Continuous improvement put into practice

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the existing body of knowledge about what distinguishes effective continuous improvement (CI) approaches and to explain some of the mechanisms which create a successful quality program. Design/methodology/approach The empirical data were collected from interviews with employees at several levels in seven companies. The companies were deliberately selected to represent different types of resource consumption and outcome from a quality program. Findings The implementation approaches of the studied companies were classified according to four different categories: parallel, integrated, coordinated and project approaches. Companies that adopt a project approach tend to fail to achieve anything more than minor improvements, while companies that take parallel and coordinated approaches realise significant improvements but use more resources than companies that utilise an integrated approach. Practical implications This paper illustrates and explains why the project approach ought to be avoided. The paper also highlights the benefits of an integrated approach that is focused on learning. Originality/value This paper contributes to theory and practice by providing an empirically‐based explanation for the outcome of alternative implementations of CI in practice.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.