being implemented and practiced, but only 11.52% of respondents rated implementation status very high.

Both the mean and percentage figures show that BPR recommendations are not installed and practiced as expected. Only five out of twenty five parameters (continuous assessment, remedial programs, student centered teaching learning processes and documentation) are rated above 3 at Aksum University. Table 13 : R esponses to curre nt status of BPR implementation at Aksum University. Questions Mean Std . Dev.

RII Continuous as se ssment being practiced 4.14 1.28 0.828 Remedial prog rams are given regularly 3.88 1.26 0.776 Student cente red (participatory) teaching learning processes are installed 3.34 1.42 0.668 Proper docume ntation of academic related documents 3 1.25 0.6 Continuous ca re er guidance and support provided to students 2.82 1.45 0.564 Su m m at iv e e xa m s g i v e n b a se d o n s tu d e nt c onvenience 2.82 1.3 0.564 There is stab le course schedule 2.74 1.35 0.548 Demand driv en programs are being designed and developed 2.58 1.47 0.516 Th er e i s o n l in e re gi stration to students 2.52 1.36 0.504 Academic sta ff members devote 75% their time on academics researches and community services 2.5 1.31 0.5 Students are a ssigned to departments based on their interest 2.42 1.44 0.484 Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions 17 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) July S ta ff c om pl a i n s a r e handled properly 2.4 1.58 0.48 F la t organization a l structure developed 2.32 1.24 0.464 Al l a ca d e m i c r ec ru itment are made based on open competitions 2.16 1.28 0.432 Th er e is 24 hours a day a n d 7 days a week information access to students 2.08 1.12 0.416 There is suffic ient ICT support for teaching learning process 2.08 1.47 0.416 Efforts are made to assess training needs 2.04 0.76 0.408 There is onlin e grade submission system 2.04 1.43 0.408 Efforts are mad e to raise staff commitment to implement BPR recommendations 2.02 0.94 0.404 Up-to -date learning m at erials are available 2.02 1.36 0.404 Academic sta ff members devote 25% their time on researches and community services 1.98 1.3 0.396 Committed and st rong leadership 1.98 1.2 0.396 Sta f f m em be rs a re m ot iv a t e d w it h BPR progress 1.721. 07 0.344 There is cont i nuous staff training and upgrading 1.71 0.34 Th e l e a d e rs a r e r o le m o d e ls i n i m p lementing B P R 1.66 0.92 0.332 Overall weigh ted average 2.44 0.488 Scale: 1=Stron g ly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3 =Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree.

Source: Own survey, 2011. Comparative l y the implementation status is rated higher at Mekelle University than at Aksum University. But the overall performance of BPR in the institution is rated below 3. As it is discussed, from the communication and accomplishment of BPR section, communication about BPR in planning and implementation phases were poor and the goals and objectives are accomplished to maximum of moderate extent. Tables 11 and 12 are in line with these ideas.

That is goals and objectives are not achieved to the desired level and the overall status of BPR implementation in the higher institutions is at lower status. g) BPR Implement a tion Failure Factors A l ist of thirty que s tions proposed in literature as potential BPR problems are provided to the respondents. They are asked to rate the extent that each problems would have a negative effect on BPR implementation in higher education institutions. The overall responses are summarized in Tables 14 and 15.

From Table 14, it can be seen that all the factors are ranked with mean above 2.5 and the overall. Thus the respondents deemed that all the factors are important problems in BPR implementation processes.

While factors like unrealistic report that hides actual progress of implementation (RII=0.72), lack of management determination (RII=0.72), lack of employee training (RII=0.64) and lack of leadership to confront major business risks (RII=0.68) are among the top rated problems. Lower employee productivity (RII=0.54), high resistance to change (RII=0.54) and unfriendly wor k ing environment (RII=0.53) are at the l owest extreme. This can be further analyzed by classifying in to organizational environment, planning, o perational, results, side effects and implementation cost related factors. Based on the classification shown on Table 13, lack of leadership to confront major business risks, downsizing but keeping old organizational structure and lack of senior management enthusiasm are the most severe problems in organizational environment that facilitates the failure of BPR implementation. Lack of employee training to implement BPR, downsizing but keeping old organizational structure, conflict between traditional performance and BPR goals and top management reluctant to fund for BPR implantations are top rated problems in the BPR implementation planning.

Operationally, on average, the most critical problems are long BPR implementation time, lack of training, incapability of IT to support BPR requirements and unrealistic report that hide actual progress of BPR implementation. Top management reluctant to fund for BPR implantations is the core cost related problem in implementation of BPR. BPR implementation projects seem t o have many problems that could be considered as side effects. The most severe side effects that hinder the implementation of BPR in higher institutions are making business mistakes due to pressure to make quick results, lower employee morale, resignation of productive personnel and trying to change too much too quickly. Lastly, some BPR failure factors are basically lack of results. These include management frustration with slow business results, lower employee morale and lower employee productivity. Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 18 2012 July © Global Jou rnals Inc .

(U S) © 2012 Gl oba l Jou rnal s In c. (US ) As shown in Tabl e 1 5, all the factors are ranked with mean above 2.5 and above 0.5 RII values. Thus the respondents from Aksum University deemed that all the factors are critical problems in BPR implementation processes. Factors like lack of employee trainin g (RII=0.888), unrealistic report to outsiders that hide actual progress (RII=0.812), management frustration with slow business results (RII=0.804), top management reluctant to fund (RII=0.784), disruptive in its nature (RII=0.78) are among the top rated problems. On the other hand employee high resistance to change (RII=0.616), employee working culture (RII=0.604), downsizing but keeping old organizational structure (RII=0.604) and lower employee productivity (RII=0.544) are at the lowest extreme. The critical failure factors can be further analyzed by classifying them in to organizational environment, planning, operational, results, side effects and implementation cost related factors as shown in Table 15. Some factors have effects on more categories and they are included in more than one category.

Unrealistic report to outsiders that hide actual progress, lack of leadership to confront major business risks, lack of management determination, employees’ attitude, inconvenient working management are the most severe problems in organizational environment that facilitates the failure of BPR implementation. Lack of employee training to implement BPR, top management reluctant to fund for BPR implantations, lack best technology, inability of IT to support BPR req uirements and conflict between traditional performance and BPR goals are top rated problems in the BPR implementation planning.

Operationally, on average, the most critical problems are unrealistic reports that hide actual progress of BPR implementation, disruptive out puts of BPR and incapability of IT to support BPR requirements.

Top management reluctant to fund for BPR implantations is the core cost related problem in implementation of BPR. BPR has many side effects. The most severe side effects that hi nder the implementation of BPR in higher institutions are unfriendly working environment, resignation of productive personnel, trying to change too much too quickly. Lastly, some BPR failure factors are basically lack of results. These include management f rustration with slow business results, lower employee morale and lower employee productivity. Considering the mean and RII values of Tables 14 and 15, lack of employee training, unrealistic report to outsiders that hide actual progress of BPR implementati on, management frustration with slow business results, lack of management determination when problem comes, top management reluctance to fund BPR implantations, employees’ negative attitude, lack of top managers enthusiasm, lack of IT to support BPR requir ements are the top ranked obstacles to BPR implementation in the higher institutions. Higher institutions should critically evaluate the failure factors and implement the BPR properly to minimize the failure rate of the BPR projects. As described above th e problems are more of on human related problems like lack of training, hiding actual progress, management frustration and the like.

Therefore, to be effective on BPR implementations organizations should invest on their human and human related capital.

Questions MeanStd. Dev. RII Organization al environment: The company’s w o rking management is not conducive to BPR implementation 2.99 1.15 0.6 BPR created un f riendly working environment 2.64 1.16 0.53 D ow n siz in g b ut k e ep in g old organizational structure 3.29 1.16 0.66 D iff ic u lt t o im ple m e n t B PR due to teams communication barrier 3.02 1.11 0.6 Lack of leader ship to confront major business risks 3.39 1.09 0.68 Lack of senior ma nagement enthusiasm 3.26 1.14 0.65 Lack of employ ee c onsensus to see through it 3.2 1.09 0.64 Unrealistic re port to outsiders that hide actual progress of BPR implementation 3.61 1.05 0.72 Lack of manag em ent determination when problem comes 3.59 1.03 0.72 Lack of employ ee consensus to see through it 3.2 1.09 0.64 Employees’ “ this too shall pass” attitude 3.28 1.11 0.66 Overall 3.22 0.64 Table 14 : R es po nse s t o B PR im p lementation problems at Mekelle University. Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions 19 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (U S) July Planning:

Difficulty t o use best technology 3.11 1.22 0.62 Missing employee w orking habits 3.17 1.02 0.63 Making business mi stakes due to pressure to make quick results 3.23 1.09 0.65 Downsizing but keeping old organizational structure 3.29 1.16 0.66 Lack of understa nding of BPR implementation requirements 3.24 1.23 0.65 BPR project was l arger than anticipated 2.99 0.98 0.6 Conflict betwee n traditional performance and BPR goals 3.28 1.17 0.66 IT u n a b le to s uppo rt B PR r equirements 3.19 1.01 0.64 Long BPR impleme ntation time 3.1 1.01 0.62 Top management r eluctant to fund for BPR implantations 3.27 1.16 0.65 No enough empl oyee training to implement BPR 3.48 1.11 0.7 Overall3.21 0.64 Operational:

BPR project was larger than anticipated 2.99 0.98 0.6 Time consuming le arning curve 3.01 0.980.6 BPR was too disru ptive to the teaching learning process 2.78 1.09 0.56 IT unable to suppo rt BPR requirements 3.19 1.01 0.64 Unrealistic re port to outsiders that hide actual progress of BPR implementation 3.61 1.05 0.72 Long BPR implem e ntation time 3.1 1.01 0.62 No enough empl oyee training to implement BPR 3.48 1.11 0.7 Ov e r a ll 3.17 0.

63 Implementati o n costs: Top managemen t r eluctant to fund for BPR implantations 3.27 1.16 0.65 There is high cost of implementation of BPR in academic process2.89 1.02 0.58 Overall3.08 0.62 Side effects:

Trying to chang e too much too quickly 3.08 1.18 0.62 M ak ing bu si ne ss m ist ak e s due to pressure to make quick results 3.23 1.09 0.65 B PR c r e a te d u n fr ie n dly working environment 2.64 1.16 0.53 Lower employee p roductivity 2.69 1.09 0.54 Lower employee mor al for implementing BPR 3.14 1.21 0.63 Resignation of p roductive personnel 3.08 1.14 0.62 Employee high res istance to change 2.68 1.13 0.54 Overall2.93 0.59 Lack of Results: Lower employee p roductivity 2.69 1.09 0.54 Lower employee mor al for implementing BPR 3.14 1.21 0.63 Management fru stration with slow business results 3.25 1.02 0.65 Overall3.03 0.61 Scale: 1=Stron gly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree.

Source: Own survey, 2011. Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 20 2012 July © Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Gl ob al Journals Inc. ( US) Table 15 : R esp onse s to B P R i m p le m entation problems at Aksum University.

Questions Mean Std. Dev. RII Organizationa l e nvironment: The company’s w o rking management is not conducive to BPR implementatio n 3.64 1.63 0.728 BPR created unf riendly working environment 3.66 1.24 0.732 Downsizing but keeping old organizational structure 3.02 1.45 0.604 Difficult to implem ent BPR due to teams communication barrier 3.38 1.43 0.676 Lack of leader ship to con front major business risks 3.76 1.1 0.752 Lack of senior management enthusiasm 3.44 1.28 0.688 Lack of employee c onsensus to see through it 3.46 1.39 0.692 Unrealistic re port to outsiders that hide actual progress of BPR implementation 4.06 1.190.812 Lack of managem ent determination when problem comes 3.66 1.26 0.732 Lack of employee c onsensus to see through it 3.46 1.39 0.692 Employees’ “th is too shall pass” attitude 3.64 1.35 0.728 Overall3.56 0.712364 Planning:

Difficulty tous e best technology 3.76 1.29 0.752 Missing employee w orking habits 3.16 1.45 0.632 Making business mi stakes due to pressure to make quick results 3.02 1.3 0.604 Downsizing but keeping old organizational structure 3.16 1.45 0.632 Lack of understa nd ing of BPR implementation requirements 3.22 1.25 0.644 BPR pro je ct w as l a r g e r than anticipated 3.24 1.04 0.648 Co nf li ct b e tw ee n t ra ditional performance and BPR goals 3.48 1.13 0.696 IT unable to suppo rt BPR requirements 3.46 0.99 0.692 Long BPR implemen tation time 3.42 1.03 0.684 Top management r eluctant to fund for BPR implantations 3.92 1.08 0.784 No enough empl oyee training to implement BPR 4.44 0.84 0.888 Overall3.48 0.696 Operational:

BPR project was l arger than anticipated 3.24 1.04 0.648 Time consuming le arning curve 3.18 1.55 0.636 BPR was too disru ptive to the teaching learning process 3.9 1.3 0.78 IT u na b l e to su ppo r t B PR r equirements 3.46 0.99 0.692 Unr e a li s ti c r epo rt to o utsiders that hide actual progress of BPR implemen tation 4.06 1.19 0.812 Long BPR impleme ntation time 3.42 1.03 0.684 No enough empl oyee training to implement BPR 4.44 0.84 0.888 Overall3.67 0.734286 Implementatio n costs: Top management re luctant to fund for BPR implantations 3.92 1.08 0.784 There is high co st of implementation of BPR in academic process 3.44 1.31 0.688 Overall3.68 0.736 Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions 21 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (U S) July Scale: 1=Stro n gly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree.

Source: Own survey, 2011. IV. Conclusion Althou g h the desired and stretched goals and objectives of BPR are clearly written and documented at the universities, these goals and objectives were not well communicated and set in to the staff members mind and attention. Consequently, the institutions are unable to manage and accomplish the goals and objectives to Side effects: Trying to cha nge too much too quickly 3.38 1.46 0.676 Making business mi st akes due to pressure to make quick results 3.16 1.45 0.632 BPR created unf riendly working environment 3.66 1.24 0.732 Lower employee p roductivity 2.72 1.47 0.544 Lower employee mor al for implementing BPR 3.1 1.43 0.62 Resignation of p roductive pers onnel 3.22 1.52 0.644 Employee high res istance to change 3.08 1.58 0.616 Ov e r a ll 3.188 0.

637714 Lack of results : Lower employee p roductivity 2.72 1.47 0.544 Lower employee mor al for implementing BPR 3.1 1.43 0.62 Management fru stration with s low business results 4.021 0.804 Overall3.28 0.656 the desired level . This was explained by the fact that all the goals and objectives have lower RII and weighted mean scores both in the plan and accomplishment status. Having poor accomplishment rate of the goals and objectives, the current status of BPR is rated by the respondents to be below the moderate extent (below 3 in the Likert scale) in both the universities. This implies effe ctiveness of BPR implementation is below average and the institutions are not gaining the competitive advantages expected from the radical change.

In this research on average, having BPR motivated by customer demands, effective utilization of resources, good information exchange and flow, continuous performance improvement, using technology as enabler not as solution, developing and communicating clear written goals and objectives, proper alignment of BPR strategy with the corporate strategy, using progress evaluation are rated as the most critical success factors. Lack of employee training, unrealistic report to outsiders that hide actual progress of BPR implementation, management frustration with slow business results, lack of top management determination, top management reluctance to fund BPR implantations, employees’ negative attitude, lack of top managers enthusiasm, lack of IT to support BPR re quirements are the top ranked obstacles to BPR implementation in the EHEI’s. V. Recommendatio ns Higher education institutions and also other organizations undertaking, or planning to undertake BPR efforts should consider critically the success factors, tackle the BPR related problems and evaluate all these factors against their organizational working environments to ensure that their BPR -related changes are comprehensive, well -implemented, and with minimum chance of failures. Based on the findings of th e study, organizations should not rash to implement the radical changes as BPR, if not handled properly, can lead to competitive disadvantages. In order to undertake BPR, the most important factor to ensure success is to analyze the current situation to id entify goals, objectives and possible strategies. These goals, objectives and strategies should be openly and well communicated to the stakeholders. If there is a good case to undertake the changes, the stakeholders (top management and employees) must supp ort the change and drive it through to success. All critical success factors must be taken care of and minimize all factors that lead to failure of the BPR initiatives. As BPR requires continuous improvement, progress measurement and performance evaluation of outputs against the objectives and customer (internal and external) satisfaction, which is lacking point in most of the education institutions now, should be continuously monitored. This study is focused on the assessment of effectiveness of BPR impl ementation in the academic core process and identifies the success and failure factors related to the academic in the EHEI’s. Further study on the assessment of the other core process and Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 22 2012 July © Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Gl ob al Journals Inc. ( US) linking the key s uccess factors and competitive advantage should be done to evaluate the overall success or failure of BPR in EHEI’s. Ref er en c es Réf ér en c es Ref er en c ia s 1. Ab do lv a n d , N ., A l b a d v i, A ., & F e rd ow si, Z. (2008) . Assessing readiness for business process reengineering. Business Proces s M anagement Journal, 14( 4), 497- 511.

2. Adeyemi, S ., & Aremu, M.A. (2008). Impact assessment of business process reengineering on organizational performance. European Journ a l of Social Sciences, 7( 1) , 132 -147.

3. Ah ad i, H.R. ( 20 04 ). An examination of the role of organizational enablers in bu siness process reengineering and the impact of information technology. Information Re so urce Management Journal, 17(4), 65- 72.

4. Ahmad, R., & S p icer, D. (2002). A study of the cognitive processing models used in the appraisal system: The Malaysian public serv ice. AS IAN A ca de m y of Ma n a g e ment Journal, 7( 2) , 1- 16.

5. Al-M as h a ri , M ., & Z ai r i , M . ( 19 99 ). B PR i m p le m e nt ation process:

a n analysis of key success and failure factors. Business Proces s M anagement Journal, 5(1), 87- 112.

6. Altman, Y ., & Iles, P. (1998). Learning , leadership, teams: Corporate learning and organizational change. J o ur n a l o f Ma na g em ent Development, 17(1), 44- 55.

7. Ascari, A ., Ro ck, M., & Dutta, S. (1995).

Reengineering and organizational change: lessons from a comparative analysis of company experience. European Manage m ent Journal, 13( 1), 1- 30.

8. CC & M (2009). Pr o ceeding on BPR training to academic and administrative staff of Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia, February 24 -28, 4- 25.

9. Cheng, M.Y., Tsai, M.H., & Xiao, Z.X. (2006).

Construction management process reengineering:

Organizational human resource planning for multiple projects. Automation in C onstruction, 15( 3), 785–799.

10. Furey, T.R. ( 1993). A six step guide to process reengineering. Planning Revi ew , 21(2), 20- 23.

11. Girmay T . , Ftwi Y., Geberekidan M., Gebremariam M., Haimanot, A., & Weldegebriel, K. (2008).

Business process reengineering: Academic core process reengineering business case. Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia.

12. Hall, G., Rosenthal, J., & Wade, J. (1993). How to make reengineering r eally work. Harvard Busin ess Review, 71(6), 119- 131.

13. Hammer , M. (1990). Reengineering work: Don’t automate obliterate. Harvard Busin ess Review, 4, (2), 104- 112. 14.

Hammer , M., & Champy, J.A. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution.

1st Edition, Harper Business Books, New York.

15. Hinterhuber, H. (1995). Business process management: the European approach. Business Change an d Re -engineering, 2( 4), 63 -73.

16. Huang, Z., & Pa l via, P. (2001). ERP implementation issues in advanced and developing countries. Business Proces s Management Journal, 7( 3), 276- 284.

17. Kinfe, A.G. (20 0 2). Basic statistics a text book for quantitative methods. Mega Printing Press, Mekelle, 38- 39.

18. Love, P.E., & Gunasekaran A. (1997). Process re - engineering: A review of enablers. International J ou rnal of Production Economics, 50( 2/3), 183- 197.

19. Lowentha l , J.N. (1994). Reengineering the organization: A step -by -step approach to corporate revitalization. ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, USA.

20. Martin, J. (1995). The Great Transition: Using the seven disciplines of enterprise engineering to align people, technology, and strategy. American Management Association, New York.

21. Martinsons, M.G., & Hempel, P.S. (1998). Chinese business process re -engineering. International J o urnal of Information Management, 18(6), 393- 407.

22. Martins o ns, M.G. (2004). ERP in China: One package, two profiles. C om m un ic a t ion s of th e ACM, 47(7), 65 -68.

23. McAdam, R. ( 2003). Radical change: A conceptual model for research agendas. Leadership and O rganization De velopment Journal, 24(4), 226-235.

24. Obolensky , N. (1994). Practical business reengineering. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston.

25. Pearce, J.A., & Robinson, R.B. (1997). Strategic planning forecasting tools and techniques. 6th Edition, Irwin, Chicago, IL.

26. Peppar d, J., & Fitzgerald, D. (1997). The transfer of culturally -grounded management techniques: The case of business process reengineering in Germany. European Management Journal, 15(4), 446- 60.

27. Petrozzo, D.P., & Stepper, J.C. (1994). Successful reengineering. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

28. Porter, M.E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Macmillan, New York.

29. Ranganathan, C., & Dhaliwal, J.S. (2001). A survey of business process reengineering practices in Singapore. Information and M anagement, 39( 2), 125- 34.

30. Remenyi, D., & H eafield, A. (1996). Business process re -engineering: Some aspects of how to evaluate and manage the risk exposure. International J ournal of Project Management, 14(6), 349- 357.

31. Sheu, C., Yen, H ., & Krumwiede, D.W. (2003). The Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions 23 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (U S) July effect of national d ifferences on multinational ERP implementation: an exploratory study. TQM and Busines s Excellence, 14(6), 641- 657.

32. Siha, S.M., & S aad, G.H. (2008). Business process improvement: Empirical assessment and extensions. Business Process M a nagement Journal, 14(6), 778- 802.

33. Singh, M .D ., & Kant, R. (2008). Knowledge management barriers: An interpretive structural modeling approach. International J ournal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 3(2), 141- 150.

34. Smith, M . (2003). Business proces s design:

Correlates of success and failure. The Quality Manag e ment Journal, 10( 2), 38- 49.

35. Swanson, R., & Holton, E. (2005). Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry.

Berrett -Koehler Publishers.

36. Talwar, R. (1993). Business re -engineeri ng a strategy -driven approach. L o ng R ang e P la nni ng , 26(6), 22- 40.

37. Yin, R. (2 0 03). Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 3rd Edition, No. 5. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

38. Zinser, S., Baumgartner, A., & Walliser, F. (199 8).

Best practice in reengineering: A successful example of the porsche research and development center. Journal of B usiness Process Management, 4( 2) , 1 - 9.

39. Z ir g e r, B ., & M a i dique, A.M. (1990). A model of new product development: An empirical test. Manageme nt Sci ence, 36( 7), 867 - 883. Anne x-1 : S tatus of BPR at Mek e lle University.

Items Respon s e S tr ongly disagree Di sa gree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Total Efforts are ma d e to raise staff commitment to implement BPR recommendations Frequ ency 14 29 35 24 8 50 P e rc en t 12.73 26.36 31.82 21.82 7.27 100 C u m . p ercent 12.73 39.09 70.91 92.73 100 There is onli n e grade submission system Frequ ency 49 29 21 9 2 50 Percent 44.55 26.36 19.09 8. 182 1.82 100 Cum. percent 44.55 70.91 90 98. 18 100 Efforts are mad e to assess training needs Frequ ency 20 33 23 29 5 50 Percent 18.18 30 20.91 26.36 4. 55 100 C u m . p er c e nt 18.18 48.18 69.09 95.45 100 There is 24hr s a day and 7days a week information access to students Frequ ency 28 42 29 7 4 50 Percent 25.45 38.18 26.36 6. 364 3.64 100 Cum. percent 25.45 63.64 90 96. 36 100 Students are a ssigned to departments based on their interest Frequ ency 22 36 32 14 5 50 Percent 20 32.73 29.09 12.73 4.55 100 Cum. percent 20 52.73 81.82 94. 55 99.1 Remedial pro g rams are given regularly Frequ ency 19 36 29 19 7 50 P e rc en t 17.27 32.73 26.36 17.27 6.36 100 Cum. percent 17.27 50 76.36 93. 64 100 There is onlin e registration to students Frequ ency 40 26 26 12 6 50 Percent 36.36 23.64 23.64 10.91 5.45 100 Cum. percent 36.36 60 83.64 94. 55 100 Th er e is s t a b le c ou rs e s ch ed ul e Fr e q ue nc y 21 28 27 28 6 50 P e rc ent 19.09 25.45 24.55 25.45 5.45 100 Cum. percent 19.09 44.55 69. 09 94.55 100 Continuous car e er guidance and support provided to students Frequ ency 17 35 35 19 4 50 Percent 15.45 31.82 31.82 17.27 3.64 100 Cum. percent 15.45 47.27 79. 09 96.36 100 Up-to -date learning materials are available Frequ ency 25 37 26 16 6 50 Percent 22.73 33.64 23.64 14.55 5.45 100 Cum. percent 22.73 56.36 80 94. 55 100 De ma nd d riven program s are being designed and developed Frequ ency 20 25 38 22 5 50 Percent 18.18 22.73 34.55 20 4.55 100 Cum. percent 18. 18 40.91 75.45 95.45 100 Stu de nt c en te r e d (p ar ti c ip ato ry ) t e a ch in g l e a rn i n g p ro ce sse s a re i nstalled Frequ ency 17 23 35 24 11 50 Percent 15.45 20.91 31.82 21.82 10 100 Cum. percent 15.45 36.36 68. 18 90 100 Continuous ass e ssment being practiced Frequ ency 9 12 29 43 17 50 Percent 8.182 10.91 26.36 39.09 15.5 100 C um . p e rc en t 8.182 19.09 45.45 84.55 100 Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 24 2012 July © Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Gl ob al Journals Inc. ( US) Anne x-1 : C ontinued. Items Respo n se S tr o ng ly d i sa g re e D isa gre e Ne u tr al Ag re e St r o ng l y ag r e e T o tal Summative exam i nations are based on student convenience Frequ ency 10 11 40 35 14 50 Percent 9.091 10 36.36 31.82 12.7 100 Cu m . p er c e nt 9.

091 19.09 55.

45 87.27 100 Academic st a ffs devote 25% their time on researches and community Frequ ency 23 30 29 22 6 50 Percent 20.91 27.27 26.36 20 5.45 100 Cum. percent 20.91 48.18 74. 55 94.55 100 Academic st a ffs devote 75% their time on academics researches and community services Frequ ency 20 29 24 24 13 50 Percent 18.18 26.36 21.82 21.82 11. 8 100 Cum. percent 18.18 44.55 66. 36 88.18 100 Flat organiza t ional structure developed Frequ ency 18 17 51 15 9 50 Percent 16.36 15.45 46.36 13.64 8.18 100 Cum. percent 16. 36 31.82 78.18 91.82 100 All academic re c ruitment are made based on open competitions Frequ ency 18 23 37 19 13 50 Percent 16.36 20.91 33.64 17.27 11. 8 100 Cu m . p erc e nt 16.

36 37.27 70.

91 88.18 100 There is suffi c ient ICT support for teaching learning process Frequ ency 28 31 33 13 5 50 Percent 25.45 28.18 30 11.82 4.55 100 Cum. percent 25.45 53.64 83. 64 95.45 100 There is cont i nuous staff training and upgrading Frequ ency 20 32 26 20 12 50 Percent 18.18 29.09 23.64 18.18 10. 9 100 Cum. percent 18. 18 47.27 70.91 89.09 100 The leaders are role models in implementing BPR Frequ ency 27 32 23 18 10 50 P er c e nt 24.

55 29.09 20.

91 16.

36 9.09 100 Cum. percent 24.55 53.64 74. 55 90.91 100 Committed and s t rong leadership Frequ ency 27 28 34 17 4 50 Percent 24.55 25.45 30.91 15.45 3.64 100 Cum. percent 24.55 50 80.91 96. 36 100 Staffs are mot i vated with BPR progress Frequ ency 33 40 29 7 1 50 Percent 30 36.36 26.36 6.364 100 100 Cum. percent 30 66.36 92.73 99. 09 100 Staff complai n s are handled properly Frequ ency 42 27 30 9 2 50 P er c ent 38.

18 24.

55 27.27 8.

182 1.82 100 Cum. percent 38.18 62.73 90 98. 18 100 Proper docum entation of academic related documents Frequ ency 22 17 34 32 5 50 Percent 20 15.45 30.91 29.09 4.55 100 Cum. percent 20 35.45 66.36 95. 45 100 Overall perc e nt 21.42 25.75 28.18 18.07 6.55 100 Overall cumula t ive 21.42 47.16 75.35 93.42 100 Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions 25 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (U S) July Anne x- 2 : S tatus of BPR at Aks u m University.

I te m s R e sp o ns e Strongly disag re e Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Total Efforts are m ade to raise staff commitment to implement BPR recommendations Frequ ency 19 13 16 2 0 50 Percent 38 26 32 4 0 100 C u m . p er c e nt 38 64 96 100 100 Efforts are mad e to assess training needs Frequ ency 13 22 15 0 0 50 Percent 26 44 30 0 0 100 Cu m.

p ercent 26 70 100 100 100 There is 24 ho u rs a day and 7 days a week information access to students Frequ ency 20 13 12 3 2 50 Percent 40 26 24 6 4 100 Cum. percent 40 66 90 96 100 Students are a ssigned to departments based on their interest Frequ ency 20 9 6 10 5 50 Percent 40 18 12 20 10 100 Cum. percent 40 58 70 90 100 Remedial pro g rams are given regularly Frequ ency 3 7 3 17 20 50 P e rc en t 6 14 6 34 40 100 Cum. percent 6 20 26 60 100 There is on li n e registration to students Frequ ency 15 13 8 9 5 50 Percent 30 26 16 18 10 100 Cum. percent T h e re is stable c ourse schedule Frequ ency 12 9 17 4 8 50 Percent 24 18 34 8 16 100 C u m . p er c e nt Continuous ca reer guidance and support provided to students Frequ ency 12 10 14 3 11 50 Percent 24 20 28 6 22 100 Cum. percent Up-to -date learning m at erials are available Frequ ency 27 9 4 6 4 50 Percent 54 18 8 12 8 100 Cum. percent Demand driven pr o grams are being designed and developed Frequ ency 17 9 10 6 8 50 Percent 34 18 20 12 16 100 Cum. percent Student centere d (participatory) teaching learning processes are installed Frequ ency 8 7 8 14 13 50 Percent 16 14 16 28 26 100 C um . p e rc en t Continuous ass e ssment being practiced Frequ ency 4 3 4 10 29 50 Percent 8 6 8 20 58 100 C um . p e rc en t Summative e xams given based on student convenience Frequ ency 10 12 10 13 5 50 P e rc ent 20 24 20 26 10 100 Cum. percent Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 26 2012 July © Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Gl ob al Journals Inc. ( US) Anne x-2 : C ontinued. I te m s R e sp ons e S tr ong ly disagree Disa g ree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Total Academic s taffs devote 25% their time on researches and community services Frequ ency 26 12 2 7 3 50 Percent 52 24 4 14 6 100 Cum. percent 52 76 80 94 100 Ac ad em ic s ta ffs d e vo te 7 5 % t h e ir t i m e o n a c ad em ic s r e se a rches and community services Frequ ency 17 6 16 7 4 50 P er c ent 34 12 32 14 8 100 Cum. percent 34 46 78 92 100 Flat organizat i onal structure developed Frequ ency 17 10 18 5 0 50 Percent 34 20 36 10 0 100 C u m . p er c e nt 34 54 90 100 100 All academic re c ruitment are made based on open competitions Frequ ency 24 7 6 13 0 50 Percent 48 14 12 26 0 100 Cum. percent 48 62 74 100 100 There is suffi c ient ICT support for teaching learning process Frequ ency 25 14 1 2 8 50 Percent 50 28 2 4 16 100 Cum. percent 50 78 80 84 100 There is cont i nuous staff training and upgrading Frequ ency 29 12 4 5 0 50 P er c ent 58 24 8 10 0 100 Cum. percent 58 82 90 100 100 The leaders a r e role models in implementing BPR Frequ ency 27 18 5 0 0 50 Percent 54 36 10 0 0 100 Cum. percent 54 90 100 100 100 Co m m itted and strong l eadership Frequ ency 27 6 8 9 0 50 Percent 54 12 16 18 0 100 Cum. percent 54 66 82 100 100 There is onli n e grade submission system Frequ ency 29 6 3 8 4 50 P e rc en t 58 12 6 16 8 100 C um . p ercent 58 70 76 92 100 Staffs are mot i vated with BPR progress Frequ ency 31 8 5 6 0 50 Percent 62 16 10 12 0 100 Cum. percent 62 78 88 100 100 S ta ff c om pl a i n s a re h a nd le d p ro pe rl y F r e q ue nc y 24 6 3 10 7 50 Percent 48 12 6 20 14 100 Cum. percent 48 60 66 86 100 Proper docume n tation of academic related documents Frequ ency 6 12 16 8 8 50 P er c e nt 12 24 32 16 16 100 Cum. percent 12 36 68 84 100 Overall perc e nt 36.96 20.24 17.12 14.16 11.52 100 Overall cumula t ive 36.96 57.2 74.32 88.48 100 Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions 27 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue X\ I Version I 2 0 12 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (U S) July This page is intentionally left blank Evaluation on B P R Impl ementatio n in Ethiopia n Higher Education Institutions Global Journal of Managementand Business Research Volume XII Issue XI Version I 28 2012 July © Global Journals Inc. (US) © 2012 Gl ob al Journals Inc. ( US) View publication statsView publication stats