The Integration of TQM and BPR

QUALITY INNOVATION PROSPERITY / KVALITA INOVÁCIA PROSPERITA XVII/2 – 2013 59
THE INTEGRATION OF TQM AND BPR

DOI: 10.12776/QIP.V17I2.186
IVANA MARTONOVÁ
1 INTRODUCTION
Due to the increasing competition and the pressure of globalization,
organizations are looking for the best opportunities to improve their processes.
Undoubtedly, to succeed on the market it is necessary to continuously reduce the
costs, to improve the quality of products and to increase customer satisfaction.
Therefore, it is vital to find the ways how to reach the goals as efficiently as
possible. It is obvious that TQM and BPR have significantly changed the
approach to management systems. On the one hand, TQM is based on continuous
improvement; on the other hand, BPR is based on large step changes through
redesign, reengineering and a fundamental rethinking of business processes.
Even though these two approaches are in some aspects very different,
paradoxically, they contain a few similarities which make their integration
possible. Based on these similarities, some researchers believe that TQM and
BPR are compatible approaches.
2 METHODOLOGY
This paper is an empirical survey based work, drawing from extensive literature
review, including the analysis and the synthesis of domestic and foreign
professional literary sources. The methods for the preparation of scientific
research are applied; the methods of gaining new data, methods of data
processing are used.
Before developing the methodology it was necessary to theoretically examine the
topic. The literature review included studying various researches and studies by
authors such as Love and Gunasekaran (1997:192), MacDonald and Dale
(1999:38), Allender (1994:42), De Bruyn and Gelders (1997:192), Harrington
(1995:125), Kelada (1994:80), Grover and Malhotra (1997:199), Gonzalez and
Martinez (1999:19), Paulova (2009:79). Each of these authors shares the opinion
that it is possible to integrate and jointly use both approaches of process
improvement within an organization. This evidence is consistent with the
argument that it is possible to integrate TQM and BPR. The provided study of the
ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

60 QUALITY INNOVATION PROSPERITY / KVALITA INOVÁCIA PROSPERITA XVII/2 – 2013
methodology takes into account the procedures available in scientific worksand

and finally provides a framework to effectively combine the TQM elements and
the BPR elements.
Subsequently, an analysis of the current status, relating to the use of the
principles of TQM and BPR in improving processes was carried out in four
selected organizations. The analysis was performed through interviews using a
predefined questionnaire. The aim of this analysis was to obtain the information
needed for the subsequent development of the methodology of integrated
approaches of TQM and BPR. The respondents were asked 25 questions in total,
which concerned the level of the implementation of TQM and BPR in the
organizations, the ways and methods the organizations currently use to improve
their processes, which targets have the greatest importance for the organization,
which elements are used by organizations to improve their processes (TQM or
BPR) and which strengths of the process improving methodologies are important
for the organizations.
3 LITERATURE REVIEW
To reach the goal of improving quality, organizations use different improvement
tools and philosophies. There is no doubt that TQM (Total Quality Management)
and BPR (Business Process Reengineering) are efficient strategic approaches to
achieve this goal. According to Ishikawa, TQM is based on the principle of
continuous improvement of products and processes aimed at continually
satisfying customer expectations regarding quality, cost, delivery and service.
(Ishikawa, 1990:24)
TQM has no formalized procedure. The exact content of TQM implementation is
not clearly determined. TQM reflects the experience of Japanese and American
companies focused on quality management. Promoting the TQM philosophy
caused the development of models such as EFQM and MBNQA.
According to Imeri and Kekäle (2013) there are two different approaches of
TQM:
• Soft TQM – „soft‟ TQM elements incorporate the following: total
employee involvement, continues improvement, strategic quality
planning, continues training, teamwork, empowerment, customer
satisfaction, information and analysis, supplier management, top-
management commitment and support, democratic management style,
culture change.
• Hard TQM – the most common „hard‟ elements of TQM are statistical
process control, ISO 9000 series, HACCP, kaizen approach, JIT, six
sigma, EFQM, 5S‟s, scatter diagrams, benchmarking, quality function
deployment, run charts and control charts, pareto analysis, matrix

diagram, histograms and process charts, tree decision diagrams, critical

path analysis and fishbone or Ishikawa diagram.
The quality motivation is the major task for modern business management.
Without quality motivation it is impossible to implement any organisation culture
and TQM. (Hekelová, 2000:3) There is many ways for increasing the motivation
of the emloyees. For example: job rotation, bonus systems, job enlargement, job
enrichment, quality campaigns, quality circles, activities etc.
On the other hand, there is reengineering which is defined by Hammer and
Champy (2004:32) as 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. The BPR goal
is to reach a breakthrough gain and achieve dramatic process performance (Dai,
2007:36)
It is well known that TQM focuses on customers together with emphasis on
employees, suppliers, shareholders and other stakeholders aims to safeguard
mutual wealth consequently strengthening the priority of all stakeholders. That
means there must be found optimum in quality, when it does not threaten to
violate the needs of other stakeholders. (Susnienė and Vanagas, 2005:71) TQM
can create a culture and it is that aspect of TQM that managers must focus on.
(Gore, 1999:164) The managers should also focus on the needs of customers and
consumers and their satisfaction. BPR also aims at satisfying customer
expectations regarding quality, cost, delivery and service, however, its approach
to improvements is more radical. (Carpinetti, et al., 2003:544) BPR is based on
the radical horizontal restructure of company in order to improve performance of
the processes, to obtain improvements in short term. Reengineering and
continuous improvement may result in a higher innovation – rate, because these
are parts of an overarching process, and that overarching process is Quality
Management. The terms for these two components of the Quality Management
process are “process innovation” and “process improvement”. (Pürstinger,
2005:75)
TQM or continuous improvement means programs and initiatives which
emphasize incremental improvement in work processes and outputs over an
open-ended period of time. (Omnex, 2013) The TQM results should not be seen
in the short term. The time that customers come to recognise the improved
quality of the product and services can also be long. 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. 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. The management should also take care to provide adequate funding, set
new standards as well as encourage others to be open to innovative approaches.
Many reengineering projects fail to be completed or do not achieve bottom-line

business results. (Omnex, 2013) The reengineering project can be succeed only if
top managers invest their time and energy. Without strong leadership from top
management can BPR project fail. The employees may feel that their jobs are
under attack. But managers can overcome opposition to the new design if they
approach reengineering as a painful but necessary steps.
However, in terms of time orientation, the type of change for each of the
approaches is quite different. TQM is seen as a continuous programme that
continually strives towards an ideal such as zero defects or 100 percent customer
satisfaction. In contrast, BPR is seen as a one-off event aimed at creating new
systems and processes. (Harvey and Millet, 1999:36) Each of the approaches
being examined shares the basic aim of increasing organisational efficiency.
TQM are also concerned with the needs of people within the organisation and
achieve organisational efficiency through the better use of people. By contrast,
BPR often operates from a management vision, which may or may not be
employee-friendly. (Harvey and Millet, 1999:37) One of the most common
problems is the resistance of employees to make the necessary changes. This
resistance should be anticipated and ways to overcome it given adequate
attention. TQM relates to the quality of products or services and is useful where
quality is seen as a way to increase competitive advantage. BPR is not narrowly
focused on quality and defines improvement more broadly. (Harvey and Millet,
1999:37) TQM culture would also facilitate the development of human resources
but, in this instance, the development would focus on customer service skills,
technical skills and other skills that would improve service quality. (Harvey and
Millet, 1999:38) In contrast to these approaches, BPR is more objective in
nature. BPR is about redesigning systems and so requires a culture that will be
willing to accept one-off, frame-breaking changes. Each of the approaches
supports a shift away from individual, highly formalised work practices in favour
of team based work. TQM and BPR demand more innovation and input from the
workforce in terms of new ideas for work processes and methods. (Harvey and
Millet, 1999:39)
Although it seems that approaches differ in many factors, they are based on very
similar assumptions. The most basic similarity is that each of them is based on
the planned change. TQM is focused on incremental changes and BPR is focused
on radical changes. Reengineering is radical and usually reaches greater changes.
However, TQM is going in the same direction, but it is slower and deals with
minor problems. It is focused on improving the existing processes. Once TQM is
implemented into the organizational culture, it works somewhat independently
and does not require great management involvement. In contrast, reengineering
requires intensive effort of the top management.
The similarities and differences between TQM and reengineering were also
described by Gore (1999:167). They both include a focus on process flows across
functional boundaries. They both include a focus on the customer and work to
define the current process and identify problems. There is a major apparent
difference in the quality focus on continuous improvement versus the

reengineering goal of the best that can be conceived. The elements of TQM that
are missing from reengineering are continuous improvement, a focus on people,
participation of “insiders“, and teamwork and it is these elements that make up
the central difference between the two approaches. (Gore, 1999:167)
The authors MacDonald and Dale (1999:38) argue that, based on many common
features, it is possible to use BPR and TQM jointly at one organization. Also
Love and Gunasekaran (1997:192) are of the opinion that TQM is a good starter
for BPR.
Other authors who have analyzed the possibility of integrating BPR and TQM
are Gonzalez, Martinez and Dale (1999:19). They realized that further research
is needed and their analysis provides only a broad set of guidelines.
Nevertheless, according to them, the application or adaptation of BPR
methodologies for the implementation of TQM principles seem to be possible.
It is possible to integrate TQM and BPR, but it is necessary to ensure their
mutual "separation". It is also necessary to differentiate what reengineering teams
are and to separetely set TQM teams. Each of these two strategic approaches has
its advantages and disadvantages and they are fairly well supplementary under
certain conditions. It must always be clear what we want to achieve with change.
If gradual improvement is sufficient, it is appropriate to use TQM - moderate
changes. If greater annual changes in business results are needed, radical
reengineering changes must be implemented. Change is selected according to
business needs. However, it is possible to start with TQM, continue with
reengineering, then certain time with TQM, etc. (see Fig. 1). TQM can be used
on implementation of moderate changes after radical change through
reengineering. TQM as a system that drives improvement is very analogous to a
Kaizen approach. The elements and characteristics are considerably supportive
of each other, and the two philosophies mandate a similar organizational
mindset. Consequently on the road of a company to TQM, a Kaizen approach
and any of its tools under its umbrella in practice, is a compatible valuable tool
to TQM. (Lolidis, 2006:30) The TQM tools are tools for the systematic
improvement in the small steps. (Zgodavová, 1998:68)
Allender (1994:42) concluded that nothing in the TQM philosophy dictates that
continuous improvements must proceed in small steps and that improvements are
welcomed in either small steps or gigantic leaps. Thus, the breakthroughs
envisioned by BPR are indeed consistent with TQM.
De Bruyn and Gelders (1997:192) think that TQM is an enabler of reengineering.
According to Harrington (1995:125) and Kelada (1994:80) are these two
approaches complementary and that reengineering has to have TQM aims at the
forefront in order for it to be successful. Also Grover & Malhorta (1997:199)
state that TQM can often serve as the building block for subsequent
reengineering efforts.

Gonzalez, Martinez and Dale (1999:19) recognized the need to perform more
researches, but application, or adaptation of BPR methodologies for
implementing TQM principles seem to be possible.
Figure 1 - Advantages of applying TQM and reengineering jointly

(Lorente, 1999:19)
Many authors argue that by the simultaneous usage of TQM and BPR within one
organization better results can be reached than when the TQM and BPR are used
alone. (Martonová, et al., 2013:160) In case that in organization simultaneously
run both improving programs at the same time, must be clearly defined status
between them and all employees must to know it.
Today, on the verge of the second decade of the twenty-first century, our
foremost issue is the debt crisis of several EU and other countries, and in this
situation we believe that it is most appropriate to focus our efforts on success,
whilst we take it that success is a sustainable prosperity of individuals and
organisations. (Zgodavová and Slimák, 2011:1)
The competitive pressures have forced most companies to increase their focus on
using the world’s best improvement techniques. A major benefit of globalization
is an access to improvement techniques being developed around the world.
Globalization brings the use of new tools and methods and methodologies in
different factories all over the world. (Šurinová and Paulová, 2009:101). TQM
and BPR belong to these best improvement strategic approaches .
4 SURVEY RESULTS DISCUSSION

To find out about the current situation and to define the strengths and weaknesses
in the TQM and BPR use in Slovak organizations, an interview was carried out.
Each of the interviewed organization had some experience at least with one
methodology and was intensely dedicated to process improvement by using the
various tools and techniques of quality management. It was the impact of
different factors on improvement process efficiency that was heavily
investigated.
The findings show that organizations ascribe high importance to increasing sales,
increasing product quality, reducing costs, increasing the process efficiency and
deliveries on time. Likewise, each of them use BPR elements, as well as
elements of TQM in their improvement activities (see Fig. 2). In most cases,
organizations use "soft" elements of TQM, but if needed, they use the "hard"
elements of reengineering, too. It can be assumed that organizations should be
able to use a "mix" of elements of both approaches simultaneously.
Figure 2 – The use of elements of TQM and BPR during process improvement
The survey made it obvious that respondents find customer satisfaction and
subsequently the focus on continuous process improvement extremely important
(see Fig. 3). That is why the proposed methodology should take these facts into
consideration.
Finally, the respondents were asked whether they would implement the
methodology of integrated TQM and BPR approaches in the organization if the
methodology was provided and its effectiveness was verified in practice. The
respondents expressed interest in the compiled methodology in all organizations.

Based on the above-mentioned studies and results of the interview, the

methodology of TQM and BPR approaches integration was developed. The
methodology is described below.
Importance of the strengths of process improvement

16,00%
14,00%
12,00%
10,00%
8,00%
6,00%
4,00%
2,00%
0,00%
Figure 3 – The importance of the strengths of process improvement
5 METHODOLOGY OF THE INTEGRATED TQM AND BPR

APPROACHES
Building on prior literature and survey results, we further attempt to define the
methodology of the TQM and BPR integration. Based on literature research and
case studies described above, and also on the information obtained from the
interview in four selected organizations, the methodology of integrated TQM and
BPR approaches has been developed. Subsequently, the applicability of the
developed methodology was verified in one selected organization. The
methodology consists of five phases, described on Fig. 4, and are described
below. Single phases of methodology are based on the PDCA Cycle.
Phase 1 – Preparation
First, it is necessary to identify the persons who will participate in the project, i.e.
creating a "design team". This team will be established by the project sponsor.
The team will be tasked to create an improvement project and subsequently
initiate and monitor the activities related with the successful implementation of
the project. Another task of the project sponsor is to motivate the team members
so that the costs associated with motivation (financial rewards, vacations, etc.)

could be lowered, and on the other the hand, the team members would be incited
to perform the assigned tasks as effectively as possible. Probably the most
commonly used incentives to motivate the team to work together are the promise
of rewards for the project, deadlines etc. The best practice to motivate the team
includes regular meetings and discussions within the team.
5. Contin.
1. Preparat.
Improv.
Phase
Phase
4. Control 2. Analysis
Phase Phase
3. Implem.
Phase
Figure 4 – The methodology of integrated TQM and BPR approaches

Phase 2 – Analysis
• Step 1: Analysis of requirements on processes
At the beginning of this phase, it is essential to answer the question: "Why have
we decided to change?" If the reason for change is the general purpose and the
internal needs of the organization, the first step of this phase will be determining
organization goals (point 1 a)). Otherwise, if the reason for change is an external
pressure from customers, the first step of this phase will be customer
requirements analysis (point 1 b)).
Point 1 a): Determining the organization goals
These goals should be summarized by the design team in cooperation with the
top-management representatives. Most organizations set goals regularly (usually
on an annual basis), so the team only needs to reach the goals for current time
period.
Point 1 b): Customer requirements analysis
The analysis of customer requirements can be done through questionnaire
surveys, interviews or brainstorming with the representatives of the key
customers. This step is very important because often organizations do not know
what is important for the customer. If the customer's requirements are identified
at the beginning of the process, their satisfaction will increase at the end of the
process improvement.
Point 2: The degree of achieving the goals/requirements

In this step it is necessary to verify the degree of the objectives (requirements)
fulfillment, i.e. to identify the current state of goals achievement (requirements).
The design team determines the degree of fulfillment according to the criteria in
Table 1 for goals (requirements) which were determined in point 1.
Table 1 – Degree of achieving goals/ requirements
Level of goal achievement Criterion Points
Excellent achievement of the goal > 90% 1
81-90% 2
Good achievement of the goal 71-80% 3
61-70% 4
Moderate achievement of the goal 51-60% 5
41-50% 6
Weak achievement of the goal 31-40% 7
21-30% 8
Poor achievement of the goal 11-20% 9
< 11% 10
• Step 2: Analysis of the current status of processes
This step requires to prepare a process map (if the organization does not have it),
and to determine which processes are Value Added and which are Non-Value
Added. The identification of the Value Added Processes is essential from the
customer's perspective. It is necessary to evaluate the processes and classify them
into categories of customer Value Added Processes - called Real Value Added
Processes, organization Value Added - called Business Value Added Processes
and No Value Added Processes. When the processes/activities are assigned into
the three groups, it is critical to look for opportunities to improve them. First, it is
relevant to eliminate the causes of No Value Added Activities. Business Value
Added Activities should be analyzed - whether it is necessary to perform them,
and whether there are better ways to perform them. Value Added Processes
should be selected and subjected to improvement by further steps and phases.
• Step 3: Selection of processes for change, selection of representative

performance measures and their current status
Point 1: Selection of processes for change
The first step is the selection of the processes to improve. A process, to be
considered for improving, has to be strategic and Value Added (Salegna and
Farzaneh, 1996:14) - see step 2. The process selection should be realized by
using Table 2. Into the first column either the goals of the organization or the
customer requirements will be entered (see step 1). The "Degree of Importance"
column should be filled with the corresponding value, according to the following
scale:

1- 2 Not important
3- 4 Partially important
5- 6 Important
7- 8 More than important
9 -10 Very important
To determine the level of importance according to the customer's requirements, it

is necessary to ask the customer directly. In case of determining the importance
degree according the organization's goals, it is necessary to ask the "key persons"
who are able to provide that information. Into the third column it is necessary to
fill in the degree of goal achievement or customer requirements (score 1-10),
which we identified in step 1. Into the 4 to N columns we enter all the Value
Added Processes identified in step 2.
Table 2 – Selection of processes for change
The Importance Achievement Process 1 Process 2 Process N
organization degree degree
goals /
Link Score Link Score Link Score
customer
requirements
Goal /
requirement 1
Goal /
requirement 2
Goal /
requirement N
Sum
In the next step, it is necessary to determine the link between the goals (or
customer requirements) and processes according to the following scale:
1- 2 Very poor
3- 4 Low
5- 6 Slightly strong
7- 8 Strong
9 - 10 Very strong
This value should be filled in the "Link" columns. The "Score" is to be filled with
the number calculated by multiplying the values in the "Importance degree",
"Achievement degree" and "Link" columns. The final step is calculating the sum
of the scores of each column and entering it into the "Sum" line. Reading the
table, it is easy to identify the priorities, i.e. selecting the processes which will be
improved first, the second, etc. This analysis shows which processes are critical
and important to achieve the most important goals. For example, if an
organization needs to reduce the costs or the price, it will have to prioritize
increasing the productivity.

Point 2: Selection of representative performance measures and their current

status
Secondly, it is necessary to choose representative performance measures, which
will indicate the magnitude of the change that will be achieved. The Key
Performance Indicators (KPI) quantifies the overall performance of the
organization in relation to relevant global objective or critical success factor. The
overall performance of the organization is based on the performance of its
individual parts, so it is very important to have an accurate distribution of
selected indicators for specific processes. Well selected KPI allow monitoring the
performance of a particular process in order to produce an accurate output and
added value. Consecutively, it is also required to diagnose the current state ot the
selected criteria.
Phase 3 - Implementation
• Step 1: Analysis of selected processes

This phase analyzes the selected processes to find their defects and their causes.
The purpose of the analysis is to identify the problems in the processes, the No
Value Added activities, the inefficient time in processes, and also to identify the
possibilities of rapid changes. Subsequently, the causes of the problems are
found. Obviously, a sound knowledge of analytical methods is required to
achieve a quality analysis. They are tools, methodology, including evidence,
evaluation and the interpretation of the found information. It is vital to have
a precisely defined object of the analysis and to cooperate with experts in the
particular field. The analysis should create a realistic image, based on relevant
information, and prepare room for taking measures to eradicate the problems.
• Step 2: Creation of solutions

After identifying the problem(s), the ‘design team‘ is supposed to create ideas
which would remedy the situation with the problematic processes. If it is possible
(in the case when the situation allows multiple solutions), it is better to make
more alternatives of possible solutions, which are to be evaluated and compared
and then the team should choose the most suitable one. After the choice of the
optimal solution has been made, a plan of implementation is prepared.
• Step 3: Implementation plan preparation

Point 1: Collecting initial information
The questions in Table 3 should be answered before making an implementation
plan. The first question examines the object of improvement. It is based on the
outcome of phase 2, where the processes to change and improve have been
selected. If the answer to the question is ‘macro process or main process’, the
creators of the implementation plan have to take into consideration that
eliminating the resistance of a larger number of employees will be needed than if
the change only concerned only a part of the system or a single process.
‘Employee resistance elimination’ should be one of the steps in the

implementation plan. It is also necessary to define which employees will be
subjected to change and to whom the change will be beneficial. If the change is
beneficial for both the customers and the employees or internal customers, no
extra focus on employee motivation will be needed. The benefit for their working
process itself will serve the purpose. On the other hand, if the change only
benefits the external customer, motivating the employees will have to be
included in the implementation plan, too. The next question to answer is the
extent of the change. If only a partial change is required, i.e. the process is mostly
functional, the plan only needs to ‘tune’ the problematic parts. The improvement
plan will only take the form of corrective measures on the current processes. If
the process is mostly dysfunctional, a ‘clean slate’ change, i.e. redesigning the
whole process, is required.
Table 3 – Collection of initial information
Nr Question TQM Element BPR Element
1 What will be the subject of Individual process, The main process, macro
improvement? system element process
2 Who will benefit from the Internal and external Only external customer
change? customers, employees
3 What range of change is Incremental change Radical change
needed?
4 How much time do we have? Longer time Short time (time pressure)
5 What direction is better to Bottom-Up Top-Down

make a change?
6 Who will implement the Involvement of all Implementation teams
change?
7 What frequency of Continuous improvement A single change
improvement is needed?
The fourth question to answer is ‘How much time do we have?’ With a longer
time interval at hand, the particular steps of the implementation can have a looser
schedule and they will not require intensive involment from the employees. With
a lack of time, a tight schedule has to be applied. This will require a great
dedication from the employees subject to the change, i.e. they might only have to
dedicate their time to the changes implementation and the management will have
to accept the fact. Furthermore, it is necessary to define which way to realize the
change – upwards or downwards, which will then determine the way the
employees will be trained. Question number six is aimed on who will realize the
change. If the change means involving all the employees (everyone must be
involved in the implementation plan), an overall motivation for the change needs
to be carried out. If the change happens via implementation teams, only the team
members need to be motivated. The last question surveys the need of repeating
the improvement activities. If the need is to get better and better results in the
area, i.e. a continuous change of the measures of efficiency, applying and

implementing a simple change plan will not be sufficient. A ‘cumulative

improvement plan’ will be required, i.e. after the completion of one plan of
improvement, other solutions will have to be found to improve the process again
(and the specific measures of efficiency). If it is only needed to remove a certain
part of a non-functioning process and there is no need to get better and better
results in the area (process), a one-time plan will be sufficient.
Point 2: Preparing the implementation plan

This is the time to bring the implementation plan to life. The pland needs to
include the information acquired in Step 1, the structure of the plan needs to
contain things like the definition of the corrective measures to be taken, the steps
of the implementation of the measures, the planned closing time, the real closing
time of the process, the person responsible, the costs of the implementation, the
status of the corrective actions. Such a plan does not only provide an overview of
the particular steps, the status of measures, the people responsible, but also of the
costs the organization will have to invest in corrective action. This tool captures
the tasks and steps essential to achieving a successful implementation. (Ballis,
1996:133)
• Step 4: Implementation
In this step, the activities from the implementation plan from step 3 will be
performed. It is necessary that the design team supervise the realization of the
individual steps and also keeping the deadlines.
Phase 4 – Control
In this phase, the achieved results will be compared with the initial status of the
key performance indicators. It is good if the size of improvement is also
calculated in percentage values. Based on the comparison, we can determine the
progress that we have achieved by the implementation of corrective measures. In
case it is possible, it is appropriate to calculate the total savings for a given time
period (normally one year) and compare them with the costs for the
implementation of the corrective actions. We can quantify the overall benefit of
the project this way.
Phase 5 – Continuous Improvement

Finally, there is a necessity for each organization to continuously improve their
processes. It is to find future opportunities for improvement. This means that
after one improvement project another project should be started, using this 5-
phase methodology for process improvement.
6 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION
There are several studies by various experts, showing that it is possible to
integrate and use TQM and BPR jointly within one organization at the same
time. But none of the research studied showed the way how to use the strengths
of both methodologies simultaneously. In this paper, the writers have tried to
integrate the elements of both TQM and BPR in a complex methodology and it
showed that the integration of these approaches to process improvement is
possible. In the future research, the proposed methodology will be implemented
in real a situation of a production organization.
7 CONCLUSION
TQM and BPR are used by organizations with a different focus and after their
implementation, achieving different results. Some organizations prefer TQM,
others BPR. They are generally considered as two completely different
approaches of process improvement that can not be integrated. Because of their
common features, we can conclude that the integration is possible. Both
approaches bring significant results in organizations that implement them. If
organizations use the strengths of both methodologies for process improvement
jointly, they could achieve more significant results as if they were used
separately. The aim of this paper was to provide a manual how it is possible to
integrate the elements of TQM and BPR into a one complex methodology.
REFERENCES
Allender, H. D., 1994. "Is reengineering compatible with Total Quality
Management?", Industrial Engineering 26 (9), pp. 41 - 44.
Ballis, J. P, 1996. TQM-III: An alternative to reengineering, Flow Management
& Associates, Inc., Dallas, USA.
Carpinetti, L. C. R., Buosi, T. and GeroÂlamo, M. C., 2003. "Quality
management and improvement. A framework and a business-process reference
model", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 543 - 554,
[pdf] Available at: <http://www.prod.eesc.usp.br/gqm/images/stories/arquivos/
paper_business_process_management_journal.pdf> Accessed 18 July, 2013.
Dai, J., 2007. "Implement BPR and CPI to optimize the process of getting
medicine in pharmacy: a comparison between Sweden and China", Reports from
MSI 07117, pp. 1 – 70, [pdf] Available at: <http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:205444/FULLTEXT01.pdf> Accessed 25 September,
2013.
De Bruyn, B. and Gelders, L., 1997. "Process Re-engineering: a Review of

Enablers", International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 50 Iss. 2-3, pp.
183 – 197.

Lorente, M. et al., 1999. "TQM and business innovation", European Journal of

Innovation Management, Vol. 2 Iss: 1, pp. 12 – 19, [pdf] Available at:
<http://repositorio.bib.upct.es:8080/jspui/bitstream/10317/442/1/tqm3.pdf>
Accessed 25 September, 2013.
Gonzalez, B. J., Martinez, L. A. R. and Dale, B. G., 1999. "Business process re-
engineering to total quality management: An examination of the issues", Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 5 Iss: 4, pp. 1 - 22, [pdf] Available at:
<http://repositorio.bib.upct.es/dspace/bitstream/10317/428/1/bpr.pdf> Accessed
18 July, 2013.
Gore, E. W., 1999. "Organizational culture, TQM, and business process
reengineering: An empirical comparison", Team Performance Management, Vol.
5 Iss: 5, pp. 164 – 170, [online] Available at:
<http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/emerald-publishing/organizational-culture-tqm-
and-business-process-reengineering-an-tgNuKyidWw> Accessed 18 July, 2013.
Grover, V. and Malhotra, M. K., 1997. "Business Process Re-engineering: a
Tutorial on the Concept, Evolution, Method, Technology and Application",
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 193 – 213.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J., 2004. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto
for business Revolution, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harrington, J. M, 1995. Total Improvement Management: the New Generation in
Performance Improvement, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harvey, S. and Millet, B., 1999. "OD, TQM BPR: A comparative approach",
Australian Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 30 - 42, [pdf] Available at: <http://usq.edu.au/extrafiles/business/journals/
HRMJournal/ AJMOBarticles/OD-TQM-BPR.pdf> Accessed 18 July, 2013.
Hekelová, E., 2000. Firm culture - An integrating element of QMS and EMS,
[online] Available at: <http://home.mit.bme.hu/~kollar/IMEKO-procfiles-for-
web/congresses/WC-16th-Wien-2000/Papers/Topic%2025/Hekelova.PDF>
Accessed 29 November, 2013.
Imeri, S. and Kekäle, T., 2013. "Towards an understanding of the impact of TQM
in firms in south east europe – a qualitative approach", Business Excellence and
Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 1 – 17, [pdf] Available at:
<http://beman.ase.ro/no33/1.pdf> Accessed 29 November, 2013.
Ishikawa, K, 1990. Introduction to Quality Control, 3A Corporation, Tokyo.
Kelada, J. N., 1994. "Is Re-engineering Replacing Total Quality", Quality
Progress, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 79 - 83.
Lolidis , M., 2006. "Kaizen Definition & Principles in Brief: A Concept & Tool
for Employees Involvement", Thessaloniki, pp. 1-42, [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.michailolidis.gr/pdf/KAIZEN08.pdf> Accessed 25 September,
2013.

Love, P. E. D. and Gunasekaran, A., 1997. “Process Re-engineering: a Review of

Enablers”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 50, pp. 183 –
197.
MacDonald J. and Dale B. G., 1999. “Business Process Re-engineering”, in Dale
B. G. (Ed.), Managing Quality, 3rd Edition, Blackwell Publishers, Chapter 22.
Martonová, I., Šurinová, Y. and Paulová, I., 2013. “Analysis of TQM and BPR
integrability in conditions of Slovak organizations”, European International
Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 159-170, [pdf] Available
at:<http://www.cekinfo.org.uk/images/frontImages/gallery/Vol_2_No._6/18.pdf>
Accessed 29 November, 2013.
Omnex, 2013. Business Process Re-engineering, [online] Available at:
<http://www.omnex.com/members/standards/bpr/business_process_reengineerin
g.aspx> Accessed 18 July, 2013.
Paulova, I. "Chosen Methods of System Approach in Quality Management and
TQM Effectivity Evaluation", Hochschule Anhalt (FH), Kothem
Pürstinger, G., 2005. "The European Innovation – Challenge", Quality
Innovation Prosperity, IX/1 - 2005, pp. 71 – 87, [pdf] Available at: <http://qip-
journal.eu/files/2005/KIP-1-2005.pdf> Accessed 18 July, 2013.
Salegna, G. and Farzaneh, F., 1996. "An integrative approach for selecting a
TQM/BPR implementation plan", International Journal of Quality Science, Vol.
1 No. 3, pp. 6 – 23, [online] Available at: http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/emerald-
publishing/an-integrative-approach-for-selecting-a-tqm-bpr-implementation-
plan-7wE2AJ0L53, Accessed 18 July, 2013.
Susnienė, D. and Vanagas, P., 2005. "Integration of Total Quality Management
into Stakeholder Management Policy and Harmonization of their Interests",
Engineering Economics No. 4 (44) – 2005, pp. 71 – 77, [online] Available at:
<http://internet.ktu.lt/lt/mokslas/zurnalai/inzeko/44/1392-2758-2005-4-44-
71.pdf> Accessed 24 September, 2013.
Šurinová, Y. and Paulová, I., 2009. "Globalization effects on customer specific
requirements in automotive production", Research papers Faculty of Materials
Science and Technology Slovak University of Technology in Trnava, Vol. 18 No.
28, pp. 101 - 106, [online] Available at:
<http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/rput.2010.18.issue-28/v10186-010-0013-
3/v10186-010-0013-3.xml> Accessed 18 July, 2013.
Zgodavová, K. and Slimák, I, 1998. "Total Quality Management or
Reengineering or Constraints Management for Universities", Quality Innovation
Prosperity, II/2 - 1998, pp. 65 – 69.
Zgodavová, K. and Slimák, I., 2011. "Focus on success", Quality Innovation
Prosperity, XV/1 - 2011, pp. 1 – 4, [online] Available at: <http://www.qip-
journal.eu/index.php/QIP/article/view/36> Accessed 18 July, 2013.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This way I would like to thank to my PhD. tutor Assoc. Prof. Iveta Paulova, PhD.
for help and valuable advices in writing this paper.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ing. Ivana Martonová, external PhD. student, Slovak University of Technology
in Bratislava, Faculty of Materials Science and Technology in Trnava, Institute
of Industrial Engineering, Management and Quality, Paulínska 16, 917 24
Trnava, Slovak Republic; Quality Engineer, Vacuumschmelze, s.r.o., Horná
Streda 1325/14, 916 24, Slovakia, e-mail: ivana.martonova@stuba.sk;
ivana.martonova@vacuumschmelze.com.

The Integration of TQM and BPR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Integration of TQM and BPR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Integration of TQM and BPR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUALITY INNOVATION PROSPERITY / KVALITA INOVÁCIA PROSPERITA XVII/2 – 2013 59

THE INTEGRATION OF TQM AND BPR

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

methodology takes into account the procedures available in scientific worksand

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

diagram, histograms and process charts, tree decision diagrams, critical

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

Figure 1 - Advantages of applying TQM and reengineering jointly

4 SURVEY RESULTS DISCUSSION

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

Based on the above-mentioned studies and results of the interview, the

Importance of the strengths of process improvement

Figure 3 – The importance of the strengths of process improvement

5 METHODOLOGY OF THE INTEGRATED TQM AND BPR

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

Figure 4 – The methodology of integrated TQM and BPR approaches

Point 2: The degree of achieving the goals/requirements

• Step 2: Analysis of the current status of processes

• Step 3: Selection of processes for change, selection of representative

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

To determine the level of importance according to the customer's requirements, it

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

Point 2: Selection of representative performance measures and their current

• Step 1: Analysis of selected processes

• Step 2: Creation of solutions

• Step 3: Implementation plan preparation

‘Employee resistance elimination’ should be one of the steps in the

5 What direction is better to Bottom-Up Top-Down

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

implementing a simple change plan will not be sufficient. A ‘cumulative

Point 2: Preparing the implementation plan

Phase 5 – Continuous Improvement

De Bruyn, B. and Gelders, L., 1997. "Process Re-engineering: a Review of

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

Lorente, M. et al., 1999. "TQM and business innovation", European Journal of

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

Love, P. E. D. and Gunasekaran, A., 1997. “Process Re-engineering: a Review of

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ISSN 1335-1745 (print) / ISSN 1338-984X (online)

You might also like