TQM and Continuous Improvement render BPR unneccessary

        Business process reengineering (BPR) on the other hand is the very process of transformation of production and administrative processes with the main objective and motivation being cost reduction as explained by Dale (2007). BPR originated from the views of Tom Davenport and James Short from a book they published in 1990 which very soon became a work in progress yet again, and was later popularized following formal concept by the writings of Hammer (1990) Hammer and Champy (1993) and many other philosophers. They all contributed in their own views and ways, to form BPR and any additional effort lent into further improving any detectable weaknesses of the approach was done to further improve the whole process. According to MacDonald and Dale (2007), BPR employs two main approaches which happen to be process redesigning and process reengineering. They went on to explain that each respective approach are “based on taking a holistic and objective view of the core processes that are needed to accomplish specific business objectives without being constrained by what already exists” (MacDonald and Dale, 2007), adding that BPR covers a variety of activities that result in two different outcomes which happens to cause radical change to firstly individual processes and secondly, to the organization as a whole. The differences, between these approaches are that the former is quick, fast with lower costs to implement however with lower chances of garnering anything beneficial while the latter requires significant amount of structural change to an organization. As for Hammer and Champy (1993), they explained that all reengineering measure is done by firstly carrying out process redesigning. The whole redesigning process can be done in different ways but it is also depending on the degree of alteration in which the process will be undertaking. Though most of the time, primary focus is given to the core processes involving cross-functional boundaries and customer focused in general in order to handle process simplification, streamlining, mistake-proofing, adaptability and efficiency. So ultimately, BPR in general gives emphasis to structural process redesign and reengineering, not forgetting the fundamental rethinking of the business by disregarding the status quo completely, proceeding with its one step solution to a problem, which consequently leading claims of faster production returns in a relatively short period of time (Dale, 2007).

        Based on these definitions and understanding, it is safe to say that both TQM and BPR have covered enough, if not all grounds of management and came up with the methods or initiatives needed to improve efficiency and effectiveness of any organization in particular. However, if this were entirely true, one of the suggested two frameworks mentioned above would have been dubbed the one-best method in improving organizations, thus leaving other styles or framework of management not only discarded, nor would they ever have came to existence. Every distinctive management framework or styles have their own uniqueness and effectiveness which varies when applied to the plentiful variety based on the nature of business. This can be found in a case study, known as “Employees’ perspective on the effectiveness of ISO 9000certification: A Total Quality Management framework” (2009: Routledge). Based on the case study, not all organizations that were initially perceived to be successful after the implementation of certain approaches resulted the way it was initially planned. Some had no effect and some even scored lower in a later observation, where as some organizations perceived to not have any beneficial effect instead garnered the most benefits and scored remarkably after keen observations. “Therefore, the meaning of quality will be peculiar to individual organizations with different definitions of quality appropriate under different circumstances.” (Reeves and Bednar, 1994) From here, it is understood that the importance of applying the more suitable framework for any organization is really based on the nature of business that the organization is involved with. As mentioned earlier, although TQM and BPR undeniably share certain similarities and have a few aspects built around the same philosophers, the end-game, or rather final outcome differs in great lengths from one another. “In fact many of the tools and techniques which have been proved and used in continuous improvement are employed in BPR projects, and a number of the principles and practices of BPR are very similar to those which underpin TQM.” (Dale, 2007) Previously, before the BPR method was revised, it was frowned upon by many due to its encapsulation of a mechanistic conception of organizations, a concept unpopular among today’s advancement and introduction of social and human rights. If that mechanistic concept back then had not been stopped and were continued without regard of public interest, then the statement ‘Total Quality Management and Continuous Improvement, properly applied, render BPR unnecessary’ is true to its every sense. However, that is not the case, as the revised concepts of BPR which have emerged suggest a number of corresponding elements between BPR and TQM. This would lead one to believe that it is possible for both methods to survive and serve as a corresponding or prerequisite element for one another. Such possibility has been the discussion of certain philosophers who seem to think TQM and BPR can co-exist with the nature of complimenting one another in the process due to the TQM method of being a continuous improvement where long term investments will yield significant advantages where as the BPR can be used as an act now policy in order to jumpstart an organization to achieve the intended goals or objectives.

        Indeed, not only is the timing for BPR to emerge considered a useful one, additionally its emergence coincides with an economic age which is take priority in innovation, speed and quality as the judge or rather, arbiter of competitive edge. However, concurrent emergence of social, work and human rights related issues have also rise swiftly and considered one of the main concerns in everyday people’s lives. TQM on the other hand focuses more on to these aspects as it concentrates on changing the relations among staff members in order to further improve quality which in turn, helps the organization achieve their targets and meet with the customer demands. Not forgetting the continuous improvement that comes with TQM which serves as both a short and long term tool that benefits the organization itself. This is not to agree with the statement ‘Total Quality Management and Continuous Improvement, properly applied, render BPR unnecessary’, rather, it is to argue that it does not necessarily take one method to trample over the other because both TQM and BPR have their own pros and cons such as the ones discussed previously. However, the possibility of these two methods both co-existing is an interesting observation due to the specialty and uniqueness both methods adopt respectively, which gives rise to the thought that with the amount of businesses and organizations available today, not all can apply the same method and experience the same benefits that other organizations do happen to attain. So goes the saying, “One man’s meat, is another man’s poison”.

References

1. Brah, S.A., Tee, S., & Rao, B.M. (2002). Relationship between TQM and performance of Singapore companies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19, 356–379.
2. Claver, E., Tari, J.J. and Molina, J.F. (2002), “Areas of improvement in certified firms advancing towards TQM”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19 (8)/(9), pp. 1014-36.
3. Curkovic, S., Melnyk, S., Calantone, R., & Handfield, R., (2000), Validating the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award framework through structural equation modeling. International Journal of Production Research, 38, 765–791.
4. Dale, B.G. (2007): Managing Quality 5th Edn.  Blackwell.  Oxford.
5. Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process Innovation – Re-engineering Work through Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
6. Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., & Sakakibara, S. (1995). The impact of quality management practice on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences, 26, 659–691.
7. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Re-engineering the Corporation - A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Harper Business, New York, NY.
8. Ishikawa, K. (1985), What Is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way, Prentice Hall, London.
9. Juran, J.M. (1986), “Quality trilogy”, Quality Progress, August, pp. 14-24.
10. Juran, J.M. (1989): Juran on Leadership for Quality: An Executive Handbook. The Free Press. New York.
11. Oakland, J.S. (2003) Total Quality Management: Text with Cases, 3rd ed., London: Oxford.
12. Oliver, J. (2009 ) Continuous improvement: role of organisational learning mechanisms, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 26(6), pp. 546-563.
13. Reeves, C. and Bednar, D. (1994), “Defining quality: alternatives and implications”, The Academy of Management Review, July, pp. 419-37.
14. Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G., & Schroeder, R.G. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Sciences, 20, 810–829.
15. Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G., & Schroeder, R.G. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Sciences, 20, 810–829.
16. Tsuang, K., Tsun-Jin, C., Kuei-Chung, H., & Ming-yuan, L. (2009), Employees’ perspective on the effectiveness of ISO 9000 certification: A Total Quality Management framework, Total Quality Management. 20(12), 1321–1335.
17. Valentine, R. & Knights, D. (1998) TQM and BPR – can you spot the difference?, Personnel Review, 27 (1), pp. 78-85.