Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 761 views

    Case Study

    Uploaded by

    Sawaira Khan
    Eurocamp Travel implemented two quality initiatives - a top-down approach led by senior managers was unsuccessful, while a bottom-up participative approach involving employees from all levels generated enthusiasm and early success. The participative approach differed in that it was led by internal departments rather than consultants, included voluntary participation from all employee grades who understood the processes well, and focused on improving internal processes and customer satisfaction rather than pre-determined projects.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Study

    Uploaded by

    Sawaira Khan
    761 views3 pages
    Eurocamp Travel implemented two quality initiatives - a top-down approach led by senior managers was unsuccessful, while a bottom-up participative approach involving employees from all levels generated enthusiasm and early success. The participative approach differed in that it was led by internal departments rather than consultants, included voluntary participation from all employee grades who understood the processes well, and focused on improving internal processes and customer satisfaction rather than pre-determined projects.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Eurocamp Travel implemented two quality initiatives - a top-down approach led by senior managers was unsuccessful, while a bottom-up participative approach involving employees from all levels generated enthusiasm and early success. The participative approach differed in that it was led by internal departments rather than consultants, included voluntary participation from all employee grades who understood the processes well, and focused on improving internal processes and customer satisfaction rather than pre-determined projects.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    761 views3 pages

    Case Study

    Uploaded by

    Sawaira Khan
    Eurocamp Travel implemented two quality initiatives - a top-down approach led by senior managers was unsuccessful, while a bottom-up participative approach involving employees from all levels generated enthusiasm and early success. The participative approach differed in that it was led by internal departments rather than consultants, included voluntary participation from all employee grades who understood the processes well, and focused on improving internal processes and customer satisfaction rather than pre-determined projects.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    CASE STUDY

    EUROCAMP TRAVEL

    Eurocamp Travel, which provides family camping holidays, has a reputation for the
    high-quality of its equipment and services, and has become market leader in this
    rapidly growing holiday sector. In recent years, sales offices have been opened in the
    Netherlands and Germany, and Eurocamp’s geographic coverage has been extended
    from its original French sites to include sites throughout Europe. As the business has
    become larger and more complex, the demands placed on the office systems have also
    become greater, reinforcing the need for functional specialization of staff, yet
    requiring more interdepartmental understanding and cooperation. When it became
    clear that Eurocamp’s service package could be copied by competitors eager to attract
    premium customers, the company decided to reinforce quality at every stage in their
    process. This was, they believed, the main criterion that already differentiated
    Eurocamp, and this was also potentially the most difficult for lower priced
    competitors to follow. A consultant was brought in to facilitate a major quality
    improvement programme. This was conceived as a ‘top-down’ approach, whereby
    important projects were identified and tackled by trained teams, But soon it became
    apparent that these early projects were not achieving the anticipated sustainable
    improvements. It also became clear that the failure was largely the result of only
    involving senior managers, who could not devote the time required to projects, and
    did not fully understand the process concerned. Those employees who did have a very
    detailed understanding of the process had been excluded from problem definition,
    evaluation and implementation of changes. So, the company launched their quality
    management system (QMS) initiative. Each department established a quality steering
    committee which comprised at least one director, a trained facilitator and volunteers
    from every grade of employee. The emphasis at this stage was on the identification
    and improvement of internal processes with further emphasis on satisfying the
    internal customer. Early success demonstrated the validity of this approach and
    generated a high level of enthusiasm throughout the company.

    Questions
    1 Why are the differences between the first ‘top-down‘ attempt, and the second
    attempt at establishing a quality initiative?
    2 What do you think are the main advantages and problems with the more
    participative approach?
    Answer
    Eurocamp Travel

    1. What are the differences between the first ‘top-down’ attempt, and the
    second attempt at establishing a quality initiative?

    There are two important points about this case. Firstly that Eurocamp recognized one
    of the important aspects of a TQM approach that all parts of an organisation have a
    role to play in ensuring high quality. Second, like many organisations they try
    differing initiatives to improve quality, some work and some don’t. This in itself can
    undermine TQM initiatives. TQM has itself to be done right first time too!

    The key differences between the first attempt and second attempt are as follows:

    First attempt Second attempt

    Leadership Used a consultant Company-led


    Overseen by Senior managers Departments
    Team composition Senior managers All grades of employees
    Team selection Selected Voluntary
    Training Used trained teams Used trained facilitators
    Understanding of processes Little Great
    Focus ‘Important’ projects Internal processes
    Approach ‘top-down’ ‘bottom-up’
    Sustainability Momentum not sustained High level enthusiasm
    Success unsuccessful successful

    2. What do you think are the main advantages and problems with the more
    participative approach?

    Advantages:

    • involved all employees


    • included the people who knew most about the processes
    • it is in the interest of those employees to have the internal process problems
    resolved
    • non-threatening and inclusive
    • sustainable and successful

    Problems:

    • the problems may not be solvable by ‘low level’ teams


    • employees will be demoralized if changes do not take place
    • spending time on the projects will reduce the time spent on actual jobs
    • employees may choose to work on inappropriate or unimportant issues.

    You might also like