Business Process Management Journal: Article Information
Business Process Management Journal: Article Information
Business Process Management Journal: Article Information
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150010313366
Downloaded on: 17 February 2019, At: 21:50 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 28 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2674 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1998),"Eight steps to building a business-to-business relationship", Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 13 Iss 4/5 pp. 393-405 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/08858629810226690">https://
doi.org/10.1108/08858629810226690</a>
(1998),"Customer service in business-to-business markets: an agenda for research",
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 13 Iss 4/5 pp. 309-321 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/08858629810226636">https://doi.org/10.1108/08858629810226636</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:394654 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by Universiti Utara Malaysia At 21:50 17 February 2019 (PT)
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
BPMJ
6,3 Reengineering the
undergraduate business core
curriculum: aligning business
194
schools with business for
improved performance
Kenton B. Walker
University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA and
Downloaded by Universiti Utara Malaysia At 21:50 17 February 2019 (PT)
Ervin L. Black
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA
Keywords BPR, Business schools, Process management, Undergraduates
Abstract Presents and supports a process-centered model of undergraduate business education
for the core business curriculum and business school management, consistent with the trend
toward process-managed organizations. This model conforms to calls from the public, academic
community, and business leaders for improved performance of business faculties and educational
institutions and increased capabilities in business school graduates. Outlines five business process
courses for the business core curriculum. Benefits of this approach include providing a framework
for formulating and implementing a strategy for developing the business curriculum and
elimination of redundancy in the coverage of topical material. In addition, the process approach
provides a vehicle for the development of interdisciplinary faculty, encourages attention to the
need to change, and provides a basis for aligning faculty and institutional reward systems.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to present and support a process-centered model of
business education, consistent with the trend toward process-managed
organizations (Martinsons, 1995). We discuss how a process-oriented
curriculum can provide a broader and more integrated educational experience
for business students, conforming to recommendations from the academic
community and demands by business leaders for increased capabilities in
business school graduates. In addition, this proposal addresses some of the
problems faced by business schools and faculties identified in the AACSB
Faculty Leadership Task Force Report (1996). These problems include lack of
alignment between business faculty skills and the rapidly changing needs of
business, a linear, disciplinary focus to business education, and faculty reward
systems that are inconsistent with those of their institutions.
Business education has been subjected to considerable scrutiny and
experimentation since the late 1980s as business school enrollments dropped.
Porter and McKibbin (1988) report that most undergraduate business programs
Business Process Management
follow a pedagogical model developed decades ago. As a result, these schools
Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, 2000,
pp. 194-213. # MCB University
do a disservice to students and employers by continuing to teach business
Press, 1463-7154 functions as discrete activities (Chronicle of Higher Education, 1984; Byrne,
1993; Harvard Business Review, 1992). More recently, Stover et al. (1997) relate Aligning
the need to ``break down the silos'' in business education by integrating business schools
traditional courses in the business curriculum. These views underscore the
need for business schools to adopt structures that are responsive and flexible,
as their employer-customers have to succeed in a competitive environment.
During the past decade, business process reengineering (BPR), or process
management, concepts have been widely applied in the business world to achieve 195
efficiency and effectiveness and to be customer-oriented. The application of BPR
in the context of higher education is a more recent phenomenon (Porter, 1993;
Olson, 1993). Many academic leaders have publicly recognized the challenges
confronting business education that are parallel to those confronting much of
Corporate America (Harvard Business Review, 1992; Witt, 1994; AACSB, 1996,
Downloaded by Universiti Utara Malaysia At 21:50 17 February 2019 (PT)
Business processes
Efforts to improve organizational performance by changing how the flow of work
is managed have led to development of the management technique commonly
known as business process reengineering (BPR) (Teng et al., 1996). BPR entails a
fundamental rethinking of all aspects of an organization and its activities. BPR
defines organizations in terms of a system of business processes and critically
examines the processes to identify opportunities for improvement. These reviews
often show that organizations can significantly improve performance by
redesigning the way processes operate. For example, both production and
advertising functions contribute to launching a new product. The management of
these groups via physical contact and/or information sharing will affect the
success of a new product initiative. In the remainder of this section we define
process, provide examples of processes, illustrate differences between functional Aligning
and process-managed organizations, discuss how processes may be identified, business schools
and consider implications of the process perspective for business education.
Process must be well understood to be able to apply it in a business,
business school, or to develop a process-centered business curriculum. Hammer
and Champy (1993) define business process as ``a collection of activities that
takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output that is of value to the 197
customer''. Davenport (1993) states that process ``implies a strong emphasis on
how work is done within an organization, in contrast to a product focus's
emphasis on what.'' This definition is concerned with ordering or structure of
work. Processes should be evaluated against process goals, not department or
function goals, because most key processes cut across functional boundaries
Downloaded by Universiti Utara Malaysia At 21:50 17 February 2019 (PT)
6,3
198
BPMJ
Figure 1.
A process view of a
functional organization
organizations:
Research & Development Manufacturing Marketing & Sales
Materials Orders
Purchase
Resources
Resource
Acquisition Employees
Goods/Services Process
Resources Hire & Use
Employees
Pay
Vendors
Cash
Facilities
Resources
Cash
Market/Sell
Goods & Services
Marketing/Sales
& Collection Customers
Process
Receive
Cash
of organizations
A generic process model
Figure 2.
Aligning
business schools
199
BPMJ In addition, the diagram shows component relationships between process
6,3 activities, resources used, and internal/external parties to the processes. Within
each of these processes there may be a myriad sub-processes. In some
instances, a process may be interdisciplinary, such as the resource acquisition
process, or they may correspond closely with a particular function such as
manufacturing or accounting. Most often, primary organizational outputs from
200 processes and management responsibility are not aligned with the functional
disciplines we teach in business schools.
There are four primary considerations in defining a process. First, how
broadly (or narrowly) does one wish to define the outputs of the organization?
Second, how complex and manageable is an identified process (if one is too
complex it may need to be split into two or more processes)? Third, how
Downloaded by Universiti Utara Malaysia At 21:50 17 February 2019 (PT)
different are the information requirements for a group of activities that might
constitute a process (for example, human and capital resource acquisition
processes are generally separated for this reason)? Finally, how significant is
the process to organizational performance, that is, does it need close
monitoring? Over time, some processes may be combined while others may be
explicitly recognized.
Figure 3 shows an organization chart for a four-process organization. The
resource acquisition process is shown as two processes because of significantly
different skill and information requirements between physical and human
resource activities. Examples are given of functional skills/sub-processes
required for each process. Note that fewer cross-functional activities are
involved with human resources than for the conversion process.
As in business, business schools focused their efforts on education within a
department or course (the individual tasks) instead of on the few basic outputs
of most business organizations (and business schools). Consequently, business
education has not provided a broad, integrating, or realistic experience in the
business curriculum and the organization structure of business schools does
not support efforts to meet the demands of modern business organizations
(Harvard Business Review, 1992). These problems may be overcome by
recognizing two primary processes within a business school:
(1) the traditional process to produce graduates with specialized, functional
training; and
(2) a process to teach process and the interdependencies of organizational
functions before students undertake advanced coursework in their
chosen discipline.
The second objective may be accomplished by creating multidisciplinary
teams, separate from functional departments, to deliver core business
education that describes important cross-functional business processes.
CEO
Relating to Managing Evaluating Recruiting Training Paying Purchasing Producing Paying Communica- Selling Collecting
Shareholders Financial Project Employees Vendors ting with Cash
and Resources Proposals Customers
Creditors
A process-based
organization chart
Figure 3.
Aligning
business schools
201
BPMJ further states that it should not be applied. His argument for this position is
6,3 that it will not occur because no one wants fundamental changes in teaching
and research, and administrative process redesign in higher education should
not be attempted because there is no demonstrated need, benefit, or support for
such an effort. Olson (1993) counters that years of reduced budgets, increased
costs, and demands for new and improved services coupled with advances in
202 technology require that we do things differently.
The AACSB Faculty Leadership Task Force Report (1996) identified a
number of problems facing business schools and faculty leadership that
support the need for significant changes during the coming years. These
problems are summarized by a fundamental lack of alignment between faculty
skills with the rapidly changing needs of business. This condition presents
Downloaded by Universiti Utara Malaysia At 21:50 17 February 2019 (PT)
Cost-volume-profit analysis.
Budgeting.
Product costing.
Inventory accounting.
Total quality management.
Statistical process control.
Production/service information systems.
Transportation and distribution.
Process management.
Ethical issues.
Environmental issues.
y,
terac
r li
ute
omp
,c s
on
i c ati )
un etc .
mm g,
( co inkin
ills th
Sk itical
cr Knowledge of Disciplines (accounting, finance,
management, marketing, operations, etc.)
Integrative Theme -
Business Processes
(Use one or more process
integrators such as business
strategy, information systems,
communications technology,
process technology, change
management, business Figure 4.
environment, or the like The three dimensions of
business education
BPMJ business education programs, opportunities arise to revise the faculty reward
6,3 system to make it more congruent with the college. New measures of faculty
performance are suggested such as participation in and publication of
interdisciplinary and practical research projects, development of alliances with
businesses, and participation in faculty internship programs.
Faculty performance evaluation systems must be able to recognize and
208 reward faculty who become involved in time-consuming activities that help to
provide a higher quality educational experience for students and benefit the
institution. Examples of these activities include course and curriculum
development, more written and oral communications assignments, and student
recruitment and retention efforts. In addition, faculty reward systems need to
consider group as well as individual measures of teaching/learning
Downloaded by Universiti Utara Malaysia At 21:50 17 February 2019 (PT)
References
AACSB (1996), ``Remaking doctoral education: the missing link to customer satisfaction?''
AACSB Newsline, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 1-6.
AACSB (1998), ``Excerpts from the 1998 annual meeting address of Joseph A. Alutto, 1996-98
AACSB President'', AACSB Newsline, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 10-12.
AACSB Faculty Leadership Task Force Report (1996), AACSB, St Louis, MO.
Abrami, P., d'Apollonia, S. and Cohen, P. (1990), ``Validity of student ratings of instruction: what
we know and what we don't'', Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 219-31.
Bennigson, L.A. (1996), ``Our Balkanized organizations'', Strategy & Leadership, March/April,
pp. 38-41.
Byrne, J. (1993), ``Harvard b-school: an American institution in need of reform'', Business Week, Aligning
19 July, pp. 58-65.
Carland, J.C., Carland, J.W. and Higgs, R. (1997), ``Innovative education in an integrated business
business schools
core curriculum: an experiential learning paradigm'', Working paper, Western Carolina
University College of Business.
Cheney, L.V. (1989), ``Excerpts from the chairman's recent report on a proposed core curriculum
for colleges and universities'', Humanities, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 4-7.
Chronicle of Higher Education (1984), ``The new report on excellence in undergraduate 213
education'', 24 October, pp. 35-51.
Davenport, T. (1993), Process Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Davis, J. and Mehta, K.T. (1997), ``Reengineering a school of business of the future: a mission/
vision model for higher education in tranformational times'', SAM Advanced Management
Journal, Spring, pp. 8-15.
Downloaded by Universiti Utara Malaysia At 21:50 17 February 2019 (PT)
Garvin, D.A. (1995), ``Leveraging processes for strategic advantage'', Harvard Business Review,
September-October, pp. 77-90.
Geiger, J.J. and Dangerfield, B.J. (1997), ``An analysis of integrated curriculum models in US colleges
of business'', Proceedings of the Decision Sciences Institute Annual Meeting, November.
Hammer, M. (1996), Beyond Reengineering, HarperBusiness, New York, NY.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Revolution, HarperBusiness, New York, NY.
Harvard Business Review (1992), ``MBA: is the traditional model doomed?'', November-December,
pp. 128-40.
Martinsons, M.G. (1995), ``Radical process innovation using information technology: the theory,
the practice and the future of reengineering'', International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 253-69.
Nelson, C. (1990), ``Harvard's hollow `core''', The Atlantic Monthly, September, pp. 70-80.
Olson, M. (1993), ``We must apply the principles of business process reengineering in higher
education'', Cause/Effect, Winter, p. 54.
Porter, J. (1993), ``Business reengineering in higher education: promise and reality'', Cause/Effect,
Winter, pp. 48-53.
Porter, L.W. and McKibbin, L.E. (1988), Management Education and Development: Drift or
Thrust into the 21st Century?, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Rummler, G. and Brache, A. (1995), Improving Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schlesinger, P. (1996), ``Teaching and evaluation in an integrated curriculum'', Journal of
Management Education, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 479-99.
Seeley, C. (1994), ``Want to read up on reengineering? A reengineering bibliography'', Target,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 25-7.
Smith, A. (1776), The Wealth of Nations.
Stover, D., Morris, J., Pharr, S., Reyes, M. and Byers, C. (1997), ``Breaking down the silos: attaining
an integrated business common core'', American Business Review, Vol. XV No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Teng, J.T.C, Grover, V. and Fielder, K.D. (1996), ``Developing strategic perspectives on business
process reengineering: from process reconfiguration to organizational change'', Omega,
International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 271-94.
Witt, R.E. (1994), ``Reengineering the MBA'', Directors and Boards, Fall, pp. 43-5.
This article has been cited by:
1. Muhittin Sagnak, Yigit Kazancoglu, Murat Aksoy. 2018. Determining the causal relationship among the
research streams of the operations management course. Journal of Education for Business 5, 1-10. [Crossref]
2. Steven A. Edelson, C. Chase Senk, Karen L. Stock. 2018. Using an integrated business experience to take
the place of “introduction to management” in an integrated curriculum. Journal of Education for Business
93:7, 332-340. [Crossref]
3. Edgar Maldonado, Vicky Seehusen. 2018. Data mining student choices: A new approach to business
curriculum planning. Journal of Education for Business 93:5, 196-203. [Crossref]
4. Mark Anthony Camilleri. Re-conceiving Corporate Social Responsibility Programmes for Education
157-172. [Crossref]
5. Mark Anthony Camilleri. 2016. Reconceiving corporate social responsibility for business and educational
outcomes. Cogent Business & Management 3:1. . [Crossref]
Downloaded by Universiti Utara Malaysia At 21:50 17 February 2019 (PT)
6. CamilleriMark Anthony, Mark Anthony Camilleri. 2016. Corporate sustainability and responsibility
toward education. Journal of Global Responsibility 7:1, 56-71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Kwadwo N. Asare, Jane McKay-Nesbitt, Anne LeMaster-Merrick. Integrating Business Disciplines using
a Team-Based Approach 135-165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
8. Dianne Bolton, Christopher Galloway. 2014. The holistic dilemma: Helping management students deal
with risk. The International Journal of Management Education 12:2, 55-67. [Crossref]
9. Diego Armando Marín‐Idárraga. 2013. La conformación del currículo en Administración: un estudio
desde el isomorfismo institucional. Estudios Gerenciales 29:129, 466-475. [Crossref]
10. Christopher Bajada, Rowan Trayler. 2013. Interdisciplinary business education: curriculum through
collaboration. Education + Training 55:4/5, 385-402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Jeffrey W. Alstete. 2013. Essential distinctiveness: strategic alternatives in updating the business core
curriculum. Quality Assurance in Education 21:2, 199-210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Denise M. Anderson. 2013. Overarching Goals, Values, and Assumptions of Integrated Curriculum Design.
SCHOLE: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education 28:1, 1-10. [Crossref]
13. Ravi Seethamraju. 2012. Business process management: a missing link in business education. Business
Process Management Journal 18:3, 532-547. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Denise Jackson, Elaine Chapman. 2012. Non‐technical skill gaps in Australian business graduates.
Education + Training 54:2/3, 95-113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Aysu Gocer, Omur Yasar Saatcioglu, Muhittin H. Demir, Okan Tuna, Tuncdan Baltacıoglu, Erman Adali.
2011. Achieving sustainable learning through erp based supply chain in vitro laboratory. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences 28, 164-173. [Crossref]
16. R. de Villiers. 2010. The incorporation of soft skills into accounting curricula: preparing accounting
graduates for their unpredictable futures. Meditari Accountancy Research 18:2, 1-22. [Abstract] [PDF]
17. Roger Bennett, Suzanne Kane. 2009. Employer engagement practices of UK business schools and
departments: an empirical investigation. Journal of Vocational Education & Training 61:4, 495-516.
[Crossref]
18. Bruce K. Blaylock, Janet L. McDaniel, Charles F. Falk, Randy Hollandsworth, Jerry M. Kopf. 2009. A
Borrowed Approach for a More Effective Business Education. Journal of Management Education 33:5,
577-595. [Crossref]
19. Peter Navarro. 2008. The MBA Core Curricula of Top-Ranked U.S. Business Schools: A Study in Failure?.
Academy of Management Learning & Education 7:1, 108-123. [Crossref]
20. Tal Ben-Zvi, Thomas C. Carton. Business Games as Pedagogical Tools 1514-1518. [Crossref]
21. Peter Navarro. 2006. The Hidden Potential of “Managerial Macroeconomics” for CEO Decision Making
in MBA Programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education 5:2, 213-224. [Crossref]
22. Noel D. Campbell, Kirk C. Heriot, R. Zachary Finney. 2006. In Defense of Silos: An Argument Against
the Integrative Undergraduate Business Curriculum. Journal of Management Education 30:2, 316-332.
[Crossref]
23. Joe M. Ricks, Jacqueline A. Williams. 2005. Strategic Corporate Philanthropy: Addressing Frontline
Talent Needs Through an Educational Giving Program. Journal of Business Ethics 60:2, 147-157. [Crossref]
24. Timo Lainema, Pekka Makkonen. 2003. Applying constructivist approach to educational business games:
Case REALGAME. Simulation & Gaming 34:1, 131-149. [Crossref]
25. Jean-Pierre Béchard. Chapitre 5. Des programmes d’études sous la loupe 97-119. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Universiti Utara Malaysia At 21:50 17 February 2019 (PT)