از TQM به BPR : دو مطالعه انجام شده در مورد کارمندان اداری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|420||1997||13 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 7000 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Production Economics, Volume 50, Issues 2–3, 16 June 1997, Pages 169–181
Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is often presented in opposition to Total Quality Management (TQM) although both techniques adopt a process view of improvement. We recently had the opportunity to apply both techniques in two separate personnel departments of a large administrative organization. The first illustrates that the performance of administrative operations may be improved substantially by applying TQM. In the second case, TQM served only as an eye-opener, to convince all parties concerned of the necessity of a BPR approach. For both cases we describe the process of problem formulation and remedial action. The conclusion summarizes our experience with TQM and BPR in this environment.
The organization in this study is a large publicbody with approx. 6400 employees. In 1993 a TotalQuality Project was started in each department ofthe General Support Services of this organization.This paper describes two projects as they werecarried out in the two personnel departments.These two departments focus on different types ofemployees and therefore have a particular structureand work organization. As they are part of thecentral services, they only have ‘internal’ clients.Because there is no internal pricing or invoicing,the departments consider their clients as ‘users’,who do not pay directly for the services they get.Moreover, these two personnel departments havea monopoly position as it is impossible (and even forbidden) to get their services elsewhere.The most important player in Total Quality Management (TQM) is the ‘customer’. The TQMphilosophy is aimed at building a long-term relationshipwith customers, based on trust, whichwill prevent them from running to the competitor.For the reasons mentioned above, this naturalreflex is not present in every coworker of thedepartments in this study. To get the commitmentto work on items such as quality, timeliness,customer satisfaction, etc., it is necessary to dealwith a concrete problem that is perceived as suchby everyone; e.g. a situation that not only irritatesthe customer, but also constitutes a nuisance forthemselves.Both TQM-projects were initially started in the same way, using the same TQM methodology(SORA), but they evolved in completely differentdirections: in department A, small changes lead tobig improvements, while in department B theTQM-project turned out to be only an introductionto a major redesign of the organizational structureand processes, resulting in a full re-engineeringprogram.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The first case study is a straightforward applicationof the SORA methodology in TQM, i.e. a process of incremental improvement through thecollaboration of all people involved in a bottom-upimprovement process.The second case was initially handled in the same way. However, during the symptom and originanalysis, it became clear that incremental improvementwould not be sufficient. A more drasticchange was needed and therefore the BPR approachwas introduced. BPR is by definition adrastic change process, essentially top-down.Our experience confirms the idea that TQM andBPR are not enemies. They both adopt a processview, but the approach is different. Sometimes BPRmay be more appropriate than TQM, in other casesthe opposite is true. Because TQM works inside theboundaries of the existing structure, attentionshould be paid to the validity of the initially accepted constraints. Acceptance of the procedure is ingeneral not an issue, because good collaboration isbuilt in the process. BPR on the other hand,through its top-down nature, requires a better sellingprocess to all people involved.As indicated by other authors (Davenport, 1995;Owen et al., 1993), we believe both methodologiesare complementary. The BPR-breakthrough canonly be sustained in a TQM environment, eager toimprove continuously. On the other hand, TQMprojects may be mature fields for BPR-breakthroughs.In both cases, management commitmentand people training are ineluctable conditions forsuccess.