New Technology, Work and Employment 13:2 ISSN 0268-1072 A pernicious panacea—a critical evaluation of business re- engineering Helen Blair, Susan Grey Taylor and Keith Randle This article investigates the practicalities of implementing business pro- cess re-engineering (BPR) through two case studies, DefCo and ServiCo in the public sector. It demonstrates the destructive and insidious nature of BPR, and deconstructs the myth that BPR represents a discontinuity in management thinking. Recent years have seen a succession of uni- versal business cures paraded before organis- ations, claiming to address questions of pro- duct or service quality and organisational culture. Business process reengineering (BPR) is little different from its predecessors, not least in terms of its presentation and many of its component parts[1]. However, this paper argues that re-engineering does depart from previous consultancy driven packages both in the enormous upheaval it involves and in its potential to damage organisations and their employees. The claims made for re- engineering are great and, despite extensive academic criticism, are still being offered to managers looking for answers to business problems[2]. Yet, can re-engineering provide the techniques and, indeed, solutions they desire? This article analyses the difficulties of oper- ❒ Helen Blair is a Doctoral Research Student and Susan Grey Taylor and Keith Randle are Principal Lecturers in Organisational Behaviour at the Univer- sity of Hertfordshire Business School  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, USA. 116 New Technology, Work and Employment ationalising the re-engineering ‘solution’ through an examination of two cases conduc- ted in the manufacturing and service sectors respectively. The examination of the practi- calities of implementing re-engineering (issues relatively neglected by most authors) in these case studies demonstrate that re- engineering is far more problematic to implement than is ever indicated by its chief proponents Hammer and Champy[3]. It also has an insidious side to its nature, having the potential to be used as a cost cutting measure resulting in redundancy or, for those staff who survive the process, an intensification of labour. Given these factors alone, it is legit- imate to question the merit of undertaking such change. Of course, the nature of organis- ational politics often encourages managers to behave in this more short term manner, meaning that the longer-term well-being of the organisation as a whole may not be their primary concern. Furthermore, when sub- jected to close scrutiny, the internal logic of re-engineering reveals major incongruities, which, in themselves place in jeopardy the