Content uploaded by Nestor Ortiz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nestor Ortiz on Oct 16, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
A review of process improvement models with a focus on
the redesign
THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLIESH IN SPANISH
ELSEVIER:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0123-5923(12)70003-7
Abstract
This article reviews the literature on different models for the improvement of processes
developed as a key to aligning business operations with strategic priorities. The aim is to
provide useful information about the anatomy of the literature in this area of knowledge,
presenting a unified framework of articles explored chronologically, from the three main
approaches to improving processes, focusing the analysis on 11 models with a focus on the
redesign, examining the underlying characteristics and structured methodology,
contributions and differences between the constructs used by their authors and an analysis
of the positive aspects, as well as those that can be complemented to improve their
applicability in business.
Keywords: Process, Improvement process, Redesign process
1. Introduction
Nowadays, the concept of development has been modified by the globalization economic
model; additionally, new factors in traditional production and social change have been
created. To insert in the global economy we need to be competitive through capitalize as
much as possible the skills, through the strategies of the different actors (Gallicchio, 2004).
In order to improve and to be successful in this environment, companies must to create
industrial revolutions to impact “in the non-linear world, where only nonlinear ideas will
create new wealth” (Hamel, 2000, p.15).
The alignment of operations with strategic priorities through the management of their
processes is a key element in the search of long-term capacities (Kaplan and Murdock,
1991). In this sense, organizations that focus on process improvement have a global
strategy based on continuous innovation to face these conditions.
Some authors (Davenport, 1990, Galloway, 2002, Harrington, 1993) defined the process
improvement as the systematic analysis of activities interrelated in order to reach more
effective, efficient and adaptable changes and thus increase the ability to meet customer
requirements. The process improvement analyzes the production inputs and identifies
errors in productivity; then allows optimize and add value to the activities and to the
organization.
When we talk about the activities of a process that adds value, we refer to the activities
that the customer identifies and considers valuables; therefore, this activities “generate a
competitive advantage” (Harrington, 1991, p.23). According Zairi (1991), the key feature
consist on added value in three elementary ways: to add value on the time, that is, process
results must be supplied when they are required; add value on the place, in this case,
outputs are delivered where they are required; and add value of form, when the results are
based on real customer requirements and they contribute to the customer satisfaction.
According Gardner (2001), the process improvement is an effective way to manage any
level into the organization and to support the achievement of objectives. Consequently, it is
now considered a valuable business asset (Gartner Research, 2006) and the continuous
improvement is imperative for many organizations. Therefore, this review article provides a
general idea about the process improvement models, as well as to carry out an analysis on
process redesigns its methodological structures, advantages and disadvantages. In this
way, we supply a new contribution in this knowledge topic.
This work has been structured as follows. In the first section, contextualization and
theoretical referents of process improvement is shown; in the second, the research
methodology is included; in the following the main principles of process improvement are
presented; in section 4, characteristics and methodologies of eleven redesign models are
detailed, additionally contributions and differences are analyzed. Finally, conclusions from
the research process are presented.
2. Contextualization.
Initially, we need understand the process concept and its structure into the company, in
order to coordinate the planning, the control and the improvement process. Over the years,
the term process is part of the basic business terms. So much so, it has become an
important element to achieve operational efficiency. The most relevant definitions of
process has been described in table 1.
According table 1, all definitions share common aspects as: the determination of inputs and
outputs of the system, the identification of relationships between activities to obtain the
desired result, the use of multiples resources for the transformation, and the search of
added value in order to satisfy the requirements of internal or external customers.
Take into account the process framework, Harrington (1993) proposed that the processes
can operate at the macro level of the organization (so-called macroprocesses). Each
macroprocess, is logically constituted by multiple activities that act at the micro level of the
hierarchical structure of the organization (microprocesses or subprocesses). For last, each
microprocess is integrated for a group of more specific operations that are called activities,
which, as the name suggests, are understood as a unit of the process that can perform a
specific job or task (Figure 1)
On the other hand, Tinnila (1995) classifies the processes into three large groups. In the
first group appear the operative processes, or those related to improve the operative
efficiency of the transforming relation, input (input) and output (output). In this concept,
the processes are transformer elements and consume minimum levels of ressources to
deliver results according to specifications. The second one refers to the processes that
follow the same previous principle. In addition, the impact in the transforming element
must be radical in the operative efficiency in order to maximize the customer satisfaction.
Finally, in the third group corresponds to the visualized processes at the macro level of the
organization.
Another way to see the process management is from of the suppler-transformer-customer
chain (Chan and Sppeding, 2003). This perspective follows the logic of the systems theory.
From this approach, processes are visualized from the inputs group provided by suppliers,
where material goods, financial resources, information, personnel, etc. are found. Once the
resources are available, the transformation activities are carried out in order to produce
one or several outputs (outputs). In this stage all elements are interrelated and
interdependent, but at same time, they follow certain patterns as we can see in figure 2.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has structured the quality management
concept under the process-management focus. Therefore, ISO proposed ordering and grouping
the processes by their function in the organization, and dividing them into four big groups.
In the first group appear the management processes. These processes include processes related to
the strategic planning process, the design of goals and policies, the communications, the ensuring
of availability of resources for other quality objectives and desired outcomes, and the
management evaluation process. In the second group, related to the resources management
processes. The third group refers to the operative processes; they include the processes that
provide the desired results of the organization. Finally, the group of processes related to the
measurement, analysis and improvement processes. These processes include the measure and
collect data activities, which allow improve the efficiency and effectiveness (International
Organization for Standardization ISO / TC 176, 2008).
Therefore, the process approach is a powerful way to organize and manage activities, to create
value for the client and other stakeholders. The traditional organizations are often structured as a
hierarchy of functional units and managed with a vertical focus. The process-based management
allows eliminate the barriers between the different functional units and improve their
management. This focus as can be seen in Figure 3 (Organize Online, 2010), where the final
customer and the stakeholders will really receive the results of the processes; additionally, they
will be satisfied and have not the problems associates to each functional unit or department.
Now, focusing on the process improvement concept, the word ''improvement'' can be
defined as: forward, rise, move to a better state. The improvement can also be defined as
the actions set useful to increase the organization profitability and to improve aspects as:
quality, service, response times, costs, etc. For this reason, the process improvement
integrates all processes, but also, it goes beyond as part of the global strategy.
Then, in order to visualize a true integration between the process improvement and the
company's strategy, indicators are essentials to verify that improvement. In other words,
the performance of the organization’s processes network must be monitor and evaluate by
an assessment mechanism. The process-based approach guide by ISO / TC 176 technical
committee highlights the importance of control process. This guide suggests to define
where and how to carry out the monitoring and measurement activities, in order to
concentrate the efforts and improvement ours products or services. Others guidelines
proposed by this committee are: the importance of recording results, the determination of
creating the supervision measures and criteria, the control process and the performance
measurement as effectiveness and efficiency; and the clear definition of factors such as:
compliance of requirements, customer satisfaction, supplier performance, delivery time,
cycle times, response rates, waste, process costs, frequency of incidents, among other
aspects.
Similarly, the ISO 9004: 2009 "Managing for the sustained success of an organization - A
quality management approach” helps organizations to obtain long-term benefits through
implementation of a quality management system. The focus and impact of system are
deeper on the organization. Therefore, now it is possible to facilitate the continuous
improvement of the system and the creation of value.
Once the monitoring and measurement have been carried out, the true benefits can
appear. This strategy aligns operations and organizational management in order to increase
their performance. Hammer (2007) has synthesized some of these multiple benefits as: the
increase of productivity focused towards a better competitiveness; the adaptation of
processes to technological advances; the reduction of various resources and, therefore, the
costs of their consumption; the visualization of the organization in a holistic way, that is, as
a process of input-transformation-outputs; the right mode to find, solve and prevent
problems and errors at work; the reduction of process times; the effective and systematic
control, monitoring and measurement of the work; the focus on the client; and the new
way of participation through communication and teamwork between employees and
managers.
Many of these benefits can be achieved as long as the managers can overcome or mitigate
the inconveniences that appear during the implementation process. Some of these critical
errors or inconveniences referenced by Sterman and Repenning (2002) are: (1) focusing
the improvement in a specific area of the organization, since the perspective of
interdependence between all other processes of the company is lost; (2) the lack of
commitment and participation in the improvement process by the staff of the organization,
therefore, the results are not displayed as expected; (3) the managers´ conservative style,
who don´t recognize the importance of its commitment in the process, then does not
generate the example and multiplying effect necessary for the dynamics of holistic
improvement; (4) the desire to obtain quickly results. This consideration cause the
employees can give up during the implementation, because they don´t understand that the
process improvement is a dynamic and continuous situation in the system. Directors and
managers also can give up during the implementation, because the investment and
expenses grow but the benefits will be obtained in the long time. Consequently, the
implementation process is interrupted drastically without having reached the true results
and desired impacts.
In this section, the concepts and other basic aspects related with process improvement
were described. Now we presents the methodology used to carry out the literature review
process.
3. Research methodology
The qualitative research methodology was defined after knowing the conceptual research
framework and reviewing the background of process improvement. We follow a rigorous
contextual description of the situation under study (Anguera, 1986). In addition, we seek to
capture reality in the most objective way and collect wealth information from databases in
order to analyze it with sufficient explanatory power.
Four steps were structured to carry out the review, according the proposed method by
Miles and Huberman (1994), which it allows categorize, codify, identify, differentiate and
select part of the collected material based on theoretical criteria. This method is supported
by the iterative-deductive-inductive cycle proposed by Pettigrew (1997); then, the main
characteristics of process improvement were sorted and extracted from of the questioning
of the authors, the examination of contributions, and decision-making process through the
analysis of principal ideas.
Four steps include the strategy tackled to carry out the investigation.
The process improvement models were identified in step 1. The relevant literature reviewed
in this step was carried out in the follows scientific journals: Science Direct, ISI, ProQuest,
Ebsco Host, Springer, Emeral, Dialnet, among others. The search algorithms included an
initial phase with its keywords: Title: '' process improvement '' (and '' model '' or ''
methodology '' / '' business process improvements' '/' 'business process reengineering'. In
the next phase, the algorithm used was: Title:' 'process improvement' '(and' 'model' 'or'
'methodology' 'and' 'process redesign' 'not' 'software ''), always filtering by refereed
academic publications.
In this review, several general conceptual models were found: from a managerial focus to
an operative focus (with stages to tackle them from the qualitative and strategic context)
among others, see: Harrington (1991), Davenport (1992), Short and Venkatram (1992).,
De Toro and McCabe (1997), Elzinga, Horak, Chung-Yee and Bruner (1995), Zairi (1997),
Lee and Chuah (2001), and Chan and Spedding (2003). According to the authors, these
improvement models have been developed for any company type and any size, economic
activity or capital composition. However, the methodologies found have been mainly
applied to the manufacturing context. Others companies types such as services or
commercial companies have had less attention from the authors despite of its economic
importance and its characteristics such as: intangibility, variability and imperdurability,
among others.
Step 2 presents a classification framework developed from the improvement models found
in the review process, these models were analyzed from three different perspectives: the
incremental focus, the redesign focus, and the reengineering focus. Our main analysis was
focus on the redesign approach.
The models under redesign focus were identified, filtered and selected. Then, 11 different
models are found, and step 3 stars. In this step the models were identified, compared,
differentiated and analyzed, in order to understand each one and to extract its relevant
characteristics, the structure proposed and its differences.
Finally, in step 4 conclusions were presented and some proposals about future research
were suggested. These proposals were the result from the gaps identified in the models
analyzed. Hence, we provide an expanded perspective on process improvement under
redesign focus and create a new framework to examine this subject.
3. Approaches for the process improvement
The literature presents diverse perspectives and variants, schemes and tools to carry out
activities of change in an organization in order to reach the process improvement. The
review of documents carried out in this work indicates that the main contributions are
always focused on the “identification of improvements opportunities” through systematic
analysis of activities and its flow along the processes (Suárez, 2007); therefore, it’s
possible obtain benefits as the simplification, elimination, and reduction of unnecessary
tasks. In addition, we could realize that this conceptualization don´t have relation with the
focus or the methods proposed by authors.
The process improvement implies a dynamic work applicable to any focus of analysis.
According to literature review, the main input to carry out an improvement consist on
recognizing the need to solve problems and to find better solutions. The initial phase is a
diagnosis that allows the identification of critical processes and its problems. Afterwards,
the next phase seeks to identify the action plans to face the problems and to reach a
process improved. Finally, the alternatives must be implemented and monitored in order to
generate a continuous improvement cycle for the processes.
In 1986, Imai (1986) proposed another way of carry out the process improvement: every
improvement effort must emphasize the recognition of the problem and provide keys for its
identification. Once, the problems are identified, a strategy for solve them must be carried
out, seeking the improvement of the processes to reach new levels of development and of
standardization for each problem that was solved in the organization.
According to a study conducted with various companies in the United States (Harrington,
1987), the vital aspects to tackle the process improvement: the senior management’s
commitment; the appointment of a team leader; the participation and total commitment of
employees as team members or as individual; the development of activities oriented to all
the actors of the process; the allocation of resources in a timely way; the design of a short-
term improvement plan and a long-term improvement strategy; and finally, the constant
monitoring and measurement of improvements.
In spite of the articles reviewed propose a similar framework to tackle the process
improvement, we have decided take into account the proposal presented by Childe, Maull
and Bennet (1994). This proposal included three perspectives to achieve the improvement:
the incremental focus, the redesign of process and the reengineering (Figure 4). In these
three perspectives can be observed different degrees of change in terms of productivity,
risk assumed, technologies required, impacts, times, costs, high direction commitment, and
employees commitment. Thus, for the present review, the process improvement has been
categorized according to the change level: a) Incremental process improvement, where the
changes are small but permanent, B) Redesign, with a focus in the redesign strategy and,
c) Radical process improvement when we apply a reengineering strategy.
Incremental process improvement refers to so-called Kaizen, which is a derivation of
two Japanese ideograms: kai which means "change" and zen which means "good to
improve" (Newitt, 1996). This focus has been defined as a philosophy of improvement,
which requires that all people, every day, in all places, can and should improve.
Imai (1986, 1998), was a pioneer of this approach; he could identify and organize the key
strategies for the process improvement. Kaizen management system allow companies can
make improvements to the existing practices, day by day, in order to increase the
company's performance, increase the profits, and reach a better level of competitiveness.
The productivity increase can be achieved through two fundamental bases: people and
standardization of processes, since the kaizen practice requires a team composed of
personnel belong of different processes (production, maintenance, quality, engineering,
purchasing, etc.). Additionally, kaizen need the application of techniques to improve
manufacturing processes by reducing cycle times, the standardization of quality criteria and
work methods, the layout analysis and the elimination of waste.
On the other hand, the redesign seeks to satisfy the customer requirements and ensure
that the transformation scheme (transforming inputs in outputs) will be better, faster and
more economical (Davenport and Short, 1990). The characteristics of the redesign process
are centered on the description of the processes, the identification of key processes and the
analysis of the value of each activity, in order to achieve the expected results, reducing
cycle times, improving the value chain and competitiveness.
Radical process improvement or Reengineering (Business Process Reengineering [BPR*]
is the third approach described here. Reengineering refers to a total change where the
actual process can be transformed in a new and innovative process through new practices
and methods of work. According Hammer (1990), the purpose of this focus is the
permanent questioning and the radical redesign of business processes, in order to achieve
drastic improvements in terms of performance. This approach is based on the premise that
the continuous improvement (incremental process improvement) will not achieve the
great advances that companies need to compete in the global market. Then, BPR is known
as a radical innovation perspective that defines a new way of operating with a high degree
of change, with expectations of new and better results. Therefore, the cost and duration
associated to BPR will be very high and very long, respectively.
4. Methodologies based on redesign process
Advances in information and communication technologies, globalization, competitiveness
and customer demands, among others, have intensified the need to improve the
performance of companies. Although the philosophy of incremental process
improvement with incremental focus has helped in the achievement of significant
contributions in the quality of the products, this approach is slow and limited and can
conduce to stagnation in the performance of the organization (Knorr, 1991, Burdett, 1994).
Similarly, the conception of radical process improvement (BPR*) has not been well
received by companies since it focuses on radical changes (tactically and operatively), but
relegating the strategic perspective; consequently it can conduce to the business failure
(King, 1994).
The redesign is the approach used to respond to the changes in the business environment
through the review and continuous learning of best practices. This practices allows
transform obsoletes and not functional processes. In addition, the performance is better in
terms of efficiency, effectiveness and flexibility. This performance is obtained through
simplification or reduction of complexity in the process; elimination of activities that do not
add value; the reduction of the cycle time of the processes; the elimination of reprocesses
and errors; the standardization of activities; the optimization of resources, and the
automation of activities, among other aspects (Harrington, 1995).
For a long time, several methodologies have applied the redesign focus, each one with its
own conceptions, characteristics and applications, from the simplest to the most complex.
These methodologies contemplate various factors and resources, such as technologies,
time, risk, personal, investment, among other aspects. The main contributions of process
improvement with redesign focus are presented below. Here, we showed methodologies
with their conceptions and a comparative analysis between them, as well as an examination
of their characteristics, especially the 11 models identified.
The starting point of process improvement with redesign focus can be located in the
scientific administration school, where Frederick W. Taylor, its main protagonist,
revolutionized the traditional processes of work systems through the application of scientific
methods in companies in order to improve the organizational productivity (Taylor, 1911).
The process-based improvement born through two basic principles of scientific
management: the division of work in simples and standardized tasks, and the specialization
of workers (Davenport and Short, 1990).
Subsequently, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, in the research line developed by Taylor, perfected
the study of working methods in order to increase the efficiency and performance of the
manufacturing industry. In 1911, Frank published the motion study (Koontz and Weihrich,
1998) and the industry adopted the contributions around of management of production
processes. From this moment, the production process was considered a contribution of
capital, labor and raw materials, useful to produce a finished product.
In 1913, Henry Ford, introduced improvements in the production processes through the
creation of the assembly lines. This system divided production process in small operations,
which are assigned to different workers. The productivity of this system overcomes the
traditional production system. On the other hand, Henry Fayol proposed that the activities
or operations of a company could be divided in six basic groups: technical, commercial,
financial, security, accounting and administrative (Wood and Wood, 2002). This
classification created the basis for subsequent organizational theories, in which companies
can order the organizational structure by functions (vertical structure) or by processes
(horizontal structure).
According Ostroff and Smith (1993), the horizontal structure takes into account the
teamwork concept operating around of groups of key macro-processes. Then, the workers
will have a global vision of the company and will be aware of its individual contributions in
the production process. Therefore, the companies will have an organizational structure that
reduces hierarchy levels, eliminates activities that don´t add value, obtains necessary
information to execute activities in real time, combines operational activities with
management activities, and maximizes contact with customers and suppliers in order to
achieve greater satisfaction.
The general theory of systems (Bertalanffy, 1976) has been other approach centered on
people that orient the organization towards the processes, generating greater business
benefit. This theory is a holistic approach based on the analogy of the sequence: inputs,
transformation process, outputs, with the concept of system.
After the boom presented by the Incremental process improvement in the 80s, authors
have appeared with methodological proposals to tackle the process improvement with
redesign focus (see Figure 5). Some remarkable authors are Davenport and Short (1990);
Harrington (1993); Elzinga et al. (nineteen ninety five); Zairi (1997); Lee and Chuah
(2001) and Chan and Spedding (2003) who have made great contributions to the
improvement of processes with a focus on redesign (BPR).
The first exponents on 90s are Davenport and Harrington. They define the improvement of
business processes as a systematic methodology developed for the analysis and design of
work flows and processes inside and outside organizations (Davenport and Short, 1990) in
order to, as Watson (1998) says, reduce response times to customers and operatives costs.
Additionally, this organizational strategy allows reach significant progress in the processes
analyzed and produces a positive impact in customer satisfaction and in organizational
efficiency and effectiveness (Harrington, 1991).
According Davenport and Short (1990), the steps to carry out the process redesign (BPR)
are: develop the business vision and the processes objectives; identify the processes
candidates to redesign, understand and measure the actual performance of the processes;
design and build a prototype of the process and implement the improvements.
Subsequently Davenport (1992), in his book “Innovation of business processes”, proposes a
methodology with the following guidelines: develop the business vision, identify the
characteristics of the key processes, understand and measure the actual performance of
the processes, and find success factors and its implementation barriers.
Although Harrington shares the concept showed by Davenport and Short about the
definition of improvement in processes, the Harrington methodology don’t start of strategic
aspects, it focuses on the organization and the identification of critical processes. The
methodology propose tools for moving and modernizing the company through elimination
of errors, minimization of delays, maximization of active time in activities, promoting the
knowledge, having better relationships with customers, providing an advantage competitive
and reducing the extra personnel.
According Harrington, this methodology is applicable to any organizations: large and small,
advanced and growing, public and private, services and production; they have a similar
way to work: following processes defined. This methodology has been accepted by
businessmen because it can help them to solve all kinds of problems and take into account
the premise: any difficulties must be analyzed from the root. To ensure the success in this
methodology is necessary: first, achieving the commitment and long-term managerial
support, in addition, the process managers must be assigned, the evaluation systems must
be developed and focused on processes (Pérez and Soto, 2005).
Bravo (2000) indicates that authors as Knorr (1991), Short and Venkatram (1992), tackled
also the process redesign and defined their methodology: (1) developing the business
vision and processes objectives, then (2) identifying the critical processes to redesign
through two ways: an high impact focus and an exhaustive focus; the last focus takes into
account all processes but they are selected according its urgency of improvement.
Afterwards, (3) the actual processes are understood and their performance is measured in
order to supervise and identify the mistakes of the past; and then (4) the processes are
designed and a prototype is built in order to facilitate the implantation and to know its
impacts. The methodology may require information technologies to support the redesign
process and to provide different benefits to the organization.
Later, De Toro and McCabe (1997) worked the same concept and redefined the steps
proposed by Short and Venkatram, in 1992. In this research, they added the inclusion and
participation of customer as a fundamental axis of the organization. The phases exposed by
them for the process redesign were: finding the needs of the client, selecting the key
processes, documenting the key processes, measuring the performance of the processes
and to improving the processes.
In 1991, Pacheco (1991) proposed the permanent program of Improvement of the
Productivity (PPMP) as a continuous improvement approach especially adapted to the
needs of small and medium enterprises. The methodology proposes the design of indicators
to measure the processes productivity and to identify and determine the problematic areas
in order to plan solutions. Those solutions must be supervised and implemented to obtain a
greater performance in the processes and reach a positive impact on the productivity of the
organization.
Elzinga et al. (1995) and Zairi (1997) provide a holistic definition linked with a strategic and
operational vision. They defined Business Process Management (BPM) as a structured
and systematic approach to analyze, improve, control and manage processes of the
business, in order to improve the quality of products and services; although the definition
of critical factors for implementation are similar to Davenport approach, and the selection
and implementation of improvement opportunities are similar to Harrington and Espejel
model.
On the other hand, the Value Steam Mapping (VSM) appears in 1998 as a tool based on the
process improvement and redesign. VSM is a methodology with lean focus in services and
production systems, useful to support the diagnosis, design, launch and implementation of
future improvements (Serrano, 2007). VSM uses a map to diagram inputs and information
flows related with the service or manufacturing processes. Tapping, Luyster and Shuker
(2002) and Drickhamer (2003) were the first authors that presented VSM methodology in
services companies, since the VSM was initially applied on manufacturing companies. The
methodology starts with the building of a map for the current process flow, which must
show the necessary steps in the realization of the activities. Then, based on the map of the
current state, the improvements that can be made to the process are identified.
Subsequently, must be built the map of the future state, where we can observe information
as new delivery times, new operating expenses and new performance indicators.
According Tardugno, DiPasquale and Matthews (2000), benchmarking is a way to adopt the
best practices that can allow the creation of differential advantages to increase the
competitiveness in organizations. This methodology proposes carry out a comparison
between an organization and successful companies (whether they are competent or not), in
order to determine their shortcomings and to look for a way to correct them. Benchmarking
allows take advantage of this analysis and transforms it in wealth learning for improving
their operations.
Lee and Chuah (2001) have presented the super-methodology to improve processes.
This model was constituted by the contributions made by the other authors, but adding
three methodological alternatives: benchmarking process, redesign process, and new
processes design (as well called: innovation process or global analysis of the organization).
On the other hand, according Ungan (2006), the two most commonly used tools are:
flowcharts and process maps, but without forgetting the benchmarking techniques and the
process improvement teams.
In 2003, Chan and Spedding developed the Integrated Multidimensional Process
Improvement Methodology (MIPIM), to solve the problems of productivity, quality and
costs of a manufacturing system, from a methodical and unified way, incorporating
mathematical models to find the optimal configuration of the system, and supported by
information technologies. This methodology helps managers to make decisions to select
any improvement strategy, for instance: reengineering, process redesign, or carry out
incremental improvements. MIPIM applies concepts such as continuous process
improvement and Activity-Based Management (ABM), which are used as central axis.
Once defined the objective of the improvement program and collected data, the MIPIM
proposes to build the simulation model that incorporates the dimensions of productivity,
quality and costs, and includes variables such as the number of pallets that circulate in the
system per unit of time, the interruptions of the production, the use of machinery, the
processing times, etc. (Hoyer and Ellis, 1996).
When the model is built, the data in real time is taken and the optimization process is
carried out. The obtained results are analyzed and the techniques of quality and the model
of excellence for continuous improvement are incorporated in order to control and to be
feedback to the system. In other words, managers have the possibility of setting corrective
measures to planning, organizing, executing and delegating more effectively. Then, It’s
possible increasing business competitiveness, finding a balance between customers,
competition, suppliers and the internal processes.
MIPIM includes new modeling techniques and incorporates the best practices of academics,
consultants and professionals for manufacturing companies, with a structured focus. MIPIM
defined what and how carry out improvements process in companies seeking implant them
of a simple way from a new variant called MIPI (Chan and Spedding 2005).
Harmon (2004) proposed the Business Process Chance (BPC) methodology. This
methodology is based on the improvement and redesign of processes. Additionally, BPC is
supported on the changes that arising through the interactions between personnel,
administration, systems of information, technology and organizational structure, and
allowing generate a better performance and competitive advantages.
The process redesign is often the only way to improve the performance of the processes,
since the activities that do not add value can be eliminate and at the same time, costs and
delays are reduced. Process redesign helps companies to achieve innovations in processes
(Hammer, 2007).
This section presented a historical review of the different models for the improvement of
processes with a redesign focus. We showed the conceptual framework, the different
proposed methodologies, the phases to carry out each methodology, and the similarities
and differences between them, and the contributions given by the authors of the models
analyzed.
5. Conclusions
The main objective of this study was to conduct a review of the literature to identify,
classify and analyze the models for the improvement of processes with a focus on redesign.
The identified models have been developed as a fundamental strategy for organizations to
achieve superior performance in the management of their operations since if the company
is analyzed as an integrated and holistic system, the inputs are transformed adding value,
meeting the customer requirements and reaching a better response to the demands of the
environment in terms of efficiency, flexibility, productivity and competitiveness.
The impact in terms of performance of the processes is most relevant criteria to select,
classify and analyze the models for the improvement of processes. Therefore, we decided
categorize the improvement models in three focuses (based on the level of improvement,
the risk, and the resources and impacts in each one). These focuses are: a) incremental,
that is, one that provides small changes such as the solution of specific problems of product
or service quality; b) the redesign, which seeks to achieve the results of organizations
satisfying their customers and achieving cost reduction and cycle times in the processes; c)
and the reengineering, with seeks radical improvements in the organizational structure, or
in the form of management with new strategic orientations.
A methodology describes step by step and in a structured way the knowledge and
experiences proposed to carry out the process improvement. In the redesign case, the
methodologies and techniques identified in the literature review were: BPM, BPR, PPMP,
VSM, MIPIM. Those methodologies have had a chronological evolution and each one has
taken the advantages of each other in order to be more robust. A clear case of this
affirmation was the contribution proposed by De Toro and McCabe (1997), who redefined
the steps proposed by Short and Venkatram in 1992; and the case of Ungan (2006), who
uses in his model the contribution given by Lee and Chuah (2001) in the super-
methodology for the improvement of processes. Ungan takes two of the tools used by Lee
and Chuah: benchmarking techniques and teams of improvement of processes. He adds the
support of flowcharts and the process maps as a contribution for the process redesign.
The review carried out also allows us to visualize future work in this area of knowledge,
since the methodologies for the improvement of processes with a focus on redesign are
based mainly on the tools already established and on general conceptual structures with a
focus management. Those methodologies define stages to tackle the process improvement
from the qualitative and strategic context, but without contemplating, step by step, the
operative aspects for its development in the organizations, nor the use of quantitative and
engineering techniques that allow carrying out diagnoses, generation of proposals,
implementation, evaluation and monitoring of proposed improvements. Therefore, it is
important that the models can incorporate ''any good process practice / improvement
operations that allow reducing waste, improving flow, improving the process concept, and
taking into account the client's point of view '' (Radnor, Walley, Stephens and Bucci, 2006,
p.9).
Each business situation has unique characteristics, then, it is difficult developing and
adapting a common, universal methodology for all types of situations and business
contexts.
However, most of the methodologies found have been in the context of manufacturing
companies (Nguyen, 2009), (Ravi and Olivera, 2009), some adaptations for applications in
commercial companies, such as BPM, BPI, VSM (Baloh, 2008), and a few in service
enterprises (Hernández, Medina and Nogueira, 2009). Contextualizing the characteristics of
the environment in which each type of company is important to make the necessary
adjustments and adaptations of any methodology. For example, in service companies, the
optimization in one part of the process cannot be meaningful for the entire service system,
since here, we talk about an intangible good generated by people (not machines).
Additionally, the management style, the culture, the skill levels of the participants and the
characteristics of the processes such as complexity, scope of application, key processes,
etc., have a significant impact on the improvement methodology developed for the type of
business.
We recommended to achievement a better methodology applicable to a specific enterprise,
adopting the best characteristics of each methodology because their combination results in
an improved version, with quantitative techniques and specific characteristics of each
company. Parameters of time, performance, legal and social aspects, associations between
the processes and the role of human agents, among others, are important inputs for
developing new methodologies.
Bibliography
Anguera, M. (1986). La investigación cualitativa. Disponible
en: http://ddd.uab.cat/pub/educar/0211819Xn10p23.pdf. [ Links ]
Baloh, P. (2008). Business process improvement methodology: The case of ''Merkur''
Trading Company. En K. Dhanda (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Annual ISO Eworld
Conference on Engaging Academia and Enterprise Agendas (p. 11). Las Vegas,
Nevada. [ Links ]
Bertalanffy, L. (1976). Teoría general de los sistemas: fundamentos, desarrollo,
aplicaciones. Disponible en:http://archivosociologico.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/teoria-
general-de-los-sistemas-ludwig-von-bertalanffy.pdf [ Links ]
Bravo, Z. (2000). Método para el mejoramiento de los procesos de negocios del grupo A. G.
Asociados, C.A. Ingeniería UC, 7, 8-23. [ Links ]
Burdett, J. O. (1994). TQM Reengineering-the battle for the organizational of
tomorrow. The TQM Magazine, 6, 7-13. [ Links ]
Chan, K. K., & Spedding T. A. (2003). An integrated multidimensional process improvement
methodology for manufacturing systems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 44, 673-
693. [ Links ]
Childe, S. J., Maull, R. S., & Bennet, J. (1994). Frameworks for understanding business
process re-engineering. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14,
22-34. [ Links ]
Davenport, T. H. (1992). Process innovation: reengineering work through information
technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. [ Links ]
Davenport, T., & Short, J. (1990). The new industrial engineering: information technology
and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, 31, 11-27. [ Links ]
De Toro, I., & McCabe, T. (1997). How to stay flexible and elude fads. Quality Progress,
3, 55-60. [ Links ]
Drickhamer, D. (2003). Extended Value Stream Mapping offers a practical approach to
developing customer and supplier partnerships. Disponible
en: http://www.lean.org/Library/IndustryWeek%20_%20Archived.pdf [ Links ]
Elzinga, D. J., Horak, T., Chung-Yee, L., & Bruner, C. (1995). Business process
management: survey and methodology. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
42, 119-128. [ Links ]
Gallicchio, E. (2004). El desarrollo local en América latina, estrategia política basada en la
construcción de capital social. Disponible
en: http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd52/capital.pdf. [ Links ]
Galloway, D. (2002). Mejora continua de procesos: cómo rediseñar los procesos con
diagramas de flujos y análisis de tareas. (pp. 114). Barcelona: Gestión 2000. [ Links ]
Gardner, R. A. (2001). Resolving the process paradox. Quality Progress, 34, 51-
59. [ Links ]
Hamel, G. (2000). Liderando la revolución. Bogotá: Editorial Norma. [ Links ]
Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering work: Don't automate, obliterate. Harvard Business
Review, 90, 104-112. [ Links ]
Hammer, M. (2007). Process audit. Harvard Business Review, 85, 111-123. [ Links ]
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (2003). Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for
business revolution. New York: Harper Business. [ Links ]
Harmon, P. (2004). Business process change: a manager's guide to improving, redesigning,
and automating processes. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. [ Links ]
Harrington, H. J (1991). Business process improvement. The breakthrough strategy for
total quality, productivity and competitiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. [ Links ]
Harrington, H. J. (1987). The quality improvement process. Healthcare Forum, 30, 81-
83. [ Links ]
Harrington, H. J. (1995). Continuous versus breakthrough improvement finding the right
answer. Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal, 1, 31- 49. [ Links ]
Harrington, J. (1993). Mejoramiento de los procesos de la empresa. Bogotá: McGraw
Hill. [ Links ]
Hernández, A., Medina, A., & Nogueira, D. (2009). Procedimiento de gestión por procesos
en instalaciones hospitalarias. Caso Cuba. Negotia Revista de Investigación de negocios,
5, 3-22. [ Links ]
Hoyer, R., & Ellis, W. (1996). A graphical exploration of SPC: Part 2, the probability
structure of rules for interpreting control charts. Quality Progress, 29, 57-64. [ Links ]
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: la clave de la ventaja competitiva japonesa. México: Editorial
CECSA. [ Links ]
Imai, M. (1998). Cómo implementar el Kaizen en el sitio de trabajo GEMBA. Bogotá:
McGraw Hill. [ Links ]
Instituto Colombiano de Normas Técnicas. (2005). Sistema de gestión de la calidad.
Fundamentos y vocabulario.Disponible
en:http://www.udea.edu.co/portal/page/portal/bibliotecaSedesDependencias/unidadesAcad
emicas/FacultadMedicina/BilbiotecaDiseno/Archivos/GestionAdministrativa/ntc-
iso_9000.pdf. [ Links ]
Kaplan R., & Murdock L. (1991). Core process redesign. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 27-
43. [ Links ]
King, W. (1994). Process reengineering. The strategic dimensions. Information Systems
Management, 11, 71-74. [ Links ]
Knorr, R. O. (1991). Business process redesign: key to competitiveness. The Journal of
Business Strategy, 12, 48-51. [ Links ]
Koontz, H., & Weihrich, H. (1998). Administración: una perspectiva global. Bogotá:
McGraw-Hill. [ Links ]
Lee, K. T., & Chuah, K. (2001). A super methodology for business process improvement. An
industrial case study in Hong Kong/China. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 21, 687-706. [ Links ]
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis an expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Links ]
Millán, T. A. (2005). Teoría de sistemas y sociedad. Disponible
en:http://www.lapaginadelprofe.cl/sociologia/sistemas/sist.htm [ Links ]
Newitt, D. J. (1996). Beyond BPR & TQM. Managing through processes: is Kaizen enough?
En Institution of Electric Engineers (Eds.), Industrial Engineering Conference Proceeding (p.
100-110). London. [ Links ]
Nguyen V., & Olivera P. (2009). Modifying integrated model for manufacturing process
improvement. Disponible en: http://www.mssanz.org.au/simmod05/papers/A1-
04.pdf [ Links ]
Organización Internacional para la Estandarización (2008). ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N544R3
Guidance on the concept and use of the process approach for management systems.
Disponible
en:http://www.iso.org/iso/04_concept_and_use_of_the_process_approach_for_manageme
nt_systems.pdf. [ Links ]
Organizate Online. (2010). Gestión de Procesos. Disponible
en: http://organizaonline.blogspot.com/2009/06. [ Links ]
Ostroff, F., & Smith, D. (1993). The horizontal organization. Mckinsey Quarterly, Harvard
Deusto Business Review, 1,4-19. [ Links ]
Pacheco, A. (1991). Guía para la instalación de un programa permanente de mejoramiento
de la productividad (PPMP).México: IPN-UPIICSA. [ Links ]
Pérez, G., & Soto, A. (2005). Propuesta metodológica para el mejoramiento de procesos
utilizando el enfoque Harrington y la norma ISO 9004. Revista Universidad EAFIT, 41, 46-
56. [ Links ]
Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 13, 337-348. [ Links ]
Radnor, Z., Walley, P., Stephens, A., & Bucci, G. (2006). Evaluation of the lean approach to
business management and its use in the public sector. Edimburgo: Scottish
Executive. [ Links ]
Ravi, S., & Olivera, M. (2009). Role of process knowledge in business process improvement
methodology: a case study. Business Process Management Journal, 15, 920-
936. [ Links ]
Serrano, l. (2007). Análisis de la aplicabilidad de la técnica value stream mapping en el
rediseño de procesos productivos. Disponible
en: http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/7957/tibl.pdf?sequence=1. [ Links ]
Short, J. E., & Venkatraman, N. (1992). Beyond business process redesign: redefining
Baxter's business network. Sloan Management Review, 33, 7-21. [ Links ]
Sterman, J. D., & Repenning, N. (2002). Nobody ever gets credit for fixing problems that
never happened. IEEE engineering management review, 30, 64-78. [ Links ]
Suárez, B. M. (2007). La sostenibilidad de la mejora continua de procesos en la
administración pública: un estudio en los ayuntamientos de España. Barcelona: Universidad
Ramón Llull. [ Links ]
Tapping, D., Luyster, T., & Shuker, T. (2002). Value stream management. New York:
Productivity Press. [ Links ]
Tardugno, A., DiPasquale, T., & Matthews, R. (2000). It services: costs, metrics,
benchmarking and marketing. New Jersey: Prentice Hall PTR. [ Links ]
Taylor, F. (1911). The principles of scientific management. Disponible
en: http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/TaylorScientificManagement.pdf. [
Links ]
Tinnila, M. (1995). Strategic perspective to business process redesign. Business Process
Reengineering & Management Journal, 1, 44-59. [ Links ]
Ungan, M. (2006). Standardization through process documentation. Business Process
Management Journal, 12,135-148. [ Links ]
Watson, R. (1998). Implementing self-managed process improvement teams in a
continuous improvement environment. The TQM Magazine, 10, 246-253. [ Links ]
Wood, J.C., & Wood. M. (2002). Henri Fayol: critical evaluations in business and
management. New York: Routledge. [ Links ]
Zairi, M. (1991). Total quality management for engineers. Cambridge: Woolhead Publishing
Limited. [ Links ]
Zairi, M. (1997). Business Process Mangement: A boundaryless approach to modern
competitiveness. Business Process Management Journal, 3, 64-80. [ Links ]
