2. Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering &
Integrating Them for Organizations’ Improvement 48
awareness towards TQM has increased drastically and has gone to its peak to become a well-
established field of research (Arumugam et al., 2008; Yusof and Aspinwall, 1999) due to intense
global competition, increasing consumer consciousness of quality, rapid technology transfer, and
towards achieving world-class status.
In response to these challenges and to facilitate the organizations in achieving higher quality
levels, many companies are implementing TQM approach and quality initiatives for achieving
sustainable competitive advantage and enhanced company performance.
Organizations are continuously seeking for innovative ways to operate in order to survive in a
competitive business environment. Management approaches such as Business Process Re-engineering
(BPR) are adopted by many organizations in order to achieve a dramatic increase in performance and
cost reduction. According to Blyth “Business process re-engineering is an approach where processes
are re-structured, re-designed and re-engineered so as to maximize an organization's potential”(Kontio,
2007). “Business process 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”.
Business process reengineering is one approach for redesigning the way work is done to better
support the organization's mission and reduce costs. Reengineering starts with a high-level assessment
of the organization's mission, strategic goals, and customer needs.
1.1. Analyzing TQM and BPR
TQM, based on many of the ideas of Deming, Juran and Crosby, aims to improve the processes within
an organization by emphasizing organization-wide continuous quality improvement. It focuses on
implementing incremental change with minimal variation to existing processes. These activities
include:
Focusing on customers’ needs and customer satisfaction.
Analyzing business processes to improve customer service as well as organization-wide
efficiency.
Proclaiming the values of teamwork, employee empowerment, and participative decision-
making throughout the organization.
Reasoning based on statistical analyses using factual data.
Training and educating employees and managers in the organization.
BPR, based primarily on the works of Davenport & Short (1990) and Hammer (1990), focuses
on improving business processes through implementing changes radically and rapidly, including
creating new processes to displace the old ones. This radical change process includes:
Receiving top management commitment and initiating re-engineering change from the top-
down.
Implementation of BPR cross-functional teams.
Detailed study and understanding of existing processes.
Selection of specific processes for re-engineering.
Designing alternatives for new processes and choosing the best one, including developing
prototypes of these new designs.
While TQM and BPR appear to be different approaches, both methods do share some
commonalities (Hammer & Champy, 1993; Krieter, 1996; Zairi & Sinclair, 1995; Lee & Asllani,
1997). These include:
Quality improvement- a study by Lee & Schniederjans (1996) found that a majority of
managers (82%) agreed that BPR activities were directly or indirectly aimed at improving product
quality in the firm. TQM’s basic theme according to Deming (1986) is the concept of quality
improvement.
3. 49 Farshad Gouranourimi
Top management commitment- BPR requires a higher degree of top management commitment
whereas TQM requires an overall commitment for the process.
Process improvement- the basic premise of both TQM and BPR is the process improvement.
The focus is on process rather than function and department mentality.
Customer satisfaction- is the desired outcome that drives both methods. As both TQM and BPR
focus on quality improvement, they both need to be customer oriented.
Teamwork and training- both methods emphasize the need for teamwork and training to
implement their activities. Both TQM and BPR need the cooperation of all the employees, i.e.
organization-wide, and for BPR especially, it is imperative for employees to be trained in the new
techniques and tools that may displace the existing, old ways of doing things in the organization.
Cultural change in the organization- both methods require an overhaul of the organizational
culture. Both need cross-functional approaches to teamwork, employee involvement, and
empowerment and the shift away from the traditional hierarchical control and leadership mechanisms
in the organization. With BPR, the employee involvement and empowerment are led from the top of
the organization whereas with TQM, this is more a bottom-up approach.
However, despite these similarities, TQM and BPR also have some basic differences between
them (Davenport, 1993; Hammer and Champy, 1993; Lee & Asllani, 1997; Pereira & Aspinwall,
1997). These include:
TQM works within the existing processes and attempts to implement continuous but
incremental change improvements. On the other hand, BPR aims at radical change, innovations and
breakthroughs, including displacing the old processes with new ones.
TQM needs overall top management support and, when provided, can continue functioning
without any more daily support from management. It is a bottom-up approach but BPR is an intensive
top-down approach that needs continual top management leadership and support.
TQM emphasizes the automated systems for collecting data and controlling process variation
through statistical analyses. BPR, however, places emphasis on the critical role of information
technology (IT) in the organization.
TQM appears to take a moderate amount of risk by working with existing processes whereas
BPR assumes a high risk in its efforts, including doing away with the existing methods of operation.
TQM focuses on a cultural change within the organization but BPR can go beyond cultural and include
a structural change of the organization.
The TQM scope is typically narrow and within functions whereas the BPR scope is broad and
cross-functional. BPR reinforced the point that business-as-usual, with some incremental, gradual
changes- as TQM emphasizes- is not conducive for success (Brown, 1997); and survival in a dynamic
information age today almost requires a rapid and major overhaul for any organization, which may be
achieved through BPR.
The importance of this research with the aim of integrating TQM and BPR for organizations’
improvement can be defined as below:
1) Guarantee the quality, 2) Decreasing costs, 3) Protecting market share, 4) Having time
schedule, 5) Security increasing, 6) Extending new products, 7) Increasing the quality of organization's
functions (marketing, after sale services, product quality improvement), 8) Effective interchanging
information among different parts of the organization, 9) costumer's satisfaction, 10) Personnel
satisfaction, 13) Continuous improvement, 14) Improving process controlling.
Table 1: The similarities and differences between TQM and BPR
TQM BPR
Concerned with improving work processes
Particular approach concerned with
Description: and methods in order to maximize the quality
rethinking current systems and processes.
of goods and services.
Type of Change: Planned, continuous Planned, frame-braking
4. Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering &
Integrating Them for Organizations’ Improvement 50
Table 1: The similarities and differences between TQM and BPR - continued
Keep existing customers by meeting or
To redefine existing work methods and
Aim: exceeding their expectations concerning
processes to improve efficiency.
products and services.
Increasingly competitive market and the need
to compete for specific customer demands. Competitive pressures and intense need to
Key Driver:
May also be driven by specific problems such cut costs
as high costs or poor quality.
Change Agent: External or internal External consultant
Learning process: Single or double loop Double loop
Nature of Values objectivity, control, consistency
Customer focused values
culturechange: and hierarchy
Yes. Requires a shift to team based work
Change to team based
Often requires a shift to team based work because the work is process based rather
work:
than task based.
Table 1 provides an outline of the similarities and differences between each of the three
approaches under investigation. The subsequent paragraphs explain these comparisons.
Developed from: Cummings & Worley 1997; Harvey & Brown 1996; Moosbruker & Loftin
1998; O’Neill & Sohal 1997.
1.2. Evaluating TQM and BPR
A review of the literature on quality reveals conflicting interpretations of the effectiveness of TQM and
BPR. Some authors, such as Burdett (1994) and Sutter (1996) have criticized TQM as being ineffective
and disappointing in terms of results. However, many others have expressed strong support for TQM
(Emrich, 2000; Dooley & Flor, 1998). Similar interpretations of BPR are discussed in various studies.
Jennings (1996) pointed out that the successful BPR case studies by different consulting firms
propelled BPR into a billion-dollar industry in the US. However, BPR has had its critics, too, such as
O’Connor (1994) and Ettlie (1994), who criticized BPR as violating some good management
fundamentals and argued that the process was unnecessary if companies practiced good quality
management.
Further, a Harvard Business Review (1995) article stated that both TQM and BPR appear to
take an operational view of improvement rather than a business strategic perspective. Organizations
seem to focus on improving poorly planned or irrelevant processes, reducing costs, cycle times and
defective rates. In addition, both TQM and BPR do not seem to address how the various business
processes would interact with one another. Moreover, the Harvard Business Review (1995) article
contended that most TQM and BPR efforts deal with improving business processes but not
management processes- processes involving top management communication, decision-making, and
performance measurement, and compensation processes.
It also appears that both methods have their own strengths and weaknesses, and that both TQM
and BPR together rather than separate would be more beneficial to an organization. As Edwards &
Peppard (1994) suggested, BPR often evolved out of a TQM program. In their survey, they found that
84% of all companies involved with BPR were involved with TQM also, and only 6% of the
companies involved with BPR had no TQM background. They also found that change efforts initiated
by TQM and then followed by BPR were more successful for companies. As its champions, Hammer
& Champy (1993) have suggested, TQM should be used to keep a company’s processes tuned up
between the periodic replacements that only BPR can accomplish.’
5. 51 Farshad Gouranourimi
2. Literature Review
Magutu et al. (2011) explain the possible reasons why a company may have succeeded or failed to
attain competitive advantage by implementing BPR. From the research findings, the researcher
recommends that organizations seeking to undertake BPR initiatives should first understand the need
for changing the organization. They will then need to ensure that they adopt the key success factors for
BPR implementation.
Andrea Chiarini, (2011) studied Japanese total quality control, TQM, Deming's system of
profound knowledge, BPR, Lean and Six Sigma. It is found out inside the six systems; nine common
factors have been found and proposed. They are: results and benefits; management style; deployment
of the system; employee management, deployment and participation; voice of the customer; tools,
techniques and IT; optimization of the system; day-by-day check and control of the results and review
of the system.
Valmohammadi (2011) studied the impact of TQM implementation on the organizational
performance of Iranian manufacturing SMEs. This paper’s statistical analysis revealed that a number of
significant relationships between TQM practices and organizational performance of the manufacturing
SMEs. The result found that leadership plays an important role in enhancing organizational
performance of the Iranian manufacturing SMEs; however, these organizations encounter some
obstacles in fully utilizing some TQM criteria, namely tools and techniques and suppliers.
Talib et al. (2010) study the relationship between total quality management and quality
performance in the service industry. This paper is trying to develop a TQM implementation and
evaluation research framework that can be used as a guide in the formulation of an effective TQM
implementation approach to Indian service sector.
Jain et al. (2009) analyzed the evolving role of business process reengineering: a perspective of
employers. Their findings indicate a strong support from the employers for BPR curriculum. Of the 19
BPR topics on which information was collected from the employers, 63 percent were rated as
‘‘extremely important’’ and ‘‘very important’’. The two highest rated areas of BPR were ability to
research and collect process related data (3.8), and ability to use graphical methods to map the current
or reengineered processes (3.5).
Loukis et al. (2009) are seeking to empirically investigate and compare the moderating effects
of the two basic business process change paradigms – business process reengineering (BPR) and total
quality management (TQM) – on the business value generated for firms by their information and
communication technologies (ICT) investment. They concluded that both BPR and TQM have
considerable positive moderating effects of a similar magnitude on the relationship between ICT
investment and firm value added. Also, different BPR and TQM activities have different moderating
effects on ICT business value; process simplification, process improvement and the creation of a
horizontal interdepartmental process are the BPR activities with the largest moderating effects, while
measurement of employee satisfaction and simplification of work methods for quality improvement are
the TQM activities with the largest moderating effects.
Kakkar and. Narag (2007) recommended a TQM model for Indian organizations. The result of
factor analysis shows the existence of clusters of large correlation coefficients between subsets of these
variables. This suggests that these variables could be measuring aspects of the same underlying
dimensions. These underlying dimensions, or extracted factors, are four in number and are related to,
respectively, efficiency, customer, people, and teambuilding. This shows that all the 20 TQM variables
in India can be summarized into these four dimensions, which are taken as the four pillars of the
suggested TQM model for Indian organizations. The proposed model is named TQMEF (TQM-
efficiency model).
6. Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering &
Integrating Them for Organizations’ Improvement 52
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Hypotheses
3.1.1. Main Hypotheses
1) Coordination between 2 methods of total quality management & process business
reengineering is the best mechanism for the comparative advantages.
2) Finding a solution to increase the quality is the main issue of Today's organizations thoughts.
3.1.2. Secondary Hypotheses
1) In Today’s Markets, a customer is a guarantee for existence.
2) In total quality controlling, all employees should take part in improvement.
3) Organizations which act to implement 2 Techniques TQM & BPR have united & coordinated
internal process of organization
This paper’s data is collected via standard questionnaires which distributed among managers &
higher level manager & operational supervisors in several organizations, scientific centers, private &
governmental companies such as committee of building engineering in Mazandaran , engineer's
committee of babol , Amol, sary , ghaemshar , feridonkenar, Tonekabon, payamenoor scientific centers
of mazandaran & Azad university. To determine the effect of each element in the present study which
is inquired in the questionnaire, LIKERT spectrum is utilized.
3.2. Validity
Content and face validity were established by a group of experts consisting of management and under
study organizations management experts.
3.3. Reliability
A reliability coefficient indicates the proportion of measured variance that is a true score, as opposed to
random error. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess instrument reliability. An alpha value of 0.70 or
higher was considered as acceptable reliability for group. The reliability coefficient was 0.87 which is
acceptable.
3.4. Research Methodology
To determine the effect of each factor which is presented in the questionnaire, we utilized Likert
measurement. The importance of each factor is declared in each question and each question’s score is
determined according to the next score. The questionnaire consists of 60 questions with 4 alternatives.
19 questionnaires of 20 were answered.
Scoring method is as follows; No answer: 0, No: 1, To some extent: 3, Yes: 4. After the
frequency distributing tables, likert table was prepared which starts from those questions having the
highest average & scores to the lowest ones. Averages started from 3/736 decreased to 1/947.
Then, the questions of each hypothesis were distinguished & each question’s score was
specified & finally the average of each hypothesis’ questions was determined. The following tables are
formed for accepting or rejecting the hypothesis:
As an example question number one (according Likert):
No answer: 0 0 = 0*0
No: 5 5=5*1
Lower: 5 10 = 5 * 2
To some extent: 6 18 = 6 * 3
Yes: 3 12 = 3 * 4
Total = 45 (Average: 45 * 19 = 2/368)
7. 53 Farshad Gouranourimi
According to the obtained averages from questions, average above 3 proves the hypothesis of
the related question. For all 60 questions of the questionnaire, tables of frequency distribution are
drawn, in this phase we have a general table of 45 questions which is ranked according Likert and the
questions are arranged according to the highest to the lowest average. The highest average is for
question number 42 which is related to the second hypothesis and lowest one is for question number 29
which is related to the 4th hypothesis. In the following, tables of questions about each hypothesis are
presented and average of averages is determined. According to Likert system and processing of
averages, the averages which are more than 3 are acceptable.
According to this analysis, 2nd and 5th hypotheses in comparison with others are in the 1st and
nd
2 levels which infer that increasing quality is the most important issues for each organization.
According to hypothesis number 5, the organizations which use 2 techniques of TQM & BPR, have
consolidated and coordinated inter-organizational process. This hypothesis shows that the combination
of these techniques is one of the best and important methods for coordination and consolidation of
organizations which leads to efficiency, productivity and quality improvement. Here, we present the
score, average and rank of questions of each hypothesis.
Table 1: The score, average and rank of questions of the first hypothesis
Average Score Question of fist hypothesis Rank
3/421 65 question 31 1
1/463 62 question 32 2
3/210 61 question 57 3
3/263 62 question 32 4
3/105 59 question 30 5
3/052 58 question 45 6
3/000 57 question 7 7
2/894 55 question 38 8
2/894 55 question 56 9
2/842 54 question 2 10
2/842 54 question 11 11
2/842 54 question 48 12
2/842 54 question 18 13
2/736 52 question 50 14
2/684 51 question 6 15
2/648 51 question 55 16
2/421 46 question 36 17
2/263 43 question 20 18
2/210 42 question 49 19
2/105 40 question 34 20
2/828 Average of question
Table 2: The score, average and rank of the questions of the second hypothesis
Questions of 2nd
Average Score Rank
hypothesis
3/736 71 question 42 1
3/315 63 question 19 2
3/315 63 question 58 3
3/263 62 question 23 4
2/736 52 question 25 5
3/273 Average of question
8. Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering &
Integrating Them for Organizations’ Improvement 54
Table 3: The score, average and rank of the questions of the third hypothesis
Questions of 3rd
Average Score Rank
hypothesis
3/263 62 question 21 1
3/157 60 question 43 2
2/842 54 question 8 3
2/789 53 question 53 4
2/368 45 question 1 5
2/315 44 question 46 6
2/263 43 question 26 7
2/713 Average of question
Table 4: The score, average and rank of the questions of the forth hypothesis
Average Score Questions of 4th hypothesis Rank
3/210 61 question 22 1
3/105 59 question 35 2
2/789 53 question 16 3
2/684 51 question 59 4
2/473 47 question 4 5
2/473 47 question 47 6
2/315 44 question 28 7
2/120 42 question 10 8
2/210 42 question 33 9
2/157 41 question 5 10
1/947 37 question 29 11
2/506 Average of question
Table 5: The score, average and rank of the questions of the fifth hypothesis
Average Score Questions of 5th hypothesis Rank
3/421 65 question 52 1
3/315 63 question 13 2
3/150 59 question 24 3
3/280 Average of question
The result of Fisher Tests:
( a + b)!( a + b)!(b + c )!(c + d )! 1
p=
n!
∑ x !b ! a ! d !
p=0/004 ⇒ 2P=0/008
0/05 ≥ P, 0/05 ≥ 0/008
Hence, H0 is rejected and there is a significant relationship between two alternatives.
Table 6: The analysis of the second hypothesis
X F XF X X-X
X1=4 15 6 3/8 4-3/8=0/2
X2=3 3 9 3/8 3-3/8=-0/8
X3=2 1 2 3/8 2-3/8=-1/8
X4=1 0 0 3/8 1-3/8=-2/8
19 71
9. 55 Farshad Gouranourimi
For analyzing this question, it can be said that quality accompanied with better production
procedure is better than final quality investigation of goods which is accepted by most of the managers.
ΣX 71
X= = = 3/8
F 19
Table 7: The result of Fisher test about question N.19
X F XF X X-X
X1=4 11 44 3/3 4-3/3=0/7
X2=3 5 15 3/3 3-3/3=-0/3
X3=2 1 2 3/3 2-3/3=-1/3
X4=1 2 2 3/3 1-3/3=-2/3
19 63
In analyzing this question, it can be said that a product gains competitive power just when the
quality of that product is competitive.
Table 8: The result of Fisher test about question N.58
X F XF X X-X
X1=4 9 36 3/3 4-3/3=0/7
X2=3 7 21 3/3 3-3/3=-0/3
X3=2 3 6 3/3 2-3/3=--1/3
X4=1 0 0 3/3 1-3/3=--2/3
19 63
In analyzing this question, the meaning of quality in today's world is quality for all
organization’s goods, methods, communicating with costumer and speed of delivery not just the
quality of final product.
Table 9: The result of Fisher test about question N.23
X F XF X X-X
X1=4 10 40 3/2 4-3/2=0/6
X2=3 5 15 3/2 3-3/2=-1/2
X3=2 3 6 3/2 2-3/2=--1/2
X4=1 1 1 3/2 1-3/2=--2/2
19 62
In analyzing this question, it can be understood that improvement of product quality is accepted
as a duty of organization by managers.
Table 10: The result of Fisher test about question N.25
X F XF X X-X
X1=4 6 24 2/7 4-3/3=1/3
X2=3 5 15 2/7 3-3/3=-0/3
X3=2 5 10 2/7 2-3/3=--0/7
X4=1 3 3 2/7 1-3/3=-1/7
19 52
For analyzing this question, it should be said that process-orientation against result-orientation
is a good method for quality improvement.
10. Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering &
Integrating Them for Organizations’ Improvement 56
Table 11: The result of Fisher test about question N.52
X F XF X X-X
X1=4 11 24 3/4 4-3/4=0/6
X2=3 6 18 .3/4 3-3/4=-06
X3=2 1 2 3/4 2-3/4=-1/4
X4=1 1 1 3/4 1-3/4=-2/4
19 65
In analyzing this question it should be said if an organization has ability to encounter with
growing changes, work conditions (employees’ relationship with upper level authorities, health and
safety condition and organizational relations) will be improved.
Table 12: The result of Fisher test about question N.13
X F XF X X-X
X1=4 11 44 3/3 4-3/3=0/7
X2=3 4 12 3/3 3-3/3=0/7
X3=2 4 6 3/3 2-3/3=-1/3
X4=1 1 1 3/3 1-3/3=-2/3
19 63
Analyzing this question, it should be said that using higher levels of communicational
technology and in consequence, higher speed of informing process brings about consolidation in
organizations.
Table 13: The result of Fisher test about question N.24
X F XF X X-X
X1=4 7 28 3/1 4-3/1=0/9
X2=3 7 21 3/1 3-3/1=-0/1
X3=2 5 10 3/1 2-3/1=--0/1
X4=1 0 0 3/1 1-3/1=-1/1
19 59
Analyze this question, it cab be said that trying to develop and improve an organization requires
coordinated strategies.
4. Finding Analysis and Recommendations
In this research by evaluating the similarities and differences of TQM and BPR methods, these results
are concluded:
1) Finding a solution to increase quality is the most thought of these organizations.
2) The organizations which utilize TQM & BPR are enjoying coordinated and consolidated
organizational activities.
3) Managers should improve their management quality to effect quality management positively.
4) Paying more attention to internal and external costumers.
5) Paying attention to the concepts such as infra-industrial era, information explosion and
communicating revolution are urgent for knowledgeable managers.
6) An active quality system should be consisted of continuous developmental element to meet
increasingly continuous market and costumers’ needs.
11. 57 Farshad Gouranourimi
7) Gaining more profit by cutting additional costs and improving productivity which brings
about competitive advantages.
8) Globalization and communication expanding are necessary factors for being successful in
today’s struggling world.
5. Conclusion
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. 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, 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.
References
[1] Arumugam, V., Chang, H.W., Ooi, K.-B. and Teh, P.-L. 2009. Self-assessment of TQM
practices: a case analysis. The TQM Journal, Vol.21 No.1, pp. 46-58.
[2] Arumugam, V., Ooi, K-B. and Fong, T-C. 2008. TQM practices and quality management
performance- an investigation of their relationship using data from ISO 9001:2000 firms in
Malaysia. The TQM Magazine, Vol.20, No.6, pp. 636-650.
[3] Brown, T., 1997. And that’s no laughing matter, Automotive and Transportation Interiors, p.
72.
[4] Burdett, J., 1994. TQM and reengineering: the battle for the organization of tomorrow, The
TQM Magazine, 6, pp. 7-13.
[5] Chiarini, Andrea, 2011. Japanese total quality control, TQM, Deming's system of profound
knowledge, BPR, Lean and Six Sigma: Comparison and discussion, International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 Issue: 4, pp.332 – 355.
[6] Claver-Cortés, E., Pereira-Moliner, J., Tarí, J. J. and Molina-Azorín, J. F. 2008. TQM,
managerial factors and performance in the Spanish hotel industry, Industrial Management and
Data Systems, Vol. 108, No. 2, pp. 228-244.
[7] Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. 1997. Organizational Development and Change, South-
Western College Publishing, Ohio.
12. Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering &
Integrating Them for Organizations’ Improvement 58
[8] Davenport, T.H., 1993. Process innovation: reengineering work through information
technology (Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press).
[9] Davenport, T.H. & Short, J.E., 1990. The new industrial engineering: information technology
and business process redesign, Sloan Management Review, pp. 11- 27.
[10] Deming, E.,1986. Out of the crisis (Cambridge, MA, MIT, Center for Advanced Engineering
Study).
[11] Dooley, K. & Flor, R., 1998. Perceptions of success and failure in TQM initiatives, Journal of
Quality Management, 3(2), pp. 157- 175.
[12] Edwards, C. & Peppard, J.W., 1994. Business process redesign: hype, hope or hypocrisy?
Journal of Information Technology, 9, pp. 251-266.
[13] Emrich, A., 2000. TQM must find support at the plant floor level, Grand Rapids Business
Journal, 18(11), pp. 9-10.
[14] Ettlie, J., 1994. Reengineering meets quality, Production, 106, pp. 14-15.
[15] Gaub, Maj Christoff, 2007. Business Process Reengineering, Chief, Strategic Communication,
Strategic Initiatives Branch, Office of the Air Force Civil Engineer, USA.
[16] Hammer, M., 1990. Reengineering work: don’t automate, obliterate, Harvard Business Review,
pp. 104- 112.
[17] Hammer, M. & Champy, J., 1993. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Revolution, (London, Nicholas Brealey).
[18] Harvard Business Review, 1995. Beyond total quality management and reengineering, Harvard
Business Review, pp. 80- 81.
[19] Harvey, D.F. and Brown, D.R. 1996. An Experiential Approach to Organizational
Development, 5th ed, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
[20] Hoang, D.T, Igel, B. and Laosirihongthong, T., 2006. The impact of total quality management
on innovation: findings from a developing country. International Journal Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 23, No.9, pp. 1092-1117.
[21] Jain, Rashmi, Gunasekaran, Angappa and Chandrasekaran, Anithashree, 2009. Evolving role of
business process reengineering: a perspective of employers, Industrial and commercial training
Vol. 41, No.7, pp. 382-390.
[22] Jennings, D., 1996. BPR: a fast track to nowhere? Baylor Business Review, Fall, p. 6.
[23] Kakkar, Subhash and Narag, A.S., 2007. Recommending a TQM model for Indian
organizations, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 328-353
[24] Krieter, C., 1996. Total quality management versus business process engineering: are
academicians teaching what businesses are practicing?, Production and Inventory Management
Journal, 37, pp. 71- 75.
[25] Lee, S.M. & Asllani, A., 1997. TQM and BPR: symbiosis and a new approach for integration,
Management Decision, 35, pp. 409-417.
[26] Lee, S.M. & Schniederjans, M.J., 1996. Reengineering total quality management for endless
quality improvement, working paper, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
[27] Loukis, E., Pazalos, K., Georgiou, St., 2009. An empirical investigation of the moderating
effects of BPR and TQM on ICT business value, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management Volume: 22 Issue: 5
[28] Magutu, Peterson Obara, Nyamwange, Stephen Onserio, Kaptoge Godwin Kiplimo, 2010.
Business Process reengineering for Competitive Advantage, African Journal of Business &
Management (AJBUMA) Vol. 1, pp.1-16.
[29] Mohanty, R.P. and Behera, A.K. 1996. TQM in the service sector, Work Study, Vol. 45, No. 3,
pp. 13-17.
[30] Moosbruker, J.B. & Loftin, R.D. 1998, ‘Business Process Redesign and Organization
Development, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(3), pp. 286-304.
13. 59 Farshad Gouranourimi
[31] Oakland, J.S. 1993. Total Quality Management: The Route to Improving Performance,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
[32] O’Connor, P., 1994. Quality, reliability and reengineering, Quality and Reliability Engineering
International, Vol. 10, pp. 451-452.
[33] O’Neill, P. 1997, ‘Business Process Re-engineering: Application and Success in Australia’,
Department of Management Working Paper Series, Working Paper no. 43/97, Monash
University, Clayton.
[34] Pereira, Z.L. & Aspinwall, E., 1997. Total quality management versus business process
reengineering, Total Quality Management, 8(1), pp. 33-40.
[35] Prajogo, I.D. and Sohal, S.A. 2003. The relationship between TQM practices, quality
performance, and innovation performance: an empirical examination. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20, No. 8, pp. 901-918.
[36] Sinha, Pankaj Raj, 2000. BPR and TQM, IE 880I – Enterprise Engineering.
[37] Sutter, R., 1996. Rethinking traditional quality assurance, Quality Progress, July, pp. 40- 41.
[38] Talib, Faisal, Rahman, Zillur, Qureshi, M.N. 2010. The relationship between total quality
management and quality performance in the service industry: a theoretical model, International
Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vo 124 l. 1, No. 1, pp. 113-128.
[39] Teh, P.-L., Yong, C.-C., Arumugam, V. and Ooi, K.-B. 2009. Does total quality management
reduce employees’ role conflict? Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol.109, No.8, pp.
1118-1136.
[40] Terziovski, M. 2006. Quality management practices and their relationship with customer
satisfaction and productivity improvement, Management Research News, Vol. 29, No. 7, pp.
414-24.
[41] Valmohammadi, Changiz, 2011. The impact of TQM implementation on the organizational
performance of Iranian manufacturing SMEs, The TQM Journal Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 496-509.
[42] Yusof, S.M. and Aspinwall, E. 1999. Critical success factors for total quality management in
implementation in small and medium enterprises. Total Quality Management, Vol. 10, Nos. 4
and 5, pp. 803-809.
[43] Zairi, M. & Sinclair, D., 1995. Business process reengineering and process improvement- a
survey of current practice and future trends in integrated management, Management Decision,
33, pp. 3-16.
