Developing Strategic Continuous Improvement Capability

International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Developing strategic continuous improvement capability

John Bessant, David Francis,
Article information:
To cite this document:
John Bessant, David Francis, (1999) "Developing strategic continuous improvement capability",
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 Issue: 11, pp.1106-1119, doi:
10.1108/01443579910291032
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH At 04:40 30 April 2017 (PT)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579910291032
Downloaded on: 30 April 2017, At: 04:40 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 37 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8223 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1999),"Continuous improvement: the ten essential criteria", International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 16 Iss 5 pp. 485-509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719910249801
(1997),"Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizational designs", Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 110-117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09576069710165792
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:205243 []
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 at
http://www.emerald-library.com
IJOPM
19,11 Developing strategic
continuous improvement
capability
1106 John Bessant and David Francis
Centre for Research in Innovation Management,
University of Brighton, UK
Keywords Kaizen, Innovation, Policy, Employee involvement, Continuous improvement
Abstract In developing CI capability, organisations need to move to a level of development in

which strategic goals are communicated and deployed and where improvement activity is guided
by a process of monitoring and measurement against these strategic objectives. Policy deployment
of this kind is more prevalent in Japanese examples and in a handful of cases in Western firms.
Implementing it poses significant challenges and requires a different and additional toolkit of
enabling resources. This paper reports on the experience of policy deployment in Japan and in
Western enterprises and explores some of the implementation issues raised.
CI as a dynamic capability
Continuous improvement (CI) can be considered an example of what many
strategy theorists call ``dynamic capability'' (Teece and Pisano, 1994). In this
model strategic advantage is seen to come not from simple possession of assets
or of particular product/market position but from a collection of attributes
which are built up over time in highly firm-specific fashion and which provide
the basis for achieving and maintaining competitive edge in an uncertain and
rapidly changing environment. Normally three elements constitute dynamic
capability: paths, position and processes (Tidd et al., 1997). The first two
concern the bundle of competencies that the organisation has accumulated and
the particular position that it is able to adopt in its product/market
environment. However the third is of particular interest to us since it concerns
the bundle of firm-specific behavioural routines which characterise ``the way
we do things in this organisation'' and which describe how the organisation
approaches issues of innovation, learning and renewal.
We suggest that CI defined as an organisation-wide process of focused and
sustained incremental innovation represents an important element in such
dynamic capability since it offers mechanisms whereby a high proportion of
the organisation can become involved in its innovation and learning processes
(Bessant and Caffyn, 1997; Bessant, 1998; Robinson, 1991; Schroeder and
Robinson, 1993). It corresponds to what is widely known as ``kaizen'' and forms
an important component of the ``lean thinking'' approach (Imai, 1987; Womack
and Jones, 1997). Its strategic advantage is essentially as a cluster of
International Journal of Operations &
behavioural routines but this also explains why it offers considerable
Production Management,
Vol. 19 No. 11, 1999, pp. 1106-1119.
competitive potential, since these behaviour patterns take time to learn and
# MCB University Press, 0144-3577 institutionalise, and are hard to copy or transfer. The potential for CI to become
an enabling mechanism in organisational learning is only now beginning to be Developing
recognised (Nonaka, 1991; Garvin, 1993; Leonard-Barton, 1995). strategic CI
The CIRCA (Continuous Improvement Research for Competitive Advantage) capability
project based at the University of Brighton has been looking at the issue of CI
and its implementation for the past seven years. One of the major outputs from
this continuing `àction research'' programme has been the development of a
behavioural model describing the evolution of CI capability (Bessant and 1107
Caffyn, 1996a; Bessant and Caffyn, 1996b). In essence this provides a
specification for the particular behaviours which need to be acquired and
embedded in the organisation in order to enable CI capability of the kind
described above. This is an evolutionary learning process, with a gradual
accumulation and integration of key behaviours over time. With this evolution
of ``practice'' (acquiring and embedding relevant CI behaviours) comes a
corresponding evolution in performance improvements across the
organisation, from local to organisation wide and from operational to strategic.
Table I illustrates the key features of this model.
The model itself is described in detail elsewhere (Bessant and Caffyn, 1997).
One of its main uses is in describing the different stages (levels) in the evolution
of CI capability and the positioning of particular organisations (via an
assessment tool) on this journey. With such information organisations can
begin to define a CI development strategy, taking into account the particular
behaviours which they need to reinforce and the new ones which must be
introduced and integrated. This process is supported by the identification of
typical blocks and barriers to progress and by the description of particular
enablers resources and aids of various kinds which can facilitate the
development of more advanced CI behaviours.
Learning and developing CI capability

The process of moving towards full CI capability involves acquiring and
embedding key behaviours and is essentially a learning process (Savolainen,
1998). For example, the transition from level 1 essentially an ad hoc approach
to level 2 involves setting up a systematic approach which provides
structures which enable basic problem finding and solving behaviour to take
root (Imai, 1987). This process does not take place overnight but involves
considerable learning and fine tuning of the mechanisms used to enable CI
behaviour. These mechanisms are likely to include:
. training in basic problem finding and solving process (Rickards, 1998);
. training in basic CI tools and techniques (Kobayashi, 1990);
. setting up relevant vehicles (e.g. quality circles) to enact CI (Lillrank and
Kano, 1990; Dale, 1995; Berger, 1997);
. development of an idea management system to receive and respond to
ideas (Schuring and Luijten, 1998);
. development of an appropriate reward and recognition system.
IJOPM Level Performance Practice
19,11
0 = No CI activity No impact from CI Problem-solving random.
No formal efforts or structure
Occasional bursts punctuated by
inactivity and non-participation.
Dominant mode of problem-solving
1108 is by specialists
Short-term benefits
No strategic impact
1 = Trying out the Minimal and local effects only CI happens as a result of learning
ideas Some improvements in morale curve effects associated with a
and motivation particular new product or process

and then fades out again
Or it results from a short-term
input a training intervention, for
example, and leads to a small
impact around those immediately
concerned with it. These effects are
oftern short-lived and very localised
2 = Structured and Local level effects Formal attempts to create and
systematic CI Measurable CI activity e.g. sustan CI
number of participants, ideas Use of a formal problem-solving
produced, etc. process
Measurable performance effects Use of participation
confined to projects Training in basic CI tools
Little or no ``bottom line'' impact Structured idea management
system
Recognition system
Often parallel system to operations.
Can extend to cross-functional work
but on an ad hoc basis
3 = Strategic CI Policy deployment links local and All of the above, plus formal
project level activity to broader deployment of strategic goals
strategic goals Monitoring and measurement of CI
Monitoring and measurement against these goals
drives improvement on these In-line system
issues which can be measured in
terms of impact on ``bottom line''
for example, cost reductions,
quality improvements, time
saving, etc.
4 = Autonomous Strategic benefits, including those All of the above, plus responsibility
innovation from discontinuous, major for mechanisms, timing, etc.,
innovations as well as devolved to problem-solving unit
incremental problem-solving High levels of experimentation
5 = The learning Strategic innovation CI as the dominant way of life
organisation Ability to deploy competence Automatic capture and sharing of
Table I. base to competitive advantage learning
Evolution of CI Everyone actively involved in
performance and innovation process
practice Incremental and radical innovation
Our research suggests that the development of CI behaviour at this level to Developing
the point where a significant proportion of the workforce are involved in strategic CI
systematic problem-finding and solving can take an extended period of time. capability
The process of development is essentially what many writers call ``single loop''
or `àdaptive'' learning essentially learning to execute the specified behaviours
better (Argyris and Schon, 1970; Senge, 1990).
However it is clear that at certain points in CI development there is also a 1109
need to reframe the problem and to introduce new targets which extend the
range of behaviours involved. This corresponds to what can be termed ``double
loop'' or ``generative'' learning. Managing both kinds of learning is an important
issue in the long term-development of CI capability, since at various stages
there will be a need for reinforcing (single loop) and step change (double loop)
learning. One of the key transitions which many firms face is that between level
2 and level 3 moving from establishing a systematic approach to CI to one
which brings a strategic focus to bear and we suggest that this change
involves not just ``more of the same'' development but a ``double loop'' shift in
perspective.
Characterising level 3 strategic CI

In essence level 2 behaviour corresponds to the situation where an organisation
has already implemented a systematic approach to CI, has trained some of its
staff in basic CI tools and techniques and in a problem-solving process, has put
in place systems for managing the flow of ideas and for rewarding/recognising
people for their contributions, and has laid the foundations for long-term CI
evolution. It is able to extract some benefit from this in terms of improved
morale, and in local performance improvements associated with particular
areas or projects (Shiba, Graham et al., 1993). What it is missing is a sense of
strategic focus for these activities; firms in this position often find their CI
programmes losing momentum and under criticism from outside for their
apparent lack of impact on the business as a whole.
Level 3 behaviour moves the CI capability forward to include a clear
strategic focus for CI activities through a process of policy deployment, and it
involves extensive use of monitoring and measurement activity to enable
continuous improvement within this framework. It represents both top-down
activity in the form of strategy formulation and deployment and bottom-up
activity in the form of systematic CI driven by a monitoring and measurement
process. When successful such behaviour can have a significant strategic
impact through focussing CI efforts on key strategic targets such as quality
improvement, lead time reduction and improved maintenance (Imai, 1987;
Shiba et al., 1993).
The following extended case example of a Japanese firm illustrates some of
the core features of level 3 CI; other examples can be found in the literature
(Lewis, 1994; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Johnson, 1998; Gallagher and Austin, 1997;
Sirkin and Stalk, 1990). It should be noted that this company has been actively
working at CI for some 20 years.
IJOPM Case example: AB Industries
19,11 AB Industries is a major conglomerate with key interests in aerospace and
motor vehicles. The plant which we studied produces around 900 vehicles per
day with a current staff of 2200, 1700 of whom are directs, and 100 others are
temporary. Production is currently on two shifts with two models running
down the lines. Eighty per cent of sales now come from the automotive
1110 business and this is the prime source of growth for the company. However the
high value of the yen during the past decade has hit exports hard, to the point
that the company made a loss in 1990. They have responded to this crisis by
systematic deployment of continuous targeted improvement, with three core
strategic themes:
(1) development of new, attractive products;

(2) maintaining productivity levels;
(3) reconstruction of the company from within.
Their development since 1990 has been along these lines using what they term
``mid-term plans'' as the key vehicle for policy deployment; each of these runs
for a period of three years and provides a focus for CI activities across the site.
Workforce involvement has been critical to this development, especially as
there has been a continuing reduction in labour with a consequent loss of
production knowledge. The long-term programme includes simultaneous
attack on quality improvement, cost reduction, employee motivation and
increased education and training. An important feature of such strategy-driven
CI is setting of ``stretch targets'' and in this case they included the achievement
within a three-year time-frame of ``zero defects'', ``zero accidents'', ``zero
breakdowns'' and a 20 per cent increase in labour productivity.
They began by setting up separate task forces to deal with each area, and
developed a formal structure aimed at promoting total productive maintenance
(TPM). The results undoubtedly helped in their recovery from losses by the end
of 1995; examples of gains include a reduction in breakdowns per month across
the site from 5,252 in May 1992 to 194 in November 1996 a reduction of 96 per
cent! Warranty claims between 1992 and 1994 fell by 50 per cent, and total
plant efficiencies in the transfer lines, stamping lines and stamping presses
increased by an average of 60 per cent. Machine losses due to breakdowns etc.
were cut by 50 per cent between 1992 and 1995 and labour productivity,
measured in man-hours/vehicle reduced from 14 to 11 for the same model. In
financial terms they estimate a saving of 17.9bn (based on an exercise similar
to cost of quality accounting) over the period 1992-94.
Policy deployment is the link between these broad objectives and the specific
improvement activities at shop floor level. TPM involves eight core themes of
activity, visually represented as the ``pillars'' supporting its development. For
each of these there are specific targets which can be decomposed into
improvement projects e.g. ``maintain your own machine'', `ìncrease efficiency
to the limit'' or ``reduce start-up times''. These vague signposts are quantified
and analysed in terms of how they can be achieved and the problems which Developing
would have to be solved to make that happen using simple tools such as ``5 strategic CI
why's'' and fishbone charts. Diagnosis is top down in terms of setting the actual capability
numerical targets and is facilitated by a team of specialist engineers.
TPM deployed in this fashion includes a number of components:
. daily review and improvement cycle i.e. high frequency of small
innovations; 1111
. small and regular inputs of training `òne point lesson system'';
. motivation events;
. individual kaizen teian activities;
. small group kaizen (successors to quality circles);

. 5-S activities to ensure workplace cleanliness and order;
. preventive maintenance analysis;
. design for maintenance;
. ``zero orientation'' no tolerance for waste, defects, stoppages, etc. as the
target;
. step-by-step approach;
. voluntary participation and high commitment.
Visualisation is important, and there are story and display boards throughout
the factory, including a master chart tracking progress to date and plans for the
future. Each work group meets daily and this takes place around their own
storyboard.
The company places strong emphasis on mechanisms for embedding these
behaviours in the culture so that they become the way things are done and
taught to others. An important aspect of phase 2 the current mid term plan
is to find mechanisms for doing this. These include extensive use of training
and development for example, each employee receives 10 hours initial
training in TPM and then 3-hours/month additional training on the job. They
are also allocated 30 minutes per day to carry out their individual maintenance
and to learn and improve this.
In addition to this operator development and individual improvement there are
also CI projects in particular areas on which groups work in team mode for
example, projects on sputterless welding or cleaning engine coolant, which
involve consistent attack on problem areas over a period of weeks or months.
Activities of this kind have led to, for example, major set-up time reductions; the
Komatsu 1000 tonne presses take less than 10 minutes to change and are changed
four or five times per shift. Projects of this kind tend to take around three months.
There are around 30 groups working 10-15 in trim, 12 in body and
assembly and 6-8 in the press shop. Group leaders spend half their time with
the groups, facilitating, training etc., and the remainder acting as a floating
resource to cover sickness, holidays, etc.
IJOPM The evolution of kaizen has been through early team activities going back 20
19,11 or more years. Individual kaizen teian ideas did not come through at first so a
campaign was launched with the theme of ``what makes your job easier?''. The
evolution of suggestions can be seen in data collected by the Japanese Human
Relations Management Association which suggest that on the site there is now
100 per cent participation of the `èligible employees'' (around 85 per cent of the
1112 total workforce). Of their suggestions around 88 per cent are implemented
giving a 1995-6 saving of around Y3.2bn.
At present AB are receiving around 20 suggestions per employee per month.
One of the difficulties raised by the generation of some 40,000 suggestions per
month is how to process them; this is primarily the responsibility of the group
leader. Many of the ideas are minor changes to standard operating procedures
and foremen/team leaders are authorised to make these. Ideas are judged
against four levels as in Table II.
AB as an example of level 3 CI capability

This extended example highlights some of the key themes in developing CI
capability. First, it builds on a strong foundation of systematic CI; the company
has a culture in which basic problem finding and solving skills have been
embedded for over 20 years. The basic skills and procedures are in place both
for team-based activities and also for individual (kaizen teian) work; in similar
fashion there is a well-structured system for idea management and for reward
and recognition. All of this corresponds to level 2 behaviour in our model and
indicates a pattern of extensive ``single loop'' learning to develop and embed
this.
But the crisis which hit the company in 1990 forced a re-appraisal of their CI
thinking and led to attempts to mobilise it in more strategic fashion.
Characteristics of this new approach included:
. Crisis driven shift in focus CI for survival, not just as an activity.
. Strategic leadership and involvement.
. Policy deployment of strategic targets.
. Emphasis on monitoring and measuring behaviour to drive
improvement.
Level Reward Volume
(1) High level, considerable 150,000 upwards Only 4-5 per year
potential benefits and judged
by senior management team
(2) Again reviewed by senior team Medium 10,000 plus 20/year
(3) Basic, handled by team leader 300
Table II. (4) Minor recognised to 50
AB industries' levels of encourage continuous
idea judgement improvement activity
. Alignment of individual and team-based CI activities. Developing
. Multiple programmes within a strategic framework. strategic CI
. Continuing adjustment and communication of strategic targets. capability
We suggest that this combination of ``bottom-up'' basic capability and ``top-
down'' strategic direction setting, linked by continuing monitoring and
measurement, lies at the heart of level 3 behaviour. 1113
Enabling level 3 transition key enablers

It is worth looking in a little more detail at some of the key `ènablers'' which
underpin the evolution of level 3 capability, and which can be seen in the above
example.
(i) Policy deployment

Perhaps the key differentiator between these levels is the strategic focus and
this requires a process of creating and sharing the strategic goals of the
business throughout the organisation in such a way as to enable each
individual or problem-solving group to focus efforts on improvements which
will have an impact on the strategic targets. This requires two key enablers
the creation of a clear and coherent strategy for the business and the
deployment of it through a cascade process which builds understanding and
ownership of the goals and sub-goals.
This is a characteristic feature of many Japanese CI systems and may help
explain why there is such a strong ``track record'' of strategic gains through CI. In
such plants overall business strategy is broken down into focused three-year
mid-term plans; typically the plan is given a slogan or motto to help identify it.
This forms the basis of banners and other illustrations, but its real effect is to
provide a backdrop against which efforts over the next three years can be
focused. The MTP is specified not just in vague terms but with specific and
measurable objectives often described as pillars. These are, in turn,
decomposed on to manageable projects which have clear targets and measurable
achievement milestones, and it is to these that CI is systematically applied.
Policy deployment of this kind requires suitable tools and techniques and
examples include hoshin planning, how-why charts, ``bowling charts'' and
briefing groups (Shiba, Graham et al., 1993).
(ii) Measurement
The second key enabler for level 3 CI is the use of formalised monitoring and
measurement as a driver for improvement. Whereas earlier levels might make
use of measurement, it becomes of central importance at level 3 as a driver for
improvement. CI groups and individuals need to identify and use relevant
measures to focus their improvement activities and to identify the extent to
which performance has changed. Typically measurement follows the policy
deployment process, taking broad strategic measures such as ``reduce costs by
20 per cent'' or `ìmprove delivery reliability by 30 per cent'', and breaking these
IJOPM down into smaller measures which are more relevant to particular areas of CI
19,11 activity for example, ``reduce the time taken for this set-up by 10 per cent'' or
``cut the material used here by 5 per cent''.
An important point about measurement systems is the nature of `òwnership
and function''. In traditional organisational behaviour measures are used as
devices for control over activity, and specialists often carry out the
1114 measurement process. By contrast the purpose of measurement in the CI
context is to enable and monitor the rate and direction of improvement, and its
implementation is best carried out by those directly involved in the CI process.
Thus ownership of the measurement process typically seen in the design and
recording of CI data by groups and individuals themselves becomes critical to
embedding the behaviour (Lillrank and Kano, 1990).
(iii) Idea management

Linked to the measurement question is that of idea management. Whereas level
2 activity may result in a variable flow of ideas, the characteristic of level 3 CI is
that it will involve a much higher volume of targeted suggestions. Thus there is
a need to ensure that an adequate system is in place for receiving and
acknowledging ideas, categorising them and ensuring their systemic
implementation. Typically such idea management systems will make a three or
four way split between those ideas which:
. are acknowledged but not directly implementable;
. those which can be implemented directly by the suggesting individual
or group;
. those which may require additional support from specialists;
. those which represent major projects which might be taken forward by a
larger and more specialised group.
Enabling such a system requires different levels of collection and evaluation of
ideas; typically a first pass will involve a team leader or supervisor and will sift
out most of the first two categories (the majority of ideas). Thereafter a
representative group involving supervisors, team leaders, specialists etc. might
look at the more complex suggestions and the few major projects which might
emerge might be reviewed at senior management level. These levels of idea
management can also be linked to the disposition of reward and recognition
(Daniels, 1989; Schuring and Luijten, 1998).
(iv) Reward and recognition systems

An important feature of any CI system is the feedback of some form of
recognition to motivate the employee and to reinforce the behaviour which the
organisation is trying to embed. Evidence suggests that direct financial
rewards in proportion to the value of the suggestion the basis of many
``traditional'' suggestion schemes is not particularly effective because it tends
to encourage the submission of ``big'' ideas only (since these are seen to have
high potential reward, and because of its potentially divisive impact ``whose Developing
idea is it, anyway?'') Most recognition systems aim to reward the behaviour strategic CI
itself rather than the suggestion, and often involve giving a token reward for capability
every idea no matter how simple and whether or not it is implemented. For
those ideas which do have a larger impact there is often a graded system of
rewards, and for those which have a major impact it is appropriate to link the
size of the reward to the scale of the saving or benefit. Some examples of such 1115
approaches in Japanese firms are given below (Bessant, 1997):
. In the fork lift truck maker TCM reward and recognition for ideas varies
with the level of suggestion. For small kaizen it is assumed to be part of
the job but additional rewards can be given. There is a bimonthly
boardroom presentation for the most effective suggestions. For simple

teian suggestion they use the standard suggestion scheme and pay for
these on a scale ranging from 100 to 20, 000; some employees
contribute over 200 suggestions per year. They are ranked in terms of
their potential contribution to profit and a big idea would need to
contribute 1m upwards. The ranking is carried out by a panel and is
generally perceived to be fair; in part this may result from the
differences in overall payment systems (based on seniority) in which
workers become accustomed to different levels of pay for the same basic
work. There also a re-deployment programme so that staff are not
worried about losing their jobs as a result of suggestions; for example in
the administrative area overall staff has been cut from 217 to 139 but
these have been re-deployed into sales, new business ventures or to
headquarters.
. In Daikin Industries, manufacturers of air conditioners, groups meet
formally for 30 minutes twice per month but there is extensive informal
activity, including the daily briefings and team meetings. The working
day runs from 0800 until 1700, with a 10-minute daily meeting at the
start of each day or shift. They receive around 1,000 suggestions per
month, and these are evaluated through a hierarchical system, with the
first cut taking place at work group level. High-grade ideas (of which
there are around 3,300 per year, equivalent to 10 per person per year)
move up to the company committee responsible for evaluation and these
are rewarded with larger sums. An important feature of their idea
management system is that changes are captured and incorporated into
the standard operating procedures so that ISO 9001 is not compromised;
they have a documented process for assuring this.
. Omron is a major producer of electronic equipment such as automated
telling machinery for the banking sector. Improvement activities take
several forms; first, there are individual activities based around the
operator's personal responsibility for quality. There is then a system of
small-group activities where time is allocated to problem-finding and
solving using various tools and approaches in which all operators
IJOPM receive training. In 1996 there were 75 such groups, each meeting for
19,11 about one to two hours per week, focusing on quality-issues related to
their area. These groups are given targets for improvement expressed in
terms of a points system, and progress towards achieving these targets
is displayed on the notice-boards in their area by means of green dots. In
the first six months of 1996 they received 4,873 suggestions in this
1116 fashion, which, when annualised, contributed an effect estimated by the
company's panel, of 262m equivalent to around 53,000 per
employee. The company pay for such suggestions based on the points
system for example, if a team achieved the (high) target of 500 points
they could receive as much as 2m; these suggestions are all recorded
and assessed by a committee and points awarded according to their

judgement. Using this system the company paid the equivalent (again
annualised) of 7.6m to the 75 groups for 1996. Data from the JHRMA
suggest that for 1996 Omron implemented 6.9 suggestions per employee
per year (but this figure is low because of the high levels of
employment). Participation rates in kaizen teian activity was 100 per
cent and 96.7 per cent of suggested ideas were implemented. This
contributed an economic benefit of 15.5bn.
Beyond such direct reward/recognition level 3 systems also raise some
challenging questions about distribution of benefits. If the organisation is
working together on a range of CI projects to achieve strategic targets then
there is a good chance that the overall performance will improve for example,
through increased profitability or, at the other end of the scale, survival of the
firm. There is a need to link this performance improvement back to the CI
system for example, through providing some stronger element of job security
and through some form of gain-sharing arrangement bonus schemes, profit
sharing, employee share ownership, etc (Pfeffer, 1994; DTI, 1997).
Concluding remarks
This paper has briefly outlined some of the characteristics of organisations
deploying CI for strategic advantage. Recent survey data for the UK suggest
that most organisations are now actively seeking to implement CI in some form
but of these the majority are still operating at what we term in this paper ``level
2'' essentially laying the foundations for CI and achieving local and
operational level benefits (Bessant and Caffyn, 1996a). The emerging challenge
for the future will be the transition to what we term ``level 3'', at which point
strategic benefits of the kind often reported for Japanese organisations become
achievable.
The challenge of level 3 is not only to maintain the momentum of CI
problem-finding and solving behaviour but also to link this to the strategic
goals of the organisation. This requires the development of appropriate
enabling mechanisms for policy development and deployment and for
embedding monitoring and measuring behaviour within the organisation.
Whilst there are now many examples of good level 3 practice from which to Developing
learn, the requirement is still for tailoring and adapting generic enabling strategic CI
mechanisms to specific circumstances. capability
Our research in this area is continuing but it appears that several key
questions need to be explored by both researchers and practitioners in moving
to level 3. These include:
. Measurement as we have seen, level 3 CI depends on measurement to 1117
drive and maintain momentum. But this requires considerable attention
to be paid to measurement frameworks; especially those designed to
deal with incremental improvement. Although some studies of
incremental innovation exist , there is a need to develop broad and
narrow-focused tools for carrying out this task. There is also a role for
macro-level assessment frameworks such as the Baldrige and
European Quality Awards but their connection to the tasks of level 3
policy deployment needs to be made more explicit. In the case of AB
Industries the role of both macro and micro-level measurement
frameworks is clearly important as a driver for change.
. Making ``slack'' resources available a key feature of level 3 CI behaviour
is its systematic and regular application to the strategic problems of the
organisation. But in order for this to happen there needs to be some
space and time for such activities to take place for example, via a daily
meeting or a weekly problem-finding and solving review. Such
reinforcement has the additional advantage of helping to embed key
behaviours but it requires a commitment to invest time and ``lost''
output. It is important to note that the creation of such ``reflective space''
within the work structure need not be disruptive, although the implicit
conflict between `ìmprovement'' and `òperational'' activities has been
widely noted . In the case of AB Industries, for example, the main
mechanism for creating ``reflective space'' was through the daily pre-
production shift meeting a period of some 10-15 minutes only. Because
of its regularity it had the effect of establishing a high frequency, rapid
reinforcement learning cycle within the company.
. Developing innovation routines much of level 2 and 3 CI is about
embedding behavioural routines which are concerned with carrying out
existing activities better. However the potential also exists for extending
these routines to support innovation doing new things in new ways.
Whilst this work is traditionally the province of specialists there is
potential for higher levels of involvement in such innovation but this is
likely to pose significant challenges, especially in the development of
autonomous CI capability characteristic of level 4 on our model.
Significantly this pattern of behaviour is not a feature of AB Industries
and it could be argued that the systematic and detailed approach of
policy deployment to some extent militates against autonomous
problem-finding and solving. By contrast some reported cases do
IJOPM indicate a high level of autonomous problem-solving and innovative
19,11 activity (Lewis, 1994).
. Learning and knowledge capture another feature of level 3 behaviour,
in part linked to the emphasis on monitoring and measurement, is the
extent to which it provides a formal vehicle for systematic capture and
1118 codification of tacit knowledge . In the case of AB Industries the targeted
problem-solving and the routinisation of a high frequency learning cycle
around the daily production meeting provide powerful mechanisms for
systematic articulation of tacit knowledge. Coupled with the emphasis
on formalised operating procedures and the presence of mechanisms for
updating them with the results of CI activity the level 3 approach may
provide a framework for establishing a ``learning organisation'' (Melcher

et al., 1990; Leonard-Barton, 1992).
References
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1970), Organizational Learning, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Berger, A. (1997), ``Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizational
designs'', Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 110-17.
Bessant, J. (1997), Report on Kaizen Mission, CENTRIM, University of Brighton, Brighton.
Bessant, J. (1998), ``Learning and continous improvement'', in Tidd, J., Measuring Strategic
Competencies: Technological, Market and Organizational Indicatiors of Innovation,
Imperial College Press, London.
Bessant, J. and Caffyn, S. (1996a), ``Continuous improvement in the UK'', Works Management,
July.
Bessant, J. and Caffyn, S. (1996b), ``Learning to manage innovation'', Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 59-70.
Bessant, J. and Caffyn, S. (1997), ``High involvement innovation'', International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol. 14 No 1, pp. 7-28.
Dale, B. (1995), Managing Quality, Prentice Hall, London.
Daniels, A. (1989), Performance Management: Improving Quality Productivity Through Positive
Reinforcement, Performance Management Publications, Tucker, GA.
De Lange-Ross, E. (1999), ``Continuous improvement in teams'', Technology and Management,
Enschede, University of Twente, Enschede.
DTI (1997), Competitiveness Through Partnerships with People, Department of Trade and
Industry, London.
Gallagher, M. and Austin, S. (1997), Continuous Improvement Casebook, Kogan Page, London.
Garvin, D. (1993), ``Building a learning organization'', Harvard Business Review, July/August,
pp. 78-91
Hollander, S. (1965), The Sources of Increased Efficiency: A Study of Dupont Rayon Plants, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Imai, K. (1987), Kaizen, Random House, New York, NY.
Johnson, M. (1998), `À case study in continuous improvement, Continuous Improvement From
Idea to Reality, Twente University Press, University of Twente, Enschede.
Kobayashi, K. (1990), 20 Keys to Workplace Improvement, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), ``The organization as learning laboratory'', Sloan Management Developing
Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 23-38.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources On
strategic CI
Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. capability
Lewis, K. (1994), How to Transform Your Company, IFS Publications, Kempston.
Lillrank, P. and Kano, N. (1990), Continuous Improvement; Quality Control Circles in Japanese
Industry, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 1119
Lindberg, P. and Berger, A. (1997), ``Continuous improvement: design, organization and
management'', International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 86-101.
Melcher, A. et al. (1990), ``Standard maintaining and continuous improvement systems;
experiences and comparisons'', Interfaces, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 24-40.
Nonaka, I. (1991), ``The knowledge creating company'', Harvard Business Review, November-
December, pp. 96-104.

Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage Through People, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Rickards, T. (1988), Creativity At Work, Gower, Aldershot.
Robinson, A. (1991), Continuous Improvement In Operations, Productivity Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Savolainen, T. (1998), ``Cycles of continuous improvement: realizing competitive advantages
through quality a longitudinal case study'', Continuous Improvement From Idea to
Reality, Twente University Press, University of Twente, Enschede.
Schroeder, M. and Robinson, A. (1993), ``Training, continuous improvement and human
relations: The US TWI programs and Japanese management style'', California
Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 2.
Schuring, R. and Luijten, H. (1998), ``Re-inventing suggestion schemes for continuous
improvement'', Continuous Improvement From Idea to Reality, Twente University Press,
University of Twente, Enschede.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Shiba, S. and Graham, A. et al. (1993), A New American TQM; Four Practical Revolutions in
Management, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Sirkin, H. and Stalk, G. (1990), ``Fix the process, not the problem'', Havard Business Review, July/
August, pp. 26-33.
Teece, D. and Pisano, G. (1994), ``The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction'', Industrial
And Corporate Change, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 537-55.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (1997), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological,
Organizational And Market Change, John Wiley, Chichester.
Tremblay, P. (1994), ``Comparative analysis of technological capability and productivity growth
in the pulp and paper industry in industrialised and industrialising countries'',
unpublished DPhil, University of Sussex.
Womack, J. and Jones, D. (1997), Lean Thinking, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
This article has been cited by:
1. Ambra Galeazzo, Andrea Furlan, Andrea Vinelli. 2017. The organizational infrastructure of continuous
improvement an empirical analysis. Operations Management Research 10:1-2, 33-46. [CrossRef]
2. MaJie Jie Ma jie.ma@northumbria.ac.uk http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5575-2216 LinZhibin Zhibin Lin
yourforest@hotmail.com LauChi Keung Chi Keung Lau chi.lau@northumbria.ac.uk Newcastle Business
School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK . 2017. Prioritising the enablers for the
successful implementation of Kaizen in China. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
34:4, 549-568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Rupert L. Matthews, Peter E. Marzec. 2017. Continuous, quality and process improvement: disintegrating
and reintegrating operational improvement?. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 28:3-4,
296-317. [CrossRef]
4. Ivo Domingues, Jos Cunha MachadoLean Thinking in Non-profit Organizations 71-107. [CrossRef]
5. WickramasingheG.L.D. G.L.D. Wickramasinghe dharmasri@uom.lk WickramasingheVathsala Vathsala
Wickramasinghe vathsala@mot.mrt.ac.lk Department of Textile and Clothing Technology, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka Department of Management of Technology, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka . 2016. Effects of continuous improvement on shop-floor
employees job performance in Lean production. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel 20:4, 182-194.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Marcel F. van Assen. 2016. Exploring the impact of higher managements leadership styles on Lean
management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1-30. [CrossRef]
7. Daniel Jurburg, Elisabeth Viles, Martin Tanco, Ricardo Mateo. 2016. Continuous improvement leaders,
followers and laggards: understanding system sustainability. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence 1-17. [CrossRef]
8. David Hansen, Niels Mller. 2016. Conceptualizing Dynamic Capabilities in Lean Production: What are
They and How Do They Develop?. Engineering Management Journal 28:4, 194-208. [CrossRef]
9. MilnerChristopher D. Christopher D. Milner SavageBarbara M. Barbara M. Savage Department of
Operations and Systems Management, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK . 2016. Modeling
continuous improvement evolution in the service sector. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences
10. EvangelistaFelicitas Felicitas Evangelista MacLancy Lancy Mac School of Business, Western Sydney
University, Sydney, Australia Faculty of Business Administration, University of Macau, Macau, China .
2016. The influence of experience and deliberate learning on SME export performance. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 22:6, 860-879. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Lus Pimentel, Maria Major. 2016. Key success factors for quality management implementation: evidence
from the public sector. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 27:9-10, 997-1012. [CrossRef]
12. Zoran Perunovi, Robert Mefford, Mads Christoffersen, Ronan McIvor, David Falls. 2016. An analysis of
vendor innovation capability in the contract electronics manufacturing industry. Production Planning &
Control 27:10, 797-809. [CrossRef]
13. TezelAlgan Algan Tezel KoskelaLauri Lauri Koskela TzortzopoulosPatricia Patricia Tzortzopoulos School
of the Built Environment, University of Salford, Salford, UK Department of Art, Design and Architecture,
University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK Department of Architecture and 3D Design, University
of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK . 2016. Visual management in production management: a literature
synthesis. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 27:6, 766-799. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Zafar Husain, Mumin Dayan, C. Anthony Di Benedetto. 2016. The impact of networking on
competitiveness via organizational learning, employee innovativeness, and innovation process: A mediation
model. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 40, 15-28. [CrossRef]
15. Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, Annika L. Meinecke, Jens Rowold, Simone Kauffeld. 2015. How
transformational leadership works during team interactions: A behavioral process analysis. The Leadership
Quarterly 26:6, 1017-1033. [CrossRef]
16. Alessio Trentin, Cipriano Forza, Elisa Perin. 2015. Embeddedness and path dependence of organizational
capabilities for mass customization and green management: A longitudinal case study in the machinery
industry. International Journal of Production Economics 169, 253-276. [CrossRef]
17. Allen McKenna, Georges Baume. 2015. Complex project conceptualization and the linguistic turn; the case
of a small Australian construction company. International Journal of Project Management 33:7, 1476-1483.
[CrossRef]
18. Elizabeth A. Beckmann, Gonzalo M. Estavillo, Ulrike Mathesius, Michael A. Djordjevic, Adrienne B.
Nicotra. 2015. The plant detectives: innovative undergraduate teaching to inspire the next generation of
plant biologists. Frontiers in Plant Science 6. . [CrossRef]
19. Jamison V. Kovach, Lawrence D. Fredendall. 2015. Learning During Design for Six Sigma Projects
A Preliminary Investigation in Behavioral Healthcare. Engineering Management Journal 27:3, 109-123.
[CrossRef]
20. Guilherme Luz Tortorella, Giuliano Almeida Marodin, Flvio Sanson Fogliatto, Rogrio Miorando. 2015.
Learning organisation and human resources management practices: an exploratory research in medium-
sized enterprises undergoing a lean implementation. International Journal of Production Research 53:13,
3989-4000. [CrossRef]
21. Wiljeana J. Glover, Jennifer A. Farris, Eileen M. Van Aken. 2015. The relationship between continuous
improvement and rapid improvement sustainability. International Journal of Production Research 53:13,
4068-4086. [CrossRef]
22. Bob Lillis, Marek Szwejczewski, Keith Goffin. 2015. The development of innovation capability in services:
research propositions and management implications. Operations Management Research 8:1-2, 48-68.
[CrossRef]
23. Professor Vidosav Majstorovic and Dr Albert Weckenmann Daniel Jurburg Industrial Management
Department, TECNUN University of Navarra, San Sebastian, Spain Elisabeth Viles Industrial
Management Department, TECNUN University of Navarra, San Sebastian, Spain Carmen Jaca Industrial
Management Department, TECNUN University of Navarra, San Sebastian, Spain Martin Tanco
Industrial Management Department, Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay . 2015. Why are
companies still struggling to reach higher continuous improvement maturity levels? Empirical evidence
from high performance companies. The TQM Journal 27:3, 316-327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Arnaldo Camuffo, Federica De Stefano, Chiara Paolino. 2015. Safety Reloaded: Lean Operations and High
Involvement Work Practices for Sustainable Workplaces. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
25. Jagdeep Singh Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bhutta College of Engineering and Technology,
Bhutta, India Harwinder Singh Department of Mechanical Engineering, Guru Nanak Dev Engineering
College, Ludhiana, India . 2015. Continuous improvement philosophy literature review and directions.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 22:1, 75-119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Chao-Ton Su, Tsung-Ming Yang. 2015. Hoshin Kanri planning process in human resource management:
recruitment in a high-tech firm. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 26:1-2, 140-156.
[CrossRef]
27. Doris Weitlaner, Markus Kohlbacher. 2015. Process management practices: organizational
(dis-)similarities. The Service Industries Journal 35:1-2, 44-61. [CrossRef]
28. Guilherme Luz Tortorella, Flvio Sanson Fogliatto. 2014. Method for assessing human resources
management practices and organisational learning factors in a company under lean manufacturing
implementation. International Journal of Production Research 52:15, 4623-4645. [CrossRef]
29. Marcus Assarlind Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden Lise Aaboen Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway . 2014. Forces affecting one Lean Six Sigma
adoption process. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 5:3, 324-340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Dimitrios P. Kafetzopoulos Department of Business Administration of Food and Agricultural Enterprises,
University of Western Greece, Agrinio, Greece Katerina D. Gotzamani Department of Business
Administration University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece Evangelos L. Psomas Department of
Business Administration of Food and Agricultural Enterprises, University of Western Greece, Agrinio,
Greece . 2014. The impact of employees attributes on the quality of food products. International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management 31:5, 500-521. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. GRACIELA CORRAL DE ZUBIELQUI, NOEL J. LINDSAY, ALLAN O'CONNOR. 2014.
HOW PRODUCT, OPERATIONS, AND MARKETING SOURCES OF IDEAS INFLUENCE
INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURIAL PERFORMANCE IN AUSTRALIAN SMEs.
International Journal of Innovation Management 18:02, 1450017. [CrossRef]
32. Torbjrn H. Netland Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, NTNU,
Trondheim, Norway McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
Arild Aspelund Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, NTNU, Trondheim,
Norway . 2014. Multi-plant improvement programmes: a literature review and research agenda.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 34:3, 390-418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. R. Sundar, A.N. Balaji, R.M. Satheesh Kumar. 2014. A Review on Lean Manufacturing Implementation
Techniques. Procedia Engineering 97, 1875-1885. [CrossRef]
34. NAGWAN ABU EL-ELLA, MARTIN STOETZEL, JOHN BESSANT, ANDREAS PINKWART.
2013. ACCELERATING HIGH INVOLVEMENT: THE ROLE OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN
ENABLING EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN INNOVATION. International Journal of Innovation
Management 17:06, 1340020. [CrossRef]
35. Asbjorn Osland, Shu ZhouSustainability in supply chain management how to execute the triple bottom
line 13-18. [CrossRef]
36. David X. Peng, Anto Verghese, Rachna Shah, Roger G. Schroeder. 2013. The Relationships between
External Integration and Plant Improvement and Innovation Capabilities: The Moderation Effect of
Product Clockspeed. Journal of Supply Chain Management 49:3, 3-24. [CrossRef]
37. Markus KohlbacherUniversity of Applied Sciences, Graz, Austria Hajo A. ReijersSchool of Industrial
Engineering, TU Eindhofen, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 2013. The effects of processoriented
organizational design on firm performance. Business Process Management Journal 19:2, 245-262. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
38. Gao ShangDepartment of Building, National University of Singapore, Singapore Low Sui
PhengDepartment of Building, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 2013. Understanding the
application of Kaizen methods in construction firms in China. Journal of Technology Management in China
39. Moacir Godinho Filho, Reha Uzsoy. 2013. The impact of simultaneous continuous improvement in setup
time and repair time on manufacturing cycle times under uncertain conditions. International Journal of
Production Research 51:2, 447-464. [CrossRef]
40. D. Weitlaner, M. Kohlbacher, A. KamagaewThe joint impact of process ownership and continuous process
improvement on financial performance and customer satisfaction 2380-2384. [CrossRef]
41. Moacir Godinho Filho. 2012. Effect of lot-size reduction and continuous improvement programmes on
work in process and utilisation: a study for single-machine and flow-shop environments. International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 15:5, 285-302. [CrossRef]
42. Goran D. PutnikUniversity of Minho, PortugalAnabela C. AlvesDepartment of Production and Systems,
School of Engineering, University of Minho, Guimares, Portugal Jos DinisCarvalhoDepartment of
Production and Systems, School of Engineering, University of Minho, Guimares, Portugal Rui M.
SousaDepartment of Production and Systems, School of Engineering, University of Minho, Guimares,
Portugal. 2012. Lean production as promoter of thinkers to achieve companies' agility. The Learning
Organization 19:3, 219-237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

43. Carmen Jaca, Javier Santos, Ander Errasti, Elisabeth Viles. 2012. Lean thinking with improvement teams
in retail distribution: a case study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 23:3-4, 449-465.
[CrossRef]
44. Julio J. Garcia-Sabater, Juan A. Marin-Garcia, M. Rosario Perello-Marin. 2012. Is implementation of
continuous improvement possible? An evolutionary model of enablers and inhibitors. Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 22:2, 99-112. [CrossRef]
45. Carmen JacaTECNUN Escuela de Ingenieros, University of Navarra, San Sebastian, Spain Elisabeth
VilesTECNUN Escuela de Ingenieros, University of Navarra, San Sebastian, Spain Ricardo MateoSchool
of Economics & Business Administration, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain Javier SantosTECNUN
Escuela de Ingenieros, University of Navarra, San Sebastian, Spain. 2012. Components of sustainable
improvement systems: theory and practice. The TQM Journal 24:2, 142-154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. J. Cachay, E. Abele. 2012. Developing Competencies for Continuous Improvement Processes on the
Shop Floor through Learning FactoriesConceptual Design and Empirical Validation. Procedia CIRP 3,
638-643. [CrossRef]
47. Pedro C. OprimeSo Carlos Federal University, So Carlos, Brazil Glauco Henrique de Sousa MendesSo
Carlos Federal University, So Carlos, Brazil Mrcio Lopes PimentaUberlndia Federal University,
Uberlndia, Brazil. 2011. Continuous improvement: critical factors in Brazilian industrial companies.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 61:1, 69-92. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
48. Ilias AlexopoulosDepartment of Economics, University of Patras, Patras, Greece Kostas
KounetasDepartment of Economics, University of Patras, Patras, Greece Dimitris TzelepisDepartment of
Economics, University of Patras, Patras, Greece. 2011. Environmental performance and technical efficiency,
is there a link?. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 61:1, 6-23. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
49. Timo Busch. 2011. Organizational adaptation to disruptions in the natural environment: The case of
climate change. Scandinavian Journal of Management 27:4, 389-404. [CrossRef]
50. David B. Audretsch, Clara Martnez-Fuentes, Manuela Pardo-del-Val. 2011. Incremental innovation in
services through continuous improvement. The Service Industries Journal 31:12, 1921-1930. [CrossRef]
51. Researcher Lise Granerud, Robson S Rocha. 2011. Organisational learning and continuous improvement
of health and safety in certified manufacturers. Safety Science 49:7, 1030-1039. [CrossRef]
52. Krisztina Demeter and Harry BoerDavid Xiaosong PengInformation and Operations Management
Department, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA Roger G.
SchroederDepartment of Organization and Strategy, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Rachna ShahOperations and Management Science Department, Carlson School of Management,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 2011. Competitive priorities, plant improvement
and innovation capabilities, and operational performance. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 31:5, 484-510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Daniel Jimnez, James Cock, Andy Jarvis, James Garcia, Hctor F. Satizbal, Patrick Van Damme, Andrs
Prez-Uribe, Miguel A. Barreto-Sanz. 2011. Interpretation of commercial production information: A case
study of lulo (Solanum quitoense), an under-researched Andean fruit. Agricultural Systems 104:3, 258-270.
[CrossRef]
54. Claire Seaman, Stuart Graham and Richard BentRodney McAdamUniversity of Ulster, Jordanstown, UK
Renee ReidGlasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK Neil MitchellUniversity of Ulster, Jordanstown,
UK. 2010. Longitudinal development of innovation implementation in familybased SMEs. International

Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 16:5, 437-456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. Bo EdvardssonService Research Center, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden Anders GustafssonService
Research Center, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden LarsUno Roos3PVolvo Trucks, Gothenburg,
Sweden. 2010. Improving the prerequisites for customer satisfaction and performance. International Journal
of Quality and Service Sciences 2:2, 239-258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
56. M. Leseure and M. HudsonSmithMarisa K. SmithStrathclyde Institute for Operations Management,
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK Peter D. BallManufacturing Department, Cranfield University,
Cranfield, UK Umit S. BititciStrathclyde Institute for Operations Management, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, UK Robert van der MeerStrathclyde Institute for Operations Management, University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. 2010. Transforming mass production contact centres using approaches from
manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 21:4, 433-448. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
57. Juan A. Marin-Garcia. 2010. Identificacin de los facilitadores clave de la mejora continua y su relacin
con las conductas. WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management 1:1, 6. [CrossRef]
58. Dr Harry MatlayUCE Birmingham, UKSally Fowler DavisFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, York St
John University, York, UK. 2009. Knowledge exchange: capacity building in a small university. Education
+ Training 51:8/9, 682-695. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Judy OliverSwinburne University, Melbourne, Australia. 2009. Continuous improvement: role of
organisational learning mechanisms. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 26:6,
546-563. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. C Martin, M Metcalfe, H Harris. 2009. Developing an implementation capacity: justifications from prior
research. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60:6, 859-868. [CrossRef]
61. Ash M. Genaidy, Magda M. Rinder, Reynold Sequeira, Amal D. A-Rehim. 2009. The Work Compatibility
Improvement Framework: Theory and application of improvement action and intervention strategies.
Ergonomics 52:5, 524-559. [CrossRef]
62. Peter A. MurrayFaculty of Business, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Australia Jawad
SyedKent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK Zeynep RobertsNine Dots Marketing,
Sydney, Australia. 2009. Structures of learning for dynamic markets. Management Decision 47:2, 271-288.
63. Jordi OlivellaTechnical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain Llus CuatrecasasTechnical University
of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain Nestor GavilanTechnical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain. 2008.
Work organisation practices for lean production. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 19:7,
64. Katsuki AokiFaculty of Economics, Kanto Gakuin University, Japan Cardiff Business School, Cardiff
University, Cardiff, UK. 2008. Transferring Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants in China.
65. Paul TrottExploring Knowledge Flows and Losses in the Open Innovation Age 126-150. [CrossRef]
66. Sari M. Kola Nystrom. 2008. In search of corporate renewal: focus on corporate venturing. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 8:2, 196. [CrossRef]
67. Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti, Mateus Cecilio Gerolamo, Edwin Vladimir Cardoza Galdmez. 2007.
Continuous Innovation and Performance Management of SME Clusters. Creativity and Innovation
Management 16:4, 376-385. [CrossRef]

68. Svetlana Rodgers. 2007. Innovation in food service technology and its strategic role. International Journal
of Hospitality Management 26:4, 899-912. [CrossRef]
69. Bjrge Timenes Laugen, Harry Boer. 2007. The Implementation of Best Practices: Process and
Performance Effects. Creativity and Innovation Management 16:4, 397-407. [CrossRef]
70. Mariano Corso, Luisa Pellegrini. 2007. Continuous and Discontinuous Innovation: Overcoming the
Innovator Dilemma. Creativity and Innovation Management 16:4, 333-347. [CrossRef]
71. Tetsuya Minagawa, Paul Trott, Andreas Hoecht. 2007. Counterfeit, imitation, reverse engineering and
learning: reflections from Chinese manufacturing firms. R&D Management 37:5, 455-467. [CrossRef]
72. Bob Lillis, Robin Lane. 2007. Auditing the strategic role of operations. International Journal of
Management Reviews 9:3, 191-210. [CrossRef]
73. Rodney McAdamSchool of Business, Organisation and Management, University of Ulster, Belfast,
UK William KeoghSchool of Management and Languages, HeriotWatt University, Edinburgh, UK
Renee S. ReidCaledonian Family Business Centre, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK Neil
MitchellUniversity of Ulster, Belfast, UK. 2007. Implementing innovation management in manufacturing
SMEs: a longitudinal study. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 14:3, 385-403. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
74. TsungMing YangDepartment of Industrial Engineering & Management, National Chiao Tung
University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, People's Republic of China ChaoTon SuDepartment of Industrial
Engineering & Engineering Management, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, People's
Republic of China. 2007. Application of hoshin kanri for productivity improvement in a semiconductor
manufacturing company. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 18:6, 761-775. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
75. Bob Lillis, Robin Lane. 2007. Auditing the strategic role of operations. International Journal of
Management Reviews, ahead of print070517202646001-???. [CrossRef]
76. P. TrottUniversity of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK A. HoechtUniversity of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
2007. Product counterfeiting, nonconsensual acquisition of technology and new product development.
European Journal of Innovation Management 10:1, 126-143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
77. Taina SavolainenDepartment of Business and Economics, University of Joensuu, Joensuu, Finland
Arto HaikonenGenworth Financial, Helsinki, Finland. 2007. Dynamics of organizational learning and
continuous improvement in six sigma implementation. The TQM Magazine 19:1, 6-17. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
78. Colin Herron, Paul M. Braiden. 2006. A methodology for developing sustainable quantifiable productivity
improvement in manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics 104:1, 143-153.
[CrossRef]
79. Frances Jrgensen, Harry Boer, Bjrge Timenes Laugen. 2006. CI Implementation: An Empirical Test
of the CI Maturity Model. Creativity and Innovation Management, ahead of print061009034905001-???.
[CrossRef]
80. N. Mohan Das GandhiKumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore, India V. SelladuraiCoimbatore
Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, India P. SanthiAvinashilingam, Deemed University, Coimbatore,
India. 2006. Green productivity indexing. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
81. Qingyu ZhangDepartment of Computer and Information Technology, Arkansas State University, State
University, Arkansas, USA Mark A. VonderembseDepartment of Management, The University of
Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA Mei CaoDepartment of Computer and Information Technology, Arkansas
State University, State University, Arkansas, USA. 2006. Achieving flexible manufacturing competence.
82. Richard Gough, Malcolm Macintosh, Bob Park. 2006. The Influence of Decentralized Bargaining
Systems on the Introduction of Continuous Improvement Practices in Australian Automotive Components
Companies. Asia Pacific Business Review 12:2, 209-224. [CrossRef]
83. Ton van der Wiele and Jos van IwaardenRodney McAdamSchool of Business Organisation and
Management, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, Belfast, UK ShirleyAnn HazlettSchool of
Management and Economics, Queen's University, Belfast, UK Joan HendersonSchool of Management
and Economics, Queen's University, Belfast, UK. 2006. Legitimising quality principles through critical
incidents in organisational development. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 23:1,
84. Paul HumphreysUniversity of Ulster, Belfast, UK Rodney McAdamUniversity of Ulster, Belfast,
UK Jonathon LeckeyUniversity of Ulster, Belfast, UK. 2005. Longitudinal evaluation of innovation
implementation in SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management 8:3, 283-304. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
85. R. Cagliano, F. Caniato *, M. Corso, G. Spina. 2005. Collaborative improvement in the extended
manufacturing enterprise: lessons from an action research process. Production Planning & Control 16:4,
345-355. [CrossRef]
86. Rajat Roy, Margaret Low, John Waller. 2005. Documentation, standardization and improvement of the
construction process in house building. Construction Management and Economics 23:1, 57-67. [CrossRef]
87. Pavel CastkaThe University of Salford, Salford, UK Christopher J. BamberOLC (Europe) Ltd, Preston,
UK John M. SharpThe University of Salford, Salford, UK. 2004. Benchmarking intangible assets:
enhancing teamwork performance using selfassessment. Benchmarking: An International Journal 11:6,
88. R McAdam. 2004. Knowledge creation and idea generation: a critical quality perspective. Technovation
24:9, 697-705. [CrossRef]
89. Arto HaikonenResearcher, Helsinki University of Technology Lahti Center, Saimaankatu, Finland Taina
SavolainenProfessor, Department of Business and Economics, University of Joensuu, Joensuu, Finland
Pekka JrvinenProfessor, Helsinki University of Technology Lahti Center, Saimaankatu, Finland. 2004.
Exploring Six Sigma and CI capability development: preliminary case study findings on management role.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 15:4, 369-378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
90. Rodney McAdamSchool of Business, Organisation and Management, University of Ulster, Jordanstown,
Belfast, UK Thomas McConverySchool of Business, Organisation and Management, University of Ulster,
Jordanstown, Belfast, UK Gren ArmstrongInvest Northern Ireland, Belfast, UK. 2004. Barriers to
innovation within small firms in a peripheral location. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
& Research 10:3, 206-221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
91. Mandar DabhilkarDoctoral Student, at the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management,
University of Gvle, Gvle, Sweden Lars BengtssonAssociate Professor, at the Department of Industrial
Engineering and Management, University of Gvle, Gvle, Sweden. 2004. Balanced scorecards for strategic
and sustainable continuous improvement capability. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
92. Pavel CastkaPavel Castka, holds a PhD in quality management and MSc in automation and robotics. He
is a researcher at the University of Salford and is a member of the Salfords COrE research group. Email:
pavel_castka@hotmail.comJohn M. SharpJohn Sharp directs the COrE research group at the University of
Salford and is professor in organizational excellence in the School of Management. John has gained a Beng
and PhD in engineering. Email: j.m.sharp@salford.ac.ukChristopher J. BamberChris Bamber holds a
mechanical engineering HND, an advanced certificate in management, MSc in Quality Management and a
PhD in agile manufacturing. Chris is currently managing director of a consultancy company OLC (Europe)
Ltd. Email: cbamber@olceurope.com. 2003. Assessing teamwork development to improve organizational
performance. Measuring Business Excellence 7:4, 29-36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
93. Frances JrgensenCenter for Industrial Production, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Harry
BoerCenter for Industrial Production, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Frank GertsenCenter
for Industrial Production, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. 2003. Jumpstarting continuous
improvement through selfassessment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management
94. R.S. MaullSchool of Business and Economics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK D.R. TranfieldCranfield
School of Management, Cranfield, UK W. MaullSchool of Education and Life Long Learning, University
of Exeter, Exeter, UK. 2003. Factors characterising the maturity of BPR programmes. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management 23:6, 596-624. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. D. FrancisCentre for Research in Innovation Management, University of Brighton, Falmer, Brighton
J. BessantCentre for Research in Innovation Management, University of Brighton, Falmer, Brighton
M. HobdaySPRV, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton. 2003. Managing radical organisational
transformation. Management Decision 41:1, 18-31. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
96. Bart A.G. BossinkBart A.G. Bossink is Associate Professor at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, working in the field of management science.JanNico BlauwJanNico Blauw is a Managing
Consultant, PA Consulting Group Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.. 2002. Strategic ambitions as drivers of
improvement at DaimlerChrysler. Measuring Business Excellence 6:4, 5-11. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
97. Rick DelbridgeCardiff Business School, Cardiff, UK Harry BartonCardiff Business School, Cardiff,
UK. 2002. Organizing for continuous improvement. International Journal of Operations & Production
98. Rodney McAdamRodney McAdam is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Management, University of Ulster,
Belfast, UK.John McClellandJohn McClelland is a Research Assistant, at the School of Management,
University of Ulster, Belfast, UK.. 2002. Individual and teambased idea generation within innovation
management: organisational and research agendas. European Journal of Innovation Management 5:2, 86-97.
99. Mire KerrinInstitute of Work, Health and Organisations, Nottingham University Business School,
Nottingham, UK Nick OliverThe Judge Institute of Management Studies, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, UK. 2002. Collective and individual improvement activities: the role of reward systems.
Personnel Review 31:3, 320-337. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
100. Mire KerrinInstitute of Work, Health and Organisations, Nottingham University Business School,
Nottingham, UK. 2002. Continuous improvement along the supply chain: the impact of customersupplier
relations. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 13:3, 141-149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
101. John Bessant, David Knowles, David Francis, Sandra MeredithDeveloping the Agile Enterprise 113-130.
[CrossRef]
102. Anna-Maija NisulaDeveloping Organizational Renewal Capability in the Municipal (City) Organization
151-172. [CrossRef]
103. A. Ingemansson, J. OscarssonDiscrete-Event Simulation and Automatic Data Collection Improve
Performance in a Manufacturing System 1441-1445. [CrossRef]
104. Neeta BaporikarInnovation Strategies in SME 315-341. [CrossRef]
105. Anna-Maija NisulaDeveloping Organizational Renewal Capability in the Municipal (City) Organization
159-179. [CrossRef]

Developing Strategic Continuous Improvement Capability - Bessant Francis

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Developing Strategic Continuous Improvement Capability - Bessant Francis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

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

Abstract In developing CI capability, organisations need to move to a level of development in

Learning and developing CI capability

and motivation particular new product or process

Characterising level 3 strategic CI

(1) development of new, attractive products;

. small group kaizen (successors to quality circles);

AB as an example of level 3 CI capability

Level Reward Volume

Enabling level 3 transition key enablers

(i) Policy deployment

embedding the behaviour (Lillrank and Kano, 1990).

(iii) Idea management

(iv) Reward and recognition systems

boardroom presentation for the most effective suggestions. For simple

and assessed by a committee and points awarded according to their

provide a framework for establishing a ``learning organisation'' (Melcher

December, pp. 96-104.

Organization 19:3, 219-237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

UK. 2010. Longitudinal development of innovation implementation in familybased SMEs. International

Management 16:4, 376-385. [CrossRef]

You might also like