Purpose Despite its popularity, business process management (BPM) is not unequivocally defined, but obtains different forms with varying specifications. This paper presents a critical overview of BPM, as it appears within four dominant management paradigms: total quality management, standardized management systems, business process reengineering and Six Sigma. The purpose of this paper is to explore BPM specifications and compare the BPM implementation potential under each paradigm. Design/methodology/approach This is based on the analysis of a large number of highly cited scholarly publications. In order to identify the nature of BPM within each paradigm, a common framework for comparison is first established and then, for each paradigm, BPM is analyzed according to the main parameters of this framework. Findings Many differences among various BPM forms are paradigm driven. So, the approach adopted by each paradigm (i.e. individual-process or systemic approach) affects the scope and role of BPM. The principles of each paradigm directly affect the attributes assigned to BPM. Despite of important differences, the structure of BPM within all paradigms conforms to the stages of the classical BPM lifecycle. However, each paradigm assigns different weights to each stage and also displays different levels of BPM implementability. Originality/value The paper presents a first systematic comparison of BPM specifications for the dominant management paradigms primarily deployed. It thus explains why many attributes originating from the paradigms have crept into the general BPM specifications. This work can be considered as a step toward defining the core attributes of a paradigm-independent BPM model, thus enhancing its application scope as an invaluable management tool.

No abstract

This paper reviews the most important results on divergent multi-echelon systems. In particular, we concentrate on the interactions between the elements that constitute such a multi-echelon system, in order to determine several service measures (e.g. external customer service level and inventory holding costs). We distinguish between two types of policies: installation stock and echelon stock policies. A comparison between these two types of policies revealed that the complexity of the analysis is concentrated at different aspects, which are discussed by reviewing the most important papers on both types. Special attention is given to the applicability of the models. Extensions to divergent multi-echelon systems with more than two stages are also treated.

No abstract

PurposeThe recently introduced ISO 22000:2005 modified the classical HACCP approach by embedding food safety into the wider context of a standardized management system and refining the required safety control measures. There is little guidance regarding ISO 22000 implementation as well as inconsistencies regarding definitions and control measures specifications. This paper aims to provide a structured approach for the implementation of ISO 22000, applied to the case of industrial yoghurt.Design/methodology/approachThe approach consisted of two stages. The first primarily comprises the interpretation of the ISO 22000 specifications. The second includes the application of these requirements (as interpreted) to industrial yoghurt manufacture, considering all major varieties (set, stirred and strained) and types (with or without flavourings).FindingsThe paper reveals a managerial perspective of ISO 22000, overcoming existing inconsistencies for determining the necessary control measures, as applied to industrial yoghurt.Research limitations/implicationsThis research is limited to the case of industrial yoghurt considered. However, the methodology used is general and can apply to any other product.Originality/valueThis paper provides an interpretation of ISO 22000, based on other standardized management system practices and widely accepted managerial principles. The findings can help in the development of the necessary state‐of‐the‐practice tools to facilitate future ISO 22000 implementations, in conjunction with the ISO 9001 quality standard.