Literature Review
Armstrong (2003) and Price (2007) argue that human resource management coordinates the core functions of business process re-engineering towards the goals and objectives of a business organization. MelĂŁo and Pidd (2000) established that Hallmark considers human resource management as an important best business practice for managing the implementation of BPR elements in the delivery of services and products (Wright & Boswell 2002). According to Reijers (2003), organizations including Hallmark have woken up to the reality that businesses have become globalized and argue that the competition has made organizations conduct BPR of services and products, which is an important component to achieve strategic advantages (Nah, Lau & Kuang 2001).
Training and development
A study by Siriginidi (2000) established that managers are characterized by the essential characteristics of distributing knowledge, education, and assigning clear roles for the strategic management of resources. According to Nah, Lau, and Kuang (2001) and Siriginidi (2000), the strategic purpose of the HRM component is to strategically position the company’s business in the competitive market, which has different types of rivals (Boxall & Purcell 2003). Wall and Wood (2005) studied the responsibilities of the managers of Hallmark, Taco Bell, and U.S. Sprint and established that the management uses BPR activities to improve the services and products without changing the organizational business practices and functions to meet the needs and expectations of customers. A study by Marchington and Grugulis (2000) established that configuring human resource management practices with the BPR elements provides businesses with the core strategic competencies for positioning the businesses in the market. Schniederjans and Kim (2003) argue that improved service delivery, value addition to customer needs and expectations, cost reduction on the key processes, products, and services being offered and the reduction of time spent on key business processes and services were critical components of the HRM and BPR functions.
Communication
Schniederjans and Kim (2003) examined how Hallmark, Taco Bell, and U.S. Sprint implement the HRM with the BPR component and established that BPR practices enable customers and the organization to communicate freely. Schniederjans and Kim (2003) established that the BPR activities provide business with effective product and service delivery by providing the strategic direction to the management in promptly responding to customer needs and expectations to reduce the number of complaints associated with the product and service delivery errors (Hargie & Tourish 2000). Hargie and Tourish (2000) found out that integrating the BPR processes to the business functions provides the business with the core competency to process more customers and deliver the best value without increasing the price of products. According to Hargie and Tourish (2000), when business practices have been reengineered they improve the quality of life of the employees, which makes them feel to own the business when delivering products and services to the customers and ensured that the services and products delivered to the customers are value-driven.
A study by Hargie and Tourish (2000) established that the strategic process of BPR management provides businesses with the ability to share and improve the utilization of knowledge using training functions as the vehicle of delivery.
HRM and BPR
Korherr and List (2007) studied Hallmark, Taco Bell, and U.S. Sprint and established that combining HRM and BPR practices could lead to business excellence in the provision of services and products to meet customer needs and expectations.
Korherr and List (2007) established that the strategic process of HRM and BPR activities and functions and the entire aspects of human resource management and BPR when combined result in a coherent set of activities to make the business competent. Korherr and List (2007) and Jarrar, Al-Mudimigh and Zairi (2000 identified HRM activities of training, development, hiring skilled employees, decreasing the cost of product and service delivery, encouraging innovation, research development, and creating effective communication to be combined with BPR processes ( process plans, gap analysis, timeliness, issue resolution processes, training and development, and communication strategies). According to Jarrar, Al-Mudimigh, and Zairi (2000), the results of the combination provide the framework for effective business processes, which strategically and competitively positioned the business in the market for their strategic advantages (Korherr & List 2007). Korherr and List (2007) and Chen and Popovich (2003) showed that HRM activities radically improve the BPR activities in different areas of business organizations based on the model elements, which define HRM and BPR activities. According to Mansar and Reijers (2007), those elements include performance enhancement, cost control, cost-effectiveness, creativity, communication, credibility, continuous implements, and employee motivation and commitment to deliver services and products to achieve organizational goals and objectives (Hargie & Tourish 2000).
Motivation
A review of literature by Reijers (2003) and Ko, Lee, and Lee (2009) showed that motivation is a key element that provides employees with the required drive to work towards the achievement of organizational goals and objectives. HRM functions are critical in designing the right motivation to stimulate employee performance towards effective task execution (Lin & Wei 2010). Herath and Rao (2009) argue that motivation is a tool, which the HRM uses to pursue employee needs and want to motivate them to perform effectively. Typically, Herath and Rao (2009) argued that motivation is used to channel the behavior of the employees towards performing the tasks required for organizational efficiency (Ahmed, Francis & Zairi 2007).
Teamwork
Dale, Van Der Wiele and Van Iwaarden (2013), Datta, Guthrie, and Wright (2005), Davenport, Harris, and Cantrell (2004), and Gunasekaran and Kobu (2002) agree that teamwork is critical in working towards the achievement of the BPR concept and a function of the HRM component is teamwork. Dale, Van Der Wiele, and Van Iwaarden (2013) argue that teams can perform better and by combining efforts to achieve competitive advantage and enables firms to perform efficiently. According to Dale, Van Der Wiele, and Van Iwaarden (2013), team work is crucial for an organization to gain by using the synergy, knowledge, and skills of team members to align the business with the vision and mission statements of the organization (Herath & Rao 2009).
The type of data collected and how to analyze it
Qualitative data was yielded from the secondary sources, which consists of the effects of HRM on BPR, empowerment, motivation, communication, training and development, skills and knowledge, teamwork, cultural diversity, workforce diversity, and organizational culture. The researcher plans to analyze the data using the meta-analysis technique. It is rigorous, comprehensive, and transparent and enables one to contextualize the effects of HRM variables on BPR by estimating the mean effect of the variables on the population of the study. A synthesis of the âwithin-studyâ analysis interpretation of the data from the secondary sources will be used to determine the representation and legitimization of the data to extract the meaning and effect of the variables identified in the study. The ‘within-study’ pertinent and it allows the researcher to study and examine each resource of a group of resources and interpret the findings of the study. Besides, a recursive abstraction will be used to analyze the data using data to ensure the accuracy of the results.
A rigorous interpretation of the meaning of the statements from the literature review against the concepts and theories will be used to discover the relationship and impact of the variables on the HRM and PBR on the business goals of the organization and the qualitative patterns of data will be interpreted to inform the study.
References
Ahmad, H, Francis, A. & Zairi, M 2007, Business process re-engineering: critical success factors in higher education. Business Process Management Journal, vol. 3, no. 22, pp. 451-469.
Armstrong, M 2003, A handbook of human resource management practice. Kogan Page Limited, New York.
Boxall, P & Purcell, J 2003, âStrategy and human resource managementâ, Industrial & Labour Relations Review, vol. 1, no. 57, pp. 84.
Chen, I J & Popovich, K 2003, âUnderstanding customer relationship management (CRM): People, process and technologyâ, Business process management journal, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 672-688.
Dale, BG, Van Der Wiele, T & Van Iwaarden, J 2013, Managing quality. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Datta, D K, Guthrie, J P & Wright, PM 2005,â Human resource management and labour productivity: does industry matter?â Academy of management Journal, vol. 1, no. 48, pp. 135-145.
Davenport, T H, Harris, J G & Cantrell, S 2004,â Enterprise systems and ongoing process changeâ, Business Process Management Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 16-26.
Gunasekaran, A & Kobu, B 2002, âModelling and analysis of business process re-engineeringâ, International Journal of Production Research, vol.11, no. 40, pp. 2521-2546.
Hargie, O & Tourish, D 2000 âHandbook of Communication Audits for Organisationsâ, Routledge, London.
Herath, T & Rao, H R 2009, âProtection motivation and deterrence: a framework for security policy compliance in organisationsâ, European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 18, pp. 106â125.
Jarrar, Y F, Al-Mudimigh, A & Zairi, M 2000, âERP implementation critical success factors-the role and impact of business process managementâ, In Management of Innovation and Technology, 2000. ICMIT 2000. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Conference on, vol. 1, n. 2, pp. 122-127.
Ko, R K, Lee, S S & Lee, E W 2009, âBusiness process management (BPM) standards: a surveyâ, Business Process Management Journal, vol. 5, no. 15, pp. -791.
Korherr, B & List, B 2007, âExtending the EPC and the BPMN with Business Process Goals and Performance Measuresâ, In ICEIS vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 287-294.
Mansar, S L & Reijers, H A 2007 âBest practices in business process redesign: use and impactâ, Business Process Management Journal, vol. 2, no. 13, pp. 193-213.
Marchington, M & Grugulis, I 2000, âBest practice’ human resource management: perfect opportunity or dangerous illusion?â International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 6, no. 11, pp.1104-1124.
MelĂŁo, N & Pidd, M 2000, A conceptual framework for understanding business processes and business process modelling. Information Systems Journal, 10(2), 105-129.
Nah, F F H, Lau, J L S & Kuang, J 2001, âCritical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systemsâ, Business process management journal, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 285-296.
Price, A 2007, Human resource management in a business context. Cengage Learning EMEA, New York.
Reijers, H A 2003, Design and Control of Workflow Processes: Business Process Management for the Service Industry, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Marc J. Schniederjans, Gyu C. Kim 2003, âImplementing enterprise resource planning systems with total quality control and business process reengineering: Survey resultsâ, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 Iss: 4, pp.418 – 429.
Siriginidi, S R 2000, âEnterprise resource planning in re-engineering businessâ, Business Process Management Journal, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 376-391.
Thong, J Y, Yap, C S & Seah, K L 2000, âBusiness process re-engineering in the public sector: the case of the Housing Development Board in Singaporeâ, Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 1, no. 17, pp. 245-270.
Wall, T D & Wood, S J 2005,â The romance of human resource management and business performance, and the case for big scienceâ, Human relations, vo. 4, no. 58, pp. 429-462.
Wright, P M & Boswell, W R 2002, âDesegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management researchâ, Journal of management, vol. 3, no. 28, pp. 247-276.