Top-down to bottom-up" – a better way to achieve business goals

Citation

Cousins, M. (2002), "Top-down to bottom-up" – a better way to achieve business goals", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 6 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/mbe.2002.26706bab.001

"Top-down to bottom-up" – a better way to achieve business goals

An opportunity for change

Businesses in the manufacturing industry have until December 2003 to become ISO 9001 compliant. Where earlier versions of the standard only required companies to formalize their processes, now ISO is looking for evidence of continuous improvement and efficiency.

Similar quality assurance standards such as six sigma are being introduced across other sectors, adding to the pressure on managers to improve their business during near recession and highly volatile market conditions, while simultaneously putting in place a lasting and measurable change management program. This is a daunting prospect.

However, business improvement initiatives such as process mapping, quality circles and kaizen if approached correctly, also present an opportunity for companies to grow under seemingly impossible conditions.

But the question here is not whether companies should invest time and resources into business improvement. It is clear that managers today have little choice. The fundamental questions are:

• •

  What is the best approach?

• •

  How can management fully motivate themselves and their staff to address quality improvement?

• •

  How can it be achieved within a budget and a time frame that does not distract the business from core activities?

Process mapping – an accepted approach

Process mapping has for some time been considered an accepted way to improve quality within a business. Quality writers such as Deming have suggested that 80 percent of the failure to meet customer expectation lies with the processes, not the people who carry them out.

Process mapping can definitely present a real opportunity for managers to strengthen and build their business. In fact, any initiative that encourages a company to look at how it functions is a positive step, so long as it is approached in the right way.

Many companies have adopted this methodology as part of business improvement, but it is questionable whether their approach to process mapping is taking full advantage of their resources or potential.

Top-down and its disadvantages

Traditionally, companies that have approached initiatives such as quality circles, kaizen and process mapping have done so from a "top-down" approach, namely owned by management and driven by external consultants. Top-down usually involves outsourcing mapping projects to external consultants using complex software or paper based information-gathering exercises. Staff involvement tends to be kept to a minimum, with employees taking part in brainstorming exercises and one to one interviews with consultants.

But this methodology has a number of practical drawbacks. For instance, top-down process analysis can take months to complete because the process discovery has to be carried out across the organization's departments in sequence. The problem is that by the time the project is finished, the organizational structures mapped at the start could have changed, or may no longer be in use. This jeopardizes the accuracy of the maps created, which, in a world where the ability of production systems to respond to economic trends is critical, can restrict a business' ability to stay competitive.

Relying on external consultancy also has its drawbacks. Most notably, once the consultant has left the company on completing the project, valuable information gained during the exercise can be lost. This, along with the inevitability that much of the process data will be open to the consultant's interpretation, can lead to inaccurate and misinformed management decisions.

Furthermore, the top down approach denies company staff the chance to assess how, as individuals, they are doing their jobs, and therefore, depriving them of the ability or incentive to improve. In essence, the company is not given the chance to self-educate itself, to understand truly its raison d'être.

Finally, because top-down mapping projects tend to be lengthy and drawn out, they are less likely to be repeated frequently, as mangers have neither the time nor resources to do so. The result is that mapping is often done as a one off project. But to ensure a pattern of continuous improvement, weaknesses need to be exposed and systems benchmarked on a frequent and ongoing basis.

A case for bottom-up

Arguably a more efficient and rewarding approach for companies is to maximize the involvement of staff in the building of process maps and only drawing on the expertise of external consultants and management on a strategic level. By driving business improvement from the bottom up, quality becomes a company wide concern, motivating staff and creating a more open and progressive culture.

The bottom-up model involves staff at all levels in the mapping of departmental processes, through using simple software tools distributed throughout the organization. The idea is for the staff to own the mapping of processes, leaving management and consultants the time to analyze and build business strategies based on their findings.

The benefits of this approach are widespread and far-reaching. Most noticeably, the time taken to complete mapping projects is considerably reduced. Because every department becomes involved, maps can be put together in weeks rather than months, allowing management to obtain an accurate snapshot of the company's position before circumstances change. This can make all the difference for companies struggling to fight competition or meet new industry standards and regulations.

Shorter project turnover will also encourage project repetition, because they will be less of a drain on management's time resource. This encourages a pattern of long-term improvement and a culture of continuous change.

The bottom-up methodology also brings some clear advantages to the consultant. No longer is their time taken up interviewing departmental representatives and drawing up complex reports, taking months to complete. Their role in a bottom-up process mapping project is to consult, through identifying flaws and recommending improvements.

Quality – a cultural change

In countries such as Japan the culture demands that inefficiencies in business are unacceptable because they are avoidable. In the UK, improving the efficiency of processes must become standard business practice if we are to have any hope of competing. Quality assessment should become as pervasive in business as good accounting practice.

Understandably, managers today may feel like they are between a rock and a hard place, facing pressure from the market and industry bodies to initiate quality improvement. But they cannot afford to ignore it. Inefficient processes are costing companies millions of pounds every year, money that enterprises cannot afford to waste.

Business improvement initiatives will only be accepted by companies and be effective if they are "user friendly", low cost and easily repeatable. Bottom-up process mapping using distributed software tools achieves this, by turning business improvement into part of the company's daily life. Until this "cultural" change is made, companies will struggle to achieve the quality improvement and business growth their efforts deserve.

Michael CousinsManaging Director, Triaster, Wallingford, UK