1ota| ua||ty Management (1M)

1oLal CuallLy ManagemenL (1CM) ls an lnLegraLed sysLem of prlnclples meLhods and besL pracLlces
(LhaL over Llme have been proven effecLlve) LhaL provlde a framework for organlzaLlons Lo sLrlve for
excellence ln everyLhlng Lhey do MosL all worldclass organlzaLlons exhlblL Lhe ma[orlLy of behavlors
LhaL are Lyplcally ldenLlfled wlLh 1CM
no Lwo organlzaLlons have Lhe same 1CM lmplemenLaLlon 1here ls no reclpe for organlzaLlon success
however Lhere are a number of greaL 1CM models LhaL organlzaLlons can use
Some 1M parameters
Lmpowerment refers Lo lncreaslng Lhe splrlLual pollLlcal soclal or economlc sLrengLh of lndlvlduals and
communlLles lL ofLen lnvolves Lhe empowered developlng confldence ln Lhelr own capaclLles
LmpowermenL of employees ln Lhe work place provldes Lhem wlLh opporLunlLles Lo make Lhelr own
declslons wlLh regards Lo Lhelr Lasks nowadays more and more bosses and managers are pracLlclng
Lhe concepL of empowermenL among Lhelr subordlnaLes Lo provlde Lhem wlLh beLLer opporLunlLles
Accordlng Lo 1homas A oLLerfleld Lmployee empowermenL ls consldered by many organlzaLlonal
LheorlsLs and pracLlLloners Lo be one of Lhe mosL lmporLanL and popular managemenL concepLs of our
Llme Companles ranglng from small Lo large and from lowLechnology manufacLurlng concerns Lo hlgh
Lech sofLware flrms have been lnlLlaLlng empowermenL programs ln aLLempLs Lo enhance employee
moLlvaLlon lncrease efflclency and galn compeLlLlve advanLages ln Lhe LurbulenL conLemporary
buslness envlronmenL
Downs|z|ng ls Lhe consclous use of permanenL personnel reducLlons ln an aLLempL Lo lmprove
efflclency and/or effecLlveness" Slnce Lhe 1980s downslzlng has galned sLraLeglc leglLlmacy lndeed
recenL research on downslzlng ln Lhe uS uk and !apan suggesLs LhaL downslzlng ls belng regarded by
managemenL as one of Lhe preferred rouLes Lo Lurnlng around decllnlng organlzaLlons cuLLlng cosLs and
lmprovlng organlzaLlonal performance mosL ofLen as a cosLcuLLlng measure
8enchmark|ng ls Lhe process of comparlng ones buslness processes and performance meLrlcs Lo
lndusLry besLs and/or besL pracLlces from oLher lndusLrles ulmenslons Lyplcally measured are quallLy
Llme and cosL ln Lhe process of benchmarklng managemenL ldenLlfles Lhe besL flrms ln Lhelr lndusLry
or ln anoLher lndusLry where slmllar processes exlsL and compare Lhe resulLs and processes of Lhose
sLudled (Lhe LargeLs) Lo ones own resulLs and processes ln Lhls way Lhey learn how well Lhe LargeLs
perform and more lmporLanLly Lhe buslness processes LhaL explaln why Lhese flrms are successful
8us|ness process reeng|neer|ng ls Lhe analysls and deslgn of workflows and processes wlLhln an
organlzaLlon Accordlng Lo uavenporL (1990) a buslness process ls a seL of loglcally relaLed Lasks
performed Lo achleve a deflned buslness ouLcome 8eenglneerlng ls Lhe basls for many recenL
developmenLs ln managemenL 1he crossfuncLlonal Leam for example has become popular because of
Lhe deslre Lo reenglneer separaLe funcLlonal Lasks lnLo compleLe crossfuncLlonal processes Also many
recenL managemenL lnformaLlon sysLems developmenLs alm Lo lnLegraLe a wlde number of buslness
funcLlons LnLerprlse resource plannlng supply chaln managemenL knowledge managemenL sysLems
groupware and collaboraLlve sysLems Puman 8esource ManagemenL SysLems and cusLomer
relaLlonshlp managemenL
8uslness process reenglneerlng ls also known as buslness process redeslgn buslness LransformaLlon or
buslness process change managemenL
Learn|ng ls acqulrlng new or modlfylng exlsLlng knowledge behavlors skllls values or preferences and
may lnvolve synLheslzlng dlfferenL Lypes of lnformaLlon 1he ablllLy Lo learn ls possessed by humans
anlmals and some machlnes rogress over Llme Lends Lo follow learnlng curves











Case Study : 1 - Reengineering at Mahindra&
Mahindra
Abstract
The case Study examines the reasons behind automobile major Mahindra & Mahindra's
decision to implement a Business Process Reengineering (BPR) program.
The case explores in detail the implementation procedure at the company and the
benefits that accrued from the BPR program. n addition, the case discusses the
concept of BPR, its benefits, and the steps that need to be taken to ensure the success
of such initiatives. Case study
basically examines the benefits that a BPR program can offer to an organization when it
is effectively implemented

Introduction
Business Process Reengineering means not only change but dramatic change. What
constitutes dramatic change is the overhaul of organizational structures, management
systems, employee responsibilities and performance measurements, incentive systems,
skills development, and the use of information technology.
Successful BPR Model can result in enormous reductions in cost or cycle time. t can
also potentially create substantial improvements in quality, customer service, or other
business objectives. The promise of BPR is not empty it can actually produce
revolutionary improvements for business operations.
On the other hand, BPR projects can fail to meet the inherently high expectations of
reengineering. Recent surveys estimate the percentage of BPR failures to be as high as
70%. Some organizations have put forth extensive BPR efforts only to achieve
marginal, or even negligible, benefits. Others have succeeded only in destroying the
morale and momentum built up over the lifetime of the organization.
Many unsuccessful BPR attempts may have been due to the confusion surrounding
BPR, and how it should be performed. Organizations were well aware that changes
needed to be made, but did not know which areas to change or how to change them. As
a result, process reengineering is a management concept that has been formed by trial
and error or in other words practical experience. As more and more businesses
reengineer their processes, knowledge of what caused the successes or failures is
becoming apparent.

2ergence of BPR
n 1990 and again in 1993, some definitive works were put forth by Dr. Michael
Hammer, James Champy, and Thomas Davenport in their bestselling book,
'Reengineering the Corporation'. Hammer, named by :8ine88 Week as one of the four
preeminent management gurus of the 1990s, together with Champy, chairman of CSC
ndex, nc.
The activities identified by experts to be nece88ary for 8:cce88 in performing BPR. The
methods commonly accepted by most BPR experts as the core of successful BPR are
illustrated. n addition, optional activities proposed by a variety of management
consulting firms who have had success assisting their clients with BPR are also
included. These methods, procedures, and tasks are identified to help organizations
decide how they should perform BPR to meet the unique needs of their industry,
people, and culture.



Co22on Steps when Perfor2ing BPR
!roject !ha8e8 Req:ired For S:cce88f: !R:
Phase 1: Begin Organizational Change
Phase 2: Build the Reengineering Organization
Phase 3: dentify BPR Opportunities
Phase 4: Understand the Existing Process
Phase 5: Reengineer the Process
Phase 6: Blueprint the New Business System
Phase 7: Perform the Transformation

Background note
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (M&M) was the flagship company of the Mahindra group, one
of the top ten industrial houses in ndia. The company's history dates back to 1945,
when two brothers, J.C.Mahindra and K.C.Mahindra, decided to start a business of
generalpurpose utility vehicles. The brothers formed a company, Mahindra &
Mohammed Ltd., in association with their friend Ghulam Mohammed. n October 1947,
the first batch of 75 jeeps was released for the ndian market. n 1948, the company
was renamed Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Over the next few decades, the group
promoted many companies in areas as diverse as hotels, financial services, auto
components, information technology, infrastructure development and trading to name a
few
ProbIe2 which Ied M&M to go for BPR
n the mid1990s, ndia's largest multi utility vehicle (MUV) and tractor manufacturer
M&M was facing serious problems at its gatpuri and Kandivili plants in Maharashtra.
The plants were suffering from manufacturing inefficiencies, poor productivity, long
production cycle, and suboptimal output.The reason: highly underproductive, militantly
unionized, and bloated workforces. The company had over the years been rather lenient
towards running the plants and had frequently crumbled under the pressure of union
demands. The work culture was also reportedly very unhealthy and corruption was
widespread in various departments. Alarmed at the plant's
dismal condition, Chairman Keshub Mahindra tried to address the problem by sacking
people who allegedly indulged in corrupt practices. M&M also tried to implement various
voluntary retirement schemes (VRS), but the unions refused to cooperate and the
company was unable to reduce the labor force. During this period, M&M was in the
process of considering the implementation of a Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
program throughout the organization including the manufacturing units. Because of the
problems at the gatpuri and Kandivili plants, M&M decided to implement the program
speedily at its manufacturing units.

The program, developed with the help of the UKbased Lucas Engineering Systems,
was first implemented on an experimental basis at the engine plant in gatpuri.
Simultaneously, an exercise was initiated to assess the potential benefits of
implementing BPR and its effect on the unions.
M&M's management was not surprised to learn that the unions expressed extreme
displeasure at the decision to implement BPR and soon went on a strike. However, this
time around, the management made it clear that it would not succumb to union
demands. Soon, the workers were surprised to see the company's senior staff come
down to the plant and work in their place. With both the parties refusing to work out an
agreement, observers began casting doubts on the future of the company's grand plans
of reaping the benefits of BPR.

BPR initiatives taken by M&M
Though M&M had established itself in the markets and was among the leading players
in many of the segments it operated in, it realized that some of its businesses were not
closely related to its core business. This realization marked the beginning of the biggest
change exercise since the company's inception. n 1994, a major
restructuring exercise was initiated as part of a BPR program. M&M introduced a new
organizational model, in which various divisions and companies were regrouped into six
distinct clusters of related businesses, each headed by a president. M&M's core
activities, automotive and tractors were made autonomous business units. The other
activities of the group were organized into infrastructure, trade and financial services,
telecommunication and automotive components. According to company sources, the
whole exercise was intended to develop a conceptual map to provide direction for the
future growth of various business lines. t was decided that, in future, the group would
confine its expansion to the identified thrust sectors. The two main operating divisions of
the company were the automotive division, which manufactured UVs and LCVs, and the
farm equipment division, which made tractors and farm implements. The company
employed over 17,000 people and had six stateoftheart manufacturing facilities
spread over 500,000 square meters.The plants were situated at Kandivili (MUVs and
Tractors), Nasik (MUVs), Zaheerabad (LCVs, Voyager, threewheelers), gatpuri
(Engines) and Nagpur (mplements and tractors)...

M&M's perience with BPR
By the mid 1990s, BPR had become a popular tool globally, with many leading
organizations implementing it. However, when M&M undertook the exercise, it was still
a new concept in ndia. M&M's workforce, as mentioned earlier, resisted this attempt to
reengineer the organization. Soon after the senior staff began working on the
shopfloors, the first signs of the benefits of BPR became evident. Around a 100 officers
produced 35 engines a day as compared to the 1200 employees producing 70 engines
in the preBPR days.
After five months, the workers ended the strike and began work in exchange for a 30%
wage hike. As the situation returned to normalcy, BPR implementation gained
momentum. M&M realized that it would have to focus on two issues when implementing
the BPR program: reengineering the layout and method of working, and productivity...
n o:r never ending q:e8t for q:aity and increa8ing prod:ctivity at a eve8 the
vario:8 project8 initiated by the company - inc:ding !R - are heping :8 achieve
higher prod:ctivity red:ction in co8t8 and improved q:aity. - Keshub Mahindra,
Chair2an, Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M), in 1996.
Summing up the company's BPR experience, Anand Mahindra said, "Let me put it in a
simple way. f we have facilities in Kandivili today, which are not just surviving but
thriving, it is all due to BPR...





Case Study 2 : 2pIoyee 2power2ent at GoogIe

Abstract :
The case study analyses the inexplicable success of Google as a successful
organization that attracts millions of employees and keeps climbing up on the revenue
chart.t signifies the role of employee empowerment as being the major contributor to
the firm's success.



Google today:
oogle lnc ls an Amerlcan mulLlnaLlonal publlc corporaLlon lnvesLed ln lnLerneL search cloud
compuLlng and adverLlslng Lechnologles oogle hosLs and develops a number of lnLerneLbased
servlces and producLs and generaLes proflL prlmarlly from adverLlslng Lhrough
lLs AdWords program 1he company was founded by Larry age and Sergey 8rln
ooge reporLed q:artery earnlngs per share of $874 on sales of $692 bllllon for Lhe currenL
quarLer
What did they do?

While implementing the concept of empowerment certain concepts were made pretty
clear so as to understand its reality and scope in order to avoid any discrepancy .
1) n "normal" companies, empowerment isn't doled out equally, it's earned. Here
with few exceptions, managers give people the leeway to experiment with big
new projects, products, and services only after they knock smaller ones out of
the park. Sure, such managers often say they believe in empowerment, and they
probably mean it. But general organizational discomfort with failure, not to
mention the chilling discipline of delivering to budget, typically means that
managers don't greenlight just anyone with a plan. They greenlight their stars
with smartbet ideas and strong track records. s that wrong? t's business.
Results have consequences, and superior players earn empowerment.

2) People who are empowered to take risks and then fail more than once don't
become inferior, but they're often damaged goods.At Google teams that fail in
some innovative effort get thrown a big party, the message from the top being:
"We don't punish our risktakers, we celebrate them!" But the facts are, with
every additional misstep, the empowerment glow fades, and they continue to
empower unsuccessful risktakers. Except, that is, to please look for work
elsewhere.

3) At Google, to answer your question, is still enjoying the fruits of its innovation,
and kudos to its leaders for that. n fact, kudos to every company that truly
encourages its people to make decisions and take risksespecially those that
are straight with their people about how empowerment really works

4) Every employee is a handson contributor, and everyone wears several hats.
Because at google there is a belief that each Googler is an equally important part
of our success, no one hesitates to pose questions directly to Larry or Sergey in
our weekly meetings or spike a volleyball across the net at a corporate officer.
Google believes that employee satisfaction is the key to their mantra to success.




Effect on working culture:
At lunchtime, almost everyone eats in the office caf, sitting at whatever table has an
opening and enjoying conversations with Googlers from different teams.This opens up a
plethora of oppurtunities fross cross culture interaction,exchange ok ideas and
knowledge sharing.
No wonder why google is labelled as a predictive and proactive system that is content
driven.
At google every employee is as important as Larry Page or Sergey 8rln
1hls empowermenL opens up doors for greaL lnnovaLlve ldeas and ls one of Lhe reasons why google has
been looked upon as an example Lo be learnL from by oLher flrms Lhus seLLlng Lhe benchmark for
employee empowermenL