Tqm vs bpr


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tqm vs bpr

  1. 1. American Journal of Scientific ResearchISSN 1450-223X Issue 46 (2012), pp. 47-59© EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2012http://www.eurojournals.com/ajsr.htm Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering & Integrating Them for Organizations’ Improvement Farshad Gouranourimi Industrial Engineering Department University of Taras Shevchinko, Kiev, Ukraine E-mail: F_gouran@yahoo.com Tel: +98-911-1128213 Abstract In today’s era, management is confronted with new methodologies to provide competitive solutions. Enterprise engineering focuses on the planning of the future enterprise, as well as the methods needed to transform the enterprise. The synchronized implementation of these methods facilitates in achieving the expected benefits. The paper focuses on two such methods, business process reengineering (BPR) and total quality management (TQM) providing a critical review for each of the literature selected and proposing some additional insights. Keywords: Total Quality Management (TQM), Business Process Reengineering (BPR), Organizations’ improvement1. IntroductionQuality has been a fascinating buzzword in the organizational world for the last few decades of the20th century. Quality has been a fascinating buzzword in the organizational world for the last fewdecades of the 20th century. In particular, ever since Edward Deming and Joseph Juran introduced anddeveloped their perspectives of quality, many organizations with their managers and employees havebeen focusing on this single concept of quality. Two major models of quality have emerged, totalquality management (TQM) and business process re-engineering (BPR). Organizations have been continuously experimenting with either one or both models whilegrappling with the issue of implementing quality, managing change, improving productivity andachieving success. Over the past two decades, total quality management (TQM) has become most widely usedmanagement acronym and is considered as the buzz word in the management practices. It has beenwell accepted by managers and quality practitioners as a change management quality approach(Arumugam et al., 2009). It plays a vital role in the development of management practices (Prajogoand Sohal, 2003; Hoang et al., 2006). Many researchers asserted TQM as an approach to improveeffectiveness, flexibility, and competitiveness of a business to meet customers’ requirements (Oakland,1993), as the source of sustainable competitive advantage for business organizations (Terziovski,2006), as a source of attaining excellence, creating a right first-time attitude, acquiring efficientbusiness solutions, delighting customers and suppliers etc. (Mohanty and Behera, 1996) and above allas a source of enhancing organizational performance through continuous improvement inorganization’s activities (Claver-Cortes et al., 2008; Teh et al., 2009). In recent decades, the level of
  2. 2. Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering &Integrating Them for Organizations’ Improvement 48awareness 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 intenseglobal competition, increasing consumer consciousness of quality, rapid technology transfer, andtowards achieving world-class status. In response to these challenges and to facilitate the organizations in achieving higher qualitylevels, many companies are implementing TQM approach and quality initiatives for achievingsustainable competitive advantage and enhanced company performance. Organizations are continuously seeking for innovative ways to operate in order to survive in acompetitive 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 andcost reduction. According to Blyth “Business process re-engineering is an approach where processesare re-structured, re-designed and re-engineered so as to maximize an organizations potential”(Kontio,2007). “Business process reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of businessprocesses to achieve dramatic improvements in critical contemporary measures of performance, suchas cost, quality, service, and speed”. Business process reengineering is one approach for redesigning the way work is done to bettersupport the organizations mission and reduce costs. Reengineering starts with a high-level assessmentof the organizations mission, strategic goals, and customer needs.1.1. Analyzing TQM and BPRTQM, based on many of the ideas of Deming, Juran and Crosby, aims to improve the processes withinan organization by emphasizing organization-wide continuous quality improvement. It focuses onimplementing incremental change with minimal variation to existing processes. These activitiesinclude: Focusing on customers’ needs and customer satisfaction. Analyzing business processes to improve customer service as well as organization-wideefficiency. 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), focuseson improving business processes through implementing changes radically and rapidly, includingcreating 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 developingprototypes of these new designs. While TQM and BPR appear to be different approaches, both methods do share somecommonalities (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 ofmanagers (82%) agreed that BPR activities were directly or indirectly aimed at improving productquality in the firm. TQM’s basic theme according to Deming (1986) is the concept of qualityimprovement.
  3. 3. 49 Farshad Gouranourimi Top management commitment- BPR requires a higher degree of top management commitmentwhereas 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 BPRfocus on quality improvement, they both need to be customer oriented. Teamwork and training- both methods emphasize the need for teamwork and training toimplement 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 newtechniques 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 organizationalculture. Both need cross-functional approaches to teamwork, employee involvement, andempowerment and the shift away from the traditional hierarchical control and leadership mechanismsin the organization. With BPR, the employee involvement and empowerment are led from the top ofthe organization whereas with TQM, this is more a bottom-up approach. However, despite these similarities, TQM and BPR also have some basic differences betweenthem (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 butincremental change improvements. On the other hand, BPR aims at radical change, innovations andbreakthroughs, including displacing the old processes with new ones. TQM needs overall top management support and, when provided, can continue functioningwithout any more daily support from management. It is a bottom-up approach but BPR is an intensivetop-down approach that needs continual top management leadership and support. TQM emphasizes the automated systems for collecting data and controlling process variationthrough statistical analyses. BPR, however, places emphasis on the critical role of informationtechnology (IT) in the organization. TQM appears to take a moderate amount of risk by working with existing processes whereasBPR 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 includea structural change of the organization. The TQM scope is typically narrow and within functions whereas the BPR scope is broad andcross-functional. BPR reinforced the point that business-as-usual, with some incremental, gradualchanges- as TQM emphasizes- is not conducive for success (Brown, 1997); and survival in a dynamicinformation age today almost requires a rapid and major overhaul for any organization, which may beachieved 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 timeschedule, 5) Security increasing, 6) Extending new products, 7) Increasing the quality of organizationsfunctions (marketing, after sale services, product quality improvement), 8) Effective interchanginginformation among different parts of the organization, 9) costumers satisfaction, 10) Personnelsatisfaction, 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. 4. Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering &Integrating Them for Organizations’ Improvement 50Table 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 threeapproaches under investigation. The subsequent paragraphs explain these comparisons. Developed from: Cummings & Worley 1997; Harvey & Brown 1996; Moosbruker & Loftin1998; O’Neill & Sohal 1997.1.2. Evaluating TQM and BPRA review of the literature on quality reveals conflicting interpretations of the effectiveness of TQM andBPR. Some authors, such as Burdett (1994) and Sutter (1996) have criticized TQM as being ineffectiveand 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 firmspropelled BPR into a billion-dollar industry in the US. However, BPR has had its critics, too, such asO’Connor (1994) and Ettlie (1994), who criticized BPR as violating some good managementfundamentals and argued that the process was unnecessary if companies practiced good qualitymanagement. Further, a Harvard Business Review (1995) article stated that both TQM and BPR appear totake an operational view of improvement rather than a business strategic perspective. Organizationsseem to focus on improving poorly planned or irrelevant processes, reducing costs, cycle times anddefective rates. In addition, both TQM and BPR do not seem to address how the various businessprocesses would interact with one another. Moreover, the Harvard Business Review (1995) articlecontended that most TQM and BPR efforts deal with improving business processes but notmanagement processes- processes involving top management communication, decision-making, andperformance measurement, and compensation processes. It also appears that both methods have their own strengths and weaknesses, and that both TQMand 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 that84% of all companies involved with BPR were involved with TQM also, and only 6% of thecompanies involved with BPR had no TQM background. They also found that change efforts initiatedby 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 upbetween the periodic replacements that only BPR can accomplish.’
  5. 5. 51 Farshad Gouranourimi2. Literature ReviewMagutu et al. (2011) explain the possible reasons why a company may have succeeded or failed toattain competitive advantage by implementing BPR. From the research findings, the researcherrecommends that organizations seeking to undertake BPR initiatives should first understand the needfor changing the organization. They will then need to ensure that they adopt the key success factors forBPR implementation. Andrea Chiarini, (2011) studied Japanese total quality control, TQM, Demings system ofprofound knowledge, BPR, Lean and Six Sigma. It is found out inside the six systems; nine commonfactors have been found and proposed. They are: results and benefits; management style; deploymentof 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 reviewof the system. Valmohammadi (2011) studied the impact of TQM implementation on the organizationalperformance of Iranian manufacturing SMEs. This paper’s statistical analysis revealed that a number ofsignificant relationships between TQM practices and organizational performance of the manufacturingSMEs. The result found that leadership plays an important role in enhancing organizationalperformance of the Iranian manufacturing SMEs; however, these organizations encounter someobstacles in fully utilizing some TQM criteria, namely tools and techniques and suppliers. Talib et al. (2010) study the relationship between total quality management and qualityperformance in the service industry. This paper is trying to develop a TQM implementation andevaluation research framework that can be used as a guide in the formulation of an effective TQMimplementation approach to Indian service sector. Jain et al. (2009) analyzed the evolving role of business process reengineering: a perspective ofemployers. Their findings indicate a strong support from the employers for BPR curriculum. Of the 19BPR 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 toresearch and collect process related data (3.8), and ability to use graphical methods to map the currentor reengineered processes (3.5). Loukis et al. (2009) are seeking to empirically investigate and compare the moderating effectsof the two basic business process change paradigms – business process reengineering (BPR) and totalquality management (TQM) – on the business value generated for firms by their information andcommunication technologies (ICT) investment. They concluded that both BPR and TQM haveconsiderable positive moderating effects of a similar magnitude on the relationship between ICTinvestment and firm value added. Also, different BPR and TQM activities have different moderatingeffects on ICT business value; process simplification, process improvement and the creation of ahorizontal interdepartmental process are the BPR activities with the largest moderating effects, whilemeasurement of employee satisfaction and simplification of work methods for quality improvement arethe TQM activities with the largest moderating effects. Kakkar and. Narag (2007) recommended a TQM model for Indian organizations. The result offactor analysis shows the existence of clusters of large correlation coefficients between subsets of thesevariables. This suggests that these variables could be measuring aspects of the same underlyingdimensions. 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 variablesin India can be summarized into these four dimensions, which are taken as the four pillars of thesuggested TQM model for Indian organizations. The proposed model is named TQMEF (TQM-efficiency model).
  6. 6. Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering &Integrating Them for Organizations’ Improvement 523. Methodology3.1. Research Hypotheses3.1.1. 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 Todays 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 , engineerscommittee of babol , Amol, sary , ghaemshar , feridonkenar, Tonekabon, payamenoor scientific centersof mazandaran & Azad university. To determine the effect of each element in the present study whichis inquired in the questionnaire, LIKERT spectrum is utilized.3.2. ValidityContent and face validity were established by a group of experts consisting of management and understudy organizations management experts.3.3. ReliabilityA reliability coefficient indicates the proportion of measured variance that is a true score, as opposed torandom error. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess instrument reliability. An alpha value of 0.70 orhigher was considered as acceptable reliability for group. The reliability coefficient was 0.87 which isacceptable.3.4. Research MethodologyTo determine the effect of each factor which is presented in the questionnaire, we utilized Likertmeasurement. The importance of each factor is declared in each question and each question’s score isdetermined 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 thefrequency distributing tables, likert table was prepared which starts from those questions having thehighest 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 wasspecified & finally the average of each hypothesis’ questions was determined. The following tables areformed for accepting or rejecting the hypothesis: As an example question number one (according Likert):No answer: 0 0 = 0*0No: 5 5=5*1Lower: 5 10 = 5 * 2To some extent: 6 18 = 6 * 3Yes: 3 12 = 3 * 4 Total = 45 (Average: 45 * 19 = 2/368)
  7. 7. 53 Farshad Gouranourimi According to the obtained averages from questions, average above 3 proves the hypothesis ofthe related question. For all 60 questions of the questionnaire, tables of frequency distribution aredrawn, in this phase we have a general table of 45 questions which is ranked according Likert and thequestions are arranged according to the highest to the lowest average. The highest average is forquestion number 42 which is related to the second hypothesis and lowest one is for question number 29which is related to the 4th hypothesis. In the following, tables of questions about each hypothesis arepresented and average of averages is determined. According to Likert system and processing ofaverages, 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 nd2 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, haveconsolidated and coordinated inter-organizational process. This hypothesis shows that the combinationof these techniques is one of the best and important methods for coordination and consolidation oforganizations which leads to efficiency, productivity and quality improvement. Here, we present thescore, 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 questionTable 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. 8. Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering &Integrating Them for Organizations’ Improvement 54Table 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 questionTable 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 questionTable 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. 9. 55 Farshad Gouranourimi For analyzing this question, it can be said that quality accompanied with better productionprocedure is better than final quality investigation of goods which is accepted by most of the managers. ΣX 71 X= = = 3/8 F 19Table 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 thequality 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 todays world is quality for allorganization’s goods, methods, communicating with costumer and speed of delivery not just thequality 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 acceptedas 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-orientationis a good method for quality improvement.
  10. 10. Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering &Integrating Them for Organizations’ Improvement 56Table 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 withgrowing changes, work conditions (employees’ relationship with upper level authorities, health andsafety 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 communicationaltechnology and in consequence, higher speed of informing process brings about consolidation inorganizations.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 requirescoordinated strategies.4. Finding Analysis and RecommendationsIn this research by evaluating the similarities and differences of TQM and BPR methods, these resultsare 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. 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. ConclusionTotal Quality Management and BPR share a cross-functional relationship. Quality specialists tend tofocus on incremental change and gradual improvement of processes, while proponents of reengineeringoften seek radical redesign and drastic improvement of processes. Quality management often referredto as TQM or continuous improvement, means programs and initiatives which emphasize incrementalimprovement 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 prudentinitiatives intended to achieve radically redesigned and improved work processes in a specific timeframe. In contrast to continuous improvement, BPR relies on a different school of thought. Theextreme difference between continuous process improvement and business process reengineering liesin where you start from and also the magnitude and rate of resulting changes. In course of time, manyderivatives of radical, breakthrough improvement and continuous improvement have emerged toaddress the difficulties of implementing major changes in corporations. Leadership is really importantfor effective BPR deployment, and successful leaders use leadership styles to suit the particularsituation and perform their tasks, giving due importance to both people and work. Business process isessentially value engineering applied to the system to bring forth, and sustain the product with anemphasis on information flow. By mapping the functions of the business process, low value functionscan 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 cannotbe disregarded. They should provide the needed resources to the team demonstrate their active supportfor the project, set the stage for reengineering by determining core business processes, and by definingthe 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, Demings 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. 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. 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.