Business Process Management Journal: Article Information

Business Process Management Journal
Offshoring: Relocation of production processes towards low-cost countries through

the project management & process reengineering performance model
Fabio De Felice, Antonella Petrillo, Alessandro Silvestri,
Downloaded by Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jawa Timur, UPN Veteran Jatim At 00:00 07 July 2017 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Fabio De Felice, Antonella Petrillo, Alessandro Silvestri, (2015) "Offshoring: Relocation of production
processes towards low-cost countries through the project management & process reengineering
performance model", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 Issue: 2, pp.379-402, https://
doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-01-2014-0008
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-01-2014-0008
Downloaded on: 07 July 2017, At: 00:00 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1318 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2015),"Improving the efficiency of public administrations through business process reengineering
and simulation: A case study", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 419-462 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2014-0054">https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2014-0054</a>
(2015),"From business process management to customer process management", Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 250-266 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
BPMJ-02-2014-0010">https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-02-2014-0010</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:609946 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm
Offshoring Relocation of
production
Relocation of production processes processes
towards low-cost countries through
the project management & process
379
reengineering performance model
Received 30 January 2014
Fabio De Felice Revised 22 June 2014
Accepted 16 September 2014
University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Cassino, Italy
Antonella Petrillo
University of Naples “Parthenope”, Naples, Italy, and
Alessandro Silvestri
University of Cassino and Southern Lazio,
Cassino, Italy
Abstract
Purpose – Nowadays, especially after the recent financial downturn, companies are looking
for much more efficient and creative business processes management. They need to place better
solutions on the market in less time and with lower costs. Companies are achieving these goals
of efficiency always more by using the offshoring strategy. It commonly describes a company’s
relocation of a business process from one country to another, typically manufacturing processes
towards low-cost countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – BRICS area). The purpose
of this paper is to propose a methodological approach based on project management tools
that supports the decision-making process in order to help companies in optimizing the re-engineering
production processes and improve management costs. The framework provided in this paper is
grounded on available literature and from the authors’ personal experiences in managing
several projects.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper seeks to propose a Project Management
Process Reengineering performance model (PMPR) for managing projects of reengineering of
processes and applies it in a real case study concerning the relocation of an automotive glass
production line.
Findings – The model proposed in this paper should serve as a valuable tool to facilitate a successful
BPR design in the project management and intends to assist companies as they operate projects of
transferring and optimizing production lines.
Originality/value – This paper proposes a PMPR model with a methodological approach which
integrates efficiency and effectiveness estimators applicable to company needs. Thus, the aim of the
paper is to develop a methodology and technical approach for the redesign and realization of
a production line in consequence of its relocation.
Keywords Project management, Relocation, Business process re-engineering (BPR), Low-cost,
Offshoring
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Competitive success of manufacturing firms is largely determined by the success of the
Business Process Management
products they introduce onto the market (Bertoni et al., 2009). Many researchers are Journal
investigating the reasons why projects fail (Gallagher, 1995). They provide lists of Vol. 21 No. 2, 2015
pp. 379-402
factors believed to contribute to project management success or failure. The definitions © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-7154
for project management continue to include a limited set of success criteria, namely the DOI 10.1108/BPMJ-01-2014-0008
BPMJ iron triangle (cost, time and quality). Atkinson (1999) analysed several works herewith
21,2 described: Oisen almost 50 years ago suggested cost, time and quality as the success
criteria bundled into the description (Oisen, 1971); Wright (1997) reduces that list
and taking a customer’s view, suggests only two parameters are of importance, time and
budget; many other writers like Turner (1993), Morris and Hough (1993), Wateridge (1998)
and Ballantine et al. (1996) all agree that cost, time and quality should be used as success
380 criteria, but not exclusively.

It is evident that there is not a unique definition about the above criteria so it is
important to define the meaning of project management. Many have attempted to
define what project management is but, in our opinion the most significant definition is
provided by the Project Management Institute “a temporary group activity
designed to produce a unique product, service or result”. A project is temporary in
that it has a defined beginning and end in time, and therefore a defined scope and
resources. A project is unique in that it is not a routine operation, but a specific set of
operations designed to accomplish a singular goal.
It is important to consider that in order to increase product yields and ensure
consistent product quality, key issues of industrial process optimization and
scale up are aimed at maintaining optimum and homogenous reaction conditions
minimizing costs (Falcone et al., 2007). For each individual product, process and
facility, suitable strategies have to be elaborated by a comprehensive and detailed
process characterization, identification of the most relevant process parameters
influencing product yield and quality and their establishment as scale up parameters to
be kept constant as far as possible (Schmidt, 2005). One of the most popular and well
documented change intervention has been business process reengineering (BPR).
As stated by Bates (2013) BPR is a technique that focuses on the processes that span an
organization, as opposed to being functionally or organizationally focused. When
implemented successfully, BPR can provide an organization with a step change in the
efficiency and effectiveness of its business processes, such as the purchase to pay process,
which involves people from a number of different functions. In many previous
researches on project process reengineering, improvements have been based on the
conventional BPR methodologies. BPR remains a controversial approach (Cheng
et al., 2009). Using traditional BPR, which is more business-oriented, leads to certain
imperfections. These methodologies alone are unable to cover project dimensions
comprehensively like project management, performance measurement and quality
improvement (Mohanty and Deshmukh, 2001). Thus, in the present paper we define
and develop a fine-tuned methodology for reengineering of project management
processes.
A combination of project management and BPR approaches is naturally
necessary in the case of Offshoring Strategy. More recently, different meanings have
been associated with this company strategy (i.e. relocation to low-cost countries of
operational processes or supporting ones or administrative services, etc.), in any
case, the adoption of an integrated vision of the project and process is necessary in
order to respect business constraints and improve corporate profitability. Work is
usually always moved because of a lower cost of operations in the new location
(Manning et al., 2008)
After its accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001, the People’s Republic of
China emerged as a prominent destination for production offshoring. In general, the
whole BRICS Area (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) is a common destination
(Kobayashi-Hillary, 2007; Messner, 2010).
This paper seeks to propose a Project Management Process Reengineering Relocation of
performance model (PMPR) for managing projects of reengineering of processes production
and applies it in a real case study concerning the relocation of an automotive glass
production line.
processes
The project of moving the automotive glass production line suggests the
opportunity of reengineering it because of the obsolescence of existing machinery and
equipment, variations in the quantities produced. 381

The main subjects of this research include:
(1) the adoption of an appropriate theory based on project management approach
and BPR in order to consider short- and long-term business developments;
(2) the establishment of a model able to analyze business knowledge asset and
management demands for business operation processes clearly; and
(3) the discussion and verification of the feasibility of the model by applying it to
an actual construction firm case in order to promote the concept in future
research directions and practical applications.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 the theoretical background and research
framework is presented. Section 3 describes the model validation. Finally, in Section 4,
conclusions and research guidelines for future work are summarized.
2. Theoretical background and research framework

Companies are continually seeking new management interventions to improve their
operations (Hipkin and De Cock, 2000; Silvestri et al., 2012).
BPR has been the most influential management movement of the 1990s, and like the
quality movement of the 1980s, it has put management attention squarely on processes
and operations (Loch, 1998). The popular conception of BPR was crystallized by
Michael Hammer and James Champy in their 1993 best-seller “Reengineering the
Corporation”, the most influential reengineering book. In particular, they advocate
a reintegration of industrial work, reversing the trend towards specialization and
division of labour that has been with us since the early industrial revolution. On the
other hand, Hammer and Champy advocate dramatic changes, as opposed to an
incremental or evolutionary approach, in implementing new process designs and
associated organizational structures. Indeed, many managers’ primary association with
the term “reengineering” is the bold approach to change management advocated by
Hammer and Champy.
To evaluate principles of process design, one needs to understand the causal
relationship between design choice and bottom-line performance. For this kind of
cause-and-effect reasoning, one first needs vocabulary to describe business processes,
including generic names for the elements that make up a process (Hammer, 1996;
De Felice and Petrillo, 2012).
According to many researchers in the BPR field, reengineering should focus on
processes and not be limited to considering the organizations only. After all the
organization is only as effective as its processes (Hunt, 1996). So, what is a process?
“A business process is a series of steps designed to produce a product or a service.
It includes all the activities that deliver particular results for a given customer (external
or internal)”. Processes are currently invisible and unnamed because people think about
the individual departments more often than the processes within them. So companies
that are currently used to talking in terms of departments such as marketing and
BPMJ manufacturing must switch to giving names to the processes that they do so as to
21,2 express the beginning and end states. These names should imply all the work that gets
done within the start and finish period. For example, order fulfilment can be called
order to payment process.
In total, we identified about 200 papers (from 1994 to 2013) referring to Project
Management and BPR that are widely applied by practitioners and found support in
382 literature to improve the performance of existing processes (see Figure 1).
Analysing the growth of IT-enabled services offshoring, it is linked to the availability
of large amounts of reliable and affordable communication infrastructure following the
telecommunication and internet expansion of the late 1990s. Coupled with the digitization
of many services, it was possible to shift the actual production location of services
to low-cost countries in a manner theoretically transparent to end-users. Services
include administrative services, such as finance and accounting, HR, and legal; call
centers; marketing and sales services; IT infrastructure; application development;
and knowledge services, including engineering support, product design, research and
development, and analytics.
However, no previous study attempts to empirically demonstrate the relationship
between BPR, project management, performance measurement and quality
improvement (see Figure 2).
The main company idea of “offshoring” some of their activities towards low-cost
countries, first of all due to economic advantages, could be a profitable moment to improve
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ce
es
es
ce
es
ne
ce
ng
e
ic
og
in
in
nc
en
nc
nc
nc
en
ci
si
at
t
er
un
na
ol
ie
di
ur
m
ie
ie
ie
ci
ci
ne
Bi
Sc
e
co
Fi
N
rS
Sc
Sc
he
Sc
lS
M
gi
ar
Ac
ls
at
ta
En
te
al
y
an
ul
ia
M
ar
io
en
pu
ci
nd
ec
er
is
et
s
So
nm
om
at
ric
ol
ta
ec
an
M
et
ro
en
D
C
Pl
d
m
vi
em
an
d
En
no
an
ag
s
co
ic
r th
an
et
Ea
s,
en
,M
ic
,G
ss
om
tr y
ne
on
Figure 1.
si
is
Ec
Bu
Project management
he
oc
and BPR application

Bi
(1994-2013) Source: Scopus

Relocation of
Project
Management production
processes
Project Management 383

Business Process Re- Process Performance measurement
Engineering Reengineering indicators
performance model
Quality Figure 2.
Improvement Conceptual research
framework
process quality. Therefore, the project of transferring the productive line could include the
opportunity of a process reengineering.
Based on the previous consideration, this research developed a model, which focuses
on project management and concepts and practices (McElory, 2003) after a careful
review of general BPR models in literature (Papavassiliou and Mentzas, 2003;
Ozcelik, 2010).
The model, see Figure 3, encompasses:
• two main phases called design phase and planning phase;
• main steps; and
• ten activities.
The different steps are described below:
• Step 1: process representation: preparation is a vital factor for any activity or
event to be successful, and reengineering is no exception (Di Bona et al., 2014).
This phase reviews and analyzes processes already selected. This activity begins
with the development of executive consensus on the importance of reengineering
and the link between breakthrough business goals and reengineering projects
(Falcone et al., 2013). Before the reengineering team can proceed to redesign the
process, they should understand the existing process. The main purpose of
process representation is: to model relevant process information so that follow-up
work, i.e. process evaluation, may be executed; to generate solutions through
brain-storming sessions; to identify the required resources to implement the
chosen solution and identify baselines to measure.
The main activities of the present phase are:
– Activity No. 1: project team definition: project teams are essential in projects
to define complex work requiring a variety of knowledge and skills. In
business process re-engineering, it is assumed that team members are
required to have a diverse variety of roles in order to complete their task
(Launonen and Kess, 2002). In the case of the PMPR model, the team should
21,2
384
BPMJ
Research
Figure 3.
steps, activities
framework – phases,
Research Framework
STEP 1
Process representation
• Activity #1: Project team definition
• Activity #2: Preparing for Reengineering BPR
STEP 2
Process evaluation
PHASE
• Activity #3: As-Is Process Mapping and Analyzing

DESIGN
• Activity #4: To-Be Process Design

• Activity #5: Reengineered Process Implementation BPR
• Activity #6: Technology Evaluation
STEP 3
Process analysis
• Activity #7: Management
• Activity #8: Process Control PM
STEP 4
Performance model (PMPR)

Process redesign
PHASE
PLANNING
• Activity #9: Continuous Improvement

• Activity #10: Monitoring and feedback KPIs
Project Management Process Reengineering

STEP 5
Process validation
What Why
Information activties Operational activities
How Who
Execution activities Check activities
include members from different business functions and countries (from-to) Relocation of
involved in PMPR model implementation from project management, quality production
management etc.
–
processes
Activity No. 2: preparing for reengineering. It is necessary to define the
kind of project to be undertaken, the business purpose and the expected
benefits, the operations plan, the required resources, and the financial
analysis. 385
• Step 2: process evaluation: the objective of this step is to produce one or more
alternatives to the current situation which satisfy the strategic goals of the
enterprise. A feasibility assessment basically aims at evaluating the suitability of
the project from technical, operational and economic points of view. To achieve
this aim, the feasibility assessment encompasses two sub-steps, namely “As Is
analysis”, “To Be reengineering”.
– Activity No. 3: as-is process mapping and analyzing. Projects often start with
an analysis of the current situation to create a good starting point for the
possible solutions. In practice As Is analysis is a systematic data collection
phase, concerning relevant processes, operations and activities currently
performed and targeted for study within the PMPR model.
– Activity No. 4: to-be process design. Starting from the As Is analysis, the
feasibility assessment should provide reengineering To Be analysis. Through
the BPR approach a new definition of procedures, activities and operations to
perform those processes is proposed for the PMPR model.
– Activity No. 5: reengineered process implementation. The implementation
activity is intended to prototype the reengineered process, thus addressing
the users’ and stakeholders’ issues and concerns.
– Activity No. 6: technology evaluation. This activity is intended to
evaluate the features and functionalities of the reengineered process and
includes active participation and feedback from all appropriate personnel
and users.
• Step 3: process analysis: process analysis is where reengineering efforts meet the
most resistance and hence it is by far the most difficult one. The aim is to align
the organizational structure, information systems and the business policies and
procedures with the redesigned processes. In order to implement this phase it is
useful to adopt additional requirements such as work breakdown structure
(WBS), gantt diagram, etc.
– Activity No. 7: management: the present activity is intended to investigate
the relative roles of project/program managers and change managers on
organizational change projects and the contextual factors that might affect
the change management competencies required, the change activities that
need to be undertaken and the most appropriate professional background to
manage the process.
– Activity No. 8: process control. The aim of the present activity is to optimize
processes by maintaining the process variable near the desired values.
•
BPMJ Step 4: process redesign: this step focuses on the problems and defects found
21,2 during process evaluation and analysis and furthermore revises or reconstructs
processes in order to make them fit process objective requirements. The result
both reduces the difficulty of constructing the process model during the
procedure representation stage and generates reengineering experience that is
available as feedback input for future tasks. The aim of the present phase is to
386 develop proper tools in order to monitor the process such as key performance
indicators (KPIs).
– Activity No. 9: continuous improvement. Quality is a never ending quest
and continuous process improvement is a never ending effort to discover and
eliminate the main causes of problems. Thus, the aim of this activity is to
remove activities that have no value for the organization in order to improve
customer satisfaction.
– Activity No. 10: monitoring and feedback. This activity focuses on building
measurement tools, quantifiable measurements such as KPIs, monitors
implementation and evaluates measurements to baseline in order to reflect
the critical success factors of the company.
• Step 5: process validation: performance of the process before and after
reengineering should be further inspected and validated to help ensure the
effectiveness of the redesigned process. Should the execution performance of
the redesigned process not improve significantly over the original, the process
should cycle back to the process redesign step.
Successful implementation of this framework requires a deep understanding and
familiarity with the organizational culture and its dynamics and politics.
3. Model validation: a case study applied to an automotive glass

production line
In the present section the PMPR model has been applied to a real case study involving
tempered glass production for the automotive sector (Di Bona et al., 2014).
The different phases, steps and activities depicted in the research framework are
analysed here below.
3.1 Step 1:. process representation

The project involves transferring and re-designing a line of cut glass from the factory
in Northern Italy (plant A) to a plant in a new region (plant B). The aim discussed at the
beginning of the present work is to move the production line from plant A towards a
more efficient configuration in plant B. Is it possible to summarize the main reasons
that caused the transfer the plant to another region as following:
• disposal of production line factory (plant A);
• variations of production quantities (pant B);
• obsolescence of existing equipment and machinery (plant B); and
• need to reduce and optimize costs (plant B) using existing machinery adpted in
another plant (plant A).
Activity No. 1: project team definition. Teamwork requirements must be: sense of Relocation of
collaboration with top managers, support given to team members, team autonomy, production
independence from department boundaries and team effectiveness. The team is
composed of engineers, a quality manager, employee cooperation and information
processes
technology support. This improved team efficiency has the possibility of parallelizing
more activities at the same time therefore respecting customers’ requests faster,
reducing the document control time. 387

Activity No. 2: preparing for reengineering. At the basis of reengineering is the study
of a new lay out. The motivations behind the study of the layout are: obsolescence of
existing machinery and equipment; high production costs; need to increase the
production volume of the side windows. It is necessary to replace machines seeing they
do not satisfy quality levels required by customers because of the presence of defects
on the glass products, for example, chipped edges, polished edges and scratches. The
rejection rate is higher than 2.9 per cent including 1.1 per cent for chipped edges,
polished edges 0.5 per cent and 1.3 for scratches.
3.2 Step 2: process evaluation

Activity No. 3: as-is process mapping and analyzing. It was necessary to compare the
amount of area needed and what is actually available in plant B. The areas occupied by
machinery and complementary areas (workplace, maintenance, storage materials,
traffic, other areas) were defined.
The cutting line lay-out for Plant B is shown in Figure 4 while the entire lay-out for
Plant A is shown in Figure 5.
Activity No. 4: to-be process design. Defined the current situation, the next step is to
analyse the possible layout of the cutting line. The main layout alternatives analysed
are illustrated here below (Figures 6 and 7).
The choice of the optimum layout between the different solutions was made using two
methods: the classification of alternatives and analysis of factors. These methods provide:
(1) To list all the most important factors ( i ¼ 1, 2, […], m).
(2) To judge each lay-out alternative ( j ¼ 1, 2, […], m) with reference to the same
factor using a numeric value. In our case we used the following value: 5 “very
good solution”, 4 “satisfactory” 3 “indifferent”, 2 “not satisfactory” and finally
1 “inadequate”.
DRILLING GRINDING CUTTING LOADING
Figure 4.
Lay-out cutting
line – plant B
BPMJ
21,2
388
Figure 5.
Lay-out – plant A
(3) To assign weight to each factor p.

(4) To add up the points Pj (weight) calculating the score (we indicated with gij the
judgment) with Equation (1):
X
m
Pj ¼ pj Ug ij j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n number of alternatives (1)
i¼1
The optimal layout is the one with maximum Pj.

The parameters considered in the choice of the new plant are illustrated in Table I.
The best layout is solution B with a total score of 103 equal to 76 per cent.
At this point, defined the general layout, it is necessary to design the
detailed layout.
Activity No. 5: reengineered process implementation. The technical specifications of
the project are listed in Table II.
processes
production
Relocation of
Lay-out – solution β
Figure 7.
Lay-out – solution α
Figure 6.
389
BPMJ
Solution A Solution B
21,2 Criteria Weight (P) Rating Score Rating Score
New re-engineering 5 2 10 4 20
Flexibility 5 2 10 2 10
Efficiency 5 3 15 5 25
Good use of space 5 3 15 4 20
390 Area occupied (m2) 4 3 12 4 16

Space for visitors 3 4 12 4 12
Table I. Value benefit complete 74 103
Lay out – solutions Value benefit (Percentage) 55% 76%
The actual design constraints were taken into account in the definition of the lay out
and detailed were the robot workspace; the minimum size of the glass; space required
for maintenance etc. Figure 8 shows the lay-out in detail.
Activity No. 6: technology evaluation. A series of tests were performed for the proper
operation of the new layout such as the simulation of the diagonal cut with
the robot (see Figure 9) (Falcone et al., 2005).
To select the layout of the new plant we also considered the path that the glass
waste must follow from cutting machines, after being crushed into hoppers, to arrive on
the existing tape. We designed the new flows of materials in order to avoid possible
interference, ensure work areas needed to staff (Figure 10).
3.3 Step 3: process analysis

After carrying out the design phase, the planning phase of the project is
necessary to define the decomposition of the project according to a structured
process.
The main tools useful for process analysis are shown in Figure 11.
Activity No. 7: management. In our project a WBS – work breakdown
structure (see Figure 12) is used and GANTT (see Figure 13). WBS in project
management and systems engineering is a deliverable oriented decomposition of
a project into smaller components. The main advantages of using the WBS are: a
structured hierarchical approach, a view of the whole project, simplification of the
Line composition 2 compact cells KSBM/PSM 2,100

Dimensions of the glass Max 670 × 1,200 mm
min 300 × 360 mm
Thickness of glass 1.6 ÷ 4.0 mm
Height of horizontal transport 940 ± 25
Diameter grinding wheels 150 mm
Cycle time ≈30 sec. pz/machine
Hourly production W240 pz/h max-mean 220 pz/h
Supply voltage 3 × 400 V/50 Hz
Auxiliaries 24 V DC
Table II. Water Pressure 4 bar – carrying capacity vol. 100 l/min
Features of the Compressed air 6 bar Consumptions 4 × 25 Nm3/h
cutting line Conveyor speed ≈40 m/min. on inverters
processes
production
Relocation of
Figure 8.
391
Lay-out in detail
21,2
392
BPMJ
the robot
Figure 9.
Simulation of the
diagonal cut with
recovery and cutting depot
rotation
2500 3012
IRB 6650–3,2 IRB 6650–3,2 IRB 6650–3,2
95,76
1200
1200
25
25
25
2747
2530
73,89
29
36
6,78
2600
2375
2371,07
249
356
1433
processes
production
Material
Relocation of
flow – spaghetti chart

Figure 10.
393
BPMJ
21,2 WBS
What to do? Who makes?
OBS
Organization Breakdown
Work Breakdown Structure
Structure
394 Who does what??

RAM
Responsibility Assignment
Matrix
PERT
Resources available With what to do? How to do it? Project Evaluation and
Review Technique
How much does it

Budget When to do it? GANTT
cost?
KPIs
How to control it? key performance indicator
Figure 11.
Tools for Transition from Description of
Essential Tools
process analysis activities activities
project management, clarity and transparency from the start and better communication
between stakeholders.
The total cost of the cutting line installation includes several items summarized in
Table III.
Total costs were estimated using market analysis and with the help of engineering staff.
Activity No. 8: process control. The new cutting line is composed of 3 PLC that
communicate through the ethernet network. Communication between the PLC and the
PC is via TCP/IP protocols.
In Figure 14 the generic screen shot of the management software is shown.
3.4 Step 4: process redesign

Activity No. 9: continuous improvement. After the start-up of the cut line it is necessary
to verify the capability of the process to work in accordance with the design
specifications, or produce a product free from defects. The statistical process control
method is used. In order to calculate the capacity indexes of the process 25 samples
were considered. For each sample measurements were made in the 13 points shown in
Figure 15.
In order to verify the process capability it is necessary to calculate two indexes: Cp
(see Equation (2)) and Cpk (see Equation (3)):
T pre U SLLSL
Cp ¼ ¼ (2)
T nat 6s
Transfer line cutting Relocation of
production
Transfer machines Conveyors Disassembly Civil engineering works Installation Software Commissioning
processes
Migrazione
Preparazione area Modifica convogliatori Messa fuori servizio di programmazione foratrici
Allestimento cantiere Installazione meccanica Installazione elettrica Piping Supervisione Bystronic
stoccaggio pos. 47, 112, 107 tutta la linea di taglio e caricoda PLC5 a
PLC5000
Scollegamento e
trasporto
Modifica nastri metallici
A, B, E
smontaggio stazioni di
carico, taglio/sbordatura
e molature linea TV6
Chiusura soletta e scivolo
rottame
Tracciamento asse linea
Riposizionamento quadro
gestione pompe e
serbatoi di rilancio
Ripristino tubazioni
esistenti
Gestione carico,
convogliatori, foratrici e
by-pass con PLC5000
Preparazione macchine
395
Rimozione scala e scivolo Demolizione rialzo
installazione
Modifica convogliatore sfrido vetro + pavimentazione incls Ripristino dorsale Messa in funzione con
Verifiche di integrità convogliatori da pos. 65a Aria compressa Startup Compact Cell 81
uscita molatrici posX inserimento nastro spessore 10 cm + canalina aerea prove input-output
pos. 107
metallico E Operazioni di scavo
Realizzazione dei due Posa dei quadri elettrici:

giodei quadri Montaggio nastri sfrido Acqua industriale
cunicoli per il passaggio quadro convogliatori, Startup Compact Cell 91
ettrici vetro E-A-B molatrici
degli sfridi vetro quadro rottame, quadro
foratrici
Mechanical Installation
gamento e Installazione molatricii,
ontaggio Ripristino dello scavo e tramogge, macchine di Spostamento pulpito
taglioe stazioni di linea TV5 Scarico acqua molatrici Modifiche software e PLC
liatore uscita della pavimentazione
atrice TV5 trasferimento aereo
installazione
Posa dei quadri elettrici
convogliatori da pos, 108 Vuoto Start-up linea
Bystronic
a 71
Tracking axis line
Posa delle canaline a

installazione robot +
bordo macchina e dei
tornella
cavi
Installation conveyors A Montaggio delle

recinzioni di sicurezza
Posa del quadro robot
Assembly tapes scrap

glass
Installation grinders,
hoppers cutting
machines and transfer
stations air
Installation conveyors B
Installing the robot
Installation of security
systems
Figure 12.
WBS – partial view
where USL is the upper limit specified, LSL is lower limit of specification, standard
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn 2
deviation is s ¼ i¼1 ðxi xÞ =n1:

U SLx xLSL
C pk ¼ min ; (3)
3s 3s
where: P
Average of the values: x ¼ ni¼1 xni .
An example to define capability index is shown in Table IV.
ID WBS Durata Inizio Fine 11 lug 11 25 lug 11 08 ago 11 22 ago 11
BPMJ 1
2
1
1.1
59.63 g.
10 g.
lun 04/07/11
lun 04/07/11
ven 02/09/11
mer 13/07/11
D G L V M S M D G L V M S M D G
21,2 3
4
5
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1 g.
7 g.
2 g.
lun 04/07/11
lun 04/07/11
mar 12/07/11
lun 04/07/11
mar 12/07/11
mer 13/07/11
6 1.2 14.38 g. mer 13/07/11 gio 28/07/11
7 1.2.1 6 g. mer 13/07/11 mer 20/07/11
8 1.2.2 7 g. mer 13/07/11 gio 21/07/11
9 1.2.3 2 g. mar 26/07/11 gio 28/07/11
10 1.3 6.63 g. mer 20/07/11 mar 26/07/11
11 1.3.1 1 g. mer 20/07/11 mer 20/07/11
12 1.3.2 4 g. mer 20/07/11 sab 23/07/11
13 1.3.3 4 g. mer 20/07/11 sab 23/07/11
396 14
15
1.3.4
1.3.5
1 g. sab 23/07/11 lun 25/07/11
1 g. lun 25/07/11 mar 26/07/11

16 1.3.6 1 g. mar 26/07/11 mar 26/07/11
17 1.4 10 g. mar 26/07/11 gio 04/08/11
18 1.4.1 1 g. mar 26/07/11 mer 27/07/11
19 1.4.2 3 g. mar 26/07/11 gio 28/07/11
20 1.4.3 2 g. mar 26/07/11 mer 27/07/11
21 1.4.4 7 g. mer 27/07/11 mer 03/08/11
22 1.4.5 1 g. gio 04/08/11 gio 04/08/11

23 1.5 25 g. mar 26/07/11 lun 22/08/11
24 1.5.1 25 g. mar 26/07/11 lun 22/08/11
25 1.5.1.1 1 g. mar 26/07/11 mer 27/07/11
26 1.5.1.2 1 g. gio 04/08/11 ven 05/08/11
27 1.5.1.3 2 g. ven 05/08/11 lun 08/08/11
28 1.5.1.4 2 g. lun 08/08/11 mer 10/08/11
29 1.5.1.5 4 g. mer 10/08/11 sab 13/08/11
30 1.5.1.6 2 g. sab 13/08/11 mar 16/08/11

31 1.5.1.7 2 g. sab 13/08/11 mar 16/08/11
32 1.5.1.8 5 g. mar 16/08/11 lun 22/08/11
33 1.5.2 21.88 g. mer 27/07/11 gio 18/08/11
34 1.5.2.1 1 g. mer 10/08/11 gio 11/08/11
35 1.5.2.2 4 g. mer 27/07/11 lun 01/08/11
36 1.5.2.3 3 g. mer 27/07/11 ven 29/07/11
37 1.5.2.4 1 g. mer 27/07/11 gio 28/07/11

38 1.5.2.5 2 g. mar 16/08/11 gio 18/08/11
39 1.5.2.6 8 g. lun 08/08/11 mar 16/08/11
40 1.5.2.7 8 g. lun 08/08/11 mar 16/08/11
41 1.5.2.8 1 g. mar 16/08/11 mer 17/08/11
42 1.5.4 21 g. mar 26/07/11 mer 17/08/11
43 1.5.4.1 4 g. mar 26/07/11 sab 30/07/11
44 1.5.4.2 5 g. gio 04/08/11 mer 10/08/11
45 1.5.4.3 3 g. mer 10/08/11 ven 12/08/11
46 1.5.4.4 3 g. sab 13/08/11 mer 17/08/11
47 1.5.4.5 2 g. gio 04/08/11 sab 06/08/11
48 1.6 29.63 g. mer 20/07/11 ven 19/08/11
49 1.6.1 3 g. mer 20/07/11 ven 22/07/11
50 1.6.2 10 g. ven 22/07/11 mar 02/08/11
51 1.6.3 3 g. mar 16/08/11 ven 19/08/11
52 1.7 18 g. mar 16/08/11 ven 02/09/11
53 1.7.1 15 g. mar 16/08/11 mer 31/08/11
54 1.7.2 3 g. mar 16/08/11 gio 18/08/11
Figure 13. 55
56
1.7.3
1.7.4
3 g.
3 g.
gio 18/08/11
lun 22/08/11
lun 22/08/11
mer 24/08/11
GANTT 57
58
1.7.5
1.7.6
3 g.
6 g.
gio 25/08/11
sab 27/08/11
sab 27/08/11
ven 02/09/11
Description Unit cost (k€) Total cost (k€)

Transport 8 8
New Conveyors 15 15
Disposal of old plant 20 20
Masonry 20 20
Mechanical installation 40 40
Electrical installation 37 37
Piping 25 25
Table III. Software 10 10
New plant Robot 15 15
installation costs Total 190 k€
In conclusion we can say that the capacity of the process is adequate.

Activity No. 10: monitoring and feedback. In order to achieve organizational goals
through progress definition and measurement it is useful to define the performance
measurement dimensions. From this point of view the key indicators (KPIs) are agreed upon
by an organization and are indicators which can be measured reflecting success factors. It is
possible to define different KPIs for different dimensions. The KPIs selected must reflect the
organization’s goals, they must be key to its success and must be measurable.
A possible set of KPIs is defined in Table V.
processes
production
Viewing
Relocation of
generic routine
Figure 14.
397
BPMJ C7
21,2 –0.20
C6
–0.15
C8 C5
–0.07 –0.14
398 C4
–0.14
C3
C9
–0.04
–0.21
C2
0.03
C10
–0.27
C1
0.07
Figure 15. C11 C12
Shape glass – points –0.11 0.03 C13
of control – model X
–0.08
Table VI shows the saving obtained by the reduction of waste, for quality, for tooling
and maintenance with a total saving of € 281,000/year.
3.5 Step 5: process validation

The PMPR model validity was established and supported by the results obtained in the
two previous sections. The benefits of transferring and installing the new cut line can
be summarized as follow: increased production capacity from 155 pieces/h to 240 parts/h;
improvement of production process; waste reduction from 2.9 to 1.4 per cent; reduction of
production costs.
4. Conclusion
The production line transfer and optimization represents a complex task. The ability
to evaluate performance is a key to reengineering success. As such, the success of the
project greatly depends on proper management via a clear definition of steps and
activities. This paper proposes a PMPR model with a methodological approach which
integrates efficiency and effectiveness estimators applicable to company needs.
Thus, the aim of the paper is to develop a methodology and technical approach for
the redesign and realization of a production line in consequence of its relocation.
It is essential that both efficiency and effectiveness should be considered in any
evaluation of process execution performance or To-Be process optimization in order
that business managers can clearly view differences between As-Is and To-Be
processes. Therefore, the model proposed in this paper should serve as a valuable
tool to facilitate a successful BPR design in the project management and intends
to assist companies as they operate projects of transferring and optimizing
production lines.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13

Max 0.31 0.34 0.3 0.28 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.03 0.07 −0.06 0.05 0.09 −0.04
Min −0.05 −0.02 0.04 0.05 0.16 0.18 0.11 −0.09 −0.07 −0.22 −0.09 −0.09 −0.09
ẋ 0.22 0.23 0.21 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.24 −0.03 0.00 −0.15 −0.03 −0.01 −0.08
σ 0.087 0.079 0.066 0.047 0.037 0.026 0.067 0.037 0.042 0.047 0.040 0.047 0.011
Tpre ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.3 ±0.3 ±0.3 ±0.3 ±0.3 ±0.3
Tnat 0.52 0.48 0.40 0.28 0.22 0.15 0.40 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.24 0.28 0.07
Cp 1.91 2.10 2.53 3.57 4.52 6.48 2.49 2.73 2.40 2.12 2.48 2.14 8.94
USL-ẋ 0.28 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.30 0.45 0.33 0.31 0.38
ẋ-LSL 0.72 0.73 0.71 0.68 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.27 0.30 0.15 0.27 0.29 0.22
Cpk 1.09 1.14 1.44 2.29 2.37 3.40 1.29 2.42 2.38 1.02 2.20 2.06 6.44
processes
production
capability index
Relocation of
399
Example −
Table IV.
BPMJ Dimension KPIs
21,2 Products or services entities Number of products or services produced – by unit, equipment, location
Number of new products or services
Marketing/sales/customers Number of new customers and retention rates
Marketing/sales total costs
Timeliness No productive time
400 Number of late orders

Number of late deliveries
Number of back orders
Productivity/quality Amount of material in to produce a given quantity
Cost per good unit produced
Total productivity vs total cost
Number of good pieces
Table V. Waste reduction
Set KPIs Number and location of bottlenecks
Description Before After Saving (%) Cost Total saving

Waste reduction 2.9% 1.4% −1.5 4.414 k€ 66 k€
Amount of material in to produce a given
quantity 493 k€ 332 k€ 33 161 k€
No productive time 47 k€ 21 k€ 55 26 k€
Table VI. Number and location of bottlenecks 38 k€ 10 k€ 74 28 k€
Saving costs Total 281 k€/year
Definitively, in the present work, our objectives were to streamline management

processes and eliminate unproductive activities. The reengineering project resulted in
the following quantitative benefits: faster and more effective learning of skill set; better
utilization of resources; developing knowledge base for all functional areas to address
common problems; developing infrastructure to support increased decentralization and
networking of individual work systems for working autonomously.
References
Atkinson, A. (1999), “Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a
phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 337-342.
Ballantine, J., Bonner, M., Levy, M., Martin, A., Munro, I. and Powell, P.L. (1996), “The 3-D model
of information systems successes: the search for the dependent variable continues”,
Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 5-14.
Bates, J. (2013), Business Process Re-engineering and Business Process Outsourcing, CIPS 2013,
London, available at: www.cips.org/Documents/Knowledge/Procurement-Topics-and-
Skills/7-Understand-Need-Market-and-Options-Assessment/Outsourcing-Offshoring-and-
Insourcing/CIPS_and_PACG_Re-engineering_and_Outsourcing.pdf
Bertoni, M., Bordegoni, M., Cugini, U., Regazzoni, D. and Rizzi, C. (2009), “PLM paradigm:
how to lead BPR within the product development field”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 60
No. 7, pp. 476-484.
Cheng, M.Y., Tsai, H.C. and Lai, Y.Y. (2009), “Construction management process reengineering
performance measurements”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 183-193.
De Felice, F. and Petrillo, A. (2012), “Productivity analysis through simulation technique to Relocation of
optimize an automated assembly line”, Proceedings of the IASTED International
Conference, Applied Simulation and Modelling (ASM 2012), Napoli, June 25-27,
production
doi:10.2316/P.2012.776-048, pp. 35-42. processes
Di Bona, G., Duraccio, V., Silvestri, A. and Forcina, A. (2014), “Productive line reengineering
through simulation techniques”, The 33rd IASTED International Conference on Modelling,
Identification and Control, Innsbruck, February 17-19 (in press). 401

Falcone, D., Duraccio, V. and Silvestri, A. (2007), “Optimization of the control process of
a production line for car windscreens”, WMSCI 2007 – The 11th World Multi-Conference
on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Jointly with the 13th International
Conference on Information Systems Analysis and Synthesis, ISAS 2007 – Proc, Vol. 1,
pp. 309-312.
Falcone, D., Duraccio, V., Silvestri, A. and Di Bona, G. (2005), “Technical and economical analysis
of the layout of a palletization plant through simulation techniques”, Summer Computer
Simulation Conference 2005, SCSC, pp. 387-391, ISBN:978-162276351- 1.
Falcone, D., Forcina, A., Di Bona, G., Duraccio, V., Silvestri, A. and Cerbaso, C. (2013), “Technical
and economic verification of the convenience in reengineering a production line using
simulation techniques”, The 25th European Modeling and Simulation Symposium, EMSS,
pp. 327-332, ISBN: 978-889799922-5.
Gallagher, K.C. (1995), Information Technology and Project Management Conference
Proceedings, London, September 19-20, pp. 19-36.
Hammer, M. (1996), Beyond Reengineering, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Hipkin, I.B. and De Cock, C. (2000), “TQM and BPR: lessons for maintenance management”,
Omega, Vol. 28, pp. 277-292.
Hunt, D.V. (1996), Process Mapping: How to Reengineer Your Business Process, John Wiley and
Sons Inc., New York, NY.
Kobayashi-Hillary, M. (2007), “Building a future with brics: the next decade for offshoring”, ISBN
978-3-540-46453-2.
Launonen, M. and Kess, P. (2002), “Team roles in business process re-engineering”,
Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 205-218.
Loch, C. (1998), “Operations management and reengineering”, European Management Journal,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 306-317.
Manning, S., Massini S. and Lewin, A.Y. (2008), “A dynamic perspective on next-generation
offshoring: the global sourcing of science and engineering talent”, In: Academy of
Management Perspectives, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 35-54.
McElory, M.W. (2003), The New Knowledge Management Complexity, Learning, and Sustainable
Innovation, KMCI Press/Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington.
Messner, W. (2010), Intelligent IT Offshoring to India. Roadmaps for Emerging Business
Landscapes, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Mohanty, R.P. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2001), “Reengineering of materials management system:
a case study”, Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 267-278.
Morris, P.W.G. and Hough, G.H. (1993), The Anatomy of Major Projects, John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester.
Oisen, R.P. (1971), “Can project management be defined?”, Project Management Quarterly, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 12-14.
Ozcelik, Y. (2010), “Do business process reengineering projects payoff? Evidence from the United
States”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 7-13.
BPMJ Papavassiliou, G. and Mentzas, G. (2003), “Knowledge modelling in weakly-structured
businessnb processes”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 18-33.
21,2
Schmidt, F.R. (2005), “Optimization and scale up of industrial fermentation processes”, Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 425-435.
Silvestri, A., De Felice, F. and Petrillo, A. (2012), “Multi-criteria risk analysis to improve safety in
manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 17,
402 pp. 4806-4822.

Turner, J.R. (1993), The Handbook of Project-Based Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Wateridge, J. (1998), “How can IS/IT projects be measured for success?”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 59-63.
Wright, J.N. (1997), “Time and budget: the twin imperatives of a project sponsor”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 181-186.
Corresponding author
Dr Antonella Petrillo can be contacted at: antonella.petrillo@uniparthenope.it
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Business Process Management Journal: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Process Management Journal: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Process Management Journal

Offshoring: Relocation of production processes towards low-cost countries through

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

380 criteria, but not exclusively.

equipment, variations in the quantities produced. 381

2. Theoretical background and research framework

and BPR application

(1994-2013) Source: Scopus

Project Management 383

• Activity #3: As-Is Process Mapping and Analyzing

• Activity #4: To-Be Process Design

Performance model (PMPR)

• Activity #9: Continuous Improvement

Project Management Process Reengineering

3. Model validation: a case study applied to an automotive glass

3.1 Step 1:. process representation

reducing the document control time. 387

3.2 Step 2: process evaluation

DRILLING GRINDING CUTTING LOADING

(3) To assign weight to each factor p.

The optimal layout is the one with maximum Pj.

390 Area occupied (m2) 4 3 12 4 16

3.3 Step 3: process analysis

Line composition 2 compact cells KSBM/PSM 2,100

IRB 6650–3,2 IRB 6650–3,2 IRB 6650–3,2

flow – spaghetti chart

394 Who does what??

How much does it

3.4 Step 4: process redesign

Realizzazione dei due Posa dei quadri elettrici:

Posa delle canaline a

Installation conveyors A Montaggio delle

Assembly tapes scrap

Installing the robot

13 1.3.3 4 g. mer 20/07/11 sab 23/07/11

1 g. lun 25/07/11 mar 26/07/11

22 1.4.5 1 g. gio 04/08/11 gio 04/08/11

30 1.5.1.6 2 g. sab 13/08/11 mar 16/08/11

37 1.5.2.4 1 g. mer 27/07/11 gio 28/07/11

Description Unit cost (k€) Total cost (k€)

In conclusion we can say that the capacity of the process is adequate.

3.5 Step 5: process validation

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13

400 Number of late orders

Description Before After Saving (%) Cost Total saving

Definitively, in the present work, our objectives were to streamline management

Identification and Control, Innsbruck, February 17-19 (in press). 401

402 pp. 4806-4822.

You might also like