The Moderating Effect of IT Capability on the Relationship between Business Process Reengineering Factors and Organizational Performance of Banks

Kabiru Jinjiri Ringim; Mohd Rizal Razalli; Norlena Hasnan

The Moderating Effect of IT Capability on the Relationship between Business Process Reengineering Factors and Organizational Performance of Banks

Kabiru Jinjiri Ringim¹, Mohd Rizal Razalli²,Norlena Hasnan³

College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia Postal Address: School of Technology Management and Logistics, Universiti Utara Malaysia Author's Personal/Organizational Website: www.cob.uum.edu.my Email: kabirujinjiri@yahoo.com Kabiru Jinjiri Ringim is a Ph.D. candidate in Operations Management at the School of Technology Management and Logistics; College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia. His areas of interests are Project Management, Process Reengineering, Performance Management, Operations Management, e-Commerce and Technology Management
Director MBA Programme and Senior Lecturer, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia Postal Address: School of Technology Management and Logistics, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 UUM Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia Author's Personal/Organizational Website: www.cob.uum.edu.my Email: rizal@uum.edu.my Dr. Mohd Rizal Razalli is a Director of MBA Programme at Othman Yeap Abdullah Postgraduate and Senior Lecturer at the College of Business, University Utara Malaysia. (UUM). He holds a PhD in Operations Management. He is actively involved in Conferences and publication to journal. His area of expertise is on Operations Management, Project Management, Business Process Reengineering, and Performance Management
Senior Lecturer, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia Postal Address: School of Technology Management and Logistics, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 UUM Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia Author's Personal/Organizational Website: www.cob.uum.edu.my Email: norlena@uum.edu.my Dr. Norlena Hasnan is a Senior Lecturer at the College of Business, University Utara Malaysia (UUM). She holds a PhD in Management, actively involved in conferences and publication to journal. Her area of expertise is on Performance Management, Project Management, Balance scorecard, and management sciences

Related article at Pubmed, Scholar Google

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to investigate the moderating effect of IT capability in the relationship of Business Process Reengineering (BPR) factors and the organizational performance. BPR factors are operationalized by change management, BPR strategy alignment, customer focus, management commitment, IT investment, and adequate financial resources. The IT capability includes IT knowledge, IT operations and IT objects. Data was collected through a hand-delivery method by sending questionnaires to 560 banks (Commercial, Microfinance and Mortgage). This study used stratified random samplings proportionate to the numbers of the banks for sample selection. The findings showed that IT capability moderated the relationship between BPR factors such as change management, customer focus, management commitment and overall organizational performance of the bank. Furthermore, the result revealed that IT capability moderated the relationship between IT investment, management commitment and customer service management performance. The outcome of this study provides important insight to researchers for understanding on the effects of BPR factors and IT capability on organizational performance.

Keywords

Business process reengineering, Information technology capability, Organizational performance, Banks, Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION

The progressive globalization of financial markets requires market participants to make changes to their operational processes beyond local competition to global competitiveness. This trend has led many banks in developing countries to improve customer service quality, speed, reduce operating costs, and enhance profitability performance. Innovative banking services and personalized banking portfolio management are evolving as the market consolidates due to mergers and acquisitions of banks and up-to-date strategy. As a result, the focus is no longer on cutting costs alone, but rather on simultaneously improving services to customers. In other words, the processes must not only be more efficient, but also more customer-friendly as well. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) initiated a BPR programme tagged project EAGLES (Efficiency, Accountability, Goal orientations, Leadership Effectiveness and Staff motivation) to enhance the operations and quality of banks assets and services (CBN, 2009).

The CBN in partnership with PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted a comprehensive assessment of the bank's core and non-core operations that required fundamental restructuring. The identified areas were customer service delivery, regulatory function of the CBN, performance management & benchmarking, information technology, customer satisfaction, human resources and administration and communication effectiveness at all stakeholder levels (CBN, 2009). In doing so, attempts are being made to adopt approaches in the financial sector that have proven effective in other industries, particularly those in manufacturing. One of these approaches is known as Business Process Reengineering (BPR). BPR is a major management approach that can focus on doing things in a better way that is clearer and easier to achieve a radical improvement on quality, speed, customer service, and reduction in cost. Allen (1994) argued that, the focus of reengineering is on the process of redesign, which relates to doing things better and clearer. One of the primary goals of the financial service industry is to always enhance processes that would improve customer service performance through the management approach of cost reduction, improving quality, speed, and customer service for profit maximization. Therefore, management scholars argue that organizations can become proactive in operation by adopting business process reengineering (BPR) to achieve a remarkable improvement in organisational performance

In Nigeria, liberalization of the banking sector has changed the form of competitive advantage for the industry. New generation banks emerged. The old generation banks consolidate operations either by merger, acquisition, raised up capitalization based and reengineer their operations in order to be able to improve their performance and compete effectively. The consequences of merger and consolidation of operational process and an intensified foreign competition in the financial service industry through liberalization and globalization faced by the organizations led to radical changes in operations, and services that resulted in conflicting performance. Customer focus became a key factor in determining the success of an organization (Idris, 2011). The bank that has the highest customer base and highest customer focus rate became the market leader in the industry. Hence, the quality of customer service becomes a driving force in ascertaining business survival in the banking industry. To survive and excel in dynamic business environment became a concern for the banks performance.

The dynamic capability in form of IT capability was introduced to address the theoretical limitation of having sustainable performance in turbulent business environment (Paulous, 2004). Also, complementarity theory was mentioned to address the inadequacy of sustaining competitive advantage (Dedrick, Gurbaxani, & Kraemer, 2003; Kohli & Devaraj, 2003; Melville et al., 2004). This paper is aimed to study the moderating effect of IT capability attributes to the relationship between BPR factors and organisational performance of Nigerian banks using survey questionnaires.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Assessment of bank performance is essential for bank managers, regulators and customer (depositors and investors). In a turbulent financial environment, bank performance provides information for the investors and depositors to either retain or withdraw their investment from the bank. Managers are constantly challenged to improve their deposit or loan activities in order to enhance the profitability performance of their organization. Tvorik and McGivern (1997) investigated performance by comparing economic and organizational factors. They concluded that organisational factors influenced the profitability more than that of the economic factors. The performance of organizations could be assessed by resource-based view, as explored by a number of researchers (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1986; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Organizational performance could be linked with market orientation, organization learning, human resource productivity, quality improvement or any other component (Day, 1994; Banker & Sinkula, 1999; Santos-Vijande et al., 2005).

Organisational Performance

Organizational performance reflects an organization's understanding and knowledge regarding customer needs and expectations (Slater & Narver, 1995). Razalli, (2008) found that hotel performance could be improved through good leadership practice and provision of customized service design for select clientele in the service sector. Hence, business organization can maximize their customer satisfaction for better profitability, increased sales volume, which ultimately improves overall performance benefit (Baker & Sinkula 1999). Generally, organizational performance is assessed by the application of financial or both financial and non-financial measures. There are number of studies in the literature that used non-financial measures to evaluate the effectiveness and performance of organization (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986). It is suggested that four models i.e. human relations; internal process; open system and rationale goal model could represent the organizational performance (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Wheelen and Hunger (1998) argued that appropriate performance measures depend on the organizations and their objectives i.e. profitability, market share and cost reduction.

Financial indicators, such as return on investment (ROI), earnings per share (EPS) and return on equity (ROE) are used by the number of organizations to measure their progress. Return on investment is used to reflect the profitability while corporate performance was measured by operating cash flows and return on investment capital (Hasnan, 2006; Sorenson, 2002).Rashid et al., (2003) measured firm's financial performance using the financial indicators, such as return on assets, return on investments and current ratios. Financial ratios reflect the financial performance of the organization by an examination of financial statements, as indicated by profitability, liquidity, leverage, asset utilization and growth ratios (Ho & Wu, 2006). In today's global dynamic and competitive environment, banks could improve and diversify their products and services to meet changing customers' demands and enhance their performance for successful survival.

Farooq, (2003) reported that the performance of privately owned banks is better than that of state-owned banks. Hence, more customers were attracted by the high-quality service, adequate capital base and sound management of private banks. Also, Chowdhury and Kashfia, (2009) reported that analysis of the growth and development achieved of selected private banks in terms of stable growth of branches, employees, deposit, loans and advances, net income, earnings per share are better compared to the state owned banks. In addition, Calomiris (1999) argued that the merger and consolidation of bank operations results in the improvement of efficiency that is associated with operating cost reduction and enlargement of bank customer relationships. Adolphus (2007) examined the financial indicators in Nigerian banks. He found that the capital adequacy ratio significantly correlates negatively with bank solvency. The cash reserve ratio correlates negatively and significantly with the proportion of non-performing loans. The total loans to deposits correlate negatively significant with bank solvency.

BPR Factors

The literature review on BPR studies shows that the opinion of scholars on the subject matter can be classified into two (Herzog, Polajnar, & Tonchia, 2007). The first group includes the scholars that agree that BPR is a panacea to turbulent market changes, customer demand and competition (Davenport & Short, 1990; Hammer, 1990, Terziovski, Fitzpatrick, & O’Neill, 2003), while the second group holds the opposing view claiming that BPR has failed to meet its expectations (Mumford, 1995; Biazzo, 2002). According to Al-Mashari, Irani and Zairi (2001) the average success rate achievement of implementing BPR in developed countries was 55 percent, being 61 percent achieved in the USA and 49 percent in Europe. The majority of studies on BPR have focused on the importance of the various factors for successful implementation in the manufacturing industry, while relatively few studies have been conducted in the banking industry. Therefore, it is risky to generalize the BPR success rate, because the evaluation is subjective as cross national differences (such as cultural belief, norms and values) may exist. Reengineering is a painful process because the whole set of values and beliefs in the organization are being challenged (Hammer &Champy 1993). BPR factors in the present study have been adapted based on the scope of study and fit to the banking industry, which is in line with the previous studies (Al-Mashari & Zairi, 1999; Ahmad et al., 2007; Salimifard, et al., 2010). BPR factors are the independent variables, which includes 1) Change Management, 2) Management Commitment, 3) Less bureaucratic and flatter organizational structure, 4) Project Management, 5) Customer Focus, 6) Effective process redesign, 7) Adequate financial resources, and 8) Information technology (IT) infrastructure.

IT Capability

The review of previous studies that focus on a direct relationship between IT and organizational performance fail to consider capabilities, that are improved by IT and which are true facilitators of performance improvement (Tippins & Sohi, 2003). Other studies have relied on the erroneous assumption that adoption of IT would improve performance (Dewett & Jones, 2001). While IT can improve efficiency, it may not provide competitive advantage, because the same technology could be adopted by competing organizations. Therefore, Tippins and Sohi (2003) proposed that IT related benefit can only be realized when the organization develops IT competency and then uses it as a set of co-specialized resources to leverage other complementary resources. Yongmei, Hongjian and Junhua (2008) suggested that IT capability is an important moderating variable linking IT investments to firm performance. The model and hypotheses are verified by sample data from leading IT firms in China. Similarly, Said, Hui, Taylor and Othman (2009) found that IT capability moderates the relationship between customer-focused strategies and organizational performance by providing a justification for LGA’s to invest in terms of resources and commitment, in adopting CF-strategies and IT.

Theoretical Approaches

There are number of theoretical approaches for examining firm resources and business values. The principal theories are transaction cost economics (Williamson 1971, 1981, 1986), the resource based view (Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 1986, 1991; Deirickx and Cool 1989) and the relational view of firm (Dyer & Singh, 1998) of the firm. In addition the concepts of dynamic capabilities (Teece and Pisano 1994; Teece et al. 1997), absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal 1990), complementary (Teece 1986) and strategic assets (Amit and Schoemaker 1993), and value chain analysis (Porter 1985). RBV asserts that organizations can outperform their competitors through developing resources that are unique and diversely distributed. These differences lead to variations in firm performance among firms in similar industries (Peteraf, 1993). However, the RBV is void of a single definition of the term resource (Wade &Hulland, 2004). Many researchers use the terms resources and capabilities interchangeably (Christensen & Overdorf, 2000; Gold et al., 2001).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research setting was a cross-sectional study design. It involves gathering the data only once or at one point in time to meet the research objectives (Cavana, Dalahaye, & Sekaran, 2001). The advantage of using a cross-sectional study is that it is economical and does not take time like a longitudinal study. The majority of the previous studies on BPR used case study descriptive research design (O’Neil & Sohal, 1999). The data from this study was collected from senior management, executives, managers and head of departments that represent the respective banks in Nigeria. In this study, attempts were made to increase the response rate such as by reminding the respondents through telephone call, SMS and self-visit (Sekaran, 2006). As a result of this efforts, 460 questionnaires responded by the banks were returned out of the 560 questionnaires distributed by hand delivery to the respondent banks (commercial, microfinance and mortgage) in Nigeria. This makes the response rate of 82.14% based on the definition of response rate (Jobber, 1989). Out of these 460 responses collected, 417 questionnaires were useable for further analysis making a valid response rate of 74.0%. This response rate is considered adequate considering that, according to Sekaran, (2006) the response rate of 30% is acceptable for surveys.

RELIABILITY TESTING

All variable's measures were tested for validity and reliability. Inter- correlation analysis was conducted and the results for the test were significant. The reliability test for each dimension emerged after factor analysis was conducted. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is widely used as a measure of reliability. Table 1 shows the results of the reliability test. Flynn, Schroeder, and Sakakibara (1994) argued that a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.6 and above was considered an effective reliability for judging a scale. The generally agreed lower limit for Cronbach’s alpha may decrease to 0.60 in exploratory research (Hair et al., 2010). A research instrument can be considered to be reliable if the result of the study can be replicable under a similar methodology with stability of measurement over time (Golafshani, 2003). Therefore, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the research instruments are shown in Table 1.

MODERATED REGRESSION

Hierarchical regression or moderator regression has been suggested by many authors as the technique for analysing the moderating effect (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Frazier et al., 2004). Russ and McNeilly (1995) argued that a less stringent significance level of p<0.25 should be used to resolve the lack of power in detecting the effect of the moderator. In this study, three levels of significance (1%, 5% and 10%) were used to detect the moderating effect of IT capability on the relationship between BPR factors and organizational performance. To test the moderator effect a three (3) step hierarchical was conducted to determine what proportion to the variance in a particular variable is explained by other variables when these variables are entered into the regression analysis in a certain order (Cramer, 2003).

Hypothesis testing of IT capability attributes - BPR factors - Organisational performance

To test the extent of IT capability attributes that moderates the relationship between BPR factors and overall organisational performance, a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted. The BPR factors were first entered into the step 1, followed by the moderator (IT capability) into step 2, and the interaction terms in step 3 of the regression model. It was the hypothesis that IT capability moderates the relationship between BPR factors and overall performance. Table 2 indicates the result of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis of the moderating effect of IT capability on the relationship between BPR factors and overall performance. BPR factors were entered first in step 1, explaining 15.4% of the variance. After the entry of IT capability at step 2 the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 19.7%. In step 3, the interaction terms were entered, which resulted in additional variance explaining up to 22.8%. The Sig. F change from step 1 to 2 at the 1% significance level and from step 2 to 3 was significant at the 5% level. However, inspection of the individual interaction terms between IT capability x management commitment (β=.225, t=2.646, p=.008); IT capability x customer focus (β=-.094, t=-1.886, p=.060) and IT capability x change management (β=-.090, t=-1.735, p=.084) indicates that management commitment was significant at 1%, customer focus and change management were significant at 10%, level respectively. IT capability moderates the relationship between the BPR factor (customer focus, management commitment and change management) and overall performance. Whilst, hypotheses HA 3A- 1, 3 and 4 are supported, hypotheses HA 3A – 2, 5 and 6 are rejected. The summary of hypothesis testing on the moderating effect of IT capability on the relationship between BPR factors and organisational performance is demonstrated in Table 2.

Hypothesis testing of IT capability attributes - BPR factors – Customer service management performance

To test the extent of IT capability attributes that moderates the relationship between BPR factors and customer service management performance, a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted. The BPR factors were first entered into the step 1, followed by the moderator (IT capability) into step 2, and the interaction terms in step 3 of the regression model. Table 3 shows the result of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis of the moderating effect of IT capability on the relationship between BPR factors and customer service management performance. BPR factors were entered first in step 1, explaining 21.3% of the variance. After the entry of IT capability at step 2 the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 24.7%. In step 3, the interaction terms were entered, which resulted in additional variance explaining up to 26.5%. The Sig. F change from step 1 to 2 was significant at the 1% level; however, the F change was not significant from step 2 to 3. However, upon scanning of the beta coefficient for individual interaction terms between IT capability x IT Investment (β=-.168, t=-1.989, p=.047) and IT capability x management commitment (β=.190, t=2.288, p=.023) both at the 5% significant level. This suggests that IT capability moderates the relationship between BPR factors (IT investment, Management commitment) and customer service management performance. Whilst, hypotheses HA 3C – 3 and 4 supported, hypotheses HA 3C – 1, 2, 5 and 6 are rejected. The summary of hypothesis testing on the moderating effect of IT capability on the relationship between BPR factors and customer service management performance is shown in Table 3.

DISCUSSION ON FINDINGS

This study found that IT capability moderates three (3) BPR factors, i.e., 1) change management, 2) management commitment, and 3) customer focus. This finding indicates that management commitment has both a direct and indirect significant effect on the overall performance of banks. The indirect effect is via IT capability. This finding also entails that banks that have excellent management competence would have a strong IT capability that would lead to a higher level of performance. The prior studies by Shao, Feng, Choudrie, and Liu (2010) have suggested that the interaction between the chief information officer competence and top management team moderate the relationship between IT investment and organizational performance. This also explains the experience of the IT productivity paradox based on the resource-based based view and knowledge-based view. Empirical research shows that the CIO’s strategic IT knowledge and business knowledge, as well as the interaction with top management team members, has a significant influence on the distribution and integration of IT within the organization (Armstrong & Sambamurthy, 1999; Smaltz & Sambamurthy, 2006). The issues of IT knowledge or CIO’s competence are new.

Previous research mainly focused on the direct association for IT knowledge of the CIO’s on organizational performance.

In a similar way, the moderating effect of IT capability on the relationship between customer focus and overall performance support the literature, which suggested that IT capability in combination with customer focus strategies enhance an organization’s ability to rapidly develop and deploy more innovative customer-focused focused techniques or processes to enhance performance (Clark, Cavanaugh, Brown & Sambamurthy, 1997). An empirical study by Said, Hui, Taylor and Othman (2009) also reported that a high level of IT capability enables organizations to perform services with greater speed, more accuracy and more convenient ways for customers. This finding is consistent with the argument put forward by Barney, Wright, and Ketchen (2001) who suggest that the synergy between two or more resources will create a sustainable competitive advantage

The moderating effect of IT capability on the relationship between change management and overall performance was in line with study conducted by Ahmed, Zbib, Arokiasamy, Ramayah and Chiun, (2006) findings that reported, resistance to change was negatively related to achievement of predetermined goals and user satisfaction. Furthermore, a change management initiative was found to moderate the relationship between resistance and user satisfaction. When Change management is high, it means that the users are not very happy with the changes imposed on them. This in turn will lead to lower performance. This indicates that managing the change effectively by acknowledging resistance as natural and expected, giving importance to employees concern, having regular and open communication, get everyone's participation, and promote skills and development are some of the ways to lower the organizational resistance. Employees are not really resisting the change, but rather they may be resisting the loss of jobs, loss of pay, or loss of comfort.

However, this study does not find any statistical evidence that IT capability moderates the relationship between project management and overall performance or its dimensions. The most plausible explanation may be due to the weak and insignificant value of the inter-correlation between the variable and IT capability. Another justification for the insignificant results between BPR strategy alignment and overall performance or other dimensions of performance may be related to the lack of connectivity between strategy and BPR project as one of the reasons for failures in the organization (Bandara et al., 2007). The non-significant relationship between BPR strategy alignment and performance might be due to the implementation of BPR by the organization as a quick fix, i.e., for reactive purposes not as a proactive initiative (Terziovski et al., (2003). BPR factors- IT capability-– customer service management, cost reduction and business operations efficiency performance.

The moderating effect of IT capability on the relationship between IT investment, and management commitment on the three dimensions of performance variables (cost reduction, business operation's efficiency and customer service management) is consistent with previous literature, which suggested that IT payoff and RBV literature provides a theoretical rationale for how IT capability moderates the relationship between IT investment and firm performance (Yongmei, Hongjian, & Junhua, 2008). The IT productivity paradox is explained by the revised model, with IT investment affecting firm performance indirectly through IT infrastructure. To some extent, the influence that IT investment has on human-IT resources and IT-enabled intangibles also affects firm performance, however, these relationships are moderated by the IT capability, implying that no matter how much a firm spends on IT, enhanced performance will not occur without advancing IT capability

The overall findings from the study prove that links between IT capabilities on the relationship between BPR factors and organizational performance have been established in the study. This linkage provides a new empirical contribution to academic knowledge and practitioners. The challenge for academia is to carry out more research on multi-disciplines to establish the links for the benefit of the industry and society as a whole. As for practitioners, in the search for organizational excellence, organizations should not be dependent on a particular management technique, but rather, multi management techniques are essential for organizational survival and success. The following section discusses the implications of the study.

IMPLICATION OF THE STUDY

In summary, this study provides evidence that IT capability plays a critical role in moderating the relationship between BPR factors and organizational performance. This finding provides support for the resource-based view of the firm, which highlights the importance of intangible resources (management commitment, customer focus, change management and IT investment) and capability (IT capability) in explaining organizational performance. Furthermore, this study not only provides evidence of a significant relationship of BPR factors and performance, but it also provides relationship between BPR factors and dimensions of organizational performance.

LIMITATIONS TO THE STUDY

This study is subject to several shortcomings that limit interpretation of the findings. One of the limitations in this research is the common method variance (CMV) is a potential problem in behavioural research (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This study adopts Harman’s (1967) single factor analysis to test the common method bias and the design approach to instrument development to reduce common method bias. Future research may collect data from different sources.

In addition the study used subjective self-reported perceptual measures in assessing the studies. Even though an attempt was made to identify the best respondents by contacting the key personnel that provide the best information, the accuracy of self-perception might be strongly influenced by the respondent’s experience in the management of the organizations and frame of reference at the point in time. For instance, perceived biasness may occur if a person with a high reputation strongly believes that their management practices are more advanced compared to other organizations.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The sample from the study is limited to Nigerian banks. Future research should consider replicating this study in other cultures or countries especially on the moderating effect of IT capability dimensions. In addition, further research is also, needed to be conducted in other sector or industry besides banking such as manufacturing, or construction sector. This research would help to generalize the findings of this study in a broader context. Alternatively, a cross-cultural comparative analysis would further enhance the understanding of BPR and IT capability of different cultures.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

An attempt was made in the present study to investigate the link between BPR factors and IT capability and their effect on organizational performance. The results of the present study establish the important role of IT capability towards competitive advantage and organizational excellence. IT operations, IT objects and IT knowledge are the most important dimensions of IT capability attributes that contribute to higher organization performance. Stakeholders in the organization should recognize the important role that IT operations play in managing the organization. Putting in competent CIO leadership will provide the right culture for organizational excellence since IT has the necessary capabilities to drive strategic competitive advantage and performance. The role of IT capability is not only to coordinate but also to provide competitive advantage for organizational profitability performance and growth.

The overall findings from the study have proven that the relationship between BPR, IT capability on organizational performance have been established in the study. This study provides new empirical contribution to academic knowledge and practitioners. To the academia, more research on multi-disciplines need to be conducted to establish the relationship beneficial to the industry and society in general. To the practitioners, the search for organizational performance and competitive advantage should not be dependent on a particular management technique but multiple management initiatives, which are important for survival and success.

Tables at a glance


Table 1	Table 2	Table 3

References

Abdolvand, N., Albadvi, A., & Ferdowsi, Z. (2008). Assessing readiness for business process reengineering. Business Process Management Journal, 14(4), 497-511.

AbuBakar, A. R., Hashim, F., Ahmad, H., Isa, F. M., & Dzakaria, H. (2009). Distinctive Capabilities and Strategic thrust of Malaysia's Institutions of Higher Learning. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 1(2), 158-164.

Adam, M. M., & J, M. (1993). Measuring the organizational impact of information technology investment: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(1), 97.

Ahmad, H., Francis, A., & Zairi, M. (2007). Business process reengineering: critical success factors in higher education. , 13(3), 451-467. Business Process Management Journal, 13(3), 451-467.

Ahmed, Z., Zbib, I, Arokiasamy, S., Ramayah, T., & Chiun, L.M. (2006). Resistance to change and ERP implementation success: The moderating role of change management initiatives. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 11, 2, 1–17.

Al-Mashari, M., & Zairi, M. (1999). Business process reengineering implementation processes: an analysis of key success and failure factors. Business Process Management Journal, 5(1), 87-112.

Al-Mashari, M., & Zairi, M. (2000). Revisiting BPR: a holistic review of practice and development. Business Process Management Journal, 6(1), 10-42.

Al-Mashari, M., Irani, Z., & Zairi, M. (2001). Business process reengineering: a survey of international experience. Business Process Management Journal, 7(5), 437-455.

Aregbeyen, O (2011). Business Reengineering and Organizational Performance in Nigeria: A Case Study of First Bank Nigeria Plc. International Business Management, 5(3), 151-158.

Attaran, M. (2004). Exploring the relationship between information technology and business process reengineering. Information & Management Journal, 41(5), 585-596.

Banker, R., & Kauffman, R. J. (1991). Re-use and productivity in integrated computer-aided software engineering: An empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 15, 374-401.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Barney, J. B. (2001). Is resource based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41-56.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research; Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Bart, C., Bontis, N., & Taggar, S. (2001). A model of the impact of mission statements on firm performance. Management Decision, 39(1), 19-35.

Barua, A., Lee, B., & Whinston, A. (1996). The calculus of reengineering. Information Systems Research, 7(4), 409-428.

Barua, A., & Whinston, A. B. (1998). Complementarity based decision support for managing organizational design dynamics. Decision Support Systems, 22(1), 45-58.

Bharadwaj, A., Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (1998). IT Capabilities: Theoretical perspectives and Empirical operation. Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Information System, Helsinki Finland.JIBC August 2012, Vol. 17, No.2 - 15 -

Bharadwaj, A., Bharadwaj, S., & Konsynski, B. (1999). Information technology effect on firm performance as a measured by Tobin's Q. Management Science, 45(7), 1008-1024.

Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A Resource-Based perspective on Information Technology capabilities and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24, 169.

Bharadwaj, A. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24, 169-196.

Bhatt, G. D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between information technology infrastructure and business processes reengineering. Business Management Journal, 6(2), 139-163.

Bhatt, G. D., & Trout, M. D. (2005). Examining the relationship between business process initiatives, information systems, integration and customer focus: an empirical study. Business Process Management Journal, 11(5), 532-558.

BI, X., & Zhang, H. (2008). Empirical Research on Relationship between Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: the Evidence from Listed Companies and Information Power 500 in China. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, China.

Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management decision, 48(9), 63-67.

Bontis, N., Chua, C. K., & Richardson, S. (2000). Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 1, 85-100.

Brenahan TF, Brynjolfsson E, & Hitt, L. (2002). Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labour: Firm level evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 339-376.

Broadbent, M., & Weill, P. (1997). Management by Maxim: How business and IT managers can create IT infrastructures. Sloan Management Review, spring, 77-92.

Broadbent, M., Weill, P., & St.Clair, D. (1999). The implication of information technology infrastructure for business process redesign. MIS Quarterly, 23.

Brown, R. M., Gatian, A. W., & Hicks, J. O. J. (1995). Strategic information systems and financial performance. Journal of Management Information System, 11(4), 215-248.

Brynjolfsson, E. (1993). The productivity paradox of information technology. Communication of the ACM, 42(4), 541-558.

Brynjolfsson, E., & Yang, S. (1996). Information Technology and Productivity: A Review of the Literature Advances in Computers. In (M. V. Zelkowitz ed., Vol. 43, pp. 179-214): Elsevier.

Brynjolfsson, E. H. (1998). Beyond productivity paradox. Common ACM, 41, 49-55.

Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (2003). Computing productivity: Firm-level evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 793-808.

Brynjolfsson E, & Hitt, L. M. (2000). Beyond computation: information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. Journal of Economics Perspective, 14(4), 23-48.

Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539-553.JIBC August 2012, Vol. 17, No.2 - 16 -

Canato, A., & Corrocher, N. (2004). Information and communication technology: Organizational challenges for Italian banks. Accounting, Business and Financial History, 14(3), 355-370.

Candler, J. W., Palvia, P. C., Thompson, J. D., & Zeltmann, S. M. (1996). The ORION project: Staged business process reengineering at FedEx. Communications. ACM, 39, 99-107.

CBN. (2009). Central Bank of Nigeria Annual Report and Account as at 31st December. Abuja: Central Bank of Nigeria.

CBN/BSD. (2008). Central Bank of Nigeria: Banking Supervision Department Annual Report. Abuja: Banking Supervision Department Central Bank of Nigeria.

CBN/NDIC. (1995). Collaborative study of Distress in Nigerian Financial Service Industry. Lagos: Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation & Central Bank of Nigeria.

Chatfield, A. T., & Bjorn-Andersen, N. (1997). The impact of IOS-enabled business process change on business outcomes: Transformation of the value chain of Japan Airlines. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(1), 13-40.

Cheng, M. Y., Tsai, M. H., & Xiao, Z. X. (2006). Construction management process reengineering: Organizational human resource planning for multiple projects. Automation in Construction, 15, 785-799.

Cheng, T. C. E., & Chiu, I. S. F. (2008). Critical Success Factors of Business Process Re-engineering in the Banking Industry. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(4), 258-269.

Clark, T. H., & Stoddard, D. B. (1996). Inter-organizational business process redesign: Merging technological and process innovation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 9-28.

Clark, C. E., Cavanaugh, N. C., Brown, C. V., & Sambamurthy, V. (1997). Building change readiness capabilities in the IS organization: Insights from the Bell Atlantic. MIS Quarterly, 44, 158.

Clemons, E. K., Thatcher, M. E., & Row, M. C. (1995). Identifying sources of reengineering failures: A study of the behavioral factors contributing to reengineering risks. . Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(2), 9-36.

Datta, A. (1988). Automating the discovery of AS-IS business process models: Probabilistic and algorithmic approaches. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 275-301.

Davenport, H. T., & Short, J. E. (1990). The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign. Sloan Management Review, 11-26.

Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press.

Dawe, R. (1996). Systems are people to transportation and distribution. Harvard Business Review, 37, 86-90.

Dennis, A. R., Daniels, R. M., Hayes, G., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1994). Methodology-driven use of automated support in business process re-engineering. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(3), 117-138.

Dennis, A. R., Hayes, G., & Daniels, R. M. J. (1999). Business process modeling with group sup- port systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 115-142.

Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1998). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measure: the case of the privately held firm and JIBC August 2012, Vol. 17, No.2 - 17 -

conglomerate business Unit., 5(3), 265-274.

Devaraj, S., & Kohli, R. (2000). Information technology payoff in the health-care industry: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(4), 41-67.

Dewett, T., & Jones, G. (2001). The role of information technology in the organization: a review, model and assessment. Journal of Management, 27, 313-346.

Dos Santos, B., & Preffers, K. (1995). Reward to investors in innovative information technology applications: first movers and early followers in ATMs. Organization Science, 6(3), 241-259.

Earl, M. J., Sampler, J. L., & Short, J. E. (1995). Strategies for business process reengineering: Evidence from field studies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(1), 31-56.

El-Sawy, D. (1997). Business process reengineering do software tools matters? Paper presented at the Conference in Information Systems, Florida USA.

Fahy, J., & Smithee, A. (1999). Strategic Marketing and resources based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 99(10), 1-21.

Fahy, J. (2000). The resource-based view of the firm: Some stumbling block on the road to understanding sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(2 3/4), 94-104.

Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1990). Path Analysis of the Relationship between competitive strategy, information technology and financial performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(1), 47-64.

Foss, N. J. (1998). The resource based perspective: An assessment and diagnosis of problems.

Fowler, S. W., Wilcox King, A., Marsh, S. W., & Victor, B. (2000). Beyond products: new strategic imperatives for developing competencies in dynamic environments. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17(3-4), 357-377.

Frazier, P. A., Barron, K. E., & Tix, A. (2004). Testing Moderator and Mediator Effects in Counseling Psychology Research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115-134.

Frieder, L., & Gregory, W. T. (1996). Bank valuations: Meeting customer and investor need. The Bankers, 179, 49-54.

Gatian, A. W., Brown, R. M., & Hicks, J. O. J. (1995). Organizational innovativeness, competitive strategy and investment success. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 4(1), 43-59.

Gomes, C. F., Yasin, M. M., & Lisboa, J. V. (2004). A literature review of manufacturing performance measures and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and direction for future research. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15(6), 511-530.

Guimaraes, T., & Bond, W. (1996). Empirically assessing the impact of business process re-engineering on manufacturing firms. International Journal of Operation Production Management, 16(5), 5-28.

Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation (1st ed.). USA: Harper Collins Inc.

Hansen, G., & Wernerfelt, B. (1989). Determinant of firm performance in relative importance of economic and organizational factors. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1246-1255.

Hasnan, N. (2006). Developing a balanced Scorecard model for evaluation of project management and performance. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham (UK).JIBC August 2012, Vol. 17, No.2 - 18 -

Henri, J. F. (2004). Performance Measurement and Organizational effectiveness: Bridging the gap. Managerial Finance, 30(6), 93-123.

Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2001). Strategic Management: Competitiveness and globalization. ( 4th. (concepts and cases) ed.). Singapore: South-Western College Publishing.

Holden, T., & Wilhelmij, P. (1996). Improved decision making through better integration of human resources and business process factors in a hospital situation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), 21-41.

Huang, Y.-H., Li, E. Y., & Chen, J. S. (2009). Information synergy as the catalyst between information technology capability and innovativeness: empirical evidence from the financial service sector. Information Research, 14(1), 1-23.

Hunter, L. W., Bernhardt, A., Hughes, K. L., & Skuratowicz, E. (2001). It's not just the ATMs: Firm Strategies, work restructuring and workers earning in retail banking. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 54(2A), 402-424.

Ibenta, S. N. O. (2010). The Effect of Banking reforms on the soundness of the Nigerian banking system. A Quarterly Journal of Association of National Accountants of Nigeria, 18(1), 1-59.

Idris, F. (2011). Total quality management (TQM) and sustainable company performances: Examining the relationship in Malaysian firms. International Journal of Business and Society, 12(1), 31-52.

Johannessen, J., Olaisen, J., & Olsen, B. (1999). Strategic use of information technology for increased innovation and performance. Information Management & Computer Security, 7(1), 5-22.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard--Measures That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 20, 71-79.

Kettinger, W. J., Teng, J. T. C., & Guha, S. (1997). Business process change: A study of methodologies, techniques, and tools. MIS Quarterly, 21(1), 55-80.

Khong, K. W., & Richardson, S. (2003). Business process reengineering in Malaysian banks and finance companies. Managing Service Quality, 13(1), 54-71.

Khong, K. W., & Mahendhiran, N. (2006). The effect of customer service management on business performance in Malaysian banking industry: an empirical analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 18(2), 111-128.

Kintana, M., Alonso, A., & Olaverri, M. (2003). High performance work systems and firm's operational performance: Moderating role of Technology. Retrieved 3/11/2011, 2011

Lee, H. g., & Clark, T. H. (1996). Market process reengineering through electronic market systems: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(3), 113-136.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capability and core rigidity: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(Summer Special), 111-125.

Li, E. Y., Chen, J. S., & Huang, Y. H. (2006). A framework for investigating the impact of IT capability and organizational capability on firm performance in the late industrializing context. International Journal of Technology Management, 36(123), 209-229.

Liu, Y. M., Liu, H. J., & Hu, J. H. (2008). IT Competence as Moderator between IT Investment and Firm Performance. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 13(3), 329-336.

Loveman, G. (1990). An assessment of the Productivity impact on Information JIBC August 2012, Vol. 17, No.2 - 19 -

technologies. Sloan Management Review, MIT working paper.

Lyles, M. A., & Salk, J. E. (1998). Knowledge acquisition from foreign parents in international joint ventures: an empirical examination in the Hungarian context. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(5), 877-904.

Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, R. (1992). The resources based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 363-380.

Martin, W. (1988). The information society. London: Eastern Press.

Menor, L. J., Roth, A. V., & Mason, C. H. (2001). Agility in retail banking: A numerical taxonomy of strategic service groups. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 3(4), 273-292.

Meyer, H., & Utter back, J. (1992). Core competencies, product families and sustained business success. Working paper Sloan, 3, 410-492.

Mills, J., Platts, K., & Bourne, M. (2003). Applying resource-based theory: Methods, outcomes and utility for mangers. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(2), 148-166.

Mitra, S., & Chaya, A. (1996). Analyzing cost-effectiveness of organizations: the impact of information technology spending. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 29-57.

Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. M., & Hill, R. C. (1996). Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 15-23.

Murray, M. A., & Lynn, M. P. (1997). Business process re-engineering/information system development to improve customer service quality. Business Process Management, 3(1), 9-16.

NDIC. (2009). Memorandum Submitted to the Committee on Banking and Currency of the House of Representatives, National Assembly Investigating Unethical Practices in the Banking Sector. Abuja - Nigeria: Nigeria: Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Neely, A. (1999). The performance measurement revolution: Why now and what next? International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(2), 205-228.

Newman, J., & Kozar, K. A. (1994). A multimedia solution to productivity gridlock: A re-engineered jewelry appraisal system at Zale Corporation. MIS Quarterly, 18(1), 21-30.

Nissen, M. E. (1998). Redesigning reengineering through measurement-driven inference. MIS Quarterly, 22(4), 509-534.

Nissen, M. E. (2001). An experiment to assess the performance of a redesign knowledge system. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 25-43.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometrics Theory (2 ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Nura, A.A., Osman, N H. (2012). A Toolkit on effective decision making measurement in organizations. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(4), 296-303.

Ozcelik, Y. (2010). Do business process reengineering projects payoff: Evidence from the United States. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 7-13.

Powell, T. C., & Dent-Micallef, A. (1997). Information Technology as Competitive Advantage: The Role of Human, Business, and Technology Resources. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 375-405.

Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22-40.JIBC August 2012, Vol. 17, No.2 - 20 -

Quinn, J. B., Baily, M. N., Herbert, G. R., & Willett, D., et al. (1994). Information technology: Increasing productivity in services: Executive commentary. The Academy of Management Executive, 8(3), 28.

Ranganathan, C., & Dhaliwal, J. S. (2001). A survey of business process reengineering practices in Singapore. Information and Management, 39(2), 125-134.

Ravichandran, T., & Lertwongstien, C. (2002). Impact of information systems, Resources and capabilities on firm performance: A resource-based perspective. Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, Spain.

Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Mahanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, Business process and Competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23-37.

Razalli, M.R. (2008). The consequence of service operations practice and service responsiveness on Hotel performance: Examination of Hotels in Malaysia. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia, (USM).

Riggins, F. J., & Mukhopadhyay, T. (1994). Interdependent benefits from inter-organizational systems: Opportunities for business partner reengineering. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(2), 37-57.

Ringim, K. J., Razalli, M. R., & Hasnan, N. (2011). Effect of Business Process Reengineering Factors on Organizational Performance of Nigerian banks: Information Technology Capability as the Moderating Factor. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(13), 198-201.

Ross, J., Beath, C., & Goodhue, D. (1996). Develop long-term competitiveness through information technology assets. Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 31-42.

Sager, M. (1998). Competitive Information Systems in Australian retail Banking. Information and Management, 15, 59-67.

Said, J., Hui, W. S., Taylor, D., & Othman, R. (2009). Customer-Focused Strategies and Information Technology Capabilities: For Service Quality of Malaysian Local Authorities. International Review of Business Research Papers, 5(3), 241-256.

Sanusi, L.S. (2010). The Nigerian Banking industry: what went wrong and the way forward (PDF). Central Bank of Nigeria. Abuja, Nigeria.

Santhanam, R., & Hartono, E. (2003). Issues in Linking Information Technology Capability to Firm Performance. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 125-153.

Sarker, S., Sarker, S., & Sidorova, D. (2006). A. Understanding business process change failure: An actor-network perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(1), 51-86.

Sidikat, A., & Ayanda, A. M. (2008).Impact Assessment of Business Process Reengineering on Organisational Performance. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 132-147.

Sekaran, U. (2006). Research methods for business. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Shao, Z., Feng, Y., Choudrie, J., & Liu, Y. (2010). The Moderating effect of a chief information officer’s competence on I.T investment and firm performance. Paper presented at the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Taipei Taiwan.

Shin, N., & Jemella, D. F. (2002). Business process reengineering and performance improvement: The case of Chase Manhattan Bank. Business Process Management Journal, 8(4), 1463-7154.

Stoddard, D. B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). Business process redesign: Tactics for JIBC August 2012, Vol. 17, No.2 - 21 -

managing radical change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(1), 81-107.

Tang, K. H., & Zairi, M. (1998). Bench marking quality implementation in a service context: a comparative analysis of financial services and institutions of higher education Part 1: financial service sector. Total Quality Management, 9(6), 407-420.

Teng, J., V., Grover, & Fiedler, K. D. (1994). Business Process Reengineering: Charting a Strategic Path for the Information Age. California Management Review.

Thong, J., Yap, C., & Seah, K.-L. (2000). Business Process Reengineering in the public sector: The ease of the housing development board in Singapore. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(1), 245-270.

Tippins, M. J., & Sohi, R. S. (2003). IT Competency and firm performance: Is organizational learning a missing link? Strategic Management Journal, 24, 745-761.

Venkatraman, N., & Zaheer, A. (1990). Electronic Integration and Strategic Advantage: A Quasi-Experimental Study in the Insurance Industry. Information System Research, 1(4), 377-393.

Venkatraman, N. (1994). I.T-enabled business transformation: from automation to business scope redefinition. Sloan Management Review, 35(2), 73-87.

Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). The Resource-Based View and Information Systems Research: Review, Extension and Suggestions for Future Research. . MIS Quarterly, 28, 81-90.

Yongmei, L., Hongjian, L., & Junhua, H. (2008). Information technology capability as moderator between information technology investment and firm's performance. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 13(1007-021412/26 329-336).

Zairi, M., & Sinclair, D. (1995). Business process re-engineering and process management: a survey of current practice and future trends in integrated management. Management Decision, 33(3), 3-16.

Zucco, N. (1996). Reengineering in Australian banks - achieving a quantum leap in performance (pp. An internal study paper). Australia: KPMG.