INTEGRATING TQM AND BPR ASPROCESS-ORIENTED MODELSA CASE STUDY OF SSAB
Karlstad Business SchoolHandelshögskolan vid Karlstads UniversitetTITLE OF THE WORK:Integrating TQM and BPR as Process-Ori...
ITABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS..........................................................................................
IILIST OF TABLESTable 1: TQM vs. BPR ........................................................................................
- 1 -1. INTRODUCTIONThe change in our life in the last few decades became very difficult to manipulateor accommodate. The ...
- 2 -2. METHODOLOGYInformation about the theories and case study was collected from books, scientificarticles, the officia...
- 3 -SSAB could be able to benchmark their performance in terms of differentcontexts(Kero& Nilsson, 2004).3.2. SSAB and TQ...
- 4 -BPR also refers to discrete initiatives that are intended to achieve radicallyredesigned and improved work processes ...
- 5 -6. DISCUSSIONThe report gives a short overview about when TQM and BPR are to be adopted bycompanies. The need for bot...
- 6 -8. REFERENCESLiterature Sources:Benito, J. Lorente, A.R. and Dale, B.G. (1999). Business process re-engineering to to...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Integrating TQM and BPR as Process-Oriented Improving Models - A Case Study of SSAB

2,140 views

Published on

This essay is mainly focused on how process management through TQM and Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) through process innovation can be integrated. SSAB is the company is focused as case study from process improvement and process quality perspective.

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,140
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
49
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Integrating TQM and BPR as Process-Oriented Improving Models - A Case Study of SSAB

  1. 1. INTEGRATING TQM AND BPR ASPROCESS-ORIENTED MODELSA CASE STUDY OF SSAB
  2. 2. Karlstad Business SchoolHandelshögskolan vid Karlstads UniversitetTITLE OF THE WORK:Integrating TQM and BPR as Process-OrientedModels: A Case Study of SSABPrepared byHafez Shurrab
  3. 3. ITABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................ ILIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................II1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................- 1 -2. METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................................- 2 -3. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................- 2 -3.1. SSAB AND BPR................................................................................................ - 2 -3.2. SSAB AND TQM .............................................................................................. - 3 -4. THEORY........................................................................................................................- 3 -5. ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................- 4 -6. DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................- 5 -7. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................- 5 -8. REFERENCES...............................................................................................................- 6 -
  4. 4. IILIST OF TABLESTable 1: TQM vs. BPR .....................................................................................................- 3 -
  5. 5. - 1 -1. INTRODUCTIONThe change in our life in the last few decades became very difficult to manipulateor accommodate. The resources of knowledge became vast, innovations has beenintegrated to everything at a high pace, competition for markets and technology hasbecome more fierce day after day, and customers became more acquaint, demandingand educated than ever.In a context of a survey that has been conducted in 1996 in theUK, around 96.6 % of senior managers thought that the business focus andorganizational thinking had to change to be more customer-oriented. None of therespondents however specifically answered how and what to change for improving theoverall performance and productivity (Love & Gunasekaran, 1997).According to Benito et al. (1999), to show high responsiveness to globalization andincreasing competition in the market, companies should be constantly looking for newmanagement solutions, or "prescription", in order to make their business morecompetitive. This has in turn led to a large number of philosophies, or managementmodels, to solve these problems for business development. Lean Production is one ofexamples of such models in addition to Total Quality Management (TQM) and BusinessProcess Re-engineering (BPR). What these models have in common is that they focuson process-oriented approach (Huczynski, 1993).The two management models, TQM and BPR have been widely used in differentindustries during the late 80s and early 90s. There are however many concerns aboutwhich of both models (TQM & BPR) should be adopted, how companies do embracethem today, how the implementation of them compare with their relevant theory, and ifthey are both implemented in combination, totally or partially, or in combination withother models. According to Miller & Hartwick (2002), the most significant concernsthat businesses encounter in the context of these models is in the implementation phase.In the implementation of process-oriented models, the system is more or less adapted tothe activities it will support, i.e., the processes of business system must be consistentwith the business (Brandt et al., 1998). This report is dedicated to investigate and reviewsome answers related to the concerns mentioned earlier about TQM and BPRintegration as process-oriented models in SSAB.
  6. 6. - 2 -2. METHODOLOGYInformation about the theories and case study was collected from books, scientificarticles, the official website of SSAB, and the course literature “Quality from CustomerNeeds to Customer Satisfaction”. The scientific articles were found in the databasesEmerald, Science Direct, and Google Scholar by using the key words in both Englishand Swedish: TQM, BPR, Case Study, Continuous Improvement, Incremental, andRadical Change through Google Scholar and OneSearch as search engines. The books,course literature and scientific articles are used to build up the core theory of theprocess-oriented models (TQM and BPR), while the results of case studies conducted inthe selected companies are used to analyse both the implementation of the processmanagement of TQM versusprocess innovation (BPR).3. BACKGROUND3.1. SSAB and BPRAs a leading company in high strength steel industry, SSAB has a 6 million tonscapacity for crude steel. There are approximately 9000 persons work in 45 countries forSSAB. Theyhavealmost gained 38.9 billion SEK of sales in 2012(SSAB, 2012). SSABstarted considering BPR in 1996. The reason behind that was ISO9000 did not providemuch improvementsincethe certificate did not add much in terms of customers’ demand.For that, they became more interested in BPR to add a higher value to the quality of thework.The starting obstacle was the fact that BPR project has been proposed by a smallgroup inside the company. The group passed their proposal to the team managementthat then showeda high degree of interest restricted by the risk of implementation phase.Furthermore, the BPR project was not warmly welcomed by the shareholders in thebeginning. Therefore, implementing BPR project resulted in conflicts, and thus undersuch circumstances, it was not meaningful to implement this within the administration.However, by time, some development occurred within the administration in line withwhat was predicted by the BPR project, with simplified procedures and more modernsystems. In production, the company has developed itself at the rate and on the levelthat the world evolved. BPR as process-oriented method brought radical improvementsfor the process outcomes. By describing the business with processes, clarifying whatcomes in and out of the process, and ensuring that there is a customer of each process,
  7. 7. - 3 -SSAB could be able to benchmark their performance in terms of differentcontexts(Kero& Nilsson, 2004).3.2. SSAB and TQMTQM is used in SSAB partially. The main concepts of TQM is generally wellunderstood by at least the business development group. The TQM’s parts of concernintegrated in SSAB aremainly the organizational involvement and continuousimprovement. Employee engagement is central in terms of the way SSAB work. Thereare no experts to sit on the sidelines and describe how things should be performed andhow the work instructions should look like. Instead, those who perform jobs are themain designer of the work, since the business development group is only responsible forsupporting them in their work and giving them the tools needed. Moreover, integratingTQM as process-oriented method helpfully contributed that SSAB is more customer-oriented company, where customer is located in the main target for each process. SSABrely on internal personnel to implement, develop and sustain TQM practices. Sometimesthey ask outsiders to be in support of some activities.4. THEORYProcess innovation or business process reengineering (BPR) is a fundamental newthinking and radical re-structuring of core processes to achieve dramatic andsimultaneous improvements of critical result factors, such as cost and quality, serviceand swiftness. It is designing new process without using the present structure (Hammer& Champy, 2001).Table 1: TQM vs. BPR (source: (Bergman & Klefsjö, 2010))PARAMETER IMPROVEMENT INNOVATIONLevel of Change Incremental RadicalStarting Point Existing Process Clean SlateFrequency of Change One-time/Continuous One-timeTime Required Short LongParticipation Bottom-Up Top-DownTypical Scope Narrow, within functions Broad, cross-functionalRisk Moderate HighPrimary Enabler Statistical Control Information/TechnologyType of Change Cultural Cultural/Structural
  8. 8. - 4 -BPR also refers to discrete initiatives that are intended to achieve radicallyredesigned and improved work processes in a bounded time frame (Davenport, 1993).On the other hand, TQM or continuous improvement refers to initiatives that emphasizeincremental improvement in work processes and outputs over an open-ended period oftime (Bergman &Klefsjö, 2010). Table 1 shows the essential differences between BPRand TQM initiatives.Valentine & Knights (1998) argues that the implementation of BPR in practiceoften occurs through gradual changes instead of the theoretical models one-time action.The reason for this is that it is often not practical, because of the power relations andorganizational culture, to implement such radical changes at one time, without beingforced to implement changes gradually. Moreover, there is a large financial resourcesand substantial risks to bring for onetime-radical changes, and this also mitigatedwhenBPR is integrated in incrementally changing context.5. ANALYSISAccording to Hammer & Champy (2001), Davenport (1993), and Bergman &Klefsjö (2010), BPR and TQM have some similarities as they are both process-oriented,customer-oriented, quality-focused, measurable, and culture-change-oriented models.On the other hand, the most important difference between both models is that TQM isemployed to constantly build incremental improvements, while BPR is based on radicalchange at a single time(Bergman & Klefsjö, 2010). This difference is clearly seen in thecase of SSAB.TQM thinking SSAB have and the small constant improvements beingmade are easy to implement, seen from the perspective that the business developmentgroup in SSAB do not usually encounter much resistance by the institutional forces,while BPRs radical changes have been met with conflicts to be implemented in thecompany (Kero & Nilsson, 2004). What really happened is that BPR’s ideas have beenimplemented in SSAB in a manner that is more consistent with TQM. Valentine &Knights also indicates that when BPR is implemented in gradually changingcontext, thedifference becomes very small between BPR and TQM. One reason is that the top-downeffectcaused by the power relations and organizational culture becomes weaker in termsof conflicts. If the BPR project in SSAB case is to belooked at in light of this, we canalso see that the ideas of BPR project could not have been implemented through radicalchange context.The way SSAB had been working was very similar to TQM’s context.
  9. 9. - 5 -6. DISCUSSIONThe report gives a short overview about when TQM and BPR are to be adopted bycompanies. The need for both models is inevitable matter of success to keep abreast ofcompetitors’performance,and then take the lead. TQM could be used as main base forprocess improvement that is practiced in a daily basis, while BPR initiatives could bebuilt on TQM’s thinking when the need for a radical change is meaningful and wouldpay off from a strategic point of view. That need could be seen as patents, innovations,or any other updates related to the industry or business and may need to be integrated ina specific way to improve the overall business outcomes. For that, many think that BPRis highly dependent on the development of information systems since they evolve atquite high pace. The obsoleteness rate is hardly foreseen when it comes to that kind oftechnology.Traditionally, TQM and BPR are not, comparing with the theory, fully integrated incompanies. Companies select some aspects and concepts of these models that are asthey think more required to be built in their processes and industries. As process-oriented models, TQM and BPR could be also combined with other models such as leanproduction, whereby continuous improvement is, within its context, expressed askaizen, and BPR is referred to as kaikaku.7. CONCLUSIONThe report is dedicated toanalyse and investigate the adoption of BPR and TQM inSSAB. The results discussed earlier should be reinforced by several case studiesconducted in different companies and industries to be more valid. TQM is rarelyimplemented as an explicit model. One reason for this may be that there is no propermethod or specific blueprint for implementing TQM. The case shows that TQM can beused in two other ways, even if it is not implemented according to the theory. It is usedeither by integrating TQMs ideas in the business, or by implementing models that arefurther developments of TQM. On the other hand, BPR is much more tangible project inreality. However, BPR projects conducted for onetime-radical change are risky andrequired a top-down participation, which makes it quite difficult to be integratedwithout conflicts, especially in big and traditional companies such as SSAB. Otherprocess-oriented models such as lean production could be combined with both TQMand BPR to bring the best of them all for their adopters.
  10. 10. - 6 -8. REFERENCESLiterature Sources:Benito, J. Lorente, A.R. and Dale, B.G. (1999). Business process re-engineering to totalquality management. Business Process Management Journal.Bergman, B. and Klefsjö, B. (2010). Quality from Customer Needs to CustomerSatisfaction. 3rd edition. Lund: University Press.Brandt, P., Carlsson, R. and Nilsson A. G. (1998) Selecting and Managing StandardSystems. Lund: University Press.Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: reengineering work through informationtechnology. Boston, Mass. Harvard Business School Press.Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (2001). Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto forbusiness revolution. New York: HarperBusiness.Huczynski, A.A. (1993). Management Gurus. London Routledge.Kero, G. and Nilsson, P (2004). BPR and TQM: Comparison between theoreticalmodels and their application. C-Thesis. Luleå University of Technology.Love, P. and Gunasekaran, A. (1997). Process BPR: a review of enablers, InternationalJournal of ProductionEconomics.Miller, D. and Hartwick, J. (2002).Spotting Management Fads. EBSCO Publishing.Valentine,R.andKnightsD.(1998).TQMandBPR–canyouspotthedifference?PersonellReview.Electronic Resources:SSAB (2012). SSAB - SSAB in 90 seconds. [online] Available at:http://www.ssab.com/en/Products--Services/About-SSAB/SSAB-in-90-seconds/[Accessed: 15 May 2013].

×