 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
It would make sense that business process reengineering would be a subclass of business process design. Before a business can be engineered or reengineered, it must be designed. Oicumayberight 19:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that business process design is often perceived as being concerned with operational processes and having a strong technology orientation. BPR, on the other hand is a well-established term for a specific improvement approach. I suggest to keep both articles. Kai A. Simon 14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at the history of this article, and take a look at
business process. This business process design article was started to plug something called URAD, then the plug was removed as commercial and the article reverted to a single sentence. There's never been much content in this article. Business process design, engineering, reengineering and redesign all have the same generic meaning, the latter two simply being a revision of original design. The BPR article is crammed with various BPR methodologies. Unless someone has serious content for this article, I'd say delete it. --
SueHay 19:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then perhaps it should be redirected to
business process. Redesign and Reengineering don't cover the initial design.
Oicumayberight 00:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- A redirect to business process makes sense to me. If the concensus is to redirect, it might be a good idea to add a section in that article on business process design. There's a section on BPR, but nothing on the original design of a business process. -- SueHay 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then perhaps it should be redirected to
business process. Redesign and Reengineering don't cover the initial design.
Oicumayberight 00:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
It would make sense that business process reengineering would be a subclass of business process design. Before a business can be engineered or reengineered, it must be designed. Oicumayberight 19:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that business process design is often perceived as being concerned with operational processes and having a strong technology orientation. BPR, on the other hand is a well-established term for a specific improvement approach. I suggest to keep both articles. Kai A. Simon 14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at the history of this article, and take a look at
business process. This business process design article was started to plug something called URAD, then the plug was removed as commercial and the article reverted to a single sentence. There's never been much content in this article. Business process design, engineering, reengineering and redesign all have the same generic meaning, the latter two simply being a revision of original design. The BPR article is crammed with various BPR methodologies. Unless someone has serious content for this article, I'd say delete it. --
SueHay 19:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then perhaps it should be redirected to
business process. Redesign and Reengineering don't cover the initial design.
Oicumayberight 00:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- A redirect to business process makes sense to me. If the concensus is to redirect, it might be a good idea to add a section in that article on business process design. There's a section on BPR, but nothing on the original design of a business process. -- SueHay 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then perhaps it should be redirected to
business process. Redesign and Reengineering don't cover the initial design.
Oicumayberight 00:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)