he differences that exist are diverse and can be wide-ranging, but similarities far outnumber differences. In an ideal world, the organization with experience in neither would set out to implement TQM in full, meaning that it ensures it maintains the proper management style so that employees feel their most comfortable in contributing their thoughts based on their experience with their own jobs. After the philosophy has been fully integrated into the organization, a swift meeting with BPR can work to change all those sticking points that the time requirement of TQM has not effectively brought changes to, as the organization ensures that any BPR initiative is executed in the spirit of and under the support of TQM.
TQM and BPR can peacefully coexist, as they each work for the common goal of satisfying the end customer. Both have many similarities, and some differences. One may ask, which approach is best for a company to use? This answer is not black or white and should be left for the senior manager of the company to decide.
Works Cited
Hammer, Michael and Champy, James. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2001.
Lee, Sang M. and Arben Asllani. “TQM and BPR: Symbiosis and a New Approach for Integration”. Management Decision, vol. 35. May-June 1997.
Manganelli, Raymond L. and Mark, M. Klein. “Your Reengineering Toolkit”. Management Review, vol. 83. August 1994.
Keywords:
reengineering total quality management neither identical conflict they complimentary hammer champy while reengineering total quality management focus processes customers higher efficiency there also differences between them reengineering moves company where they need very quickly usually radical change whereas moves company same direction more slowly usually with incremental adjustments
