Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm
TQM
24,2
Components of sustainable
improvement systems:
theory and practice
142 Carmen Jaca and Elisabeth Viles
TECNUN Escuela de Ingenieros, University of Navarra, San Sebastian, Spain
Received 15 September 2010
Accepted 13 January 2011 Ricardo Mateo
School of Economics & Business Administration, University of Navarra,
Pamplona, Spain, and
Javier Santos
TECNUN Escuela de Ingenieros, University of Navarra, San Sebastian, Spain
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is twofold: to evaluate the importance of the factors reported in
the literature as enablers of Continuous Improvement (CI) programmes and to determine the
perception of managers of different companies in the Basque Country and Navarre (Spain) regarding
the relevance of these factors to their improvement programmes.
Design/methodology/approach – In total, 15 elements have been considered to be key issues for
the sustainability of CI programmes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 36 companies in
order to assess how the companies value the factors and how the factors are applied and measured.
Findings – The findings regarding the application and evaluation of such factors have revealed that
companies are focused on the agents associated with the achievement of results. Other factors, such as
management commitment or the promotion of team working, are highly scored and applied, but few
companies evaluate them or take actions to improve their application.
Originality/value – This paper analyzes the application of some factors considered to be enablers or
key factors for the sustainability of continuous improvement systems. Furthermore, it examines the
mechanisms or indicators which are used by some companies to measure the application of those
factors.
Keywords Spain, Continuous improvement, Team working, Employees relations,
Management commitment, Sustainability
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Continuous improvement (CI) is a relatively simple principle: all members of the
organisation contribute to improving performance by continuously implementing small
changes to their work processes ( Jørgensen et al., 2003). Improvement practices have
been positively correlated with competitive advantage and have generated significant
interest as a result of different research projects and case studies during the 1990s. These
studies served to identify and further promote the importance of continuous, sustainable
and systematic management of improvement activities (Bateman and Rich, 2003;
Bateman and Arthur, 2002). Descriptions of the successful implementation of CI
programmes have been largely reported, as well as the implementation of different
models to achieve CI processes in companies ( Jørgensen et al., 2003; Bateman and Rich,
The TQM Journal
Vol. 24 No. 2, 2012
2003; Bateman and Arthur, 2002; Bessant et al., 2001; Upton, 1996; Wu and Chen, 2006).
pp. 142-154 However, a number of authors have expressed difficulties in sustaining CI over the long
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1754-2731
term, especially after an initial period of two or three years (Bessant and Caffyn, 1997;
DOI 10.1108/17542731211215080 Schroeder and Robinson, 1991). It has been documented that the results, in terms of
routines and acceptance of the system by the organisation, happen after a period of five Sustainable
years ( Jaca et al., 2010). Nowadays, companies are concerned with being flexible, improvement
responsive and able to adapt quickly to changes according to the necessity of customers.
For any organisation whose desire is to achieve flexibility and the ability to adapt to systems
changes within its environment, the implementation of a sound strategy for CI is
essential (Kaye and Anderson, 1999; Rapp and Eklund, 2002).
During the last several years, CI in organisations has been related with the concept 143
of system sustainability. Prajogo and Sohal (2004) define sustainability in this context
“as the ability of an organisation to adapt to change in the business environment, to
capture contemporary best practice methods and to achieve and maintain superior
competitive performance”. Sustainable performance has also been defined as “a multi-
dimensional concept, which adds a balanced measurement of items with direct
influence on competitive advantage, and thus the concept is contingent on sustainable
environmental factors” (Idris and Zairi, 2006). Both definitions are totally embedded
in the concept of the CI philosophy. However, it has been proven that it is not always
easy to develop those concepts into individual actions. Companies need to understand
the factors that may inhibit or enable sustainability. Unless companies identify these
factors they will not be able to take the necessary actions to encourage and achieve a
sustainable CI system in their organisation (Bateman and Arthur, 2002).
The aim of this paper is to present the most important factors related with
sustainability in CI systems identified from the literature. The presence of these factors
in the companies of Spain’s Basque Country has been evaluated, as well as if the
companies are able to measure and act on those factors. Different organisations from
northern Spain were visited and interviewed to obtain information about their
improvement systems, specifically the application and measurement of sustainability
factors. Results of the interviews are presented, including conclusions regarding the
difference between the application of those factors and their measurement.
2. Methodology
This research has been developed in two different steps. First, literature from different
case studies and research papers has been reviewed to identify 15 elements that are
considered to be key issues for the sustainability of CI programmes. This information
was used to develop a questionnaire to assess 15 factors related to CI systems. Semi-
structured interviews were conducted with 36 companies in order to assess how they
value the factors, how they apply them to their programmes and how these elements
are measured. The interviews were conducted between April 2009 and May 2009 in
Spain’s Basque Country and Navarre region. Indeed, although the size of this region
may be modest, its industry is recognised throughout Europe for its quality and
prestige. In particular, the survey was directed at companies with more than 50
employees which had participated in quality and improvement-related activities. Most
of the interviews were answered by people in charge of CI programmes.
improvement programme. However, other factors linked with the organisation have
also been determined to be relevant. It is worth mentioning that the following highly
scored factors are related with the way in which organisations present objectives and
implement the results of the programme (factors 2, 3 and 4). The use of an appropriate
methodology has also been highly valued by companies. On the other hand, participant
recognition or rewards was the lowest-scored factor. Moreover, some companies scored
this factor very low, while others scored it high. This result indicates that recognition is
a controversial factor for organisations. Overall, these factors have little influence on
the average scoring, which indicates that companies consider them to be important
factors for the continuity of their improvement programmes.
and therefore is not an objective of the CI programme. The use of team working in
improvement systems is only promoted by 53 per cent of companies through specific
actions. The actions used are generally associated with recognition (social events, such
as a dinner) or activities related to the improvement system (meetings, communication
of the results, etc.). Participant recognition, despite being a well-known mechanism to
sustain CI programmes, was the least valued factor. It was also the least applied,
having only been used by 39 per cent of companies. Unexpectedly, those companies
were not the ones who had given the highest values to that factor.
In conclusion, most interviewed companies apply factors in different ways.
However, companies are more focused on the application of the factors related with the
achievement and control of improvement objectives while the least implemented
factors are those which are related to worker recognition or involvement. Other factors
that are applied by all companies are managerial commitment, which is considered to
be the first and most important condition to support the improvement programme, and
the achievement and implementation of results, a factor that encourages the continuity
of the programme.
5. Appropriate methodology
150 6. Specific programme resources
8. Adequate training
References
Aoki, K. (2008), “Transferring Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants in China”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 6,
pp. 518-39.
Asif, M., Joost de Bruijn, E., Douglas, A. and Fisscher, O. (2009), “Why quality management
programs fail: a strategic and operations management perspective”, International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 778-94.
Bateman, N. and Arthur, D. (2002), “Process improvement programmes: a model for assessing
sustainability”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22
No. 5, pp. 515-26.
Bateman, N. and Rich, N. (2003), “Companies’ perceptions of inhibitors and enablers for process
improvement activities”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 185-99.
Beer, M. (2003), “Why total quality management programs do not persist: the role of
management quality and implications for leading a TQM transformation*”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 623-42.
TQM Berger, A. (1997), “Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizational
designs”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 110-7.
24,2
Bessant, J. and Caffyn, S. (1997), “High-involvement innovation through continuous
improvement”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-28.
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S. and Gallagher, M. (2001), “An evolutionary model of continuous
improvement behaviour”, Technovation, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 67-77.
152 Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., Gilbert, J., Harding, R. and Webb, S. (1994), “Rediscovering continuous
improvement”, Technovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Bessant, J. and Francis, D. (1999), “Developing strategic continuous improvement capability”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 1106-19.
Bhuiyan, N., Baghel, A. and Wilson, J. (2006), “A sustainable continuous improvement
methodology at an aerospace company”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 55 No. 8, pp. 671-87.
Bisgaard, S. (2007), “Quality management and Juran’s legacy”, Quality and Reliability
Engineering International, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 665-77.
Bowen, H.K. and Spear, S. (1999), “Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 43, September-October, pp. 95-106.
Brunet, A.P. and New, S. (2003), “Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1426-46.
Caffyn, S. (1999), “Development of a continuous improvement self-assessment tool”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 1138-53.
Chang, H.H. and Sinclair, D. (2003), “Assessing workforce perception of total quality-based
performance measurement: a case study of a customer equipment servicing organization”,
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 10, pp. 1093-1120.
Delbridge, R., Lowe, J. and Oliver, N. (2000), “Shopfloor responsibilities under lean teamworking”,
Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 1459-79.
Eguren, J.A. and Errasti, A. 2007, “Evolución de un Programa de Mejora Continua en una planta
productiva auxiliar del sector de electrodomésticos: un estudio empı́rico”, paper presented
at 1st International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Industrial Management,
5-7 September, Madrid.
He, Z. (2009), “Learn something about your Six sigma program’s maturity”, Quality Progress,
Vol. 15, August, pp. 23-8.
Hsuan-Kai, C., Hsuan-Yueh, C., Hsin-Hung, W. and Wen-Tsann, L. (2004), “TQM implementation
in a healthcare and pharmaceutical logistics organization: the case of Zuellig Pharma in
Taiwan”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 1171-8.
Huq, Z. (2005), “Managing change: a barrier to TQM implementation in service industries”,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 452-69.
Idris, M.A. and Zairi, M. (2006), “Sustaining TQM: a synthesis of literature and proposed
research framework”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 17 No. 9,
pp. 1245-1260.
Irani, Z., Beskese, A. and Love, P.E.D. (2004), “Total quality management and corporate culture:
constructs of organisational excellence”, Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 643-50.
Jaca, C., Mateo, R., Tanco, M., Viles, E. and Santos, J. (2010), “Sustainability of continuous
improvement systems in industry: survey of BAC and Navarre”, Intangible Capital, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 51-77.
Jen-shou, Y. and Chin-yi, C. (2005), “Systemic design for improving team learning climate and
capability: a case study”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 6,
pp. 727-40.
Jørgensen, F., Boer, H. and Gertsen, F. (2003), “Jump-starting continuous improvement through Sustainable
self-assessment”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23
No. 10, pp. 1260-78. improvement
Jørgensen, F., Boer, H. and Laugen, B.T. (2006), “CI implementation: an empirical test of the CI systems
maturity model”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 328-37.
Kaye, M. and Anderson, R. (1999), “Continuous improvement: the ten essential criteria”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 485-509. 153
Lagacé, D. and Bourgault, M. (2003), “Linking manufacturing improvement programs to the
competitive priorities of Canadian SMEs”, Technovation, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 705-15.
Lin, L., Li, T. and Kiang, J.P. (2009), “A continual improvement framework with integration
of CMMI and six-sigma model for auto industry”, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int., Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 551-69.
Naranjo-Gil, D. (2009), “The influence of environmental and organizational factors on innovation
adoptions: consequences for performance in public sector organizations”, Technovation,
Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 810-8.
Nohria, N., Groysberg, B. and Lee, L. (2008), “Employee motivation: a powerful new model”,
Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 78-84.
Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S. (2004), “The sustainability and evolution of quality improvement
programmes – an Australian case study”, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, Vol. 15 No. 2, p. 205.
Pun, K.F., Chin, K.S. and Gill, R. (2001), “Determinants of employee involvement practices
in manufacturing enterprises”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 12
No. 1, p. 95.
Rapp, C. and Eklund, J. (2002), “Sustainable development of improvement activities – the long-
term operation of a suggestion scheme in a Swedish company”, Total Quality Management,
Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 945-69.
Readman, J. (2007), “What challenges lie ahead for improvement programmes in the UK? Lessons
from the CINet continuous improvement survey 2003”, International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 290-305.
Schroeder, D.M. and Robinson, A.G. (1991), “America’s most successful export to Japan:
continuous improvement programs”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 67-81.
Spackman, L. (2009), “Nine steps to make process improvement permanent”, Quality Progress,
April, pp. 23-8.
Upton, D. (1996), “Mechanisms for building and sustaining operations improvement”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 215-28.
Wu, C.W. and Chen, C.L. (2006), “An integrated structural model toward successful continuous
improvement activity”, Technovation, Vol. 26 Nos 5-6, pp. 697-707.