Business Process Reengineering is the analysis and design of workflows and processes within an organization.

A business process is a set of logically related tasks performed to achieve a defined business outcome. Re-engineering is the basis for many recent developments in management. The cross-functional team, for example, has become popular because of the desire to re-engineer separate functional tasks into complete cross-functional processes.[citation needed] Also, many recent management information systems developments aim to integrate a wide number of business functions. Enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, knowledge management systems, groupware and collaborative systems, Human Resource Management Systems and customer relationship management. Business Process Reengineering is also known as Business Process Redesign, Business Transformation, or Business Process Change Management.

Business process reengineering (BPR) began as a private sector technique to help organizations fundamentally rethink how they do their work in order to dramatically improve customer service, cut operational costs, and become world-class competitors. A key stimulus for reengineering has been the continuing development and deployment of sophisticated information systems and networks. Leading organizations are becoming bolder in using this technology to support innovative business processes, rather than refining current ways of doing work.[1]

Reengineering guidance and relationship of Mission and Work Processes to Information Technology. Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is basically the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign, made to an organizations existing resources. It is more than just business improvising. It is an approach for redesigning the way work is done to better support the organization's mission and reduce costs. Reengineering starts with a high-level assessment of the organization's mission, strategic goals, and customer needs. Basic questions are asked, such as "Does our mission need to be redefined? Are our strategic goals aligned with our mission? Who are our customers?" An organization may find that it is operating on questionable assumptions, particularly in terms of the wants and needs of its customers. Only after the organization rethinks what it should be doing, does it go on to decide how best to do it.[1] Within the framework of this basic assessment of mission and goals, reengineering focuses on the organization's business processesthe steps and procedures that govern how resources are used to create products and services that meet the needs of particular customers or markets. As a structured ordering of work steps across time and place, a business process can be decomposed into specific activities, measured, modeled, and improved. It can also be completely redesigned or eliminated altogether. Reengineering identifies, analyzes, and redesigns an organization's core business processes with the aim of achieving dramatic improvements in critical performance measures, such as cost, quality, service, and speed.[1] Reengineering recognizes that an organization's business processes are usually fragmented into subprocesses and tasks that are carried out by several specialized functional areas within the organization. Often, no one is responsible for the overall performance of the entire process. Reengineering maintains that optimizing the performance of subprocesses can result in some benefits, but cannot yield dramatic improvements if the process itself is fundamentally inefficient and outmoded. For that reason, reengineering focuses on redesigning the process as a whole in

order to achieve the greatest possible benefits to the organization and their customers. This drive for realizing dramatic improvements by fundamentally rethinking how the organization's work should be done distinguishes reengineering from process improvement efforts that focus on functional or incremental improvement.

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT At its core, Total Quality Management (TQM) is a management approach to long-term success through customer satisfaction. In a TQM effort, all members of an organization participate in improving processes, products, services and the culture in which they work. The methods for implementing this approach come from the teachings of such quality leaders as Philip B. Crosby, W. Edwards Deming, Armand V. Feigenbaum, Kaoru Ishikawa and Joseph M. Juran. A core concept in implementing TQM is Demings 14 points, a set of management practices to help companies increase their quality and productivity: Create constancy of purpose for improving products and services. Adopt the new philosophy. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. End the practice of awarding business on price alone; instead, minimize total cost by working with a single supplier. 5. Improve constantly and forever every process for planning, production and service. 6. Institute training on the job. 7. Adopt and institute leadership. 8. Drive out fear. 9. Break down barriers between staff areas. 10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations and targets for the workforce. 11. Eliminate numerical quotas for the workforce and numerical goals for management. 12. Remove barriers that rob people of pride of workmanship, and eliminate the annual rating or merit system. 13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement for everyone. 14. Put everybody in the company to work accomplishing the transformation. The term Total Quality Management has lost favor in the United States in recent years: Quality management is commonly substituted. Total Quality Management, however, is still used extensively in Europe. QUALITY CIRCLES 1. 2. 3. 4.

A quality circle is a volunteer group composed of workers (or even students), usually under the leadership of their supervisor (but they can elect a team leader), who are trained to identify, analyze and solve work-related problems and present their solutions to management in order to improve the performance of the organization, and motivate and enrich the work of employees. When matured, true quality circles become self-managing, having gained the confidence of management. Quality circles are an alternative to the dehumanising concept of the division of labor, where workers or individuals are treated like robots. They bring back the concept of craftsmanship, which when operated on an individual basis is uneconomic, but when used in group form (as is the case with quality circles), it can be devastatingly powerful and enables the enrichment of the lives of the workers or students and creates harmony and high performance in the workplace. Typical topics are improving occupational safety and health, improving product design, and improvement in the workplace and manufacturing processes. The term quality circles derives from the concept of PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) circles developed by Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Quality circles are not normally paid a share of the cost benefit of any improvements but usually a proportion of the savings made is spent on improvements to the work environment.[citation needed] They are formal groups. They meet at least once a week on company time and are trained by competent persons (usually designated as facilitators) who may be personnel and industrial relations specialists trained in human factors and the basic skills of problem identification, information gathering and analysis, basic statistics, and solution generation.[1] Quality circles are generally free to select any topic they wish (other than those related to salary and terms and conditions of work, as there are other channels through which these issues are usually considered).[2][3] Quality circles have the advantage of continuity; the circle remains intact from project to project. (For a comparison to Quality Improvement Teams.
The Origin The concept of Quality Circle is primarily based upon recognition of the value of the worker as a human being, as someone who willingly activises on his job, his wisdom, intelligence, experience, attitude and feelings. It is based upon the human resource management considered as one of the key factors in the improvement of product quality & productivity. Quality Circle concept has three major attributes: a. Quality Circle is a form of participation management. b. Quality Circle is a human resource development technique. c. Quality Circle is a problem solving technique. Quality circle.. Its Composition? - It's a small group comprising of 6 to 12 employees doing similar work - They meet together voluntarily on a regular basis for identifying improvements in their

respective work areas. - Their aim to achieve and so also to sustain excellence towards mutual upliftment of employees as well as the organization. Undercurrent of Quality Circle:The objectives of Quality Circles are multi-faced. a) Change in Attitude. -From "I don't care" to "I do care" -Continuous improvement in quality of work life through humanization of work. b) Self Development -Bring out 'Hidden Potential' of people -People get to learn additional skills. c) Development of Team Spirit -Individual Vs Team "I could not do but we did it" -Eliminate inter departmental conflicts. d) Improved Organizational Culture - Positive working environment. -Total involvement of people at all levels. -Higher motivational level.

Knowledge Management
Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of strategies and practices used in an organization to identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of insights and experiences. Such insights and experiences comprise knowledge, either embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational processes or practice. An established discipline since 1991 (see Nonaka 1991), KM includes courses taught in the fields of business administration, information systems, management, and library and information sciences (Alavi & Leidner 1999). More recently, other fields have started contributing to KM research; these include information and media, computer science, public health, and public policy. Many large companies and non-profit organizations have resources dedicated to internal KM efforts, often as a part of their 'business strategy', 'information technology', or 'human resource management' departments (Addicott, McGivern & Ferlie 2006). Several consulting companies also exist that provide strategy and advice regarding KM to these organizations. Knowledge Management efforts typically focus on organizational objectives such as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing of lessons learned, integration and continuous improvement of the organization. KM efforts overlap with organizational learning, and may be distinguished from that by a greater focus on the management of knowledge as a strategic asset and a focus on encouraging the sharing of knowledge.

Strategic Management Strategic management is a field that deals with the major intended and emergent initiatives taken by general managers on behalf of owners, involving utilization of resources, to enhance the performance of rms in their external environments.[1] It entails specifying the organization's mission, vision and objectives, developing policies and plans, often in terms of projects and programs, which are designed to achieve these objectives, and then allocating resources to implement the policies and plans, projects and programs. A balanced scorecard is often used to evaluate the overall performance of the business and its progress towards objectives. Recent studies and leading management theorists have advocated that strategy needs to start with stakeholders expectations and use a modified balanced scorecard which includes all stakeholders. Strategic management is a level of managerial activity under setting goals and over Tactics. Strategic management provides overall direction to the enterprise and is closely related to the field of Organization Studies. In the field of business administration it is useful to talk about "strategic alignment" between the organization and its environment or "strategic consistency." According to Arieu (2007), "there is strategic consistency when the actions of an organization are consistent with the expectations of management, and these in turn are with the market and the context." Strategic management includes not only the management team but can also include the Board of Directors and other stakeholders of the organization. It depends on the organizational structure. Strategic management is an ongoing process that evaluates and controls the business and the industries in which the company is involved; assesses its competitors and sets goals and strategies to meet all existing and potential competitors; and then reassesses each strategy annually or quarterly [i.e. regularly] to determine how it has been implemented and whether it has succeeded or needs replacement by a new strategy to meet changed circumstances, new technology, new competitors, a new economic environment., or a new social, financial, or political environment.

Strategy Formation
Strategic formation is a combination of three main processes which are as follows:
y y

Performing a situation analysis, self-evaluation and competitor analysis: both internal and external; both micro-environmental and macro-environmental. Concurrent with this assessment, objectives are set. These objectives should be parallel to a time-line; some are in the short-term and others on the long-term. This involves crafting vision statements (long term view of a possible future), mission statements (the role that the organization gives itself in society), overall corporate objectives (both financial and strategic), strategic business unit objectives (both financial and strategic), and tactical objectives. These objectives should, in the light of the situation analysis, suggest a strategic plan. The plan provides the details of how to achieve these objectives.

Strategy evaluation
y

Measuring the effectiveness of the organizational strategy, it's extremely important to conduct a SWOT analysis to figure out the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (both internal and external) of the entity in business. This may require taking certain precautionary measures or even changing the entire strategy.

In corporate strategy, Johnson, Scholes and Whittington present a model in which strategic options are evaluated against three key success criteria:[3]
y y y

Suitability (would it work?) Feasibility (can it be made to work?) Acceptability (will they work it?)

Suitability
Suitability deals with the overall rationale of the strategy. The key point to consider is whether the strategy would address the key strategic issues underlined by the organisation's strategic position.
y y y

Does it make economic sense? Would the organization obtain economies of scale or economies of scope? Would it be suitable in terms of environment and capabilities?

Tools that can be used to evaluate suitability include:

y y

Ranking strategic options Decision trees

Feasibility
Feasibility is concerned with whether the resources required to implement the strategy are available, can be developed or obtained. Resources include funding, people, time and information. Tools that can be used to evaluate feasibility include:
y y y

cash flow analysis and forecasting break-even analysis resource deployment analysis

Acceptability

Acceptability is concerned with the expectations of the identified stakeholders (mainly shareholders, employees and customers) with the expected performance outcomes, which can be return, risk and stakeholder reactions.
y

y y

Return deals with the benefits expected by the stakeholders (financial and non-financial). For example, shareholders would expect the increase of their wealth, employees would expect improvement in their careers and customers would expect better value for money. Risk deals with the probability and consequences of failure of a strategy (financial and non-financial). Stakeholder reactions deals with anticipating the likely reaction of stakeholders. Shareholders could oppose the issuing of new shares, employees and unions could oppose outsourcing for fear of losing their jobs, customers could have concerns over a merger with regards to quality and support.

Tools that can be used to evaluate acceptability include:

y y

what-if analysis stakeholder mapping