the concept of tqm

Introduction:

Total Quality Management is a management approach that originated in the 1950's and has steadily become more popular since the early 1980's. Total Quality is a description of the culture, attitude and organization of a company that strives to provide customers with products and services that satisfy their needs. The culture requires quality in all aspects of the company's operations, with processes being done right the first time and defects and waste eradicated from operations.

Total Quality Management, TQM, is a method by which management and employees can become involved in the continuous improvement of the production of goods and services. It is a combination of quality and management tools aimed at increasing business and reducing losses due to wasteful practices.

Some of the companies who have implemented TQM include Ford Motor Company, Phillips Semiconductor, SGL Carbon, Motorola and Toyota Motor Company.

TQM:

TQM is a management philosophy that seeks to integrate all organizational functions (marketing, finance, design, engineering, and production, customer service, etc.) to focus on meeting customer needs and organizational objectives.

TQM views an organization as a collection of processes. It maintains that organizations must strive to continuously improve these processes by incorporating the knowledge and experiences of workers. The simple objective of TQM is "Do the right things, right the first time, every time". TQM is infinitely variable and adaptable. Although originally applied to manufacturing operations, and for a number of years only used in that area, TQM is now becoming recognized as a generic management tool, just as applicable in service and public sector organizations. There are a number of evolutionary strands, with different sectors creating their own versions from the common ancestor. TQM is the foundation for activities, which include:

Commitment by senior management and all employees Meeting customer requirements Reducing development cycle times Just In Time/Demand Flow Manufacturing Improvement teams Reducing product and service costs Systems to facilitate improvement Line Management ownership Employee involvement and empowerment Recognition and celebration Challenging quantified goals and benchmarking Focus on processes / improvement plans Specific incorporation in strategic planning

The Concept of TQM & CPR

This shows that TQM must be practiced in all activities, by all personnel, in Manufacturing, Marketing, Engineering, R&D, Sales, Purchasing, HR, etc. The core of TQM is the customer-supplier interfaces, both externally and internally, and at each interface lie a number of processes. This core must be surrounded by commitment to quality, communication of the quality message, and recognition of the need to change the culture of the organization to create total quality. These are the foundations of TQM, and they are supported by the key management functions of people, processes and systems in the organization.

The key principles of TQM are as following:

Management Commitment

1. Plan (drive, direct)2. Do (deploy, support, participate)3. Check (review)4. Act (recognizes, communicate, revise)

Employee Empowerment

1. Training2. Suggestion scheme3. Measurement and recognition4. Excellence teams

Fact Based Decision Making

1. SPC (statistical process control)The Concept of TQM & CPR

2. DOE, FMEA3. The 7 statistical tools4. TOPS (FORD 8D - Team Oriented Problem Solving)

Continuous Improvement

1. Systematic measurement and focus on CONQ2. Excellence teams3. Cross-functional process management4. Attain, maintain, improve standards

Customer Focus

1. Supplier partnership2. Service relationship with internal customers3. Never compromise quality4. Customer driven standards

The Concept of Continuous Improvement by TQM

TQM is mainly concerned with continuous improvement in all work, from high level strategic planning and decision-making, to detailed execution of work elements on the shop floor. It stems from the belief that mistakes can be avoided and defects can be prevented. It leads to continuously improving results, in all aspects of work, as a result of continuously improving capabilities, people, processes, and technology and machine capabilities.

Continuous improvement must deal not only with improving results, but more importantly with improving capabilities to produce better results in the future. The five major areas of focus for capability improvement are demand generation, supply generation, technology, operations and people capability.

A central principle of TQM is that mistakes may be made by people, but most of them are caused, or at least permitted, by faulty systems and processes. This means that the root cause of such mistakes can be identified and eliminated, and repetition can be prevented by changing the process.

There are three major mechanisms of prevention:

1. Preventing mistakes (defects) from occurring (Mistake - proofing or Poka-Yoke).2. Where mistakes can't be absolutely prevented, detecting them early to prevent them being passed

down the value added chain (Inspection at source or by the next operation).3. Where mistakes recur, stopping production until the process can be corrected, to prevent the

production of more defects. (Stop in time).

The basis for TQM implementation is the establishment of a quality management system which involves the organizational structure, responsibilities, procedures and processes. The most frequently used guidelines for quality management systems are the ISO 9000 international standards, which emphasize the establishment of a well- documented, standardized quality system. The role of the ISO 9000 standards within the TQM circle of continuous improvement is presented in the following figure.

Continuous improvement is a circular process that links the diagnostic, planning, implementation and evaluation phases. Within this circular process, the ISO 9000 standards are commonly applied in the implementation phase. An ISO 9000 quality system also requires the establishment of procedures that standardize the way an organization handles the diagnostic and evaluation phases. However, the ISO 9000 standards do not prescribe particular quality management techniques or quality-control methods. The Concept of TQM & CPR

Because it is a generic organizational standard, ISO 9000 does not define quality or provide any specifications of products or processes. ISO 9000 certification only assures that the organization has in place a well-operated quality system that conforms to the ISO 9000 standards. Consequently, an organization may be certified but still manufacture poor-quality products.

Implementation Principles and Processes

A preliminary step in TQM implementation is to assess the organization's current reality. Relevant preconditions have to do with the organization's history, its current needs, precipitating events leading to TQM, and the existing employee quality of working life. If the current reality does not include important preconditions, TQM implementation should be delayed until the organization is in a state in which TQM is likely to succeed.

If an organization has a track record of effective responsiveness to the environment, and if it has been able to successfully change the way it operates when needed, TQM will be easier to implement. If an organization has been historically reactive and has no skill at improving its operating systems, there will be both employee skepticism and a lack of skilled change agents. If this condition prevails, a comprehensive program of management and leadership development may be instituted. A management audit is a good assessment tool to identify current levels of organizational functioning and areas in need of change. An organization should be basically healthy before beginning TQM. If it has significant problems such as a very unstable funding base, weak administrative systems, lack of managerial skill, or poor employee morale, TQM would not be appropriate.

However, a certain level of stress is probably desirable to initiate TQM. People need to feel a need for a change. Kanter (1983) addresses this phenomenon as describing building blocks which are present in effective organizational change. These forces include departures from tradition, a crisis or galvanizing event, strategic decisions, individual "prime movers," and action vehicles. Departures from tradition are activities, usually at lower levels of the organization, which occur when entrepreneurs move outside the normal ways of operating to solve a problem. A crisis, if it is not too disabling, can also help create a sense of urgency which can mobilize people to act. In the case of TQM, this may be a funding cut or threat, or demands from consumers or other stakeholders for improved quality of service. After a crisis, a leader may intervene strategically by articulating a new vision of the future to help the organization deal with it.

A plan to implement TQM may be such a strategic decision. Such a leader may then become a prime mover, who takes charge in championing the new idea and showing others how it will help them get where they want to go. Finally, action vehicles are needed and mechanisms or structures to enable the change to occur and become institutionalized.

The building blocks of TQM

The building blocks of TQM: processes, people, management systems and performance measurement

Everything we do is a Process, which is the transformation of a set of inputs, which can include action, methods and operations, into the desired outputs, which satisfy the customers’ needs and expectations. In each area or function within an organization there will be many processes taking place, and each can be analyzed by an examination of the inputs and outputs to determine the action necessary to improve quality. In every organization there are some very large processes, which are groups of smaller processes, called key or core business processes. These must be carried out well if an organization is to achieve its mission and objectives. The section on Processes discusses processes and how to improve them, and Implementation covers how to prioritize and select the right process for improvement.


The TQM blocks

The only point at which true responsibility for performance and quality can lie is with the People who actually do the job or carry out the process, each of which has one or several suppliers and customers.

An efficient and effective way to tackle process or quality improvement is through teamwork. However, people will not engage in improvement activities without commitment and recognition from the organization’s leaders, a climate for improvement and a strategy that is implemented thoughtfully and effectively. The section on People expands on these issues, covering roles within teams, team selection and development and models for successful teamwork.

An appropriate documented Quality Management System will help an organization not only achieve the objectives set out in its policy and strategy, but also, and equally importantly, sustain and build upon them. It is imperative that the leaders take responsibility for the adoption and documentation of an appropriate management system in their organization if they are serious about the quality journey. The Systems section discusses the benefits of having such a system, how to set one up and successfully implement it.

Once the strategic direction for the organization’s quality journey has been set, it needs Performance Measures to monitor and control the journey, and to ensure the desired level of performance is being achieved and sustained. They can, and should be, established at all levels in the organization, ideally being cascaded down and most effectively undertaken as team activities and this is discussed in the section on Performance.

Steps in Managing the Transition

Beckhard and Pritchard (1992) have outlined the basic steps in managing a transition to a new system such as TQM: identifying tasks to be done, creating necessary management structures, developing strategies for building commitment, designing mechanisms to communicate the change, and assigning resources.


Task identification would include a study of present conditions (assessing current reality, as described above); assessing readiness, such as through a force field analysis; creating a model of the desired state, in this case, implementation of TQM; announcing the change goals to the organization; and assigning responsibilities and resources. This final step would include securing outside consultation and training and assigning someone within the organization to oversee the effort. This should be a responsibility of top management. In fact, the next step, designing transition management structures, is also a responsibility of top management. In fact, Cohen and Brand (1993) and Hyde (1992) assert that management must be heavily involved as leaders rather than relying on a separate staff person or function to shepherd the effort. An organization wide steering committee to oversee the effort may be appropriate. Developing commitment strategies was discussed above in the sections on resistance and on visionary leadership.

To communicate the change, mechanisms beyond existing processes will need to be developed. Special all-staff meetings attended by executives, sometimes designed as input or dialog sessions, may be used to kick off the process, and TQM newsletters may be an effective ongoing communication tool to keep employees aware of activities and accomplishments.

Management of resources for the change effort is important with TQM because outside consultants will almost always be required. Choose consultants based on their prior relevant experience and their commitment to adapting the process to fit unique organizational needs. While consultants will be invaluable with initial training of staff and TQM system design, employees (management and others) should be actively involved in TQM implementation, perhaps after receiving training in change management which they can then pass on to other employees. A collaborative relationship with consultants and clear role definitions and specification of activities must be established.

In summary, first assess preconditions and the current state of the organization to make sure the need for change is clear and that TQM is an appropriate strategy. Leadership styles and organizational culture must be congruent with TQM. If they are not, this should be worked on or TQM implementation should be avoided or delayed until favorable conditions exist.

Remember that this will be a difficult, comprehensive, and long-term process. Leaders will need to maintain their commitment, keep the process visible, provide necessary support, and hold people accountable for results. Use input from stakeholder (clients, referring agencies, funding sources, etc.) as possible; and, of course, maximize employee involvement in design of the system.

Always keep in mind that TQM should be purpose driven. Be clear on the organization's vision for the future and stay focused on it. TQM can be a powerful technique for unleashing employee creativity and potential, reducing bureaucracy and costs, and improving service to clients and the community.

7 Important Principles of Total Quality Management

Total Quality Management (TQM) is an approach that organizations use to improve their internal processes and increase customer satisfaction. When it is properly implemented, this style of management can lead to decreased costs related to corrective or preventative maintenance, better overall performance, and an increased number of happy and loyal customers.

However, TQM is not something that happens overnight. While there are a number of software solutions that will help organizations quickly start to implement a quality management system, there are some underlying philosophies that the company must integrate throughout every department of the company and at every level of management. Whatever other resources you use, you should adopt these seven important principles of Total Quality Management as a foundation for all your activities.

1. Quality can and must be managedThe Concept of TQM & CPR

Many companies have wallowed in a repetitive cycle of chaos and customer complaints. They believe that their operations are simply too large to effectively manage the level of quality. The first step in the TQM process, then, is to realize there is a problem and that it can be controlled.

2. Processes, not people, are the problem

If your process is causing problems, it won’t matter how many times you hire new employees or how many training sessions you put them through. Correct the process and then train your people on these new procedures.

3. Don’t treat symptoms, look for the cure

If you just patch over the underlying problems in the process, you will never be able to fully reach your potential. If, for example, your shipping department is falling behind, you may find that it is because of holdups in manufacturing. Go for the source to correct the problem.

4. Every employee is responsible for quality

Everyone in the company, from the workers on the line to the upper management, must realize that they have an important part to play in ensuring high levels of quality in their products and services. Everyone has a customer to delight, and they must all step up and take responsibility for them.

5. Quality must be measurable

A quality management system is only effective when you can quantify the results. You need to see how the process is implemented and if it is having the desired effect. This will help you set your goals for the future and ensure that every department is working toward the same result.

6. Quality improvements must be continuous

Total Quality Management is not something that can be done once and then forgotten. It’s not a management “phase” that will end after a problem has been corrected. Real improvements must occur frequently and continually in order to increase customer satisfaction and loyalty.

7. Quality is a long-term investment

Quality management is not a quick fix. You can purchase QMS software that will help you get things started, but you should understand that real results won’t occur immediately. TQM is a long-term investment, and it is designed to help you find long-term success.

Before you start looking for any kind of quality management software, it is important to make sure you are capable of implementing these fundamental principles throughout the company. This kind of management style can be a huge culture change in some companies, and sometimes the shift can come with some growing pains, but if you build on a foundation of quality principles, you will be equipped to make this change and start working toward real long-term success.

Activities

There are four major activities that should occur to promote the quality of a business or business/project and its deliverables:


1. Conduct quality planning: Planning for quality is a key element of the development of the business/project plan and is the responsibility of the business/project manager.

2. Implement quality assurance framework: The quality assurance framework defines how the business/project’s quality will be managed and includes business/project methodologies, standards and guidelines and the business/project’s organization structure.

3. Conduct quality control activities: These activities include review and testing of business/project deliverables. This should be a continuous process, with particular emphasis on pre-defined quality control checkpoints where the deliverables from one or more business/project tasks are examined in detail.

4. Implement corrective actions: Steps are taken to address any defects, nonconformities, issues or problems that are identified by the quality control process. Corrective action may include changes to the business/project plan, the quality assurance framework, methodologies, standards or guidelines (preventive action).

The objectives and nature of each of these steps are described in detail in the following sections.

Conduct Quality Planning

The quality management plan may be included in the business/project plan. Quality should be an area of focus throughout all aspects of the business/project plan, and the document that many business/project managers call their quality plan is effectively the business/project plan.

A key question that must be answered during business/project planning is “what is an appropriate, and cost justifiable, level of quality management for this business/project?” The level of confidence that is required in the quality of the business/project’s deliverables must be agreed with the business/project sponsor and other key stakeholders.

Quality planning is the responsibility of the business/project manager. Specialist quality resources such as an agency’s quality manager or resources from another agency can provide key guidance and support for the business/project manager during the planning for quality. However, the responsibility for the management of the quality of the business/project, and its deliverables, must remain with the business/project manager.

Two major components of quality planning are:

Selecting the quality assurance framework that will be followed. This framework includes the standards and guidelines that will be used to plan, manage, staff, control and deliver the business/project effectively (normally they are based on the agency’s standards for business/project management).

Communication to business/project team members and stakeholders on the quality mechanisms that will be adopted and their role in ensuring the quality of deliverables. It is particularly important that the planning process clearly describes to all stakeholders the ways in which quality will be achieved.

The skill and experience of the individuals who plan for quality is a major consideration in the effectiveness of this process. The business/project manager must have extensive experience in planning for, and managing quality and any specialist quality resources assigned to the business/project should have similar levels of skill and experience.

While quality management is a continuous process, major checkpoints in the business/project where key deliverables will be tested need to be clearly identified. Each process or phase within the business/project must be structured to allow easy measurement of progress against the specification.


This will enable early identification of deviations from the specification. If it is difficult to measure progress towards meeting the specification, the risks associated with the business/project will escalate.

The major considerations when planning for quality are:

Identify the business/project’s quality objectives; Avoid development of a separate “quality plan”; Ensure the business/project manager retains responsibility for quality; Plan for quality control to occur continuously with detailed reviews at major checkpoints;

Implement Quality Assurance Framework

Quality assurance involves monitoring the effectiveness of quality planning, quality control and the processes that are followed to develop deliverables. The quality assurance framework is an integral part of the effective management of a business/project.

It may include:

Ensuring the business/project methodologies, standards and guidelines that are identified in the business/project plan are appropriate and reasonable for the business/project environment;

Ensuring that the processes and standards identified in detailed work plans are appropriate and reasonable for achieving the objectives of each deliverable;

Ensuring that the business/project’s organization structure clearly identifies roles and responsibilities;

Defining the nature and frequency of the reporting that is required on quality. This reporting should be part of the overall business/project reporting cycle and is the responsibility of the business/project manager;

Ensuring that all business/project participants have adequate levels of skills and experience and that any deficiencies are addressed by appropriate training or assigning additional resources to the business/project;

Reviewing the adequacy of, and adherence to, general business/project controls such as software development methodologies and change control procedures;

Ensuring that quality control activities are performed consistently and at the right time; Analyzing errors and defects to provide a basis for improving: The quality of business/project deliverables; The quality planning, quality control and development processes;

The quality assurance framework should have the flexibility to cater for unexpected changes to the business/project such as its scope, staffing, assumptions and constraints.

A business/project’s organization structure must promote quality and there are a number of considerations when determining the most appropriate structure for a business/project, including the:

Business/project’s scale and complexity; Level of risk associated with the business/project; Availability of specialist quality assurance resources; Levels of skill and experience of the business/project team;

If specialist quality assurance staff is assigned to the business/project, an added level of confidence in the business/project can be obtained by including the progress reports these staff produce within the business/project’s regular reports to the business/project sponsor and steering committee.


Large, complex or high risk business/projects may also warrant an external quality assurance function that is provided by specialist agency staff or a third party. Effectively this is a business/project audit role and involves regular reviews to assess independently the effectiveness of the business/project’s quality assurance framework.

The business/project manager must be provided with the opportunity to comment on any independent reports before they are released to the sponsor or steering committee.

While remaining independent, the external quality assurance function must add value to the quality of deliverables and should not be designed to “catch-out” the business/project manager or business/project team.

The major considerations in implementing a business/project’s quality assurance framework are:

Ensure the business/project’s methodologies, standards & guide-lines appropriate; Do not set up quality assurance functions in a “policing” role; Include reporting on quality as part of the business/project’s regular reporting cycle;

CPR (Core Process Reengineering)

Core Process Reengineering (CPR) has been receiving attention from industries as well as the academic community, because it is likely to change management practice and working processes in organizations in the future. However it is commonly agreed that CPR is important but also problematic. Especially we highlight some major debates currently found in the literature of CPR. These debates include the definitions used to describe business processes and CPR, the scale of the changes involved in CPR, and the significance and role of information technology (IT) in CPR, especially IT systems. As the main theme of this thesis is applying EM to CPR, it is essential to understand some factors which cause CPR projects failure due to the poor design of the supporting systems under the conventional paradigm.CPR is known by many names, such as ‘core process redesign’, ‘new industrial engineering’ or ‘working smarter’. All of them imply the same concept which focuses on integrating both business process redesign and deploying IT to support the reengineering work. In this section we attempt to explore two questions: where does CPR come from and what is involved in CPR.

What is CPR

Generally the topic of CPR involves discovering how business processes currently operate, how to redesign these processes to eliminate the wasted or redundant effort and improve efficiency, and how to implement the process changes in order to gain competitiveness. The aim of CPR, according to Sherwood-Smith (1994), is “seeking to devise new ways of organizing tasks, organizing people and redesigning IT systems so that the processes support the organization to realize its goals”.

It is argued by some researchers that there is no commonly agreed definition of CPR. Peltu et al. consider that this lack of an accepted definition of CPR makes it difficult to assess the overall success or failure of its concept. Thus it is essential to make clear what the definition of CPR is before we propose any framework and techniques for CPR. The book reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution by Hammer and Champy (1993) is widely referenced by most CPR researchers and is regarded as one of the starting points of CPR. The following is their definition of CPR:

Reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed. Another CPR father, Davenport (1993), describes ‘business process redesign’ as – “the analysis and design of work flows and processes within and between organizations. Business activities should be viewed as more than a collection of individual or even functional tasks; they should be broken down into processes that can be designed


for maximum effectiveness, in both manufacturing and service environment. These definitions suggest that we should concentrate on processes rather than functions (or structures) as the focus of the (re-)design and management of business activity.

Process is a collection of activities that takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output that is of value to the customer. Davenport (1993) describes the process as; A process is a specific ordering of work activities across time and space, with a beginning, an end, and clearly identified inputs and outputs: a structure for action. And Warboys et al. (1999) define a process as: A process is structured change, i.e. there is a pattern of events which an observer may recognize across different actual examples (or occurrences) of the process, or which may be made manifest, or implemented, in many different occurrences. In CPR, the process to be reengineered is the so-called business process. Davenport describes a business process as “simply a structured, measured set of activities designed to produce a specified output for a particular customer or market”. Riemer (1998) describes business processes in an object-oriented style: “business processes are series of steps that change states of business objects (that is, customers, orders and inventory), thereby causing business events”. However we should note that CPR is concerned with customer-orientation. Thus the outputs of business processes should not only achieve the company’s objectives, but also need to satisfy customers’ requirements. From these definitions we can conclude that business processes start and end with customers, and the value of business processes is dependent upon customers.

The Origins of CPR

Some researchers argue that the original concept of reengineering can be traced back to the management theories of the nineteenth century. As one report in The Financial Times (1994) “The purpose of reengineering is to make all your processes the best-in-class”. Frederick Taylor suggested in the 1880’s that managers use process reengineering methods to discover the best processes for performing work, and that these processes be reengineered to optimize productivity. In the early 1900’s, Henri Fayol originated the concept of reengineering: To conduct the undertaking toward its objectives by seeking to derive optimum advantage from all available resources. Similarly, Galliers (1998) observes that “CPR, far from being a new departure, is in fact a reversion to the classical school of strategic thinking popularized in the 1960s”. That is, organizations make such radical


changes when they meet competitive pressures which challenge their current processes. CPR can be viewed as a response to such change and therefore fits in the classical school of strategy where organizations adjust themselves to new forms in order to maximize their profits. The concept of CPR is widely regarded as having been introduced as a perceived solution to the economic crisis and the recession of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. As Butler describes it: “the ‘80s were a time for financial reengineering, the ‘90s are for technological reengineering”. Hammer and Champy (1993) propose that “CPR can help organizations out of crisis situations by becoming leaner, better able to adapt to market conditions, innovative, efficient, customer focused and profitable in a crisis situation”. Before CPR emerged (and even today), it was widely accepted by industries and business enterprises that a work should be broken down into its simplest (and most basic) tasks. This leads to the structure of enterprises becoming hierarchical – or functional – in order to manage such divided tasks.

Today, many enterprises face competition from the global business environment as well as the fact that the taste of customers is becoming complex. In order to achieve significant benefits, it is not sufficient to computerize the old ways, but a fundamental redesign of the core business processes is necessary”. New organizational structures, which are more suitable to today’s environment in which enterprises can understand their current activities and find potential problems, are needed. MacIntosh and Francis suggest that it is becoming more important “to develop new products effectively than to produce old products efficiently”. By introducing fast developing information technology, enterprises try to redesign their structures and seek new ways of operation, which results in many enterprises moving toward combination but not division of labor. Hammer and Champy conclude that previously divided tasks are now being reunited into coherent business processes. Thus one reason why CPR becomes popular is that it provides a mechanism to make the changes better to fit the competitive environment to which the enterprises must adapt themselves in this new and post-industrial age.

The Key Concepts

CPR seeks to break from current processes and to devise new ways of organizing tasks, organizing people and making use of IT systems so that the resulting processes will better support the goals of the organization. This activity is done by identifying the critical business processes, analyzing these processes and redesigning them for efficient improvement and benefit. Vidgen et al. (1994) define the central tenets of CPR as:

radical change and assumption challenge;

process and goal orientation;

The exploitation of enabling technologies, particularly information technology.

That is, by focusing on business objectives, we analyze the processes of the organization, eliminate non-essential or redundant procedures, and then use IT to redesign (and ‘streamline’) organizational operations.


CPR as Radical Change

CPR is a radical change, rather than incremental change. Hammer and Champy (1993) highlight this tenet as:

Re-engineering is about rejecting the conventional wisdom and received assumptions of the past. Reengineering is the search for new models of organizing work. Tradition counts for nothing. Re-engineering is a new beginning. To succeed at reengineering, you have to be a visionary, a motivator, and a leg breaker.

One reason the change in CPR is radical rather than incremental is “to avoid being trapped by the way things are currently done” (Vidgen et al., 1994). Dr Robinson of IBM UK highlights rapid IT innovation

and increasingly intensive global competition as two main reasons why organizations have had to consider the introduction of radical change (cf. Peltu et al., 1996). Robinson (1994) concludes that radically re-visioned processes drive the shape of the organization, rather than current structures. Even such radical changes are not limited to inside one organization but forge with other organizations, which generate new views of an organization. Possible radical changes to the organization are not limited to internal re-orderings; Links can be forged with other organizations even though they are competitors. This leads to a view of the organization as a fluid mix of interests rather than a fixed entity with an objective existence. It is recognized in the CPR literature that advances in technology bring opportunities that were difficult to imagine before the technology had been created. There is a sense of innovatory solutions looking for problems and the exploitation of unexpected consequences that cannot be predicted by a purely conceptual approach. At its best, CPR can be seen as a mix of conceptual thinking and practical experience gained through creative experimentation and faith.

Figure: Core Process Reengineering.

Difference between CPR and TQM:

TQM approach favors steady incremental gain, may often take a number of years to complete. For firms in highly competitive industries, this lag time can allow competitors to forge ahead. In contrast, results from CPR can be realized within 12-18 months, but it is a far riskier undertaking, and should not be regarded as a ‘quick fix’ solution. Furthermore, whereas CPR is commonly viewed as a top-down solution from management TQM involves staff from all levels for problem solving and suggests bottom-up improvement. Employees’ resistance to


change has been identified as one major barrier to the success of CPR. It was reported by MacIntosh and Francis (1997) that those companies that had introduced TQM prior to taking on board CPR, faced less resistance to change. As we believe that these two approaches are compatible, we propose in this thesis a concept of ‘participative CPR’ which combines both of them

CPR, DSS and TQM

When discussing radical change in CPR, we find that CPR, DSS (decision support systems) and TQM (total quality management) have much common with each other. Firstly they are all focusing on business processes. Arnott and O’Donnell (1994) characterise DSS as relevant to CPR as it was the first information system (IS) movement to explicitly focus on the fundamental redesign of business processes rather than on the efficient application of a new computer technology. Also CPR and DSS have a common aim which is to improve business processes via radical change. The most significant difference between CPR and DSS is the scope of analysis: CPR focuses on the whole organization whereas DSS focuses on one individual decision. CPR is also different from TQM in that CPR concentrates on major discrete changes to business processes, whereas TQM concentrates on minor continuous improvement to business processes. That is, the improvements in TQM are smaller than the ones in CPR. Butler (1994) elucidates the

Process-Orientation: From Structure to Process

Many current business processes – with their functional structures – were designed to enable efficient management by separating processes into small tasks that could be performed by less skilled workers with little responsibility. Under this structure, the important decisions were made by the higher skilled and more trusted managers. Traditional (structural) approaches to business engineering generally follow this sequential order: firstly business strategy is proposed, then the business structures and processes are planned, and finally they are implemented with IT. In comparison, CPR is regarded as process-oriented which is trying to overcome some problems raised by hierarchical structures. That is, CPR as a process-orientation changes the structural relationships between management and employers into the interactive processes between them. CPR aims to break radically the existing process structures and replace them by fundamental and innovative solutions. The functional structure is a vertical structure in which there may exist barriers to separate the functions in organizations. CPR emphasizes business processes which are regarded as horizontal flows and cut across organizational functions. MacIntosh and Francis (1997) justify the claim that CPR highlights the delays, errors and inefficiencies which are introduced when passing information and work from one function to another.The Concept of TQM & CPR

Problems Facing CPR

In 1996 Davenport published an article entitled Why Re-engineering Failed: The Fad that Forgot People in which he reports:

To most business people in the United States, re-engineering has become a word that stands for restructuring, lay-offs, and too often, failed change Programs companies that embraced [re-engineering] as the silver bullet are now looking for ways to re-build the organization’s torn fabric. (Davenport, 1996)

The earlier promise of CPR had not been fulfilled. There are many reasons for the limited success of CPR. Some explanations of such high rates of failure for CPR projects have been discussed in CPR literature. For example, employees’ resistance of change as they consider CPR as threats to their jobs (i.e. the increase in short-term contracts and lack of promotion); Galliers (1998) and Gerrits (1994) point out that currently CPR approaches lack detailed guidance and support for the actual implementation of reengineering: many publications describe the situation before and after CPR but do not discuss the path to reach the final situation; Chen et al. (2000a) explain that one reaction to this failure was to retain faith in IT as a dominant support and just admit that since it could not adapt – or at least not at acceptable levels of cost – then business activities must adapt to IT.

For example: The pendulum has swung from ‘continuous reengineering and re-inventing’ to ‘pick an application package and force our business processes to comply with the package’.

We can say that mere automation of existing processes can at best lead to more efficient, but no more effective, processes. Both ‘information’ and ‘data’: information is the collection of data. “Information may be understood as being both enabling and contextual, while data is context-free and simply the raw material from which information (meaning) may be attributed”.

Picking an Application and Changing Business Processes to Fit

One central tenet of CPR is to exploit IT to support ‘radical change’. Some authors view IT as the central enabler of CPR. However CPR has not really worked as its proponents expected. Davenport and Short (1990) attribute this problem a lack of appreciation of the deeper issues of IT, and stress that an awareness of the capabilities of IT can influence the business redesign process. They claim that IT has traditionally been used to hasten work but not to transform it and CPR is about using IT to do things differently. Thus IT plays an important role in CPR. Properly adopting IT can improve the competitive position of organizations. But inappropriately adopting IT may create barriers to responding to the rapidly changing business environment Further, simply picking IT packages cannot achieve successful CPR if it is simply used to speed up the process rather than reengineer it. As Davenport (1993) comments: “information and IT are rarely sufficient to bring about the process change; most process innovations are enabled by a combination of IT, information and organizational/human resource changes.”

Hammer (1990) also has a similar arguments about IT in organizations IT could either ‘pave the cowpaths’ of bureaucracy – unless the organization changed drastically, its IT would continuously reflect and reinforce bureaucratic and functional

For example, these IT tools may be designed for functional hierarchies, or they are TQM type tools – which are only in effect designed to support incremental improvements – cannot achieve the radical change in CPR projects.

IT could help to create a leaner, flatter and more responsive organization, a suggestion which is thus distinctly divergent from neo-classical economics, but only implicitly. That is to say, while the information systems, or in a narrow sense the ‘data-processing systems’ provide fast processing and response, they often fail to provide the flexibility for human communication – sometimes with serious consequences. This means IT may sometimes have a negative impact merely automating the existing processes, but it could also have a positive impact if we deploy


it correctly in appropriate organizational arrangements. For CPR we need to change the structure and nature of operations, i.e. IT is the enabler to reengineer their processes and is an important driving force for business transformation. Galliers (1995) emphasizes that the desire in CPR is to develop a flexible information systems environment (i.e. one that informs) rather than simply developing data-processing systems (i.e. systems that automate an operational task). The latter may be accomplished by replicating observable actions, while the former requires considerable awareness of the context in which information may be required and the manner in which it is likely to be interpreted to enable a required activity or decision to be made.

Human Factors in CPR

We have found that the focus of the CPR literature is on IT and process redesign techniques. However there are other complex issues such as human, organizational, cultural and political issues. Some researchers determine that one of the main reasons for CPR failure is the neglect of the human element the approach takes too much account of the scale of changes and fails to consider such change through people. Corrigan (1996) describes this situation thus:

Given [CPR’s] focus on business processes, many researchers have highlighted the lack of attention given by [CPR] to the human dimensions of organizing, emphasizing “how employees, not just processes must be re-engineered or debugged if they are to run effectively in systems”.

Davenport (1993) emphasizes that the success of reengineering program is dependent on and concurrent with effective organizational and human resource change. Thus it is essential to take a wider (contextual) view of these influences on the success of CPR.

Resistance to Change

CPR aims at the change in the organization that is for the best. However as CPR is a radical rather than incremental change, it is not surprising that ‘resistance to change’ has been identified as a major barrier to the success of CPR. Corrigan identifies one common situation in most organizations adopting CPR (through his interviews):Some of the interviewees pointed to the fact that employees were expected to agree and go along with goals and changes in working life that have been determined by senior management, and that they were the last to know about how change would affect them. For these people, CPR is perceived as a threat to their jobs, either a threat directly to their existence or a threat to the quality and content of their jobs, or as causing the lack of promotion. People commonly asked: “Why change if it is working?”. Extremely, as Peltu et al. (1996) verify, ‘downsizing’, i.e. sacking people, is the most obvious ‘dark side of CPR’. Thus, to avoid this situation, as we discussed earlier about TQM, many companies try to introduce TQM prior to CPR for the reason of less resistance to change. Stewart (1993) notes that “you cannot do reengineering without an environment of continuous improvement or TQM”. CPR can only work when those in the company who have to work with the new design have a role in creating it, and thus support such changes.

Personal View of Change

The people in business – either employees or designers – take a very personal view of the radical change of CPR. For example, the CPR designers design CPR based on their perception, explanation and understanding of the organization. The solutions they propose for CPR problems are derived from the theories or frameworks of CPR literature, as well as their understanding and attitudes to the organization context. However each designer or even participant of an organization has different knowledge and perceives the organization in different ways – their individual contexts are different. Further, the participants have different experiences, theories and beliefs about why and how a process is operating and organized. We should note that the behaviors of participants generally come from their old contexts. This may cause conflict as newly designed processes can be so radical that they may not fit the participants’ old experiences and contexts. Without their participation, CPR designers will not know the cause effect relationships and how to modify the processes. As Kutschker (1995) reports; obviously, process


redesigners ignore this knowledge and repeat the mistakes designers of structural change have already made. The high failure rate of CPR may have its roots in the poor understanding of the deeper structure of organizations. A way to avoid this is to involve designers and business people in the process, particularly in testing out the design. This is an issue that our participative CPR emphasizes. We believe that participants can be the drivers and a key successful factor of change, but can also act as potential blockers of innovation. The huge investments in IT and highlighting IT systems alone in CPR will not improve organizational performance or create any benefits. Thus even when CPR is enabled by IT, it is essential that CPR designers and IT people understand the human aspects in organizations. To conclude, human factors are much more important than technical factors. The CPR work must obtain the support of people affected by the changes for successful implementation. Core Process Reengineering Page 81 3

Participative CPR

It is evident that no CPR will be successful without the support and active participation of the people. Even after all persons agree to go with CPR, it is still a hard task for everyone to carry on. As Peltu et al. (1996) describe: The CPR process is a ‘walk in the fog’ because of the difficulty involved in reaching agreement among many stakeholders about the current situation and future needs. Scarbrough (1996) emphasizes that an important question in all programs for change is “what is required to bring about changes in how people relate to each other?” This suggests a reason for the high rate of failure of CPR, as it is not possible to change relationships without working within them. The IT tools and techniques chosen for CPR can only be the starting point. But the change will not be successful without people’s learning, participation and adaptation – in order to understand the require-Core Process Reengineering

CPR Success Factors: Factors relating to change management systems and culture

Change management

Change management, which involves all human- and social-related changes and cultural adjustment techniques needed by management to facilitate the insertion of newly-designed processes and structures into working practice and to deal effectively with resistance, is considered by many researchers to be a crucial component of any CPR efforts. Revision of reward systems, communication, empowerment, people involvement, training and education, creating a culture for change, and stimulating receptivity of the organization to change are the most important factors related to change management and culture.


Revising reward and motivation systems

Staff motivation through a reward Program has a crucial role in facilitating re-engineering efforts and smoothing the insertion of new processes in the workplace (Towers, 1994; Bjùrn-Andersen and Turner, 1994; Hinterhuber, 1995; Ostroff and Smith, 1992; Dawe, 1996; Feltes and Karuppan, 1995). As CPR brings about different jobs (The Trouble with Reengineering, 1995), existing reward systems are no longer appropriate for the new work environment (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Harvey, 1995; Davenport and Nohria, 1994). Therefore, reward systems should be revised as part of the CPR effort (Jackson, 1997) and the new reward and incentive system must be widespread, fair and encourage harmony among employees (Towers, 1994). Introducing new job titles can be considered as one example of encouraging people to endorse the re-engineering Program without fear (The Trouble with Reengineering, 1995).

Effective communication

Effective communication is considered a major key to successful CPR-related change efforts (Davenport, 1993; Jackson, 1997; Zairi and Sinclair, 1995; Hammer and Stanton, 1995; Carr and Johansson, 1995; Arendt et al., 1995; Dawe, 1996). Communication is needed throughout the change process at all levels and for all audiences (Davenport, 1993a), even with those not involved directly in the re-engineering project (Dixon et al., 1994). Effective communication between stakeholders inside and outside the organization is necessary to market a CPR Program (Talwar, 1993; Hinterhuber, 1995) and to ensure patience and understanding of the structural and cultural changes needed (Berrington et al., 1995) as well as the organization's competitive situation (Cooper and Markus, 1995). Communication should take place CPR implementation process frequently (Davenport, 1993, Carr, 1993; Janson, 1992) and in both directions between those in charge of the change initiatives and those affected by them (Davenport, 1993a; Jackson, 1997; Grugle, 1994; Talwar, 1993). Communication should be open, honest, and clear (Davenport, 1993; Janson, 1992), especially when discussing sensitive issues related to change such as personnel reductions (Davenport, 1993).

Empowerment

As CPR results in decisions being pushed down to lower levels, empowerment of both individuals and teams becomes a critical factor for successful CPR efforts (Thomas, 1994; Cooper and Markus, 1995; Bashein et al., 1994; Hinterhuber, 1995; Dawe, 1996) since it establishes a culture in which staff at all levels feel more responsible and accountable (Rohm, 1992/93) and it promotes a self-management and collaborative teamwork culture (Mumford, 1995). Empowerment entails that staff are given the chance to participate in the redesign process (Bashein et al., 1994).When empowered, employees are able to set their goals and monitor their own performance as well as identify and solve problems that affect their work, thus they are supporting the CPR efforts.

Human involvement


In re-engineering, all people must be openly and actively involved (Berrington and Oblich, 1995; Jackson, 1997; Bashein et al., 1994; Hinterhuber, 1995; Bruss and Roos, 1993; Arendt et al., 1995; Dawe, 1996) and should be consulted at all stages on the process and its leaders. This includes line managers (Harrison and Pratt, 1993), process owners (Furey, 1993), those involved in IS and human resources (Bashein et al., 1994), and workers (Janson, 1992). The culture of experimentation is an essential part of a successfully re-engineered organization and, therefore, people involved or affected by CPR must be prepared to endure errors and mistakes while re-engineering is taking place.

Training and education

Many researchers consider training and education to be an important component of successful CPR implementation (Towers, 1994; Berrington and Oblich, 1995; Zairi and Sinclair, 1995; Worsley, 1994; Bashein et al., 1994; Clemmer, 1994; Cooper and Markus, 1995; Arendt et al., 1995; Dawe, 1996). Organizations that undertake re-engineering projects may have to increase their training budget by 30-50 percent (Towers, 1994). CPR-related concept, skills, and techniques (Cooper and Markus, 1995; Berrington and Oblich, 1995; Worsley, 1994) as well as interpersonal and IT skills (Towers, 1994), skills in TQM implementation and process analysis techniques (Dixon et al., 1994), are all important dimensions of training for CPR. It is also important to educate people in IT-related innovations for competitive advantage, the potential of IT in reshaping the business and the leadership of empowered organizations (Bruss and Roos, 1993). Business managers, line managers, IS managers, and other staff in the front-line are the people who benefit most from education and BPMJ training activities (Towers, 1994) in both business and IT-related skills and expertise.

Creating an effective culture for organizational change

Organizational culture is a determining factor in successful CPR implementation (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Davenport, 1993; Zairi and Sinclair, 1995; CSC Index, 1994). Organizational culture influences the organization's ability to adapt to change. The existing culture contains beliefs and values that are often no longer appropriate or useful in the re-engineered environment. Therefore, the organization must understand and conform to the new values, management processes, and the communication styles that are created by the newly-redesigned processes (Business Process Re-engineering RIP, 1996) so that a culture which upholds the change is established effectively (Bruss and Roos, 1993). In a newly re-engineered organization, people usually share common goals and thus become more capable of working co-operatively without competing against each other (Andrews and Stalick, 1994). As CPR supports teamwork and integration of labour, co-operation, co-ordination, and empowerment of employees become the standard attitudes in the re-engineered work environment. However, trust and honesty among team members is also needed, and within the organization as a whole (Dixon et al., 1994; Jackson, 1997).

Stimulating the organization’s receptiveness to change

Preparing the organization to respond positively to CPR-related change is critical to success (Benjamin and Levinson, 1993; Barrett, 1994; Bruss and Roos, 1993). When people are made resilient to change, they remain positive during uncertainty, focused, flexible, organised, and pro-active (Jackson, 1997). Leveraging organizational change requires effective one-to-one and one-to- many interactions to enrol key influencers of both individuals and groups within and without the organization (Hall et al., 1993; Guha et al., 1993; Jackson, 1994). Factors relating to management competence Sound management processes ensure that CPR efforts will be implemented in the most effective manner (Bashein et al., 1994). The most noticeable managerial practices that directly influence the success of CPR implementation are top management support and commitment, championship and sponsorship, and effective management of risks. Committed and strong leadership Commitment and leadership in the upper echelons of management are often cited as the most important factors of a successful CPR project (Hammer and Stanton, 1995; Jackson, 1997; Stanton et al., 1993; Bashein et al., 1994; Cooper and Markus, 1995; Harrison and Pratt, 1993; Towers, 1994; Rastogi, 1994; Furey, 1993; Hall et al., 1993; Dixon et al., 1994; Holland and Kumar, 1995; CPR


Implementation process

Leadership has to be effective, strong, visible, and creative in thinking and understanding in order to provide a clear vision of the future. This vision must be clearly communicated to a wide range of employees who then become involved and motivated rather than directly guided (Carr and Johansson, 1995; Hammer and Stanton, 1995). Commitment to (Guha et al., 1993, Berrington and Oblich, 1995; Dixon et al., 1994) and support for (Rastogi, 1994; Dixon et al., 1994; Furey, 1993) the change must constantly be secured from senior management throughout a CPR project (Dixon et al., 1994). Sufficient authority and knowledge, and proper communication with all parts in the change process, are important in dealing with organizational resistance during CPR implementation (Hammer and Champy, 1993, Stanton et al., 1993).

Championship and sponsorship

Barriers such as political, economic, and organizational risks are all associated with CPR-related change. And champions of the change play a major role in overcoming these barriers and increasing the chance of successful CPR implementation (Harrison and Pratt, 1993; Dixon et al., 1994; Worsley, 1994; Ovenden, 1994; Benjamin and Levinson, 1993; Hinterhuber, 1995; Arendt et al., 1995). The champions must be able to persuade top management of the need to change and to continually push the change efforts throughout the organization. Political and material sponsorship by the champions of change to business processes, job definitions, reward systems, and organizational structure needs strong support from senior management (Hagel, 1993; Bashein et al., 1994; Harrison and Pratt, 1993; Berrington and Oblich., 1995; Barrett, 1994; Arendt et al., 1995; Dawe, 1996).

Management of risk

CPR implementation involves radical change to several systems in the organization. Risks associated with acceptance of changes in the organizational structure, deploying emerging ITs with little familiarity, large investment in new resources needed for the new processes, loss of personnel, and loss of earnings (Towers, 1994; Clemons, 1995) are some examples of the many risks that an organization may take when implementing CPR. Therefore, continuous risk assessment is needed throughout the implementation process (Talwar, 1993) to deal with any risk at its initial state (Towers, 1994) and to ensure the success of the re-engineering efforts. Anticipating and planning for risk-handling is important for dealing effectively with any risk when it first occurs.

CPR Success factors: Factors relating to organizational structure


As CPR creates new processes that define jobs and responsibilities across the existing organizational functions (Davenport and Short, 1990), there is a clear need to create a new organizational structure which determines how CPR teams are going to look, how human resources are integrated, and how the new jobs and responsibilities are going to be formalised.

Effective CPR teams

Cross-functional CPR teams are a critical component of successful CPR implementation (Johansson et al., 1993; Barrett, 1994; Towers, 1994; Furey, 1993; Dawe, 1996). Teams should be adequately composed (Hagel, 1993; Zairi and Sinclair, 1995; Dixon et al., 1994; Harrison and Pratt, 1993; Carr, 1994; Klein, 1994; Moad, 1993). Team members should be experienced in variety of techniques (Carr and Johansson, 1995; Kettinger et al., 1997). Teams should be made up of people from both inside and outside the organization (Hammer and Champy, 1993). The determinants of an effective CPR team are as follows: competency of team members (Rastogi, 1994), their credibility within the organization and their creativity (Barrett, 1994), team empowerment (Carr, 1993), motivation (Rastogi, 1994), effective team leadership (Berrington and Oblich, 1995), the training of members in process mapping and brainstorming techniques (Carr, 1993), proper organization of the team (Guha et al., 1993), complementary skills among team members, adequate size, interchangeable accountability, clarity of work approach, and specificity of goals (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993).

Appropriate job definitions and allocation of responsibilities

As CPR results in a major structural change in the form of new jobs and responsibilities, it becomes a prerequisite for successful implementation to have formal and clear descriptions of all jobs and responsibilities that the new designed processes bring along with them(Talwar, 1993).CPR implementation process

Factors related to CPR project management

Successful CPR implementation is highly dependent on an effective CPR Program management (CSC Index, 1994) which includes adequate strategic alignment (Guha et al., 1993), effective planning and project management techniques, identification of performance measures (Zairi and Sinclair, 1995), adequate resources, appropriate use


of methodology (Carr, 1993), external orientation and learning (Jackson, 1997), effective use of consultants (Davenport, 1993), building process vision (Talwar, 1993), effective process redesign, integrating CPR with other improvement techniques (Zairi and Sinclair, 1995), and adequate identification of the CPR value (Guha et al., 1993).

Aligning CPR strategy with corporate strategy

As corporate strategy determines objectives and guidance on how organizational capabilities can be best utilised to gain competitive position, CPR strategy, accordingly, guides the alteration of tasks and flows into integrated processes, and variance in how tasks are performed and the flow of material, people, and information becomes a source of competitiveness (Hammer, 1990). Therefore, a consideration of the strategic context of growth and expansion (Bashein et al., 1994), creating a top-level strategy to guide change (Carr, 1993), and careful alignment of corporate strategy with CPR strategy (Jackson, 1997; Guha et al., 1993; Grover et al., 1993; Bruss and Roos, 1993) are crucial to the success of CPR efforts. Effective planning and use of project management techniques Proper planning for the CPR project (Berrington and Oblich, 1995; Jackson, 1997) with adequate time frame (Zairi and Sinclair, 1995) are key factors in delivering a successful CPR project on time. Effective use of project management techniques (CSC Index, 1994) and managing people-related issues (Talwar, 1993) have also a crucial role in smoothing the flow of the process redesign stages. A comprehensive piloting of the new design (Jackson, 1997; Hammer and Stanton, 1995; Hall et al., 1993), and learning from errors (Jackson, 1997) are particularly important for tuning a CPR implementation process to the most successful way. Measurement of project progress should also be maintained continually throughout a CPR project.

Setting performance goals and measures

Setting high goals for performance (Hagel, 1993; Guha et al., 1993; Is Re- engineering A Fad?, 1996; Feltes and Karuppan, 1995) and extendable targets (Hagel, 1993; Hammer and Champy, 1993; Stow, 1993; Hall et al., 1993) for CPR are important success factors. Identifying and setting performance measures (Zairi and Sinclair, 1995; Guha et al., 1993; Gould, 1993) are also necessary as they indicate levels of achievement.BPMJ

Adequate resources

Adequate resources (Furey, 1993; Bruss and Roos, 1993; Bjùrn-Andersen and Turner, 1994; Boyle, 1995) and sufficient budget (Bashein et al., 1994) allocated properly are important for a successful CPR project.

Appropriate use of methodology

Establishing a disciplined approach for CPR (Berrington et al., 1995; Benjamin and Levinson, 1993) and using a sound methodology (Carr, 1993; Guha et al., 1993) are prerequisites for CPR success. A CPR methodology should be designed or selected creatively to satisfy the current needs of the organization (Klein, 1994). Adequate customisation of available CPR methodologies determines the level of comprehensiveness and effectiveness that a new customised CPR methodology can reach (Kettinger et al., 1997; Klein, 1994).

External orientation and learning

External orientation based on customer research, competitive analysis, and benchmarking is a critical element of successful CPR efforts (Carr, 1993). Benchmarking is an effective technique to learn from customers and competitors (Rastogi, 1994; Jackson, 1997; Harrison and Pratt, 1993; Is Re-engineering A Fad?, 1996; Zairi and Sinclair, 1995). Customers' requirements and expectations should be defined and measured for CPR (Hall et al., 1993; Jackson, 1997; Rastogi, 1994), and processes should be defined broadly in terms of customer value (Rastogi, 1994). Benchmarking allows learning from other organizations' experiences in CPR, as well as learning from one re-engineering process to another in the same organization (Caron et al., 1994).

Effective use of consultants


Several authors suggest that an effective use of consultants is useful in ensuring successful implementation of CPR (Davenport, 1993; Harrison and Pratt, 1993; Towers, 1994; Rastogi, 1994; Klein, 1994; Clemmer, 1994). Consultants can bring to the organization specialised skills, experience, and know-how that the organization needs and it is both time-consuming and expensive for it to build internally (Shabana, 1996; Boyle, 1995). They can also provide a firm-wide view, encourage unity between members, and are usually neutral (Davenport, 1993). Success of consultants in CPR is determined by their level of experience in implementing similar projects in other organizations, as well as their ability to direct the re-ngineering efforts to areas of substantial benefits to the organization (Shabana, 1996).

Building a CPR vision

Building an imaginative thinking and a clear and compelling vision for future processes is critical to the successful implementation of CPR (Talwar, 1993; Guha et al., 1993; Bashein et al., 1994; Jackson, 1997; Barret, 1994; Bjùrn- Andersen and Turner, 1994; Davenport, 1993a; Is Re-engineering A Fad?, 1996). Process vision directs both long-term and day-to-day actions (Holland andCPR implementation process Kumar, 1995). A complete development of process vision includes evaluating business strategy to anticipate future processes, conducting customer-based assessment of performance targets, benchmarking similar CPR efforts, and developing process attributes and its performance measures.

Effective process redesign

Effective process orientation (Moad, 1993), appropriate level of process knowledge (Zairi and Sinclair, 1995), documentation of existing processes (Guha et al., 1993), appropriate selection of core processes, and use of prototyping (Guha et al., 1993; Benjamin and Levinson, 1993) are all critical components in successful CPR implementation. Adequate identification of process gaps (Guha et al., 1993) and evaluation of effectiveness of current processes by making use of appropriate software tools to visualise and analyse them (Towers, 1994; El Sawy, 1997) is also useful. Identifying process owners is also vital to CPR implementation (Boyle, 1995).

Integrating CPR with other improvement approaches

Several researchers suggest that using continuous improvement techniques increases dramatic gains (Carr, 1993; Clemmer, 1994; Feltes and Karuppan, 1995). TQM is particularly suggested to be integrated with CPR (Guha et al., 1993; Zairi and Sinclair, 1995).

Adequate identification of CPR values

CPR efforts should focus on identifying re-engineering opportunities (Guha et al., 1993) and values to internal and external stakeholders (Champy, 1995; Is Re- engineering A Fad?, 1996). A continuous focus should be maintained on business objectives (Carr, 1993)

Conclusion


Total Quality Management and CPR share a cross-functional relationship. Quality specialists tend to

focus on incremental change and gradual improvement of processes, while proponents of reengineering

often seek radical redesign and drastic improvement of processes. Quality management often referred to

as TQM or continuous improvement, means programs and initiatives which emphasize incremental

improvement in work processes, and outputs over an open-ended period of time. In contrast,

reengineering, also known as business process redesign or process innovation, refers to prudent

initiatives intended to achieve radically redesigned and improved work processes in a specific time

frame. In contrast to continuous improvement, CPR relies on a different school of thought. The extreme

difference between continuous process improvement and Core Process Reengineering lies in where you

start from and also the magnitude and rate of resulting changes In course of time, many derivatives of

radical, breakthrough improvement and continuous improvement have emerged to address the

difficulties of implementing major changes in corporations. Leadership is really important for effective

CPR deployment, and successful leaders use leadership styles to suit the particular situation and perform

their tasks, giving due importance to both people and work. Business process is essentially value

engineering applied to the system to bring forth, and sustain the product with an emphasis on

information flow. By mapping the functions of the business process, low value functions can be

identified and eliminated, thus reducing cost. Alternatively, a new and less costly process, which

implements the function of the current process, can be developed to replace the present one. The role of

executive leadership or top management in Core Process Reengineering cannot be disregarded. They

should provide the needed resources to the team demonstrate their active support for the project, set the

stage for reengineering by determining core business processes, and by defining the project scope and

objectives. The management should also take care to provide adequate funding, set new standards as

well as encourage others to be open to innovative approaches.

TQM and CPR all aim to increase organizational efficiency, but attempt to do this through very different

means. The key driver can be a similarity between the approaches, as most organizations implement

change as a way of dealing with a particular problem. The major difference on this aspect is that TQM

and CPR are often triggered by the realization that the organization is operating in an increasingly

competitive market, whereas OD may be implemented to solve other problems such as communication

barriers within the organization.

The approaches are also very different in the way they are practiced. CPR is clearly the most divergent

as it is concerned with frame-braking change that attempts to create new systems rather than repairing

old systems. For this reason, CPR may be the most suitable approach for an organization that seeks

dramatic changes. It is commonly used by organizations that have widespread problems or are close to

bankruptcy, but it is also suitable as a way to stimulate innovation for improvement, rather than survival.


TQM is clearly a suitable approach where the quality of the products or services is the major concern.

OD is, by contrast, a more generic approach that is suitable for a variety of problems. It is particularly

useful where the problem itself is unknown. However, it is not useful for organizations that are after a

radical solution.

In conclusion, there are conceptual differences and similarities between OD, TQM and CPR. Each of the

approaches can be effective for improving organizational efficiencies and the approach used is

contingent upon the perceived organizational problem and the desired outcome. The approaches are not

off-the-shelf solutions and should not be used as such. Rather, they offer a range of options for managers

and consultants so that they can achieve the outcome that is most suitable for their organization.


the concept of tqm

Documents