Description
In the last few decades of the twentieth century, knowledge has accumulated, innovations have been occurring at an unprecedented rate, competition for technology and markets has intensified, and customers have become more educated and more demanding than ever.
TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10, NOS 4&5, 1999, S584±S593
Integrating total quality management and
business process re-engineering: is it enough?
YASAR F. JARRAR & ELAINE M. ASPINWALL
School of Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, The University of Bir mingham,
Edgbaston, Bir mingham B15 2TT, UK
Introduction
In the last few decades of the twentieth century, knowledge has accumulated, innovations
have been occurring at an unprecedented rate, competition for technology and markets has
intensi®ed, and customers have become more educated and more demanding than ever. This
has forced organizations world-wide to set up new methods of dealing within the context of
laws and standards that require a completely overhauled way of organizational thinking and
behaviour. In 1998, a survey of the leading UK organizations was undertaken by the authors
to assess the views and practices regarding future performance excellence. The survey
revealed that 96.6% of senior managers who responded agreed that change has become the
foremost business issue of our day. Eighty point three per cent of the respondents also agreed
that success today requires a completely overhauled way of organizational thinking and
behaviour. Clearly, businesses have realized that there is a need to restructure their business
practices and become more customer-focused. However, they do not necessarily know how
and what to change, to achieve improvements in productivity and performance (Love &
Gunasekaran, 1997). In the last decade, two main organizational development models
dominated the organizational world, namely, total quality management (TQM) and business
process re-engineering (BPR). Organizations have used either or both to achieve the required
change and ensure success.
BPR versus TQM: Two opposing camps
Over the past 20 years, quality has been hailed as the key factor for success. However, the
organizational world is increasingly moving away from the traditional `quality’ concept, as
functions such as inspection, audit and review are all now seen as non-value adding
(Silverman & Propst, 1996; Sutter, 1996). Even the highly acclaimed TQM has brought
about disappointing results, and has been heavily criticized by many who noted that
continuous improvement is not enough (Burdett, 1994; Johansson et al., 1993; Sutter, 1996;
Webb, 1995). On the other hand, many have defended TQM and argued that it is the right
way to achieve success but it is being misapplied (Maccoby, 1993). However, in spite of any
success that TQM had achieved, the organizational world in the late 1980s became frustrated
by its concepts. This was the perfect opportunity to introduce BPR. Case studies of dramatic
0954-4127/99/04S584-10 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltd
INTEGRATING TQM AND BPR S585
success stories were publicized, and by 1996, through the activities of a variety of consulting
®rms, BPR had become a US$51 billion industry in the US alone ( Jennings, 1996).
Two opposing camps soon emerged. The BPR enthusiasts declared the end of TQM,
while the TQM followers predicted the quick failure of BPR and described it as a passing
fad. Grant et al. (1994) stated that TQM contradicted conventional management practices
of Western countries and therefore required careful scrutiny. On the other hand, O’Connor
(1994) saw BPR as being in con¯ict with some of the fundamentals of good management
and stressed that steady improvement, well managed across a broad front, was the most
eþective way to get, and stay, ahead.
When comparing the merits of the methodologies applied in both improvement phil-
osophies, the strongest contradiction rests on the notion that BPR discards incremental
improvement by demolishing old processes to clear the way for new ones. One of its greatest
bene®ts has been that it served as a wake-up call to remind organizations that business-as-
usual (no matter how pro®table) is not a reliable key to future success (Brown, 1997). In this
regard, many agree, rightfully, that BPR oþers a very valid point. Allender (1994) argued
that it would be a waste to improve a process that technology had rendered obsolete, but
emphasized that, ``BPR’s narrow concentration on improving processes does not qualify it as
the substitute for TQM’’. Ettlie (1994) took this discussion further and concluded that BPR
would not be necessary if companies practised good quality management. However, no
matter how much truth these opinions hold, there are many reasons for rapid change, and a
requirement for diþerent tools and techniques from those oþered by TQM. Almost every
organization must engage in BPR at some point to survive in the fast-changing world of the
information age (Mortisons & Revenaugh, 1997; Smallwood, 1996).
Recently, further experience with both TQM and BPR has brought the two camps
closer. Professionals have started to discuss how the two strategies are related, a fact that the
founders of BPR (Davenport, 1993; Hammer & Champy, 1993) have always stressed. ``TQM
should be used to keep a company’s processes tuned up between the periodic process
replacements that only BPR can accomplish’’ (Hammer & Champy, 1993). Wright (1995)
argued that, with appropriate facilitation, re-engineering of existing processes to achieve step-
function improvements can be leveraged through existing TQM processes.
Comparing TQM and BPR
Before trying to point out the diþerences between TQM and BPR, it is more useful to ®nd
the similarities. Their similar aspects, as noted from the work and research of many scholars
and practitioners (Hammer & Champy, 1993; Davenport, 1993; Krieter, 1996; Zairi &
Sinclair, 1995; Harrison & Pratt, 1992; Klien, 1994; Talwar, 1993; Janson, 1992; Guha
et al., 1993), are summarized in Table 1. These points represent a wide viewpoint, and are
meant to highlight the broad commonalities between the two approaches, not to suggest that
BPR and TQM are similar in their application methodologies.
Table 2 shows a comprehensive list of the diþerences between TQM and BPR, as
provided by the literature and personal observations.
Tables 1 and 2 clearly show that both approaches have their weaknesses as well as
individual strengths. A survey was conducted by the authors Jarrar & Aspinwall to assess the
views of senior management regarding both TQM and BPR. Repondents were asked how
well they thought either had met key components of organizational success. Figure 1 shows
the results. The chart clearly demonstrates the diþerences between TQM and BPR. Apart
from their minimal strategic impact, there were no points perceived to be equally addressed
by both. BPR was rated highly in terms of innovation and IT utilization, while TQM provided
S586 Y. F. JARRAR & E. M. ASPINWALL
Table 1. Similarities between BPR and TQM
Similarity aspect Both TQM and BPR . . .
Quality movement Are quality movements, involving looking at the company and trying
to improve it for the future
Support and commitment Require the support and commitment of employees and top
management, with varying emphasis. BPR requires more top
management commitment, while TQM aims more at overall
commitment
Measurable results Produce results that are measurable, although these are much more
diýcult to assess and still under study in the case of TQM
The customer is the focal point Begin with customer requirements and maintain a customer focus
throughout. Much has been said about losing customer focus within
TQM or BPR applications, but these are implementation ¯aws and
not ones of theory of approach.
Process focus Focus on processes and shift organizational thinking away from
function and department mentality
Teamwork Recognize the importance of teamwork and rely on it for their
success
Training Focus on training everyone in the organization, teaching them new
techniques, tools and terminology
Cultural change Require a complete overhaul of organizational culture, as they
destroy the traditional hierarchical command and control
organization. However, the shift itself is quite diþerent between the
two approaches. They both necessitate moving towards cross-
functional working, but the necessitation in terms of culture change
is widely diþerent. For example, both require employee involvement
and rely on employee empowerment for success. However, within
BPR, the involvement and empowerment is led from the top
the best practices for continuous improvement and customer satisfaction. Table 3, which
resulted from the survey and a review of the literature, summarizes the major strengths and
weaknesses of TQM and BPR.
Integrating TQM and BPR: Is it enough?
It is apparent that there are major problems within the foundations of each individual
approach. However, there is also a clear opportunity to unite them both to `®ll each other’s
gaps’. Several authors and practitioners have taken this on board and have put forward a few
suggestions. These attempts can be placed into one of two categories:
(1) Integrating BPR and TQM by using the former as a tool or subset of the latter.
Leach (1996) concluded that ``TQM is much more likely to lead to success than
BPR and BPR might have a place as a speci®cally designed tool for TQM, but it is
not a substitute’’. Many others agreed (Allender, 1994; Dichter et al., 1993; Kelada,
1996; Raynor, 1993) and suggested that it is more constructive to incorporate BPR
as a valuable tool within the framework of TQM. Within this context, BPR can be
considered as a ``continuous improvement activity that delivers a high rate of
increased productivity and quality in a short time’’ (Kelada, 1996), and ``TQM
provides the essential cultural framework to enable BPR’’ (Macdonald, 1995).
(2) Integrating the strategies by applying TQM after BPR. Krieter (1996) concluded
his work on the subject by saying, ``Use BPR to build a platform for a TQM
INTEGRATING TQM AND BPR S587
Table 2. TQM versus BPR
Aspect TQM BPR
Initiated by Conventional know-how Panic
Common sense External pressure from customers,
competitors and stakeholders
Starting point Existing processesÐanalyse, Clean slateÐthrow everything out and
standardize and improve start afresh (total redesign)
Frequency of change Continuous (continuous and One-time (occasional)
incremental)
Focus Components of the system Macro processes
Individual processes Core processes
Activities
Customer focus Equal emphasis on internal and Emphasis on external customers.
external customers Internal customers are a distraction
Level of change Incremental improvement for existing Radical change. Whole new process.
processes. Evolutionary Revolutionary
Employee involvement Total involvement from everyone is The BPR and implementation teams
essential (all individuals, work groups (not all employees are needed)
and some teams)
Participation Bottom-up (built within culture) Top-down (intensive)
Empowerment Very important Important in certain cases
Disadvantages Diýcult to get excited about and Could discard good with bad
commit time to, since it involves many High cost in most cases
small improvements
Advantages Appropriate when resources are at Erases old paradigms
their lowest
Provides consistent improvement over Produces quantum improvements
time
Typical scope Narrow, within functions. Process Broad/cross-functionalÐa single BPR
improvement eþorts are often within project sweeps across many functions
single teams or a few functions or the whole organization
Risk Moderate High
Primary enabler Statistical process control Information technology
Payback period Slow continuous small improvements Quick dramatic payback
programme. BPR can be used to change the company radically, then TQM can be
used to continuously improve the company in the years to come’’. Similar approaches
have been suggested by Stalick and Andrews (1994), Zairi and Sinclair (1995),
Wanner and Franceschi (1995) and Towers (1994), who recommended utilizing
BPR then following this with a continuous improvement programme eþectively to
revolutionize and evolutionize.
Both approaches oþer valid arguments, and will eventually lead to the same conclusion: an
integrated model where both incremental and quantum improvements are possible within a
continuous improvement environment. An integration of the best practices of TQM and
BPR is the main building block of the model proposed in this paper. It builds on the strengths
of both, and eliminates most of their individual weaknesses in the following way:
(1) TQM’s stable culture, people participation and evolutionary nature will be used to
eradicate or neutralize the stress and fear caused by BPR’s revolutionary nature.
The changes commensurate with BPR usually scare employees and in fact demotivate
them (see Fig. 1). For true success in today’s environment, management needs to
consider employee participation, for which TQM creates the proper cultural milieu
for change.
S588 Y. F. JARRAR & E. M. ASPINWALL
Figure 1. Sur vey results on comparing TQM and BPR.
Table 3. Major strengths and weaknesses of TQM and BPR approaches
Strengths Weaknesses
BPR · Dramatic improvements (innovation) · Top-down approach which degenerates to
· Relatively short time frame (quick results) command and control
· Exploits IT capability · Massive layoþs (usually)
· Cross-functional nature ensures `whole · Revolutionary nature of change can be very
process optimization’ stressful and ®nancially exhaustive
· Measurable progress and results · Narrow scope focusing on business processes.
Usually resulted in neglecting or undermining
the people dimensions, e.g. reward,
measurement, management, individual beliefs
and organizational culture
· Operational process focus leads to reduced
customer focus
· Focus on `time and cost’ savings leads to
short /medium-term bene®ts and lack of
strategic impact
TQM · Bottom-up participative approach · Lack of strategic impact
· Broad scope covers all organizational aspects · Long time frame
· Results in stable culture of continuous · May lead to suboptimization
improvement · Lack of innovativeness and radical change
· Evolutionary nature makes change easy to capability
implement and reduces resistance · Diýcult to measure progress
· Continuous incremental improvement
mentality inhibits learning
· Lack of IT focus or utilization
INTEGRATING TQM AND BPR S589
(2) The best practices for using IT will come from BPR methodology.
(3) Evidence (Burdett, 1994) shows that TQM tends not to pose the `earthquake’
question which, if answered correctly, entirely changes the way an organization does
business; BPR can provide these `quick strike’ and innovative capabilities. TQM’s
main contribution would be a continuous change and improvement methodology,
without which the solutions that BPR oþers will bear little fruit (Raynor, 1993;
Towers, 1994). Both kinds of change can and should be pursued even though their
requirements are diþerent (Huþman, 1997; Joiner, 1996).
The two approaches fail to address the common weaknesses in both TQM and BPR, which
if left unaddressed become weaknesses of the integrated model, rendering it insuýcient on
its own for future performance excellence. These common weaknesses are:
(1) Lack of strategic impact: Not conducting strategic business planning to set the future
direction of the company prior to starting the TQM initiative has caused major
failures, In fact, the inherent lack of strategic integrity embodied within TQM is
considered to be one of its main ¯aws. Similarly, in most cases BPR is undertaken
to achieve medium-term cost and time savings rather than longer term strategic
bene®ts. A greater focus on learning at the expense of the preoccupation with cost
and time could increase the strategic impact of many BPR applications.
(2) Lack of `people’ focus: The survey conducted by the authors (1998) suggested that
TQM oþers slightly more people focus than BPR. However, the impact of change
on people, and the way organizations are dealing with their people, is still considered
a problem within both. TQM and BPR are process-oriented approaches where high
performance is best secured by analysing the work which needs to be done to attain
a predetermined result, and then designing the most eýcient sequence or method
of work activities to achieve it. Although both concepts emphasize people potential,
our study so far has led to the conclusion that the failure of many recent large-scale
eþorts at corporate change can be traced directly to employee resistance, lack of
support, lack of enthusiasm and generally lack of the right culture to support the
framework.
Managing business productivity has essentially become synonymous with managing change
eþectively. To this end, companies must not only determine what to do and how to do it,
they also need to be concerned with how employees will react to it. It is becoming increasingly
clear that the engine for organizational development is not analysts, but managers and people
who do the work. Without altering human knowledge, skill and behaviour, change in
technology, processes and structures is unlikely to yield long-term bene®ts. In fact, the
authors view `human development’ as a more suitable alternative to `traditional’ organizational
development in a strategy for bringing about dramatic performance improvements.
The new work pattern is ¯exible working hours, knowledge workers, working from
home, etc. So while these patterns emerge, organizations must change the way they deal with
their people to achieve maximum bene®t. The authors ®rmly believe that the success of an
organization lies more in its intellectual capabilities than in physical assets. The capacity to
manage human intellect, and to convert it into useful products and services, is fast becoming
the executive skill of the age. The survey of leading UK organizations conducted by the
authors asked senior managers to rank the most important business objectives on which
organizations need to focus for performance excellence in the new millennium. The partici-
pants ranked customer satisfaction as the most important, directly followed by organizational
people development, while cost reduction was ranked least important. Moreover, 93.1% of
S590 Y. F. JARRAR & E. M. ASPINWALL
the respondents believed that people were the most important resource of any business, and
88.5% regarded people management as a strategic issue. Thus, the model to be developed
will be people oriented where high performance can be achieved only through peopleÐonly
people learn, organizations and systems can and must adapt.
The proposed new model for performance excellence
Our experience has shown that successful individual approaches, or even sector-based
approaches, are virtually non-existent as a pre-packaged approach. The survey conducted by
the authors revealed that 81.9% of senior managers who responded believed that each
organization was unique and must ®nd its own path to success by continuously learning and
customizing best practices. Thus, the model will be set and presented as a broad framework
of generic ideas applicable to all organizations. It oþers a base for each organization to study
the best practices oþered and tailor them to its own needs to achieve excellence. The
framework is thus, by de®nition, open to any new techniques that target excellence. It is a
recipe; a mixture of best practices from: BPR, TQM, current best-in class organizations, and
a set of new ideas formulated and proposed. However, it is not suggested that such a model
will be a silver bullet. Its eþectiveness depends on thoroughly understanding the business
and the people in it.
The aim of the model is to help organizations achieve performance excellence by
ensuring a healthy balance between stability and continuous change. Stability comes from a
bedrock of culture and values shared by organizational people, supported by a stable strategy,
and systems that change only in a `creation or reorientation’ eþort. Continuous change comes
from continuous learning, and both aspects rely on fully committed and educated people.
The objectives of the model are to:
· focus on delighting the customer;
· commit to continuous learning and improvement;
· emphasize organizational people as the main competitive advantage.
The model proposes turning organizational attention from cost-cutting and staþ reduction
to sales generation and employee well-being by proposing an equal emphasis on the three
main pillars of organization development, i.e. process, people and information technology.
The `process’ and `IT’ aspects, however, are continuously changing subject to daily improve-
ments, and can easily be copied by competitors. Our survey revealed that 67.2% of senior
managers who responded believed that the three organizational pillars should not enjoy equal
emphasis, and ranked them as follows: people (70.5%), process (20.3%) and IT (9.2%).
Thus, the model suggests that the only source of competitive advantage is the organization’s
people (96.7% of the respondents agreed that having trained, motivated and well-led
organizational people would result in performance excellence).
Successful organizations in the next century will work on the edge of chaos (Peters,
1997) where they must be spontaneous, adaptive and alive. This in turn suggests the need
for human and system ¯exibility and continuous learning within an organization held together
by consistency of purpose, through a clear shared vision and open communication. The
schematic diagram in Fig. 2 envisages such an arrangement as several concentric circles with
the customer always at the focal point. Processes and people surround, and work for, that
customer, and are held together by a clear set of organizational values and goals.
The main building blocks of the model, are as follows:
(1) Customer obsession: Past attempts to achieve and retain competitive advantage have
INTEGRATING TQM AND BPR S591
Figure 2. The proposed model.
largely looked internally within the organization for improvement. We now believe
that the major source for competitive advantage will come from more outward
orientation towards customers, and competition will focus on superior customer
value delivery. The customer who should enjoy all the attention is the end user, as
opposed to internal customers suggested by TQM.
(2) Vision and values: the substance that binds the organization together. This includes
the strategic planning and management capability, and outstanding leadership. The
model proposes integrating the latest techniques of strategic management and
thinking within the planning, implementation and assessment stages. It is also
suggested that the main competitive advantage for which organizations must aim is
creating a `self-renewal learning’ culture, with the main competitive weapon being
its people.
(3) Business process excellence: Process excellence combines the incremental improvements
of TQM and the more revolutionary steps associated with BPR. The major enabler
for the coming century will be IT. IT’s potential cannot be left unrealized by any
organization aiming to survive in the future. However, businesses must creatively
integrate IT with human expertise to meet customer needs.
(4) People: Organizational people development should be the focal point as the source
for future success. Workforce development is a top priority because it is the leverage
of an association. The model aims to set out best practices in culture, participative
management, team structure, reward, training and development, recruitment,
motivation, commitment, communication and knowledge management.
Conclusions
This paper has presented an argument for integrating BPR and TQM. The individual
strengths and weaknesses of each have been shown to complement each other. From the
evidence presented, it was concluded that the way forward for organizational development is
an integrated model, one that builds on the best practices of BPR and TQM and adds
strategic planning and a stronger focus on people. Although `processes’ and `IT’ (the main
focal areas in TQM and BPR, respectively) are crucial components for success, they are the
easiest to perfect in an organization, and can easily be replicated by competitors, thus
providing little competitive advantage. People and knowledge management are perceived to
be the main sources for competitive advantage in the future.
The model, as it stands, is exploratory in nature. It proposes a body of ideas that form a
new theory formulated with more emphasis on `principles’ than on `®nancials’, organizational
S592 Y. F. JARRAR & E. M. ASPINWALL
processes rather than ®nal products, and intangible and socially complex resources rather
than tangible physical resources. It will, however, be kept simple and governed only by
common-sense systems where the right things take place unencumbered by bureaucratic or
academic purism. The authors are currently engaged in a practical study to validate its basis
and the proposed best practices to give it further credibility.
References
ALLENDER, H. (1994) Is reengineering compatible with total quality management?, Industrial Engineering,
September, pp. 41±44.
BROWN, T. (1997) And that’s no laughing matter, Automotive & Transportation Interiors, April, p. 72.
BURDETT, J. (1994) TQM and reengineering: the battle for the organization of tomorrow, The TQM Magazine,
6, pp. 7±13.
DAVENPORT, T. (1993) Process InnovationÐReengineering Work through Information Technology (Harvard Business
School, Boston).
DICHTER, S., GAGNON, C. & ALEXANDER, A. (1993) Memo to a CEO: leading organisational, The McKinsey
Quarterly, Spring, pp. 89±106.
ETTLIE, J. (1994) Reengineering meets quality, Production, 106, pp. 14±15.
GRANT, R., SHANI, R. & KRISHNAN, R. (1994) TQM’s challenge to management theory and practices, Sloan
Management Review, 35, pp. 25±35.
GUHA, S., KETTINGER, W. & TENG, J. (1993) Business process reengineering: building a comprehensive
methodology, Information Systems Management, 10, pp. 13±22.
HAMMER, M. & CHAMPY, J. (1993) Reengineering the CorporationÐA Manifesto for Business Revolution (London,
Nicholas Brealey).
HARRISON, D. & PRATT, M. (1992) A methodology for reengineering businesses, Planning Review, 21, pp. 6±11.
HUFFMAN, J. (1997) The four re’s of total improvement, Quality Progress, January, pp. 83±88.
JANSON, R. (1992) How reengineering transforms organisations to satisfy customers, National Productivity
Review, 12, pp. 45±52.
JARRAR, F.Y. & ASPINWALL, E.M. (1998) UK based survey of leading organisationsÐbest practices in people
and knowledge management
, (unpublished report).
JENNINGS, D. (1996) BPR: A fast track to nowhere? Baylor Business Review, Fall, p. 6.
JOHANSSON, H., MCHUGH, P., PENDLEBURY, A. & WHEELER, W. (1993) Business Process Reengineering (London,
John Wiley).
JOINER, B. (1996) Quality, innovation, and spontaneous democracy, Quality Progress, March, pp. 51±53.
KELADA, J. (1996) Integrating Reengineering with Total Quality (USA, ASQC).
KLIEN, M. (1994) Reengineering methodologies and tools, Information Systems Management, 11, pp. 30±35.
KRIETER, C. (1996) Total quality management versus business process reengineering: Are academicians
teaching what businesses are practising?, Production and Inventor y Management Jour nal, 37, pp. 71±75.
LEACH, L. (1996) TQM, reengineering, and the edge of chaos, Quality Progress, February, pp. 85±90.
LOVE, P. & GUNASEKARAN, A. (1997) Process BPR: a review of enablers, International Journal of Production
Economics, 50, pp. 183±197.
MACCOBY, M. (1993) To create quality, ®rst create the culture, Research-Technology Management, 36, pp. 49±51.
MACDONALD, J. (1995) Understanding Business Process Reengineering in a Week (London, Institute of
Management).
MORTINSONS, M. & REVENAUGH, D. (1997) BPR is dead; long live BPR, International Journal of Information
Management, 17, pp. 79±82.
O’CONNOR, P. (1994) Quality, reliability, and reengineering, Quality and Reliability Engineering International,
10, pp. 451±452.
PETERS, T. (1997) The Circles of Innovation (London, Clays).
RAYNOR, M. (1993) Reengineering: a powerful addition to the arsenal of continuous improvement, CMA
Magazine, 67, p. 26.
SILVERMAN, L. & PROPST, A. (1996) Where will they ®t in?, Quality Progress, July, pp. 33±34.
SMALLWOOD, R. (1996) Business process re-engineering, Inform, 10, p. 64.
STALICK, S. & ANDREWS, D. (1994) Business ReengineeringÐThe Sur vival Guide (New Jersey, Yourdon Press).
SUTTER, R. (1996) Rethinking traditional quality assurance, Quality Progress, July, pp. 40±41.
TALWAR, R. (1993) Business reengineeringÐa strategy driven approach, Long Range Planning, 6, pp. 24±25.
INTEGRATING TQM AND BPR S593
TOWERS, S. (1994) Business Process ReengineeringÐA Practical Handbook for the Executives (London, Stanley
Thomas).
WANNER, R. & FRANCESCHI, J. (1995) Business Process Reengineering for Quality Improvement (New York,
Reliability Analysis Centre).
WEBB, J. (1995) Quality Management and the Management of QualityÐMaking Quality CriticalÐNew Perspectives
on Organisational Change (London, Routledge).
WRIGHT, B. (1995) Leveraging reengineering through TQM, The TQM Magazine, 7, pp. 50±53.
ZAIRI, M. & SINCLAIR, D. (1995) Business process reengineering and process improvementÐa survey of
current practice and future trends in integrated management, Management Decision, 33, pp. 3±16.
doc_588405273.pdf
In the last few decades of the twentieth century, knowledge has accumulated, innovations have been occurring at an unprecedented rate, competition for technology and markets has intensified, and customers have become more educated and more demanding than ever.
TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10, NOS 4&5, 1999, S584±S593
Integrating total quality management and
business process re-engineering: is it enough?
YASAR F. JARRAR & ELAINE M. ASPINWALL
School of Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, The University of Bir mingham,
Edgbaston, Bir mingham B15 2TT, UK
Introduction
In the last few decades of the twentieth century, knowledge has accumulated, innovations
have been occurring at an unprecedented rate, competition for technology and markets has
intensi®ed, and customers have become more educated and more demanding than ever. This
has forced organizations world-wide to set up new methods of dealing within the context of
laws and standards that require a completely overhauled way of organizational thinking and
behaviour. In 1998, a survey of the leading UK organizations was undertaken by the authors
to assess the views and practices regarding future performance excellence. The survey
revealed that 96.6% of senior managers who responded agreed that change has become the
foremost business issue of our day. Eighty point three per cent of the respondents also agreed
that success today requires a completely overhauled way of organizational thinking and
behaviour. Clearly, businesses have realized that there is a need to restructure their business
practices and become more customer-focused. However, they do not necessarily know how
and what to change, to achieve improvements in productivity and performance (Love &
Gunasekaran, 1997). In the last decade, two main organizational development models
dominated the organizational world, namely, total quality management (TQM) and business
process re-engineering (BPR). Organizations have used either or both to achieve the required
change and ensure success.
BPR versus TQM: Two opposing camps
Over the past 20 years, quality has been hailed as the key factor for success. However, the
organizational world is increasingly moving away from the traditional `quality’ concept, as
functions such as inspection, audit and review are all now seen as non-value adding
(Silverman & Propst, 1996; Sutter, 1996). Even the highly acclaimed TQM has brought
about disappointing results, and has been heavily criticized by many who noted that
continuous improvement is not enough (Burdett, 1994; Johansson et al., 1993; Sutter, 1996;
Webb, 1995). On the other hand, many have defended TQM and argued that it is the right
way to achieve success but it is being misapplied (Maccoby, 1993). However, in spite of any
success that TQM had achieved, the organizational world in the late 1980s became frustrated
by its concepts. This was the perfect opportunity to introduce BPR. Case studies of dramatic
0954-4127/99/04S584-10 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltd
INTEGRATING TQM AND BPR S585
success stories were publicized, and by 1996, through the activities of a variety of consulting
®rms, BPR had become a US$51 billion industry in the US alone ( Jennings, 1996).
Two opposing camps soon emerged. The BPR enthusiasts declared the end of TQM,
while the TQM followers predicted the quick failure of BPR and described it as a passing
fad. Grant et al. (1994) stated that TQM contradicted conventional management practices
of Western countries and therefore required careful scrutiny. On the other hand, O’Connor
(1994) saw BPR as being in con¯ict with some of the fundamentals of good management
and stressed that steady improvement, well managed across a broad front, was the most
eþective way to get, and stay, ahead.
When comparing the merits of the methodologies applied in both improvement phil-
osophies, the strongest contradiction rests on the notion that BPR discards incremental
improvement by demolishing old processes to clear the way for new ones. One of its greatest
bene®ts has been that it served as a wake-up call to remind organizations that business-as-
usual (no matter how pro®table) is not a reliable key to future success (Brown, 1997). In this
regard, many agree, rightfully, that BPR oþers a very valid point. Allender (1994) argued
that it would be a waste to improve a process that technology had rendered obsolete, but
emphasized that, ``BPR’s narrow concentration on improving processes does not qualify it as
the substitute for TQM’’. Ettlie (1994) took this discussion further and concluded that BPR
would not be necessary if companies practised good quality management. However, no
matter how much truth these opinions hold, there are many reasons for rapid change, and a
requirement for diþerent tools and techniques from those oþered by TQM. Almost every
organization must engage in BPR at some point to survive in the fast-changing world of the
information age (Mortisons & Revenaugh, 1997; Smallwood, 1996).
Recently, further experience with both TQM and BPR has brought the two camps
closer. Professionals have started to discuss how the two strategies are related, a fact that the
founders of BPR (Davenport, 1993; Hammer & Champy, 1993) have always stressed. ``TQM
should be used to keep a company’s processes tuned up between the periodic process
replacements that only BPR can accomplish’’ (Hammer & Champy, 1993). Wright (1995)
argued that, with appropriate facilitation, re-engineering of existing processes to achieve step-
function improvements can be leveraged through existing TQM processes.
Comparing TQM and BPR
Before trying to point out the diþerences between TQM and BPR, it is more useful to ®nd
the similarities. Their similar aspects, as noted from the work and research of many scholars
and practitioners (Hammer & Champy, 1993; Davenport, 1993; Krieter, 1996; Zairi &
Sinclair, 1995; Harrison & Pratt, 1992; Klien, 1994; Talwar, 1993; Janson, 1992; Guha
et al., 1993), are summarized in Table 1. These points represent a wide viewpoint, and are
meant to highlight the broad commonalities between the two approaches, not to suggest that
BPR and TQM are similar in their application methodologies.
Table 2 shows a comprehensive list of the diþerences between TQM and BPR, as
provided by the literature and personal observations.
Tables 1 and 2 clearly show that both approaches have their weaknesses as well as
individual strengths. A survey was conducted by the authors Jarrar & Aspinwall to assess the
views of senior management regarding both TQM and BPR. Repondents were asked how
well they thought either had met key components of organizational success. Figure 1 shows
the results. The chart clearly demonstrates the diþerences between TQM and BPR. Apart
from their minimal strategic impact, there were no points perceived to be equally addressed
by both. BPR was rated highly in terms of innovation and IT utilization, while TQM provided
S586 Y. F. JARRAR & E. M. ASPINWALL
Table 1. Similarities between BPR and TQM
Similarity aspect Both TQM and BPR . . .
Quality movement Are quality movements, involving looking at the company and trying
to improve it for the future
Support and commitment Require the support and commitment of employees and top
management, with varying emphasis. BPR requires more top
management commitment, while TQM aims more at overall
commitment
Measurable results Produce results that are measurable, although these are much more
diýcult to assess and still under study in the case of TQM
The customer is the focal point Begin with customer requirements and maintain a customer focus
throughout. Much has been said about losing customer focus within
TQM or BPR applications, but these are implementation ¯aws and
not ones of theory of approach.
Process focus Focus on processes and shift organizational thinking away from
function and department mentality
Teamwork Recognize the importance of teamwork and rely on it for their
success
Training Focus on training everyone in the organization, teaching them new
techniques, tools and terminology
Cultural change Require a complete overhaul of organizational culture, as they
destroy the traditional hierarchical command and control
organization. However, the shift itself is quite diþerent between the
two approaches. They both necessitate moving towards cross-
functional working, but the necessitation in terms of culture change
is widely diþerent. For example, both require employee involvement
and rely on employee empowerment for success. However, within
BPR, the involvement and empowerment is led from the top
the best practices for continuous improvement and customer satisfaction. Table 3, which
resulted from the survey and a review of the literature, summarizes the major strengths and
weaknesses of TQM and BPR.
Integrating TQM and BPR: Is it enough?
It is apparent that there are major problems within the foundations of each individual
approach. However, there is also a clear opportunity to unite them both to `®ll each other’s
gaps’. Several authors and practitioners have taken this on board and have put forward a few
suggestions. These attempts can be placed into one of two categories:
(1) Integrating BPR and TQM by using the former as a tool or subset of the latter.
Leach (1996) concluded that ``TQM is much more likely to lead to success than
BPR and BPR might have a place as a speci®cally designed tool for TQM, but it is
not a substitute’’. Many others agreed (Allender, 1994; Dichter et al., 1993; Kelada,
1996; Raynor, 1993) and suggested that it is more constructive to incorporate BPR
as a valuable tool within the framework of TQM. Within this context, BPR can be
considered as a ``continuous improvement activity that delivers a high rate of
increased productivity and quality in a short time’’ (Kelada, 1996), and ``TQM
provides the essential cultural framework to enable BPR’’ (Macdonald, 1995).
(2) Integrating the strategies by applying TQM after BPR. Krieter (1996) concluded
his work on the subject by saying, ``Use BPR to build a platform for a TQM
INTEGRATING TQM AND BPR S587
Table 2. TQM versus BPR
Aspect TQM BPR
Initiated by Conventional know-how Panic
Common sense External pressure from customers,
competitors and stakeholders
Starting point Existing processesÐanalyse, Clean slateÐthrow everything out and
standardize and improve start afresh (total redesign)
Frequency of change Continuous (continuous and One-time (occasional)
incremental)
Focus Components of the system Macro processes
Individual processes Core processes
Activities
Customer focus Equal emphasis on internal and Emphasis on external customers.
external customers Internal customers are a distraction
Level of change Incremental improvement for existing Radical change. Whole new process.
processes. Evolutionary Revolutionary
Employee involvement Total involvement from everyone is The BPR and implementation teams
essential (all individuals, work groups (not all employees are needed)
and some teams)
Participation Bottom-up (built within culture) Top-down (intensive)
Empowerment Very important Important in certain cases
Disadvantages Diýcult to get excited about and Could discard good with bad
commit time to, since it involves many High cost in most cases
small improvements
Advantages Appropriate when resources are at Erases old paradigms
their lowest
Provides consistent improvement over Produces quantum improvements
time
Typical scope Narrow, within functions. Process Broad/cross-functionalÐa single BPR
improvement eþorts are often within project sweeps across many functions
single teams or a few functions or the whole organization
Risk Moderate High
Primary enabler Statistical process control Information technology
Payback period Slow continuous small improvements Quick dramatic payback
programme. BPR can be used to change the company radically, then TQM can be
used to continuously improve the company in the years to come’’. Similar approaches
have been suggested by Stalick and Andrews (1994), Zairi and Sinclair (1995),
Wanner and Franceschi (1995) and Towers (1994), who recommended utilizing
BPR then following this with a continuous improvement programme eþectively to
revolutionize and evolutionize.
Both approaches oþer valid arguments, and will eventually lead to the same conclusion: an
integrated model where both incremental and quantum improvements are possible within a
continuous improvement environment. An integration of the best practices of TQM and
BPR is the main building block of the model proposed in this paper. It builds on the strengths
of both, and eliminates most of their individual weaknesses in the following way:
(1) TQM’s stable culture, people participation and evolutionary nature will be used to
eradicate or neutralize the stress and fear caused by BPR’s revolutionary nature.
The changes commensurate with BPR usually scare employees and in fact demotivate
them (see Fig. 1). For true success in today’s environment, management needs to
consider employee participation, for which TQM creates the proper cultural milieu
for change.
S588 Y. F. JARRAR & E. M. ASPINWALL
Figure 1. Sur vey results on comparing TQM and BPR.
Table 3. Major strengths and weaknesses of TQM and BPR approaches
Strengths Weaknesses
BPR · Dramatic improvements (innovation) · Top-down approach which degenerates to
· Relatively short time frame (quick results) command and control
· Exploits IT capability · Massive layoþs (usually)
· Cross-functional nature ensures `whole · Revolutionary nature of change can be very
process optimization’ stressful and ®nancially exhaustive
· Measurable progress and results · Narrow scope focusing on business processes.
Usually resulted in neglecting or undermining
the people dimensions, e.g. reward,
measurement, management, individual beliefs
and organizational culture
· Operational process focus leads to reduced
customer focus
· Focus on `time and cost’ savings leads to
short /medium-term bene®ts and lack of
strategic impact
TQM · Bottom-up participative approach · Lack of strategic impact
· Broad scope covers all organizational aspects · Long time frame
· Results in stable culture of continuous · May lead to suboptimization
improvement · Lack of innovativeness and radical change
· Evolutionary nature makes change easy to capability
implement and reduces resistance · Diýcult to measure progress
· Continuous incremental improvement
mentality inhibits learning
· Lack of IT focus or utilization
INTEGRATING TQM AND BPR S589
(2) The best practices for using IT will come from BPR methodology.
(3) Evidence (Burdett, 1994) shows that TQM tends not to pose the `earthquake’
question which, if answered correctly, entirely changes the way an organization does
business; BPR can provide these `quick strike’ and innovative capabilities. TQM’s
main contribution would be a continuous change and improvement methodology,
without which the solutions that BPR oþers will bear little fruit (Raynor, 1993;
Towers, 1994). Both kinds of change can and should be pursued even though their
requirements are diþerent (Huþman, 1997; Joiner, 1996).
The two approaches fail to address the common weaknesses in both TQM and BPR, which
if left unaddressed become weaknesses of the integrated model, rendering it insuýcient on
its own for future performance excellence. These common weaknesses are:
(1) Lack of strategic impact: Not conducting strategic business planning to set the future
direction of the company prior to starting the TQM initiative has caused major
failures, In fact, the inherent lack of strategic integrity embodied within TQM is
considered to be one of its main ¯aws. Similarly, in most cases BPR is undertaken
to achieve medium-term cost and time savings rather than longer term strategic
bene®ts. A greater focus on learning at the expense of the preoccupation with cost
and time could increase the strategic impact of many BPR applications.
(2) Lack of `people’ focus: The survey conducted by the authors (1998) suggested that
TQM oþers slightly more people focus than BPR. However, the impact of change
on people, and the way organizations are dealing with their people, is still considered
a problem within both. TQM and BPR are process-oriented approaches where high
performance is best secured by analysing the work which needs to be done to attain
a predetermined result, and then designing the most eýcient sequence or method
of work activities to achieve it. Although both concepts emphasize people potential,
our study so far has led to the conclusion that the failure of many recent large-scale
eþorts at corporate change can be traced directly to employee resistance, lack of
support, lack of enthusiasm and generally lack of the right culture to support the
framework.
Managing business productivity has essentially become synonymous with managing change
eþectively. To this end, companies must not only determine what to do and how to do it,
they also need to be concerned with how employees will react to it. It is becoming increasingly
clear that the engine for organizational development is not analysts, but managers and people
who do the work. Without altering human knowledge, skill and behaviour, change in
technology, processes and structures is unlikely to yield long-term bene®ts. In fact, the
authors view `human development’ as a more suitable alternative to `traditional’ organizational
development in a strategy for bringing about dramatic performance improvements.
The new work pattern is ¯exible working hours, knowledge workers, working from
home, etc. So while these patterns emerge, organizations must change the way they deal with
their people to achieve maximum bene®t. The authors ®rmly believe that the success of an
organization lies more in its intellectual capabilities than in physical assets. The capacity to
manage human intellect, and to convert it into useful products and services, is fast becoming
the executive skill of the age. The survey of leading UK organizations conducted by the
authors asked senior managers to rank the most important business objectives on which
organizations need to focus for performance excellence in the new millennium. The partici-
pants ranked customer satisfaction as the most important, directly followed by organizational
people development, while cost reduction was ranked least important. Moreover, 93.1% of
S590 Y. F. JARRAR & E. M. ASPINWALL
the respondents believed that people were the most important resource of any business, and
88.5% regarded people management as a strategic issue. Thus, the model to be developed
will be people oriented where high performance can be achieved only through peopleÐonly
people learn, organizations and systems can and must adapt.
The proposed new model for performance excellence
Our experience has shown that successful individual approaches, or even sector-based
approaches, are virtually non-existent as a pre-packaged approach. The survey conducted by
the authors revealed that 81.9% of senior managers who responded believed that each
organization was unique and must ®nd its own path to success by continuously learning and
customizing best practices. Thus, the model will be set and presented as a broad framework
of generic ideas applicable to all organizations. It oþers a base for each organization to study
the best practices oþered and tailor them to its own needs to achieve excellence. The
framework is thus, by de®nition, open to any new techniques that target excellence. It is a
recipe; a mixture of best practices from: BPR, TQM, current best-in class organizations, and
a set of new ideas formulated and proposed. However, it is not suggested that such a model
will be a silver bullet. Its eþectiveness depends on thoroughly understanding the business
and the people in it.
The aim of the model is to help organizations achieve performance excellence by
ensuring a healthy balance between stability and continuous change. Stability comes from a
bedrock of culture and values shared by organizational people, supported by a stable strategy,
and systems that change only in a `creation or reorientation’ eþort. Continuous change comes
from continuous learning, and both aspects rely on fully committed and educated people.
The objectives of the model are to:
· focus on delighting the customer;
· commit to continuous learning and improvement;
· emphasize organizational people as the main competitive advantage.
The model proposes turning organizational attention from cost-cutting and staþ reduction
to sales generation and employee well-being by proposing an equal emphasis on the three
main pillars of organization development, i.e. process, people and information technology.
The `process’ and `IT’ aspects, however, are continuously changing subject to daily improve-
ments, and can easily be copied by competitors. Our survey revealed that 67.2% of senior
managers who responded believed that the three organizational pillars should not enjoy equal
emphasis, and ranked them as follows: people (70.5%), process (20.3%) and IT (9.2%).
Thus, the model suggests that the only source of competitive advantage is the organization’s
people (96.7% of the respondents agreed that having trained, motivated and well-led
organizational people would result in performance excellence).
Successful organizations in the next century will work on the edge of chaos (Peters,
1997) where they must be spontaneous, adaptive and alive. This in turn suggests the need
for human and system ¯exibility and continuous learning within an organization held together
by consistency of purpose, through a clear shared vision and open communication. The
schematic diagram in Fig. 2 envisages such an arrangement as several concentric circles with
the customer always at the focal point. Processes and people surround, and work for, that
customer, and are held together by a clear set of organizational values and goals.
The main building blocks of the model, are as follows:
(1) Customer obsession: Past attempts to achieve and retain competitive advantage have
INTEGRATING TQM AND BPR S591
Figure 2. The proposed model.
largely looked internally within the organization for improvement. We now believe
that the major source for competitive advantage will come from more outward
orientation towards customers, and competition will focus on superior customer
value delivery. The customer who should enjoy all the attention is the end user, as
opposed to internal customers suggested by TQM.
(2) Vision and values: the substance that binds the organization together. This includes
the strategic planning and management capability, and outstanding leadership. The
model proposes integrating the latest techniques of strategic management and
thinking within the planning, implementation and assessment stages. It is also
suggested that the main competitive advantage for which organizations must aim is
creating a `self-renewal learning’ culture, with the main competitive weapon being
its people.
(3) Business process excellence: Process excellence combines the incremental improvements
of TQM and the more revolutionary steps associated with BPR. The major enabler
for the coming century will be IT. IT’s potential cannot be left unrealized by any
organization aiming to survive in the future. However, businesses must creatively
integrate IT with human expertise to meet customer needs.
(4) People: Organizational people development should be the focal point as the source
for future success. Workforce development is a top priority because it is the leverage
of an association. The model aims to set out best practices in culture, participative
management, team structure, reward, training and development, recruitment,
motivation, commitment, communication and knowledge management.
Conclusions
This paper has presented an argument for integrating BPR and TQM. The individual
strengths and weaknesses of each have been shown to complement each other. From the
evidence presented, it was concluded that the way forward for organizational development is
an integrated model, one that builds on the best practices of BPR and TQM and adds
strategic planning and a stronger focus on people. Although `processes’ and `IT’ (the main
focal areas in TQM and BPR, respectively) are crucial components for success, they are the
easiest to perfect in an organization, and can easily be replicated by competitors, thus
providing little competitive advantage. People and knowledge management are perceived to
be the main sources for competitive advantage in the future.
The model, as it stands, is exploratory in nature. It proposes a body of ideas that form a
new theory formulated with more emphasis on `principles’ than on `®nancials’, organizational
S592 Y. F. JARRAR & E. M. ASPINWALL
processes rather than ®nal products, and intangible and socially complex resources rather
than tangible physical resources. It will, however, be kept simple and governed only by
common-sense systems where the right things take place unencumbered by bureaucratic or
academic purism. The authors are currently engaged in a practical study to validate its basis
and the proposed best practices to give it further credibility.
References
ALLENDER, H. (1994) Is reengineering compatible with total quality management?, Industrial Engineering,
September, pp. 41±44.
BROWN, T. (1997) And that’s no laughing matter, Automotive & Transportation Interiors, April, p. 72.
BURDETT, J. (1994) TQM and reengineering: the battle for the organization of tomorrow, The TQM Magazine,
6, pp. 7±13.
DAVENPORT, T. (1993) Process InnovationÐReengineering Work through Information Technology (Harvard Business
School, Boston).
DICHTER, S., GAGNON, C. & ALEXANDER, A. (1993) Memo to a CEO: leading organisational, The McKinsey
Quarterly, Spring, pp. 89±106.
ETTLIE, J. (1994) Reengineering meets quality, Production, 106, pp. 14±15.
GRANT, R., SHANI, R. & KRISHNAN, R. (1994) TQM’s challenge to management theory and practices, Sloan
Management Review, 35, pp. 25±35.
GUHA, S., KETTINGER, W. & TENG, J. (1993) Business process reengineering: building a comprehensive
methodology, Information Systems Management, 10, pp. 13±22.
HAMMER, M. & CHAMPY, J. (1993) Reengineering the CorporationÐA Manifesto for Business Revolution (London,
Nicholas Brealey).
HARRISON, D. & PRATT, M. (1992) A methodology for reengineering businesses, Planning Review, 21, pp. 6±11.
HUFFMAN, J. (1997) The four re’s of total improvement, Quality Progress, January, pp. 83±88.
JANSON, R. (1992) How reengineering transforms organisations to satisfy customers, National Productivity
Review, 12, pp. 45±52.
JARRAR, F.Y. & ASPINWALL, E.M. (1998) UK based survey of leading organisationsÐbest practices in people
and knowledge management
, (unpublished report).
JENNINGS, D. (1996) BPR: A fast track to nowhere? Baylor Business Review, Fall, p. 6.
JOHANSSON, H., MCHUGH, P., PENDLEBURY, A. & WHEELER, W. (1993) Business Process Reengineering (London,
John Wiley).
JOINER, B. (1996) Quality, innovation, and spontaneous democracy, Quality Progress, March, pp. 51±53.
KELADA, J. (1996) Integrating Reengineering with Total Quality (USA, ASQC).
KLIEN, M. (1994) Reengineering methodologies and tools, Information Systems Management, 11, pp. 30±35.
KRIETER, C. (1996) Total quality management versus business process reengineering: Are academicians
teaching what businesses are practising?, Production and Inventor y Management Jour nal, 37, pp. 71±75.
LEACH, L. (1996) TQM, reengineering, and the edge of chaos, Quality Progress, February, pp. 85±90.
LOVE, P. & GUNASEKARAN, A. (1997) Process BPR: a review of enablers, International Journal of Production
Economics, 50, pp. 183±197.
MACCOBY, M. (1993) To create quality, ®rst create the culture, Research-Technology Management, 36, pp. 49±51.
MACDONALD, J. (1995) Understanding Business Process Reengineering in a Week (London, Institute of
Management).
MORTINSONS, M. & REVENAUGH, D. (1997) BPR is dead; long live BPR, International Journal of Information
Management, 17, pp. 79±82.
O’CONNOR, P. (1994) Quality, reliability, and reengineering, Quality and Reliability Engineering International,
10, pp. 451±452.
PETERS, T. (1997) The Circles of Innovation (London, Clays).
RAYNOR, M. (1993) Reengineering: a powerful addition to the arsenal of continuous improvement, CMA
Magazine, 67, p. 26.
SILVERMAN, L. & PROPST, A. (1996) Where will they ®t in?, Quality Progress, July, pp. 33±34.
SMALLWOOD, R. (1996) Business process re-engineering, Inform, 10, p. 64.
STALICK, S. & ANDREWS, D. (1994) Business ReengineeringÐThe Sur vival Guide (New Jersey, Yourdon Press).
SUTTER, R. (1996) Rethinking traditional quality assurance, Quality Progress, July, pp. 40±41.
TALWAR, R. (1993) Business reengineeringÐa strategy driven approach, Long Range Planning, 6, pp. 24±25.
INTEGRATING TQM AND BPR S593
TOWERS, S. (1994) Business Process ReengineeringÐA Practical Handbook for the Executives (London, Stanley
Thomas).
WANNER, R. & FRANCESCHI, J. (1995) Business Process Reengineering for Quality Improvement (New York,
Reliability Analysis Centre).
WEBB, J. (1995) Quality Management and the Management of QualityÐMaking Quality CriticalÐNew Perspectives
on Organisational Change (London, Routledge).
WRIGHT, B. (1995) Leveraging reengineering through TQM, The TQM Magazine, 7, pp. 50±53.
ZAIRI, M. & SINCLAIR, D. (1995) Business process reengineering and process improvementÐa survey of
current practice and future trends in integrated management, Management Decision, 33, pp. 3±16.
doc_588405273.pdf