Search results

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/14637159510798248. When citing the article, please cite: Mohamed Zairi, David Sinclair, (1995), “Business process re-engineering and process management: A survey of current practice and future trends in integrated management”, Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal, Vol. 1 Iss: 1, pp. 8 - 30.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how access to vaccination for older people in the UK can be both improved and used as a tool for healthy ageing.

ILC-UK released a report “Adult Immunisation in the UK”, which applied a UK perspective to a 2013 Supporting Active Ageing Through Immunisation (SAATI) report on immunisation. The ILC report combined the SAATI findings with a traditional literature review, a policy review incorporating grey literature and the outcomes of a focus group discussion. This paper highlights the key findings of the ILC-UK report.

Vaccination needs to be included as part of proactive strategies to promote healthy and active ageing. Initiatives need to be explored that increase the rate of delivery of vaccinations. Barriers to the vaccination of health and social care professionals working with older people need to be removed. The government should explore using psychological insights into human behaviour to improve the take-up of vaccinations amongst adults. The range of settings where older people can receive vaccination needs to be expanded. Information on the potential benefits of immunisation should be made readily available and easily accessible to older people.

The paper calls for a structural shift in how vaccination services in the UK are organised.

The paper calls for a cultural shift in how society views immunisation and the role it has to play in the healthy ageing process.

The paper uses new European research on immunisation and applies it to the UK's situation.

The development of a new skills mix must be seen as part of an organisational change management strategy. It is only credible when it adds value to what an organisation does. The role of baseline skills is examined together with the failure of competency‐based management philosophies to set the scene for appropriate training and development. A major factor in the development of a new skills mix is the capability of workers with regard to self‐management and self‐redesign of work. It is contended that middle management and the process of management hold the key to achieving a successful new mix of skills for competitive advantage.

Discusses the major difficulties facing human resource development in organizations with respect to the role of training and development personnel who are seen to have been forced into a reactive position by senior management dictates. Gives an overview of the failure to deliver appropriate training and development and the lack of real commitment to HRD. Puts forward the need for a new kind of training and development professional and the key issues that need to be addressed.

A growing awareness is developing with regard to the need for a highly skilled workforce to maintain and improve the UK′s competitive position. This realisation has developed hand‐in‐hand with fears over the demographic changes anticipated within the population, namely the decline in the 16‐25 age group. It is becoming commonplace to link these two themes with the result that a “skills time bomb” is said to be developing. In this first of three related articles, an alternative view of the skills time bomb as a micro‐level problem requiring micro‐level solutions is offered. The skills time bomb may have been exacerbated by the piecemeal and macro‐level approaches to training – the solutions, however, are to be found at the level of the firm, yet these will not be unproblematic since the competitive pressures to adopt increasingly sophisticated attitudes to IT require a “new skills mix” from workers, and so require a radically different approach to training and development.

Organisations need to look at what proactivity is, how it can be achieved, and the problems likely to be encountered in developing proactive staff. Proactive behaviour is examined, together with its links to achieving competitive advantage, The need to allow staff to design and redesign their own work is seen as being a major vehicle for promoting proactive behaviour. Management are recommended not to abrogate their responsibilities, but to promote an environment in which proactivity can be fostered and channelled effectively. Limits on proactivity are discussed.

Business process re‐engineering (BPR) is the latest addition to the armoury of management techniques available. BPR purports to produce quantum improvements in performance by radically redesigning organizational processes. There is, however, some confusion as to what exactly constitutes BPR and how, if at all, BPR should be integrated with other approaches such as total quality management (TQM) and benchmarking. Uses a survey of 65 organizations from different industrial sectors to examine the industry understanding and use of BPR, and its integration with other management techniques.

Business process re‐engineering (BPR) was first introduced in 1990 by Hammer and Davenport and Short. In these articles, the authors outlined a new approach to the management of processes which, it was claimed, was producing radical improvements in performance. These articles were quickly followed by a number of articles describing the benefits to be gained from BPR.

Business process re‐engineering (BPR) is certainly one of the latest buzzwords and is the subject of great interest and also great controversy. Organizations need to shake themselves out of complacency to close competitive gaps and achieve superior performance standards ‐ the reason why many have embarked on huge BPR projects. In view of the high risks associated with radical change, there are, however, many problems associated with BPR. For some BPR is going off the rails before it is properly understood, and many BPR exercises are not delivering the goods. Sometimes, organizations are expecting “quick fixes”, thus displaying their lack of understanding of a complex system. It is unreasonable to expect quick results when so much change is involved, especially when these business processes involve not only machines, but also people. Many believe, such as Mumford, that the management of change is the largest task in re‐engineering. Many people perceive re‐engineering as a threat to both their methods and their jobs. Owing to this recognition, many authors concentrate on the need to take account of the human side of re‐engineering, in particular the management of organizational change.