I think people should read this book because for better or for worse, it has defined the way big business acted in the mid and late 90's. However, it suffers from the same vices that a lot of business books do: over-the-top, breathless panting writing style, exaggerated claims (like this book transcends Adam Smith), too much jargon and neologism, and covering the very real downsides of reengineering with euphemism or omission. The authors argue that American business is lagging because its processes are too bureaucratic and mired in the past. They believe that businesses must junk old processes completely by taking advantage of new information technology. This is alright as far as it goes: why employ elevator operators in automated cars and firemen on diesel locomotives if they are no longer useful there? However, the authors do not concede until almost the very end that reengineering can cost jobs (many, many jobs) and increase the stress of those still working. They are also not particularly helpful to managers who have just had to lay off legions of workers and now face a wopping morale and credibility problem. Instead, they offer much zen-speak about "vision" and "cases for action." The case studies selected for reengineering were particularly depressing examples of pod people speak. Organizations don't change, they undergo a "paradigm shift." People don't have thoughts or ideas, they have "visions." And they never agree, they always "sign on", "get on board" or achieve "alignment." What big business really needs to reengineer is its writing and speaking styles. Like the weather, women's fashions, and other management fads (remember Total Quality Management?), reengineering will have its day in the sun and then fade away. Nonetheless, read the book for its influence rather than its educational or entertainment value.