An infrastructure subgroup within RRM called the Engineering Environment Architecture has been reviewing the applicability of design theory and methodology, especially the work of Warfield, Clausing, Pugh, and Suh, to the work of the Architecture development.
So, I'm somewhat familiar with the issue you raise. I believe that you must select a design method which encompasses descriptive as well as prescriptive approaches and is concerned with social as well as systems perspectives.
Warfield's Generic Design Science and Interactive Management is one such discipline. This is important because there are dynamics in a business process which are outside classic systematization. The beauty of Warfield is that he comes at his design theory from the systems standpoint and developed a comprehensive framework based on concern with large scale social systems issues such as urban planning, design of university curricula, or design of an environmental protection policy.
Examples can be sited of where his design method is being applied to BPR type projects. I'd be very interested in continuing this conversation with you regarding the applicabilty of design theory and methodology to business process reengineering. Perhaps we might consider a white paper based on correspondence with people involved with such efforts across the net. What do you think?
Kevin M.C. Dye |||| Integrated Associate Research Engineer |||| Product Product Development and Manufacturing |||| Development United Technologies Research Center Laboratory 411 Silver Lane, MS 129-48 East Hartford, CT 06108 Phone: (203)727-7483, Technet 446-7483 Fax: (203)727-7880, Technet 446-7880 Internet: kmcd@utrc.utc.com