全面质量管理和流程重建

Both TQM and BPR are customer-oriented. They both aim on improving the customer satisfaction. Also, they both suggest thinking outside in. On the other words, they both suggest to think from the customers viewpoint. Also, both TQM and BPR are process-oriented. They both target to alter the processes, but not just on the product. Moreover, they both take team approach. Nearly all BPR projects are initiated by top-down approach. Since BPR would results great changes, staff resistance is obvious. Therefore, top managements support and commitment are very important. For TQM, both top-down approach and bottom- up approach are possible. The basic assumptions of TQM and BPR are different. TQM assumes that the existing practices or systems are principally right and useful. The target of TQM is to improve on the basis of the existing system. However, BPR takes an opposite assumption. BPR assumes the existing system is useless and suggests starting it over. Unlike TQM that aims on smoothly and incremental improvements, BPR aims on dramatic results. TQM emphasis on total involvement, including all the stakeholders. The involvement even extends to suppliers and customers. Also, TQM also suggests involving all the processes in the company, including human resources management, order fulfilling, manufacturing, marketing and customer management and others. However, for BPR, the project can be controlled to a specified area only. Standardization is one of the key points of TQM. TQM aims on standardize the practices, thus achieving a consistent performance. It also makes that there is a certain degree of documentation for TQM. However, BPR emphasis on flexibility and believes that standardization would increase the complexity of the process. Therefore, standardization is rare in BPR and the level of documentation is much lower. TQM emphasis on the use of statistical process control. However, there is no similar concern for BPR. On the other hand, BPR emphasis more on the enabling role of information technology. TQM is a cultural issue. Once the culture is built, TQM is absorbed in the daily operation. However, BPR is a project. It is with a clear target that should be achieved as soon as possible. In fact, BPR is a risky project that is suitable for organizations in deep trouble or facing great challenges. However, an organization cannot always be under BPR. TQM, on the other hand, can be treated as a consolidation approach for the organizations to maintain continuously improvements. As a conclusion, I want to share some of my personal feeling on TQM and BPR. They just like Chinese Kung Fu. There are hard school and soft school of Kung Fu. They are with the same purpose. BPR is just like the hard school of Kung Fu. It is efficient and looks attractive. However, if it is not used carefully, it may be harmful to the own health. TQM, on the other hand, is the soft school of Kung Fu. It needs a long time to practice but it can make ones body healthy too. Article 2: Is reengineering compatible with total quality management? Hans suggests that the blending of these two methodologies can support the development of a dynamic, competitive process. Reengineering does not believe in leaving the existing infrastructure intact by trying to make incremental changes. Some of the important characteristics stipulated by the author are as follows: bottom-up approach; empowerment; promotes boundarylessness organization; and removal of non-value added activities. As most of the characteristics are self-explanatory, the one I would like to emphasize is “promote a boundarylessness organization.” This forestalls waste, costly delay, and duplication in process. TQM is based on applying continuous change or fine-tuning across an enterprise. It was further elaborated that the basic infrastructure is kept intact while actively trying to achieve continuous improvement. TQM approaches its problem in systematic manner and does not demand radical changes. TQM characteristics, some of them were: top down approach; frame of cultural change; activities of improvement are based on customer satisfaction; and replacing antagonistic relationship with internal and external partners. BPR and TQM philosophy are set towards achieving the same goal. As BPR believes in “a gigantic leap” toward success so does TQM if and when possible. There is no superior power or champion that can provide an excellent outcome. Instead, collaboration between these two methodologies produces an efficient and effective process. SUMMARY: After reading these articles and other relevant literatures, I am very much convinced with the methodologies of BPR and TQM but only if they are applied together. Both have similar focus such as customer satisfaction, streamlined process, and commitment to improve performance. Combination of these two efforts can enhance full participations among different functional team, as well as, reducing if not eliminating the resistance towards a new redesigned process. This promotes interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary collaboration thus developing an effective and efficient system. It was clearly understood that TQM provides the essential support to enable BPR. This is by initiating the change of people behavior and attitudes creating an amicable environment. Nevertheless, it can be said that TQM approach is dynamic in nature because as customer needs (internal or external) keeps on changing the redesigned process has to be improved in accordance to the require needs. Therefore, embedding continuous improvements into the redesigned process is an excellent approach. Business Process Reengineering (BPR) and Total Quality Management (TQM) Total Quality Management and BPR 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. 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 refers to prudent initiatives intended to achieve radically redesigned and improved work processes in a specific time frame. In contrast to continuous improvement, BPR relies on a different school of thought. The extreme difference between continuous process improvement and business 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 BPR 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 business 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. Many reengineering projects fail to be completed or do not achieve bottom-line business results. For this reason alone, business process reengineering success factors has become an important area of study. Success factors are a collection of lessons learnt from previous projects. It is useful to think of your team structure in 3 levels: stakeholders, core team, and extended team. The stakeholders are key business leaders ultimately accountable for the success of the project. Their role is to provide high-level guidance to the team, help remove barriers, and provide funding. The core team is the group responsible for the design and implementation of the solution. Your extended team includes other people in the organization contributing to the project on an as-needed basis. These extended-team members include subject-matter experts. A well-rounded team includes a mix of people and skills. Such a team may include individuals who thoroughly understand the current process, who actively use the process and also work closely with customers, technical experts, and consultants, if necessary. But the main criterion is that the entire team should work together for the project to succeed. Dear all, At Capgemini, Values and Ethics have always been fundamental to the way we work and do business. This commitment to conduct business in a fair and ethical way has helped us achieve mutual respect and success in the industry and amongst our stakeholders. In our continuous endeavor to strengthen our