Companies in the contemporary society strive to set performance targets as means of fast racking goal achievement, understanding the position of the company in performance ladder, and allocating percentages as desired by the initiatives put in place. In business organizations, performance plays a role in determining success, sustainability, and relevance within a competitive edge. When aligning opportunity cost, performance is a key indicator before deciding on the forgone alternative.
Vital performance indicators are employed by management of a business entity in decision making science in order to actively align goals of the entity (Manos 2007). Reflectively, these tools of analysis are essential in quantification of performance (Warwood & Roberts 2004). Besides, the same is necessary in process improvement fast racking through employee productivity and process efficiency calculations.
Basically, a quality operations management system performs optimally via integration of appropriate scientific factors of production. To enrich artistic managerial talents, a balance in the factors of operations come in handy to not only magnifies the margins of success, but also to ensure a smooth transition of an idea or an event after another (Suarez-Barraza, Ramis-Pujol, & Kerbache 2011).
Besides, to avoid an imminent failure, it is vital for the operations management system to focus on a defined edge in balancing the labour and operation costs (Houy, Fettke, & Loos 2010). For instance, as business manager, I have had to put in place stringent measures and strategies aimed and monitoring expansionary modules within feasible levels to make the decision process outcome sustainable.
Although operations strategy experience constant metamorphosis as a result of short term, midterm, and long term goal planning, no company can operate efficiently without quality system functioning. Quality operations strategy functioning encompasses “strong and systematic planning and actualisation which functions simultaneously to cut down costs in operation modelling” (Dahlgaard-Park et al. 2013. p. 15).
As a business manager faced with the dilemma of expanding production against efficiency in a diminishing market, I had to establish the performance BPIR’s model in improving the general outcome. I achieved this by remodelling efficiency in the chain of command between output and customer satisfaction. Since scope of quality is universal across different sizes of businesses, implementation of total quality management cannot change, rather, it may only be modified to fit within different retail industries for small and large enterprises (Cooney & Sohal 2004). In relation to my experience, the process of expansion of capacity and mechanization of production demanded that I made decisions that match production efficiency while assuring quality.
Sharing decision sub-system facilitates direct transactions and generation of reports that rate quality in performance of the operation management model as indicated in the article (Boer & Gertsen 2003). Due to its dynamic reporting, anomalies in design quality are communicated instantaneously to the quality management agency in a company to initiate corrective action (Wisner, Leong, & Tan 2011).
Therefore, I had to create and implement stringent quality design strategies of implementing the total quality management system to balance efficiency and sustainability in the business function. The continuum of increasing the value of quality in operations for all organizations lies in data, information, and knowledge (Chang 2005). Due to the need for an efficient operations management system, retail companies, irrespective of the size, should have mechanism for monitoring progress at micro and macro levels of decision making as part of the general quality design (Bamford & Forrester 2010).
The elements of quality design identified can be best integrated in the Six-Sigma model since it is adopted to attain significant effects of production efficiency through periodic review of the production matrix by managing quality design designs on efficiency and sustainability (Jacobs & Chase 2014).
In an organization, performance of active projects in progress is an indication of future forecasting on the market dynamics and predicting business climate before the actual period. Besides, implementation of new initiates spurs growth and creates an environment for healthy competition since most of these initiatives are a response to market swings and expansion mission (Filho & Uzsoy 2014).
The main reason for poor performance of active performance of projects can be liked to impractical and difficult to use or understand manuals that come with these initiatives. When there is no apparent collaborative process of performance base and goal review methodology, the measured and monitored results may be displeasing. Just like machines, creation of optimal interactive component within performance sphere influence the magnitude and nature of an outcome (Ates & Bititci 2011).
To improve the business process as a business manager, I had to create an active initiative that is continuous, constant, and relevant in order to create a sphere of integrity and professionalism in performance. In improving the performance of business process improvement indicator, supportive work plans may become a service to the goals of the organization as established Sanchez and Blanco (2014) in the article, Three Decades of Continuous Improvement. In addition, a business may adopt a clear communicative structure between active implementers of these initiatives and the monitoring management team especially in active initiatives in progress.
Conclusively, performance indicators are vital in monitoring progress and eliminating unnecessary over head costs that are of negative impact on financial status of a form. As a matter fact, initiative implementation depends on relevant strategy, extensive research, and relying on efficiency matrix in making decisions.
Ates, A & Bititci, U 2011, “Change process: A key enabler for building resilient SMEs”, International Journal of Production Research, vol. 49, no. 18, pp. 5601–5618.
Bamford, D & Forrester, P 2010, Essential guide to operations management: concepts and case notes, Wiley, London.
Boer, H & Gertsen, F 2003, “From continuous improvement to continuous innovation, a retro-perspective”, International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 805–827.
Chang, H 2005, “The influence of continuous improvement and performance factors in total quality organization”, Total Quality Management, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 413–437.
Cooney, R & Sohal, A 2004, “Teamwork and total quality management: A durable partnership”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1131–1142.
Dahlgaard-Park, M, Chen, C, Jang, J & Dahlgaard, J 2013, “Diagnosing and prognosticating the quality movement-a review on the 25 years quality literature (1987–2011)”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 1–18.
Filho, M & Uzsoy, R 2014, “Assessing the impact of alternative continuous improvement programmes in a flow shop using system dynamics”, International Journal of Production Research, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 3014-3031.
Houy, C, Fettke, P & Loos, P 2010, “Empirical research in business process management. Analysis of an emerging field”, Business Process Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 619–661.
Jacobs, F & Chase, R 2014, Operations and supply chain management, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Manos, A 2007, “The benefits of kaizen and kaizen events”, Quality Progress, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 47–48.
Sanchez, L & Blanco, B 2014, “Three decades of continuous improvement”, Total Quality Management, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 986-1001.
Suarez-Barraza, M, Ramis-Pujol, J & Kerbache, L 2011, “Thoughts on kaizen and its evolution”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 288–308.
Warwood, S & Roberts, P 2004, “A survey of TQM success factors in the UK”, Total Quality Management, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1109–1117.
Wisner, J, Leong, G & Tan, K 2011, Principles of supply chain management: a balanced approach, South, Mason.