As
there are no recent researches on continuous improvement programs in Argentina,
this paper contributes to recognizing and systematizing what has been done,
comparing it with theoretical framework and uncovering research gaps for future
studies. However, further research must confirm these findings and move forward
on the analysis of intangible factors, like: internal communications, climate,
culture, self reflexion, consensus, etc.
Keywords: Continuous improvement; key factors; management; team work
1. INTRODUCTION
In the approach proposed by Imai
(1986), the kaizen or continuous improvement implies a shift in the Taylorist
paradigm of labor division. That means, to generate a dual function of work,
shared between routine and improvement. That is, everyone in the organization
will use a portion of their time to solve problems or develop opportunities for
improvement. This will be made applying their experience through a scientific
method of diagnosis. This idea is so simple to understand but complex to
implement in daily practice.
Some surveys confirm this
perception. A study of U.S. firms showed that while 70% of the plants had
implemented techniques "Lean manufacturing", 74% of them were
dissatisfied with the results achieved (PAY, quoted in ANAND; WARD; TATIKONDA;
SHILLING, 2009).
Another study showed that only 11%
of companies considered their continuous improvement initiatives had been
successful (MENDELBAUM, quoted in ANAND et al., 2009).
Multiple studies have analyzed the
continuous improvement processes in companies and organizations of different
types. Using a simplified classification, the main approaches are: the analysis
of core competencies, barriers and facilitators (MESQUITA; ALLIPRANDINI, 2003;
MARIN GARCIA; PARDO DEL VAL; BONAVIA MARTIN, 2008; ALBORS GARRIGOS; HERVAS
OLIVER; SEGARRA OÑA, 2009; GARCIA SABATER; MARIN GARCIA, 2009), models
(BESSANT; CAFFYN; GALLAGER, 2001; WU; CHEN, 2006), knowledge and learning
process (BUCKLER, 1996; MURRAY; CHAPMAN, 2003; DAVISON; GORDON; ROBINSON, 2005;
SAVOLAINEN; HAIKONEN, 2007; JABROUNI; KAMSU-FOGUEN; GENESTE; VAYSSE, 2011),
quantitative studies of programs in different sectors and countries
(TERSIOVSKI; SOHAL, 2000; SCOTT; WILCOCK; KANETKAR, 2009) the relationship of
continuous improvement with change management and TQM (CHOI, 1995; JUNG; WANG,
2006), and history and evolution of continuous improvement (BHUIYAN; BAGHEL,
2005; SUÁREZ-BARRAZA; DÁVILA, 2009).
While all of these work together
with others not mentioned here, have made important contributions to the
understanding of continuous improvement processes, it is still difficult to
explain why the teachings of Deming, Juran, Ishikawa and other great teachers
have not yet been able to be fully implemented in many organizations? And why
it is so difficult to copy the successful systems (for example, the Toyota
Production System)? when the concepts they applied are simple and easy to
understand.
The objective of this work is to
answer questions previously expressed. To do so, from the theory, we analyze
the reality of continuous improvement processes in large organizations.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A review of the literature enabled
us to determine the main factors to consider for the successful implementation
of a continuous improvement process.
Table 1: Key Components of a Continuous Improvement
Process.
|
Key Components Assessed |
Foundations |
|
I. Formalization & Structure |
(ANAND et al., 2009; CHOO et al.,
2007; FORMENTO et al., 2007; GRUTTER et al., 2002; TERZIOVSKI et al.,
2000; WRUCK ; JENSEN, 1998) |
|
II. Continuity /
Duration |
(RAPP; EKLUND, 2002; SILLINCE et al., 1996; TERZIOVSKI et al., 2000) |
|
III. Deployment /
Scope of Program |
(CHOO et al., 2007; WRUCK et al., 1998) |
|
IV. Training |
(BACDAYAN, 2001; RAPP et al., 2002; TERZIOVSKI et al., 2000; WOOD,
2003) |
|
V. Management Commitment |
(ATTARAN, 2003; BASHEIN et al., 1994; BATEMAN; RICH, 2003; JORGENSEN
et al., 2003; TERZIOVSKI et al., 2003) |
|
VI. Program
Coordination |
(GRUTTER et al., 2002; RAP et al., 2002; SCHURING ; LUIJTEN, 2001;
TERZIOVSKI et al., 2000) |
|
VII. Methodology
& Tools |
(BATEMAN, 2005; FORMENTO et al., 2007; FORRESTER, 2000; GARVIN, 1993;
HANDEL ; GITTLEMAN, 2004; PIL; MACDUFFIE, 1996; SPEAR; BOWEN, 1999;
TERZIOVSKI et al., 2000) |
|
VIII. Performance Measurement |
(BESSANT; FRANCIS, 1999; DAS et al., 2000; DENNIS et al., 2003; EVANS;
LINDSAY, 2008; FOSTER, 2004; HAMMER; STANTON, 1999) |
|
IX. Communication of
Results, Recognition & Incentives |
(BUCH; SPANGLER, 1990; FAIRBANK; WILLIAMS, 2001; KERRIN; OLIVER, 2002;
RAPP et al., 2002; LAWLER III, 1991; SILLINCE et al., 1996;) |
The following table summarizes
references from previous works that support the key components evaluated in our
investigation.
I. Formalization & Structure
In the absence of a formalized
program, continuous improvement efforts are intermittent and depend on personal
attitudes and circumstantial pressures. Formalization generates the field
needed to create the support structure and establish the routines mentioned by
Bessant et al. (2001) in their five evolutionary stages of process improvement.
Without formalization and structure, it is impossible to move beyond the first
level of evolution.
II. Continuity / Duration
A continuous improvement process—as
the name implies—has no end to it. In contrast, improvement routines are expected
to be integrated into the organization’s daily activities and used to generate
results in line with the firm’s strategic objectives.
The
most prominent examples—such as the Toyota Production System—are stable and
facilitate the spread of practices through the company (GARCÍA-SABATER et al.,
2009).
The inability to maintain continuity
creates a very negative impact on employees and has a limited duration (between
one and four years) after going through three phases: introduction, spread, and
decline. The reasons for this are diverse, but are generally related to static
programs with no capacity for development (LAWLER III, 1991; SILLINCE et al.,
1996). Sometimes there is a fourth phase in which the improvement effort is
relaunched (RAPP et al., 2002). Regarding this same idea, Wu et al. (2006)
argue that all activities (including improvements) have a life cycle which
moves through introduction, growth, maturity, and decline. If a regenerative
impulse is not achieved at the appropriate time, the program declines.
III. Deployment / Scope of Program
If continuous improvement is
inadequately deployed and poorly coordinated, the process becomes less
effective, even after achieving some initial results (CHOO et al., 2007; WRUCK
et al., 1998).
Continuity is important, but another
critical factor is the way processes are deployed in order for improvement
routines to reach all levels of the organization. The systemic approach
(DEMING, 1993) requires that different processes are viewed as part of a global
system where the final result depends on the quality of the interactions
between them. In this sense, it is unthinkable for continuous improvement to
work without the integration of all sectors and processes.
IV. Training
Modifying the classic structure of
problem-solving using trial and error—based on individual experience—to the
scientific method—using teams—requires specific training in methodologies and
tools for analysis.
In addition to the need of
large-scale training, it is reasonable to start with upper management and focus
on the agents of change, which will generate a big impact on the process (SPEAR
et al., 1999; SPEAR, 2004). Several studies highlight the importance of
implementing training in basic tools and of moving toward new tools as soon as
more complex problems make them necessary (BACDAYAN, 2001; RAPP et al., 2002;
TERZIOVSKI et al., 2000; WOOD, 2003).
V. Management Commitment
Management commitment is needed so
that participation and teamwork become part of the organizational culture
(ATTARAN, 2003; BASHEIN; MARKUS; RILEY, 1994; JORGENSEN; BOER; GERTSEN, 2003;
TERZIOVSKI; FITZPATRICK; O’NEILL, 2003).
It is not possible to develop a
continuous improvement program without a strong commitment from top and senior
management. Directors must agree to commit the required resources; align
activities with strategic objectives; establish systems, procedures, and
policies; and, most importantly, generate a culture of continuous improvement
(GARCÍA-SABATER et al., 2009).
VI. Program Coordination
The promotion of continuous
improvement within the organizational routine requires actors which facilitate
this within day-to-day activities. This role goes beyond specific team leaders
and refers to the figure of one or more internal coordinators who support activities,
facilitating access to resources and to providing methodological advice to team
members (GARCÍA-SABATER et al., 2009).
VII. Methodology & Tools
The existence of a common scientific
method is vital, and should include a predetermined routine of steps for the
development of improvement projects (FORRESTER, 2000; GARVIN, 1993; SPEAR et
al., 1999). A formalized methodology enables a common working basis on which to
developing changes (BATEMAN, 2005).
This systematic analysis process
replaces the traditional trial-and-error approach to problem-solving.
A previous study of Australian firms
by Terziovski et al. (2000) shows that these companies still prefer the seven
basic tools over more advanced ones such as Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
(FMEA) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD).
Another study conducted in Argentina
demonstrates the ongoing use of the PDCA cycle and methods derived from it in a
high percentage of improvement projects. The Six Sigma methodology is an
alternative, using DMAIC cycle, and currently applied in lower percentage of
cases. Both methods apply the 7 basic tools, which remain the most widely used
(FORMENTO, 2008).
VIII. Performance Measurement
The development of continuous
improvement capacities requires a process of monitoring and measuring results
against the strategic objectives of the firm (BESSANT; FRANCIS, 1999).
Continuous improvement is based on
continuous assessment techniques applied to systems, processes, and key results
(DAS; HANDFIELD; CALANTONE; GHOSH, 2000; DENNIS; CARTE; KELLY, 2003; EVANS et
al., 2008; FOSTER, 2004; HAMMER et al., 1999).
IX. Communication of Results, Recognition, and
Incentives
The experiences feedback within a
continuous improvement program allows the building, analyzing, and facilitating
of the exchange of knowledge between experts in problems solving (JABROUNI;
KAMSU-FOGUEM; GENESTE; VAYSSE, 2011). When teams show their results for
internal events, the knowledge they have developed is deployed beyond their own
team members and applied to the whole organization. Additionally, in cases of
external events, showing the successful results of a project operates as a
motivational factor.
Significant contributions—measured
in terms of their impact on results—are usually rewarded. These recognition
programs can take different forms but always attempt to reinforce and spread
positive attitudes (BUCH et al., 1990; KERRIN et al., 2002; LAWLER III, 1991;
RAPP et al., 2002; SILLINCE et al., 1996;).
3. METHODOLOGY
A qualitative and exploratory
research design was undertaken in order to determine prominent components of
key factors who explain the success of a continuous improvement program.
We analyzed, through an in-depth
survey, a group of 30 large companies pertaining to the following activities:
oil (5), foodstuffs (8), steel (5), automotive (4), chemicals (4) and services
(4).
Companies considered for this study
were chosen based on the following criteria:
•
Large companies (more than $ 25 million in annual
sales).
•
Leaders in their markets (considering their market
share).
•
Members of SAMECO (Argentine Society for Continuous
Improvement) or FUNDECE (Business Foundation for Quality and Excellence).
•
With a certified management system (ISO 9001, ISO
14001 or other specific norms of the activity.
The survey form was designed based
on the theoretical framework for the project, which was made up of the
classical literature on continuous improvement, placing emphasis on the key
components described above.
The resulting survey included 67
questions, 20 of which were multiple choice. The survey was sent by e-mail to
the continuous improvement coordinator of 52 companies. After telephone
follow-up, response was obtained in 30 firms.
The rating of the results obtained,
by the continuous improvement process, in each company was taken from the
vision of the coordinator. The options were: very effective results, effective
results, scarce results and ineffective results.
Survey results were processed
statistically and stratified to display trends. The comments in open questions
were discussed qualitatively to find signs of significant differences.
Finally we compared the answers and
comments in companies with very effective results, by one side, with companies
with scarce and ineffective results, by the other side. Differences that
emerged from this comparison enabled us to identify prominent components,
inside the key factors, that seem to be critical, for achieving successful
continuous improvement processes.
4. OBSERVED RESULTS
4.1 Sample Profile
Firms for this study correspond to
the group called large companies, according to their billing levels and market
share. Previous investigations in Argentina (FORMENTO; BRAIDOT; PITTALIGA,
2007), shows that companies of this size were the first to implement continuous
improvement. Making a survey of the presentations made at the annual conference
SAMECO (Argentina Society for Continuous Improvement), over 15 years, it
appears that continuous improvement processes of these companies are among the
most advanced in Argentina. The latter aspect is especially important to this
study as it allows us to determine trends in the field.
Another feature of this group is
that all companies have a certified management system. In addition, 18
companies have two or more certified standards, and 14 companies have an
integrated management system.
Additionally, eight of these
companies have won quality awards, including a National Quality Award of
Argentina, the Iberoamerican Quality Award, the prize TPM in Japan, and the
International Team Excellence Award of the American Society for Quality. These
data confirm the level of the sample in terms of formal achievements in the
field of quality systems, both locally and internationally.
4.2 Findings on Key Factors
I. Formalization &
Structure
At first glance, it would appear
that there are few doubts, among firms, regarding the need for the existence of
continuous improvement, given that 28 companies of the sample said that they
have a formalized program. This contrasts strongly with a previous study of Argentinian
SMEs (FORMENTO; ALTUBE; BRAIDOT; NICOLINI, 2006), which showed that there are
improvement teams within only 36% of companies in the automotive sector, 17% in
the steel sector, and around 10% in other sectors.
II. Continuity / Duration
The average age of the continuous
improvement programs evaluated in this research is nine years. In 14 cases,
programs were over 10 years old, and two firms had programs with more than 20
years.
This confirms that we are evaluating
a set of pioneers in the field in Argentina. These kinds of programs first
started to be developed in Argentina in the late 1980s.
Of all the companies that claim to
have implemented a continuous improvement program, five of them said they had
discontinued at some point. The same number of companies acknowledged that the
continuous improvement program had not evolved within their organizations,
which in principle could be considered a negative feature.
The main characteristics mentioned
as evolving positively were: scope, results, number of projects, and people
involved.
III. Deployment / Scope of
the Program
The scope of the continuous
improvement program in these companies shows logical and predictable results.
In all cases with formal programs, the program reached the production areas.
The rest of the areas reached by the program are, in order of importance:
support areas, administrative areas, and commercial areas.
Table 2: Scope of the program (number of cases)
|
Areas |
Number of cases |
|
Production / Operations |
28 |
|
Support |
21 |
|
Administrative |
15 |
|
Commercial
/ Business |
12 |
An important issue is the number of
firms that reached support and administrative areas with continuous improvement
programs. This is a good sign in terms of deployment of the program through the
organization. It seems that continuous improvement is advancing from
operational areas towards non-operational ones.
IV. Training
As was expected for firms of this
size, 27 companies reported having a continuous improvement training program
for their staff.
Sample analysis shows that in 18
firms, all staff is trained in continuous improvement.
Table 3: Recipients of continuous improvement´s
training program
|
Recipients |
Number of cases |
|
All
staff |
18 |
|
Team
members |
8 |
|
Team
leaders |
3 |
|
Supervisors |
4 |
|
Facilitators |
3 |
|
Managers |
3 |
Most companies (25 cases), apply
internal training resources—that is, using their own staff to provide the
training. Twelve of these companies combine this with external training. In
contrast, very few companies (just two), work exclusively with external
training.
The advantage and need for internal
training had already been comprehensively stated by Shiba et al., (1995).
Internal training gives strong signals of commitment mainly if managers
participate.
All this seems to be in line with
Ishikawa’s famous phrase (1986) : “Quality begins with education and ends with
education… to apply quality control we have to offer continuing education for
everyone from the president to the workers”. This sample suggests that things
are moving in this direction.
V. Management Commitment
When
we studied the level of involvement of firms’ different hierarchical levels
within quality management systems, we found that although the
involvement rate of top management appears higher than the middle and
operational levels, it was noteworthy that over 50% of managers did not have
high involvement levels and that 17% had low involvement levels. This could
explain the involvement rates at middle and operational levels, because
managers’ attitudes spread rapidly to the rest of the organization.
In this respect, interpreting the
words of Meegan and Taylor (1997), we believe that “strong motivation” should
mean “high involvement”. This is not observed in table 4, where— in
contrast—over 50% of staff shows middle or low involvement.
Table 4: Management Involvement (number of cases)
|
Hierarchical Level |
High |
Medium |
Low |
No answer |
|
Senior
management |
14 |
9 |
5 |
2 |
|
Middle
management |
14 |
12 |
2 |
2 |
|
Operators |
9 |
15 |
4 |
2 |
VI. Program
Coordination
These programs are not always
coordinated by the same management area.
This highlights the emergence of
special sectors that are specifically dedicated to tasks related to quality
management and continuous improvement. These new organizational sectors, which
differ from the classical structures, show the evolution of the importance
assigned to these programs. High rated's human resources are allocated to
manage and facilitate the quality system and continuous improvement program.
There is no uniform name for these
areas, so each company uses their own term to refer to them. However, the
important issue here is having a small and highly qualified group of human
resources devoted entirely to managing improvement tasks.
According to data collected (27
answers), this positive outcome seems to be becoming a trend.
Table 5: Program Coordination.
|
Sector |
Number of cases |
|
Special
areas |
14 |
|
Quality |
7 |
|
Production
line |
4 |
|
Other |
2 |
|
Total |
27 |
Some of the names identified for
special areas are: Total Quality Management, Continuous Improvement, Technology
Management, Operational Excellence, Six Sigma, etc.
We also analyzed the make-up of the
group and the different roles used to coordinate continuous improvement
projects.
In companies with formalized
programs we found that, in 24 of them, there are different roles within teams.
The vast majority of companies in
the sample have assigned the roles of leader (23 cases), and facilitator (20
cases). It is understood that these two roles are key to promoting and managing
teams that carry out projects and continuous improvement actions.
If we analyze companies which use
different roles in teams, within their formalized programs, we find that there
are no leaders just in one case and there are no facilitators just in four
cases. In many cases, facilitators are part of special areas (see table 5),
that coordinate the improvement program.
An equally interesting fact is that
in 50% of cases, in which there are different roles, the figure of sponsor or
mentor is used. These configurations tend to provide greater sustainability to
the performance of continuous improvement teams. Experience indicates that in
the absence of these roles, work can become more dependent on individual
tenacity and less effective.
Other roles, such as secretary, have
a very low presence in the team structures evaluated in this sample.
Table 6: Existence of different roles within teams.
|
Roles |
Number of cases |
|
Leader |
23 |
|
Facilitator |
20 |
|
Sponsor/mentor |
12 |
|
Secretary |
4 |
|
Others |
6 |
We then analyzed the situation in
more depth by exploring who is assigned to perform the different roles in
improvement teams within the formal structure.
The Figure 1 shows the percentage of
cases where top management, middle management, supervisors, employees, and the
improvement committee take on the different roles.
We can conclude that internal
facilitators and leaders are mostly middle managers and supervisors.
The team members are mainly
employees, supervisors and middle managers.
As expected, approval of the action
plans is in charge of senior and middle management and improvement committee.
Finally, launching and closing
projects lies mainly in the hands of senior management and middle management.
Figure 1.Roles played by different hierarchical levels
(number of cases).
VII. Methodology &
Tools
All the 28 cases with formalized
programs stated that they use a methodology and tools for problem-solving.
It is not possible to identify in
detail tools and methods applied, due to the vast number and the different ways
that companies refer to them. Nevertheless, table 7 shows the methods and tools
more mentioned by respondents when talking on methodology.
Table 7: Tools and methods used.
|
Name |
Number of cases |
|
7 Basic Tools |
24 |
|
5S |
17 |
|
Kaizen |
13 |
|
7 New Tools |
12 |
|
Benchmarking |
12 |
|
FMEA |
10 |
|
TPM |
9 |
|
8 Steps Method |
9 |
|
Six Sigma |
7 |
|
SQC |
5 |
|
QFD |
3 |
As we can observe most (80%) still
use basic tools, followed by 5S, 7 new tools, benchmarking, and FMEA, and
others that were mentioned less frequently. This result is consistent with
previous research on the subject, which shows the same tendencies (FORMENTO,
2008). It seems evident, in this sense, that basic methods are very accessible,
can be used by all employees after short training courses, and are appropriate
for a high percentage of chronic problems in companies. New trends, such as Six
Sigma, are observed in seven of the cases.
While the table shows methodologies
being combined with tools and toolkits, we can conclude that basic tools
continue to be massively used.
VIII. Performance
Measurement
Improvement teams address a wide
range of issues which has been classified into the following areas:
Quality/Defects; Cost/Benefits; Standard deviations; Environment; Security;
Change/Innovation; and Others.
Table 8: Issues addressed by continuous improvement projects.
|
Issues |
Number of cases |
|
Quality
/ defects |
25 |
|
Costs
/benefits |
23 |
|
Deviation
from the standard |
23 |
|
Security |
22 |
|
Changes
/ innovations |
22 |
|
Environment |
20 |
|
Others |
9 |
It must be remembered that these
rankings are tentative, since most improvement projects make an impact on
several areas simultaneously.
When searching how these topics
emerged as improvement projects, we found that the origins detected are very
varied (these results are shown in table 9). Deviations from standards and
managers' proposals stand out as the two largest groups. This seems to show a
relationship between improvement programs and the company’s strategy, although
this is not enough to assure it.
A second group emerges which
consists of customer complaints and staff suggestions. Although customer
complaints are very important, this group should never represent a majority
because, were that the case, it would reveal great problems in dealing with
customers and therefore indicates a company that works very “reactively” and is
permanently in a risk zone.
The staff suggestions are a
category, possibly of minor impact, but one that is nonetheless important to
ensuring employee involvement and sense of pertaining.
Table 9: Project origins.
|
Origin |
Number of cases |
|
Deviation
from standards |
24 |
|
Managers’
proposals |
23 |
|
Customer
complaints |
17 |
|
Staff
suggestions |
16 |
|
Surveys |
9 |
|
Others |
6 |
The impact of the implementation of
continuous improvement program, in each company, is a critical data to
understand which are the key factors in this process. As mentioned in methodology, we took this
result from the internal coordinator´s point of view.
The following table shows that a
relatively small number of companies consider their program to be “very
effective”; just eight firms. Nevertheless, nobody consider the program as
ineffective, but nine companies considered the results are scarce.
Table 10: Results of continuous improvement programs.
|
Result |
Number of cases |
|
Effective |
13 |
|
Very
effective |
8 |
|
Scarce |
9 |
|
Ineffective |
0 |
|
Total |
30 |
With respect to the information
available for decision-making at high organizational levels, only 12 companies
have expressed that they have statistics on improvement projects, both
completed or in development.
On the other hand, in just 16 cases,
costs of poor-quality have been calculated.
Program statistics are essential to
generating information that increases the body of knowledge and learning so
that companies can make good decisions when they need it.
IX. Communication of
Results, Recognition & Incentives
Our question about the existence of
a recognition system elicited a positive result in 21 of the firms being
investigated.
When asked about the recipients of
this recognition, it appears that the trend is to include all participants and
all team members. Only five organizations mentioned that they give recognition
exclusively to operations personnel, and three applies it only to the best
teams.
The type of recognition is mainly
non-cash, and is based on entertainment, gifts, and internal and external
events.
Some of the companies that reported
not having a formal recognition program had, nonetheless developed other forms
of recognition. As such, only 7 firms of the sample have no kind of recognition
for the staff.
Table 11: Forms of Recognition.
|
Forms |
Number
of cases |
|
Gifts |
19 |
|
Internal events |
14 |
|
External events |
13 |
|
Dinners |
10 |
|
Money |
6 |
Several of the alternatives for
recognition, shown in table 11, are used in combination.
Although only 14 companies mentioned
internal events as a form of recognition, 18 firms, say there are presentations
of improvement teams in such events. In 16 cases, senior management takes part
of internal events. In contrast, only nine organizations included all staff and
only three of them include people outside the company.
We would like to emphasize several
aspects. One is that the need for recognition is generally accepted. On the
other hand, the internal events, as a form of recognition, are only used in
less than 50% of the sample, even in cases where managers’ involvement is high.
Finally there is little external
benchmarking, since less than 50% of sample participate in external events and
people of other companies are only invited to internal team presentations in
just three cases.
5. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
This section contains a comparative
analysis of data.
We confront data from companies with
very effective results with data from companies with scarce results. The group
of companies that qualifies only as effective is not part of this comparison,
to seek a better contrast between the extremes.
The above remark is based on an
understanding that the label “effective” is a necessary but insufficient
condition. In other words, if this type of initiative does not generate
enthusiasm, it will have limited consistency and its permanence will be in
doubt. It should be kept in mind that continuous improvement generates a
permanent stress (in terms of resource commitment) with companies’ daily
routines.
Starting with the elements that seem
to have no influence on the effectiveness of the continuous improvement
process, table 12 shows the number of companies, out of the total in the group,
who certify standards, apply to models of excellence and have training programs
on continuous improvement.
Table 12: Number of companies in each category.
No relationship seems to have
between ISO 9001 certification and the results of continuous improvement
process. The group of companies that achieved very effective results (almost
27% of the sample) includes companies without ISO 9001 certification.
Likewise, there is no evidence that
models of excellence and quality awards ensure an adequate continuous
improvement process. When we analyze the seven cases, in the whole sample, that
have won quality awards, it emerges that only three of them have continuous
improvement programs very effective, two qualify just as merely effectives, one
as scarce results, while the remaining do not have a formalized program.
Additionally, the existence of a
continuous improvement´s training program does not seem to be an element that
produce a difference on results.
From the above we conclude that the
systems and strategies mentioned (certification and models), and the training
programs are desirable but do not ensure a very effective continuous
improvement process.
We now analyze the main components
of the key factors to look for significant differences. Table 13 shows the
deployment of the nine factors and the number of firms in each group that
complies them.
Table 13: Differences in key factors.
.
The table shows another component
that does not impact the difference in results: the duration of the process.
This means that a continuous improvement program can exist for a long time and
still have poor results.
Looking for components that can
explain the differences we observed a number of items present in 100% of
companies with very effective results. These items appear only in some of the
companies with scarce results.
However, all components are present
in some company of the second group. Therefore, a question that arises is: any
of these companies meets all the key factors?.
The answer is in Table 14, which
shows the nine cases of firms with scarce results. This table shows only the
components that are present in 100% of companies with very effective results.
As you can see, none of these companies meets all the components.
Table 14: Components in processes with scarce results.
The cases are diverse. For example:
in case 1, which meets most of the components, the improvement projects do not
reach support areas, the percentage of employee participation is low, managers
are not involved in the selection of topics and in the opening and closing of
projects and finally, they do not measure avoided cost.
The case 2, which seems to be the
most comprehensive in this group, do not use basic tools - when statistics say
they are the most effective and used in continuous improvement projects - and
do not recorded or measured participation. The latter suggests that may be low.
Completely different from Case 2 is the
case 6, where none of evaluated components are present. Interestingly, this
company is certified ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and won the national quality award of
Argentina.
In summary, all these cases have
shortcomings with respect to very effective processes. Cases 3 and 4, do not
have recognition program and a standardized method for teamwork, among other
difficulties.
In case 5, we see: discontinuity,
lack of evolution and poor managerial involvement.
Finally in cases 7 to 9, appear as
common shortcomings lack of: continuity, evolution, measurements and roles in
teams.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The observations above enable us to
draw some preliminary conclusions, which must be confirmed or refuted in future
research.
On the basis of the findings
discussed in the previous sections, we can infer that approximately one in
three large companies have a continuous improvement program with very effective
results. This means that they have developed high standards and are thus
benchmarks for other companies, even though they still need to develop further
themselves.
It seems evident from previous
comparison that the prominent components identified, into the nine key factors,
make a difference in terms of the effectiveness of results. Table 14 shows the
seventeen mentioned components.
Companies with continuous
improvement processes very effective, in 100% of cases, meet all these
components. In contrast, none of the companies with poor results meets all
prominent components.
From Table 13 it appears that the
most remarkable differences are observed in:
·
Measurement (avoided cost and participation)
·
Percentage of employees involved
·
Management participation
·
Recognition
·
Projects applying to support areas
·
Continuity
·
Different roles in teams
·
Standard method for teamwork
To summarize, we recommend
establishing lines of work which take into account the nine key factors and,
specially, the seventeen prominent components mentioned in the previous
paragraph, since they seem to explain the difference between very effective and
ineffective processes.
It is important to clarify that the
presence of a key factor or a prominent component in a company that did not
experience very effective results does not contradict our findings, since the
key factors and their components operate together, as a system. Therefore the
appearance of one of these factors alone does not guarantee results.
The latter may apply to training,
which has not been demonstrated to be a differentiating factor. Training is a
key factor (Table 13), of continuous improvement, but it is as a necessary but
insufficient condition. In other words, most of the firms in the group with
scarce results have a training program for continuous improvement, which is
fine, but the process lacks other key components which prevent them from
reaping the benefits of training.
While each organization must develop
its own continuous improvement strategy, a working plan oriented to these
findings may increase the success possibilities.
We understand this research
contributes to the study of continuous improvement processes in Argentina and
could be of interest to develop more effective strategies on the matter.
However, further research must
confirm these findings and move forward on the analysis of intangible factors,
like: internal communications, internal climate, culture, self reflexion,
consensus, etc. Those factors could play an important role in building a highly
effective continuous improvement program in conjunction with the ones here
researched.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors want to acknowledge the
support provided by SAMECO (Argentine society for continuous improvement),
opening the access to a great number of cases for study and the Industry
Institute at the National University of General Sarmiento where we developed
our work during the two years of research.
REFERENCES
ALBORS
GARRIGOS, J.; HERVAS OLIVER J. L.; SEGARRA OÑA, M. (2009) Análisis de las
prácticas de mejora continua en España. Economía Industrial, n.
373, p. 185-195.
ANAND, G.; WARD, P.; TATIKONDA, M.; SHILLING, D.
(2009) Dynamic capabilities through continuous improvement infrastructure. Journal of Operations Management, v.
27, n. 6, p. 444–461.
ATTARAN, M. (2003) Information
technology and business-process redesign. Business
Process Management Journal, v. 9, n. 4, p. 440–459.
BACDAYAN, P. (2001) Quality improvement teams that
stall due to poor project selection: an exploration of contributing factors. Total Quality Management, v. 12,
n. 5, p. 589–598.
BATEMAN, N. (2005) Sustainability: the elusive element
of process improvement. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, v. 25, n. 3, p. 261–276.
BATEMAN, N.; RICH N. (2003) Companies’ perceptions of
inhibitors and enablers for process improvement activities. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, v. 23, n. 2, p. 185–199.
BASHEIN, B.; MARKUS, L.; RILEY, P. (1994)
Preconditions for BPR success and how to prevent failures. Information System Management,
v. 11, n. 2, p. 7–13.
BESSANT, J.; CAFFYN, S.; GALLAGHER, M. (2001) An
evolutionary model of continuous improvement behaviour. Technovation, v. 21, n.
2, p. 67–77.
BESSANT, J.; FRANCIS, D. (1999) Developing strategic
continuous improvement capability. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, v. 19, n. 11, p.
1106–1119.
BHUIYAN, N.; BAGHEL, A. (2005) An overview of
continuous improvement: from the past to the Present. Management Decision, v.
43, n. 5, p. 761–771.
BUCH, K.; SPANGLER, R. (1990) The effects of quality
circles on performance and promotions. Human
Relations, v. 43, n. 6, p. 573–582.
BUCKLER, B. (1996) A learning process model to achieve
continuous improvement and innovation. The
Learning Organization. V. 3, n.
3, p. 31-39.
CHOI, T. (1995) Conceptualizing continuous
improvement: Implications for organizational change. Omega, v. 23, n. 6, p.
607-624.
CHOO, A.; LINDERMAN, K.; SCHROEDER, R. (2007) Method
and context perspectives on learning and knowledge creation in quality
management. Journal of Operations
Management, v. 25, n. 4, p.
918–931.
DAS, A.; HANDFIELD, R.; CALANTONE, R.; GHOSH, S.
(2000) A contingent view of quality management—the impact of international
competition on quality. Decision
Sciences, v. 31, n. 3, p.
649–690.
DAVISON, S.; GORDON, J. L.; ROBINSON, J. A. (2005)
Studying continuous improvement from a knowledge perspective. Knowledge-Based Systems, v. 18, n. 4-5, p. 197-206.
DEMING, W. E. (1993) The new economics. Cambridge: MIT Center for advanced engineering
study.
DENNIS, A.; CARTE, T.; KELLY, C. (2003) Breaking the
rules: Success and failure in group-ware-supported BRP. Decision Support Systems, v. 36, n. 1, p. 31–48.
EVANS, J. R.; LINDSAY, W. R. (2008) Managing for quality and performance
excellence. SW: Thomson.
FAIRBANK, J.; WILLIAMS, S. (2001) Motivating
creativity and enhancing innovation through employee suggestion system
technology. Creativity & Innovation Management, v. 10, n. 2, p. 68.
Formento,
H. (2008). Tendencias en el uso de
herramientas para mejora e innovación. Inaugural conference 13th congress
of SAMECO-Argentine Society for Continuous Improvement. Buenos
Aires: Oct., 2008. Available: http://mejoracontinuatotal.blogspot.com/2012/03/estadisticas-sobre-el-uso-de.html
FORMENTO,
H.; ALTUBE, L.; BRAIDOT, N.; NICOLINI, J. (2006) Estudio sobre los resultados y la correlación de variables de un modelo
diagnóstico específico para PyMEs aplicado a distintas áreas de actividad
industrial. LITTEC IFI 2-Research´s laboratory on technology,
work, enterprise and competitiveness (Research paper 2). Available: http://www.littec.ungs.edu.ar/pdfespa%F1ol/IFI%2002-2006%20Formento-Braidot-Nicollini-Altube.pdf
FORMENTO,
H.; BRAIDOT, N.; PITTALUGA, J. (2007) El
proceso de mejora continua en PyMEs Argentinas: Investigaciones y modelos
posibles. Buenos Aires: UNGS.
FORMENTO,
H.; BRAIDOT, N.; FARDELLI, C.; CUSOLITO, F. (2007) Equipos de mejora contínua: Reglas para trabajo en equipo y
resolución de problemas. Buenos Aires: UNGS.
FORRESTER, R. (2000) Capturing learning and applying
knowledge: an investigation of the use of innovation teams in Japanese and
American automotive firms. Journal of
Business Research, v. 47, n. 1,
p. 35–45.
FOSTER, S. T. (2004) Managing Quality: An Integrative Approach. NY: Prentice Hall.
GARCÍA-SABATER,
J.; MARIN-GARCIA, J. (2009) Facilitadores y barreras para la sostenibilidad de
la mejora continua: Un estudio cualitativo en proveedores del automóvil de la
Comunidad Valenciana. Intangible
Capital, v.
5, n. 2, 183–209.
GARVIN, D. A. (1993) Building a learning organization.
Harvard Business Review, v. 71, n. 4,
p. 78–91.
GRUTTER, A.; FIELD, J.; FAULL, N. (2002) Work team
performance over time: three case studies of South African manufacturers. Journal of Operations Management, v.
20, n. 5, p. 641–657.
HAMMER, M.; STANTON, S. (1999) How process enterprise
really work. Harvard Business Review, v. 77, n. 6, p. 108–119.
HANDEL, M.; GITTLEMAN, M. (2004) Is there a wage
payoff to innovative work practices?. Industrial
Relations, v. 43, n. 1, p. 67–97.
IMAI, M. (1986) Kaizen:
the key to Japan’s competitive success. NY: Random House.
ISHIKAWA,
K. (1986) ¿Qué es el control total de
calidad?: la modalidad Japonesa. Bogota: Norma.
JABROUNI, H.; KAMSU-FOGUEM, B.; GENESTE, L.; VAYSSE,
C. (2011) Continuous improvement through knowledge-guided analysis in
experience feedback. Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, v. 24, n. 8, p. 1419-1431.
JORGENSEN, F.; BOER, H.; GERTSEN, F. (2003)
Jump-starting continuous improvement through self-assessment. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, v. 23, n. 10, p. 1260–1278.
JUNG, J. Y.; WANG, Y. J. (2006) Relationship between
total quality management (TQM) and continuous improvement of international
project management (CIIPM). Technovation, v. 26, n. 5-6, p.716-722.
KERRIN, M.; OLIVER, N. (2002) Collective and
individual improvement activities: the role of reward systems. Personnel review, v. 31, m. 3, p. 320–337.
LAWLER III, E. E. (1991) High involvement management.
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
MARIN
GARCIA, J. A.; PARDO DEL VAL, M. BONAVIA MARTIN, T. (2008) La mejora continua
como innovación incremental. El caso de una empresa industrial española. Economía Industrial, n. 368, p. 155-167.
MEEGAN, S. T.; TAYLOR, W. A. (1997) Factors
influencing a successful transition from ISO 9000 to TQM: the influence of
understanding and motivation. International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management,
v. 14, n. 2, p. 100-117.
MESQUITA,
M.; ALLIPRANDINI, D. H. (2003) Competências essenciais para melhoria contínua
da produção: estudo de caso em empresas da indústria de autopeças. Gestão & Produção, v.10, n.1,
p.17-33.
MURRAY, P.; CHAPMAN, R. (2003) From continuous
improvement to organizational learning. The
Learning Organization, v. 10, n. 5, p. 272-282.
PIL, F.; MACDUFFIE, J. (1996) The adoption of
high-involvement work practices. Industrial
Relations, V. 35, N. 3, P.
423–455.
RAPP, C.; EKLUND, J. (2002) Sustainable development of
improvement activities: the long-term operation of a suggestion scheme in a
Swedish company. Total Quality
Management, v. 13, n. 7, p.
945–969.
SAVOLAINEN, T.; HAIKONEN, A. (2007) Dynamics of
organizational learning and continuous improvement in six sigma implementation.
The TQM Magazine, v. 19, n. 1, p. 6–17.
SCHURING, R.; LUIJTEN, H. (2001) Reinventing
suggestion systems for continuous improvement. International Journal of Technology Management, v. 22, n. 4, p. 359–372.
SCOTT, S. C.; WILCOCK, E. A.; KANETKAR, V. (2009) A
survey of structured continuous improvement programs in the Canadian food
sector. Food Control, v. 20, n. 3, p. 209-217.
SHIBA, S.; GRAHAM, A.; WALDEN, D. (1995) TQM desarrollos avanzados. Madrid:
Productivity Press.
SILLINCE, J.; SYKES, G.; SINGH, D. (1996)
Implementation, problems, success and longevity of quality circle programs: a
study of 95 UK organizations. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, v. 16, n. 4, p. 88–111.
SPEAR, S.; BOWEN, H. K. (1999) Decoding the DNA of the
Toyota Production System. Harvard
Business Review, V. 77, N. 5, P.
96-106.
SPEAR, S. J. (2004) Learning to lead at Toyota. Harvard Business Review, v. 82, n. 5, p. 78-91.
SUAREZ-BARRAZA,
F. M.; MIGUEL-DAVILA, J. A. (2008) Encontrando al "Kaizen": un
análisis teórico de la "mejora continua". Pecunia, n. 7,
p. 285-311.
TERZIOVSKI, M.; FITZPATRICK, P.; O’NEILL, P. (2003)
Successful predictors of business process reengineering (BPR) in financial
services. International Journal of
Production Economics, v. 84, n. 1, p. 35–51.
TERZIOVSKI, M.; SOHAL, A. S. (2000) The adoption of
continuous improvement and innovation strategies in Australian manufacturing
firms. Technovation, v. 20, n. 10, p. 539–550.
WOOD, A. (2003) Managing employees’ ideas: from where
do ideas come?. Journal for Quality
& Participation, v. 26, n. 2,
p. 22.
WRUCK, K.; JENSEN, M. (1998) The two key principles
behind effective TQM program. European
Financial Management, v. 4, n. 3, p. 401–423.
WU, C.; CHEN, C. (2006) An integrated structural model
toward successful continuous improvement activity. Technovation, v. 26, n.
5-6, p. 697–707.