Jump-starting continuousimprovement through

self-assessmentFrances Jørgensen, Harry Boer and Frank Gertsen

Center for Industrial Production, Aalborg University,Aalborg, Denmark

Keywords Continuous improvement, Research

Abstract The innumerable accounts of successful implementation of kaizen in Japan duringmore than 40 years has led to the expectation that continuous improvement (CI) might offercompanies a means to gain and maintain a competitive advantage in the turbulent 1980s and1990s. However, the majority of CI initiatives within the US and Europe died within a few years.While explanations as to why these efforts have not been successful can be found in the literature,methods for rejuvenating stagnant CI programs are still lacking. In this paper, experiences from alongitudinal action research project with a middle management group are presented to illustratehow a process of facilitated self-assessment was used to identify and address barriers to CIimplementation. Through this process, a better understanding of CI implementation issues wasgained and CI implementation within the company revitalized.

Theoretical backgroundContinuous improvement (CI), defined as “[t]he planned, organized andsystematic process of ongoing, incremental and company-wide change ofexisting practices aimed at improving company performance” (Boer et al.,2000), is in principle quite simple: all members of the organization contribute toimprove performance by continuously implementing small changes in theirwork processes. Because of its simple nature, the overwhelming and muchdescribed success stories from Japan, and the minimal costs involved in theimplementation and maintenance (Bessant et al., 1994; Boer et al., 2000;Robinson, 1991), CI was warmly welcomed in Europe. In 1995, a survey ofmanufacturing concerns conducted by the European CI Network (EuroCINet)indicated that CI was becoming more and more widespread across Europe(Boer et al., 2000). However, descriptions of successful CI maintenance – i.e.endurance over time are sorely lacking in the literature. A number of authorshave sought to explain the relatively pervasive lack of success of CI in thewestern world (Bessant and Caffyn, 1997; Schroeder and Robinson, 1991), butthese offer little understanding of how failing CI implementations can beredirected, rejuvenated, or revived. In the research presented in this paper, a CIself-assessment process was conducted with a middle management group of aDanish manufacturing company. Once the study began, a number of problemareas both directly and indirectly related to CI were discovered. A facilitatedprocess of CI self-assessment was subsequently used to structure

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

IJOPM23,10

1260

International Journal of Operations &Production ManagementVol. 23 No. 10, 2003pp. 1260-1278q MCB UP Limited0144-3577DOI 10.1108/01443570310496661

problem-solving with the middle management group. Outcomes of the processinclude identifying and strengthening the team member roles and functions,establishment of a strong foundation for CI implementation, group learningand knowledge sharing, and increased motivation to participate in group andCI activities. In addition, these changes at the middle management group havetriggered positive changes in other areas of the organization, includingimproved communication and learning.

The research question guiding the research presented in this paper can beexpressed as:

In what ways can self-assessment provide a better understanding of group level barriers to CIimplementation, and structure problem-solving and learning to facilitate renewal of CI?

In the next section of the paper, the case company is presented and the methodsused to address the research question are explained. Then, the process ofconducting the self-assessment and identifying barriers to CI implementation isdescribed. Problem-solving and learning activities that led to increasedcommunication and motivation to participate in future CI activities, improvedcross-functional cooperation, group learning, and increased overall satisfactionare also outlined. In the discussion section, a number of factors that may haveled to these barriers are reviewed; explanations for why the self-assessmentprocess may have helped revitalize CI in this company are also offered. Finally,the conclusion section of the paper includes considerations for future researchaimed at developing a better understanding of resolving barriers to CIimplementation.

Empirical background: the case companyThe study presented in this paper was conducted in the production division ofa Danish-based international company. There are approximately 1,000employees in the facility in Denmark, one-third of them within the factoryitself. According to the facility’s top management and middle managementgroup, a program of CI was officially launched in the factory about 5 yearsprior to the onset of this study. One of the most significant changes thatoccurred in connection with the CI program involved the reorganization of theshop floor operators into work teams. An employee suggestion program wasalso instated. At the same time, the managers from each of the functionaldepartments received team coach training and the teams received teamdevelopment training aimed at outlining the principles of teamwork. Inaddition, a number of technological changes, including the replacement ofoutdated machinery and a reorganization of work flow processes, had beenimplemented during the past 5 years. Still, during interviews, the topmanagers, middle managers and shop floor members all had difficulty inidentifying specific CI activities that were either in progress or had recentlybeen implemented.

Jump-startingcontinuous

improvement

1261

The team concept was also adopted at the top management level, which wasreorganized to include the plant director and six to eight department heads.Until last year, this management team was responsible for both long-termstrategic planning and daily operational planning. At the request of the teamleaders, a team leader group was formed with the primary purpose of takingover the responsibility for daily production planning. The director ofproduction stated that the team leaders’ interest in becoming more involved inthe planning seemed appropriate because the shop floor teams were expected tobecome more self-directed. This would provide the team leaders the time toengage in cross-functional cooperation in such areas as the coordination ofdaily production.

The research projectProject planThe research presented in this paper is part of a broader, longitudinal studyaimed at developing an understanding of self-assessment and group learning inthe context of CI implementation. The overall project involved a process ofself-assessment with the top management of the production facility, seven shopfloor teams from two of the five functional departments, and the team leaders(i.e. middle management) from all five departments. The focus of this paper,however, is primarily on the middle management (team leader) group.

In the original project plan, two workshops were planned for the middlemanagement/team leader group in order to familiarize them with the process inwhich their respective teams would be involved. The plan did not include anassessment of the team leader group for the purpose of problem-solving orstrengthening CI at the middle management level. However, the topmanagement team of the production facility requested that the project beextended to address what the top management group perceived as“long-standing problems among the team leader group”, which hindered CIwithin the company. In order to incorporate the top management’s wishes intothe existing research, an agreement was reached to conduct additionalworkshops aimed at addressing any problems identified based on the results ofthe self-assessment. In this way, the research objective (i.e. to facilitate teamlearning through the process of self-assessment) could be satisfied (albeitextended from the focus on shop floor teams) while addressing topmanagement’s own motivation for participating in the study.

Research methodologyAction research methodology was used in the overall project as well as with theteam leader group. The decision to apply an action research methodology wasbased on the three major factors. First, a high degree of researcher participationwas considered necessary for fulfilling the research objective of usingself-assessment to develop a better understanding of group level barriers to CI

IJOPM23,10

1262

implementation and to structure problem-solving and learning. Action researchprovides the researcher with the opportunity to observe changes as they occurin “real time” (Coughlan and Coghlan, 2002, p. 226), which in turn enables“knowledge building in action” (p. 224). Further, the high degree of researcherinvolvement provides a more holistic perspective regarding how changes occurwithin the organizational context (Gummesson, 2000). Second, the cyclicprocesses of planning, acting, evaluating, and re-planning inherent to actionresearch allows for improvement of the implementation process itself (Lewin,1947). The opportunity to continually modify and refine the implementationbased on data derived from previous actions is especially advantageous in thisresearch because detailed descriptions of CI implementation, and in particular,the use of self-assessment in that process, are not abundant in the literature.Finally, Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) suggest that experiential learning (Kolb,1984) is supported through action research, which is consistent with the aim offacilitating learning associated to CI implementation in this research.

The action research team consisted of the principal researcher (i.e. the firstauthor), the two co-authors of the paper and members of the top managementteam. The director of production left the company shortly after the researchbegan and the action research team for the remainder of the project consistedonly of his successor, a newly hired human resource director, and the threeresearchers. Three meetings were held with all five persons. These meetingsinvolved providing the two top managers feedback on actions taken, moderatereflection over these actions, and some planning of future actions, based on theearlier actions. While these meetings included some aspects of action researchcycles, this was not a conscious, directed process. Four additional meetingswere held with only the first author, the director of production and the humanresource manager attending. In these cases, more formal action research cycleswere used to modify the actions occurring with the team leader group.

Data collectionThe first author of this paper facilitated and recorded approximately 18 hoursof workshops and meetings directly involving the self-assessment processand/or related team leader training and conducted an excess of 17 hours ofinterviews with the individual team leaders. In addition, observations frommeetings indirectly related to the research (e.g. production planning meetings)were also recorded. The data collected also includes recorded interviews andnotes taken during the two meetings after nine months and one year from thestart date of the project. All recorded material used in the research was thentranscribed. Responses, both written and verbal, to the assessmentquestionnaire (described later) are also included in the analysis. While otherquantitative data (e.g. productivity records) were not directly included in theanalysis, this type of information was often used as the catalyst for groupdiscussion. Further, in order to ensure the quality of the data collected,

Jump-startingcontinuous

improvement

1263

transcribed recordings used in the research were verified by the original sourceor if not possible, with those present at the time of collection of data.

Self-assessmentSelf-assessment is traditionally associated with qualification for quality andbusiness excellence programs (e.g. Deming Prize, EFQM, MBQNA). Recentlyhowever, self-assessment has become much more widely practiced fordevelopmental purposes, including increasing employee involvement bycontributing to ownership of CI activities, providing feedback on improvementefforts and as a practical tool for driving CI (Hillman, 1994). According toCangas (1996), Jackson (1999), Larsstuen and Mikkelsen (1999), and Shergoldand Reed (1996), participation in the process of self-assessment has also beenassociated with:

. facilitating learning related to CI;

. the development of a shared language pertaining to CI;

. increased willingness to participate in future improvement activities; and

. better understanding of how CI relates to the company’s overall strategicand developmental plans.

Unfortunately, very little has been written on the actual process of “facilitated”self-assessment.

CI self-assessment toolThroughout the study, the CI self-assessment tool (CISAT) was used, which is aDanish development based on the modifications of CIRCA CISAT originallydeveloped at Brighton University (Bessant and Caffyn, 1997). The core of thetool is a questionnaire with a total of 106 items scored on a four point Likertscale depicting the degree to which the described behavior reflects therespondents’ experiences with CI in the organization, plant, department, or ownwork environment. The items are arranged into ten major behavioral routines,or “norms”, described in the CI capability model developed by Bessant andCaffyn (1997). The ten behavioral norms are shown in Table I.

Scoring of the assessment provides both a “rating” for each norm as well as ageneral picture of the state of CI across the ten behavioral norms. From thesescores, the CI status of the organization, department, and/or group/teamresponding is translated into a “CI maturity level”. According to the model,maturity can be described on a scale from one to five. Level one reflects ad hocCI (no formal CI); level five reflects an environment in which CI is ingrained inthe daily work processes. Since CI in reality is a learning process (Bessant andCaffyn, 1997; Boer and Gertsen, n.d.; Boer et al., 2000), this highest maturitylevel is theoretically commensurate with a learning organization (Senge, 1990).

IJOPM23,10

1264

Conducting the CISAT with the team leader groupThe CISAT processIn the first workshop planned for the team leader group, the objective of theCISAT was explained to the group and then, one by one, each of the norms wereread aloud and critical concepts and difficult terminology were discussed.Throughout the workshop it was emphasized that the team leaders shouldrespond to the items according to their experiences within the team leader groupitself rather than with their respective shop floor teams. To discourageresponses based on the team leaders’ perceptions of ideal CI behaviors, theywere encouraged to provide concrete examples of instances in which thementioned behaviors occurred. Answering based on the team leader group’sbehavior proved to be quite difficult for the group members. They often madecomments such as “we know a lot more about our own [shop floor] teams; whycannot we answer with what we know?”, or “we really do not do much as a teamin this group”, and “I never thought of this as a team, so it is hard to answer”.

After scoring each of the questions, a one hour meeting was scheduledduring one of the team leaders’ regular planning meetings. Only three of the tenteam leaders attended and therefore one of the team members accepted theresponsibility of e-mailing the group members with a new date and time for thefollowing week. This pattern, in which fewer than four team leaders attendedthe planning meeting/CISAT workshop, continued over six weeks, with e-mailreminders and new dates being sent. Each time those in attendance decided itbest to wait until all or at least most team members could be present beforecontinuing with the workshop. Finally, one of the team leaders solicited help

Ten behavioral norms

(1) Understanding of the business. Employees demonstrate awareness and understanding ofthe organization’s goals and considerations

(2) Strategic focus. Individuals and groups use the organization’s strategic goals andobjectives to focus and prioritize their improvement activities

(3) CI development. The activities implemented to support CI are monitored and developed(4) Integration of CI. Regular evaluation ensures that the organization’s structure, systems,

procedures as well as the methods and mechanisms that are used to develop CI supportand strengthen each other

(5) Management of CI. Managers on all levels demonstrate active engagement in CI(6) Involvement/engagement. Employees in the entire organization are proactively involved

in CI(7) Intra-organizational cooperation. Work processes occur successfully across both internal

and external boundaries, at all levels(8) Learning. All learn from their own and others’ positive and negative experiences(9) Knowledge sharing. Individual and group learning is maintained and shared

(10) CI culture. Managers and workers are led by a shared set of cultural values that support CIin the daily work processes

Source: Based on Bessant and Caffyn (1997)

Table I.Behavioral norms of

the CISAT

Jump-startingcontinuous

improvement

1265

from the plant director in calling all of the team leaders to the next scheduledworkshop. One team leader also left the company abruptly during this time. Atthis meeting, the results of the CISAT were presented to the remaining ninemembers of the team leader group.

The CISAT resultsThe CISAT is designed to evaluate the degree to which the behavioral routinesare present across ten “norms” considered critical for success (Bessant andCaffyn, 1997). The results of the team leader group exercise indicated that CIdevelopment was decidedly lacking in the behavioral routines related tocross-functional cooperation, learning and knowledge sharing. Translated toCISAT terminology, the team leaders’ responses indicated a maturity level“one” (pre-CI) for norms seven, eight, and nine. In order to further explore theseareas, individual questions from the CISAT were printed on overheads andfacilitated discussions ensued concerning why members had responded incertain ways.

With respect to lack of cross-functional cooperation, most replied thatcommunication between the top and middle management (i.e. team leaders)was problematic, but that communication between the team leaders and theirrespective work team members was quite good. When asked aboutcommunication between the functional departments – that is, between themembers of the team leader group, the group became quiet. After somereflection, they admitted that there was very little discussion among the teamleaders. They reasoned that better communication between the group memberswould probably have a positive effect on the production, but they voiced someconfusion as to what issues would be important to discuss. They did notbelieve that competition between the team leaders was a major barrier to bettercooperation. Instead, they felt that they had simply continued to operate asindividual team leaders, managing their own departments, even though theywere now officially a team. Similarly, the group recognized that there was verylittle knowledge sharing within the group. They mentioned that most of theirfocus in terms of learning and knowledge sharing was directed towards theteams (e.g. planning team training, involving the teams in improvementprojects, etc.), but most also attended career development courses (e.g. businesscourses) at least once annually.

Exploring deeper issuesThe next meeting started with a facilitated discussion concerning why the teamleaders had been organized into a team. After a few minutes of reflection, mostof the team agreed that it had been a “normal progression” in the company’sdevelopment. The operators had been organized into teams, the topmanagement now functioned as a team, and so it seemed reasonable that themiddle management should also be a team. The team leaders were not veryclear as to what they believed they were expected to accomplish as a team

IJOPM23,10

1266

versus how they had functioned prior to forming the team. They had neverparticipated in any kind of team development and had never formulated avision or any goals for the team. While they could explain how being a teammight enable them to coordinate their work processes, and that this might leadto improved production, they were not forthcoming with any ideas on how thiscould happen in practice. In fact, two of the team leaders insisted that any kindof successful coordination was unlikely to occur because the group was toounstable. No one was really sure of their roles anymore, and that there was agreat deal of unresolved conflict between the top management and the teamleaders.

More specifically, they explained that two team leaders had recently left thecompany without anyone knowing why and that there was a general feeling ofuncertainty as to whether this was the “beginning of a major housecleaning”.Another member of the group speculated as to whether top management hadnot had a “hidden agenda” to eliminate middle management since operatorteams had been implemented five years before. He said “Maybe we are kept onsimply to provide training and support for the teams until they are fullyself-directed”. The remaining team members all became involved in thediscussion, which quickly escalated in intensity. Stories were told ofcommitments regarding team leader bonuses and opportunities for increasedinvolvement in employment decisions involving support personnel that werenot honored by the former production director and which had not beenaddressed by the new director. These issues clearly appeared significant to theteam leaders as they were all actively involved in a group discussion for thefirst time. Therefore, when it was time to schedule the next meeting, the groupwas assured that these matters would be addressed in more depth. Theprincipal researcher in her role as facilitator obtained permission from thegroup to discuss general aspects of the discussion with the production directorin order to receive approval for deviating somewhat from the original plans forthe group.

Shifting focusIn a meeting shortly thereafter, the principal researcher briefed the rest of theaction research team of the current status with the team leader group. Apprisedof the level of frustration, resentment, mistrust, skepticism and confusionamong the members of the team leader group, the action research team agreedthat these issues would undoubtedly provide significant barriers to CI and tothe healthy functioning of the company, until they were addressed. Therefore, anew plan of action was formed. The first step in the new plan involved theproduction director calling an emergency meeting in which he asked the groupfor suggestions as to what he or others could do to resolve the issues they hadraised. A joint decision was made to incorporate solving as many of these

Jump-startingcontinuous

improvement

1267

problems as possible into the CISAT project plan. Further, the total timeallotted to the project was extended for another six months.

During the next several weeks, workshops were held to support the teamleaders in composing a list of their primary issues as well as some ideas forpotential solutions to these problems. From this list, the team leaders werefacilitated in developing an action plan (Table II) on the meeting room’swhiteboard. When all were satisfied with the plan, it was presented to the topmanagement team by two volunteers from the group.

As much of the group’s concern stemmed from lack of trust and information,a proposal was accepted to adopt a “star point system”, which essentiallyestablishes a linking pin (Likert, 1967) or network structure between the teamleader group and other functional areas of the company perceived as importantsources of information and knowledge. According to Cohen and Prusak (2001),a connection of this type supports collaboration and commitment as well asknowledge exchange, both within the group and with the other involvedgroups in the organization. In this instance, one team leader volunteered toserve as the HR star point. He would work with the HR manager to establish aplan to have the team leader group more involved in future decisions regardinghiring of support personnel. In addition, this star point took responsibility forhelping the group establish a set of ground rules for the team members (e.g.that all members attended meetings or provided notice to the group whenabsence could not be avoided). Other star point positions included liaisonsbetween the group and top management, the production planning department,the new product development department, the quality department, and thosehaving primary responsibility for safety and hygiene issues within the factory.This star point structure allowed for two-way flow of information in and out of

Possible causes Potential solutions Actions taken

Lack of trust inmanagement

Open communication;honor agreements

Workshop with top management;compose written plans

No shared objective Develop mission, vision,goals

Teambuilding

Job insecurity Honest communication;role clarification

Individual meetings with topmanagement and HR manager

Lack of influence Participation in planning,hiring, etc.

HR star point organization(cross-functional participation)

Unrealistic expectations Clear communication ofstrategy

Top management star point(participation in planning)

Work load/focus Role clarification; clearstrategic focus

Workshop with top management andstar point participation

Too many changeinitiatives

Involvement in planning Star point organization (participation inplanning)

Missing camaraderiebetween members

Team building; slack Social activitiesTable II.Team leader group’saction plan

IJOPM23,10

1268

the group, which also helped alleviate some of the suspicions that plans werebeing made without the group’s knowledge. By presenting the informationgained from outside sources to the group, a natural and accepted way oftransferring knowledge between the group members was also found.

In each meeting, the principal researcher facilitated reflection concerning theongoing actions being implemented. During one of these reflection sessions, theteam leaders noted that they lacked the basic team development that their ownshop floor teams had received. For instance, the group lacked a team missionand a set of shared goals that would provide guidelines for better cooperation.Together the group submitted a request for support from the company’shuman resource department and began a series of team building activitiesshortly thereafter. From these exercises, they developed a team vision and bothlong and short-term goals aimed at building team trust and positive interactionbetween the team members. In one session, the HR manager and the productiondirector worked with the team leaders to develop a “picture” of the company’sfuture team leader. The objective with this exercise was to help define the teamleaders’ roles so they would not feel so insecure about the future of their ownjobs. Further, the team leaders enacted a “social calendar” of monthlyrecreational activities to address the “missing camaraderie” mentioned in theaction plan.

Summary of outcomesAlthough no quantitative measures of change were included in this research,follow-up interviews and observations conducted approximately after 1 year ofbeginning the study clearly indicate that significant changes have occurredwithin the team leader group. By the team members’ own accounts, there is atangible willingness to work together to solve problems and an energy to facenew challenges. Coleman (1988) suggests that the relationships developedamong the members of a group or network build on social capital within theorganization and thus support productive actions. On the basis of thesestrengthening ties, the team leaders have implemented a new production planthat minimizes inventory holding time. Further, to prepare for job rotationamong shop floor operators, the team leader group and a number of operatorshave developed a common standard operating procedure for housekeeping infour of the five departments.

While the team leaders recognize the value of their improved cooperation onproduction, they state that the greatest benefit they have experienced has beenpsychological, in that they are much more satisfied with their work and feelmore capable of handling their responsibilities. Recently, the team leadersrelated a positive experience in which the group held an impromptu meeting todiscuss ways in which they could “pitch in and help” one of the team leaders ina crisis situation. Coleman (1988) proposes that such willingness to supportother members of the group is one of the benefits of membership in a

Jump-startingcontinuous

improvement

1269

closely-knit network. They are still struggling with high-pressure demandsfrom production and their own work teams. Nevertheless, attendance at weeklyproduction planning meetings and CISAT workshops has increaseddramatically, from less than 40 percent at the beginning of the study to90–100 percent over the last two months.

The production director and the human resource manager speculate thatproductivity and quality have improved across the factory, due to increasedcooperation and a number of very useful improvement initiatives from the teamleader group. The cooperation between the members of the team leader grouphas also led to positive consequences on the shop floor. When approached bytop management with the task of developing training to all of the operators ona new organization-wide computerized production planning and accountingsystem, the group worked together to devise an innovative training schedule.The team leaders admit that prior to the activities described in this paper, suchtraining would have represented a tremendous burden for them as theyindividually attempted to lead training courses for their respective shop floorteams while maintaining acceptable production levels. Now, the team leaderssought volunteers from the shop floor to be trained as “super users” using theirexpertise to train and support their fellow team members. According to theteam leaders and the human resource manager, the new training programappears successful thus far and is expected to save considerable resources forthe company as an alternative to “classroom” training traditionally conductedin the company. Moreover, the peer-to-peer learning environment created byinvolving the operators in the teaching process appears to have increased themotivation for learning the new system on the shop floor.

DiscussionThe experiences presented earlier describe how a number of barriers to CIimplementation and group functioning were identified and addressed duringthe course of the research. The CISAT identified weak areas relative to the CIimplementation within the group and these results were consistent with theassessments provided in meetings and interviews with both top managementand the team leaders. According to the project plan, the course of action shouldhave involved implementing specific activities to strengthen behavioralroutines related to the group’s cross-functional cooperation, learning, andknowledge sharing (i.e. the identified weak areas). However, there were anumber of reasons suggesting that it would be prudent to deviate from thatplan. For one, it had been especially difficult even to get the team leaders toattend a workshop, so the agenda for any subsequent meeting needed to bepersonally relevant and worth prioritizing. The only issue that seemed relevantto the group at that time were those that had led to their frustration, confusion,and lack of trust in top management. In their willingness to discuss these issuesas a group and with an outsider, they admitted a felt state of crisis and became

IJOPM23,10

1270

extremely vulnerable. Given the intensity of emotions expressed at the secondworkshop, it therefore seemed both practically and ethically inappropriate topropose continuing with the original plan.

The flexibility inherent in the action research methodology provided themeans to shift the focus of the research from the original plan to address the(perceived) crisis state of the group. The role of top management was especiallycritical at this point: the director of production was not only actively involvedin establishing a new project plan, but also became actively involved in findingsolutions to the problems identified by the group. Furthermore, the role of thefacilitator became paramount at this stage of the project. It was necessary to bewilling to shift from a well-structured project plan that specifically addressedthe research interests to a situation that was highly uncertain in terms ofresearch results. Without the skills and experience necessary to manage suchconflict, it would not have been possible to work with the group on resolvingthese problems.

Modifying the project plan to address the problems identified by the groupleader did not however, mean that the results of the CISAT were simplyabandoned. In fact, the facilitated group processes provided opportunities toincorporate strengthening of the weaker CI behavioral routines into the actionplan for problem-solving. The team leaders were guided through repeatedlearning cycles as they worked on the action plan to present to the managementand as they began working cooperatively with other groups in the company toplan and improve production. The planning and implementation of the group’sactivities was related directly to the weak areas in the CISAT (i.e.cross-functional cooperation, learning, and knowledge sharing). Moreover,follow-up observations and interviews indicate that in addition to continuing(non-facilitated) learning cycles, the team leader group demonstrates evidence ofdeveloping a rich form of creativity and knowledge sharing. Nonaka and Konna(1998, p. 3) used the Japanese term “ba”, which essentially means “place”, to referto “platform for advancing individual and/or collective learning”. Applied towhat happened with the team leaders, the patterns of creating knowledgedescribed by Nonaka and Konna (1998) are summarized in Figure 1.

The experiences presented and discussed to this point address most of thequestion as to how self-assessment can be used to structure problem-solvingand learning to facilitate renewal of CI. The CISAT results indicated weakbehavioral routines in the areas of cross-functional cooperation, learning, andknowledge sharing. During the process of creating an action plan to present totop management, the facilitator guided the group through problem-solvingexercises and learning cycles that would link potential solutions to the threeweaker areas of CI implementation. In this way, the actions taken by the teamleaders facilitated development of the weaker areas of CI. Facilitated actionlearning cycles were continued during the time the group practiced their newroles in the star point system and other improvement activities.

Jump-startingcontinuous

improvement

1271

The question of how self-assessment may provide a better understanding ofgroup level barriers to CI implementation has however only partially beenanswered so far. Although the team leaders agreed with the CISAT results, itwas only after deeper discussion that it became clear that these areasrepresented only symptoms of problems affecting the group and theorganization. In order to gain a better understanding of what happened inthe company, it is necessary to take a look back at its history with CI.

As mentioned earlier, the company had initiated CI implementationapproximately five years prior to the onset of this research. During thoseyears, a number of the enablers – i.e. mechanisms, procedures, systems, andtechniques aimed at supporting CI implementation (Bessant and Caffyn, 1997)had been implemented. Specifically, the CI development in the company wascharacterized by restructuring into teams throughout the organization, annualshop floor team training and development, installment of systems and proceduresfor managing suggestions, developing and implementing improvements, andrecognizing and rewarding CI activities. The enablers introduced into thecompany were therefore consistent with those often mentioned in the literature(Bessant and Caffyn, 1997; Bessant and Francis, 1999; Boer et al., 2000).

If it is assumed that the company has been “done the right things”, why thenhad CI development essentially stopped?

Figure 1.Knowledge conversionwith team leader group

IJOPM23,10

1272

Barriers to sustained CI implementationThe simplest yet most likely explanation for why CI was not sustained in thiscompany is that even though they were “doing the right things”, they were notdoing them for the right reasons. No one in the company is quite sure whatinspired the adoption of CI, but many suspect it was a case of “follow theleader”: several top Danish manufacturing companies had implemented CI andthey simply followed suit by reconfiguring their production shifts, team leadersand top managers into teams, adopting a suggestion program, and sendingeveryone to annual training and development courses. The former director ofproduction was well-known for hearing about new programs and schemes andthen racing back to the company read to implement these same changes. Fosteret al. (1994), in their typology of approaches to TQM implementation, woulddescribe such an approach “Visionary total quality (TQ)”. With Visionary TQ,a highly charismatic top manager, such as the former top director in thiscompany, may become inspired by programs praised in a seminar or a newmanagement book and decide to create a new vision in his company on thisbasis. The initiative may be fueled by his enthusiasm as well as his disciples’,but will lose speed over time due to lack of company-wide acceptance andinvolvement. At this point, the manager will most likely adopt a new initiative.There were some early successes with CI implementation in the company; theshop floor operators were enthused about becoming “teams” and a number ofsmaller CI initiatives were implemented. Top management scheduled the teamsfor annual courses at a state-supported adult education center, where they wereenrolled in whichever courses running at that time. According to the typologyof CI implementation developed by Rijnders (2002), implementing CI in thisway would classify the company as “novices”. Novices adopt CI because they“have heard so many times how healthy it is to run and that you should jointhis CI race” (Rijnders, 2002 p. 149). While early efforts with CI may bepromising, the lack of thorough preparation for the race may lead to problemswith long-term maintenance. Consultant and CI “experts” are rarely used andnovices may find themselves “muddling through” to find a direction for CI,such as that observed in this company. Thus, by relying on Visionary TQ toinitiate CI and a novice approach to implementation, the company did not haveenough steam or direction to maintain CI over time.

Key enablers are in place but only in name. In Table III, a number of CIenablers identified in the literature (Berger, 1997; Bessant and Caffyn, 1997;Bessant et al., 1994; De Lange-Ros, 1999; Lindberg and Berger, 1997; Schroederand Robinson, 1991) as well as those implemented in the company are shown.The purpose of the enablers is to support the implementation of CI. However, itis clearly not sufficient to merely introduce enablers in name only and withoutensuring that they are in fact functioning.

In this company, top management reported that five of the listed enablerswere in place: Team organization, recognition systems, suggestions systems,

Jump-startingcontinuous

improvement

1273

Mechanisms to support learning (not knowledge sharing), and Teamdevelopment. However, “restructuring” to a team organization on the shopfloor had simply involved renaming the existing production shifts; the teamleaders were officially referred to a team because teams had been established atall levels, but had never identified themselves as a team. Recognition andsuggestion systems had been installed in the first months of CI implementation,but had essentially been forgotten by management and the teams. In fact, theyhad difficulty in understanding the relevance of the training to their jobs. Nostructures or methods for learning or sharing knowledge from experienceswere found prior to the project. The team leaders became “team coaches”simply because they received course certificates. Both the shop floor teams andthe team leaders reported that there was little to no connection between thetraining and development provided by the company and CI; the team leadersnever received team development to establish a team identity, a charter ofguidelines to support the new roles, or group goals, all of which are cited in theteam literature as being necessary for effective team development (Hackman,2002).

According to top management, some of the critical CI enablers such as“systems and procedures to support CI” and “problem-solving tools andchecklists” were never considered relevant because of the high degree ofautomation in the production. Top management believed the enablers referredto as “training in CI tools”, and “clear strategy” were in place, but othermembers of the organization were not aware of them.

The lack of functional CI enablers to support knowledge sharing, learning,and cross-functional cooperation may have been responsible for the weakbehavioral routines identified by the CISAT for the team leader group. Further,the absence of functional enablers for CI may have contributed to some of theunderlying problems identified by the team leader group: they were expected tofunction as a team without any of the tools necessary for doing so; they were

Enablers In place Functioning

Team organization Yes NoTraining in CI tools No NARecognition/incentive systems Yes NoFormal strategy and objectives for CI No NASuggestion systems Yes NoMethods for evaluation of CI No NASystems and procedures to support CI No NAManagement style consistent with CI Not in the first five years NAMechanisms to support learning and knowledge

sharing Yes/No NoProblem-solving tools and checklists No NATeam development and training Yes No

Table III.CI enablers and theirexistence andfunctioning in the casecompany

IJOPM23,10

1274

expected to function as coaches of teams that were not really teams; and, theywere expected to facilitate CI without functional systems for receivingimprovement suggestions and rewarding improvement initiatives.

No sense of urgency. A vast majority of papers on CI suggest thatorganizational change is necessary for survival in the uncertain marketconditions found in the world. While this claim is not being debated, it is basedon the premises that the company’s own market is uncertain and the membersof the organization recognize this uncertainty (Bessant and Francis, 1999; Boeret al., 2000). In the company participating in this research, neither of theseconditions applied. The company has experienced growth during the past10–15 years and has not experienced any significant market threats; internalstructural and technological changes have also been integrated ratherpainlessly. There have never been any major lay-offs in the company’s history,even during the restructuring to teams and the introduction of highlyautomated machinery.

Deming (1991) suggests that members of an organization must experiencedissatisfaction with the current situation before they will be willing to change.Recognizing a need and opportunity for change is also the first step in Lewin’s(1951) classic organizational change model of unfreezing, change, andrefreezing. At the time this research began, few of the team leaders were justbeginning to feel some anxiety regarding the future because of the suddendismissal of two of their colleagues. However, it was first when these concernswere expressed in the workshop that the anxiety became obvious for the entiregroup. This point may then represent the “unfreezing” of the team leadergroup.

Factors explaining the revitalization of CIThere were several major turning points for the middle management groupthat may provide a better understanding of the CI revitalization. First, the teamleaders realized a crisis state during the initial stages of the research. Whilemany if not all had experienced anxiety for extended periods of time, opendiscussion in the workshop led to a shared sense of a need for change. The newproduction director’s immediate attention to crisis in the team leader group andhis willingness to work collaboratively on addressing their issues may explainwhy the group so readily adopted new behaviors (e.g. the star point activities).Trust in top management was (re)established when the group saw that thedirector of production took action instead of making empty promises. Further,the group gained access to future strategic and development planning throughopen communication and the new networks being established, which providedmuch needed sense of security for the team leaders.

It is unlikely that any one of these factors alone would have led torevitalization of CI in the middle management group. Without the felt crisis, theteam members would likely have continued to be dissatisfied, confused, and

Jump-startingcontinuous

improvement

1275

frustrated until they eventually left the company or simply accepted thesituation. Because the group did not possess the skills or knowledge to developbeyond the crisis situation, the role of the facilitator was crucial. Furthermore,although the CISAT played a minor role in the initial stages of the changeprocess, it was useful in providing the structure and direction for changestargeted at CI, which had previously been lacking. Finally, without the supportand resources provided by the director of production, it would not have beenpossible to follow through with the change processes.

There are both concrete and less tangible consequences of the middlemanagement’s experiences during the research. The more visible effects of theCISAT process are the star point network which is enabling smoother andmore effective production scheduling, the new training program established forthe teams, and a number of smaller CI activities initiated by the team leaders.The psychological outcomes of the process are however not “invisible”: theteam leaders demonstrate energy and motivation to work together and theirreduced stress levels are readily apparent. Communication acrossorganizational levels and especially between top and middle managementgroup is described as being more open than ever before. Perhaps mostimportantly, the team leaders have created an environment in which learningfrom experience is valued and shared.

ConclusionThe objective of this paper was to develop a better understanding of howself-assessment can be used to identify and address barriers to CIimplementation in order to “jump start” CI. The experiences presented inthis paper demonstrate that the results of the self-assessment itself may reflectonly symptoms of the barriers to CI implementation. For instance, lack ofcross-functional cooperation was not per se a barrier to CI implementation butthe lack of functioning enablers to support relevant behavioral routines didserve as barriers for this group. Understanding how these barriers developedthrough previous implementation efforts and organizational patters providesdirection for removing the barriers. At this point, the self-assessment may offera way to structure change processes so that they target CI.

Although the use of a self-assessment tool such as the CISAT providesstructure to problem-solving and CI planning, it is wise to remember that it isjust a tool. The changes that occurred in this company were a result of aprocess, of which the CISAT was only one component. Without the support oftop management and the willingness of the middle management to becomeengaged in the change processes, the tool would have been ineffective.Similarly, the importance of facilitating self-assessment cannot be stressedenough and should be evident from the experiences presented here. Thereappears to be a trend towards developing shorter, simpler assessment toolsthat can be self-administered, without facilitation; in this case, it is extremely

IJOPM23,10

1276

doubtful that such a process would have led to the revitalization of CI. Thegroup members were only able to identify the underlying problems that actedas barriers to CI through facilitated dialogue. Further, the advantages toconducting the assessment as a group process were evident in this case: theprocess led to open communication, a shared understanding of CI, andfacilitated group development.

From the experiences presented in this paper, a number of implications forfuture research can be inferred. Specifically, there is a need for more empiricalwork concerning how CI enablers should and can be installed in the companyso that companies are not so likely to “muddle through” as was the case here.While certainly many of the characteristics of this group and the events theyexperienced are unique to this particular company, problems with maintainingand sustaining CI over time are not uncommon (Boer et al., 2000). Therefore,future research should also investigate whether certain enablers implementedduring various stages of CI implementation may hinder stalls or reenergizestagnant CI. Further, future research in this field should seek to understandwhether there are other methods and tools in addition to self-assessment thatcan help to identify barriers to CI implementation.

Finally, the research described here involved one single case company andtherefore these experiences need not be generally valid in other contexts.Future research using the CISAT or other CI self-assessment tools in othercontexts would be welcomed.

References

Berger, A. (1997), “Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizationaldesigns”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 110-7.

Bessant, J. and Caffyn, S. (1997), “High involvement innovation through continuousimprovement”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-28.

Bessant, J. and Francis, D. (1999), “Developing strategic continuous improvement capability”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 1106-19.

Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., Gilbert, J., Harding, R. and Webb, S. (1994), “Rediscovering continuousimprovement”, Technovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-29.

Boer, H. and Gertsen, F. (forthcoming), “From continuous improvement to continuous innovation:a (retro)(per)spective”, International Journal of Technology Management.

Boer, H., Berger, A., Chapman, R. and Gertsen, F. (Eds) (2000), CI Changes: From Suggestion Boxto Organisational Learning. Continuous Improvement in Europe and Australia, AshgatePublishing, Aldershot.

Cangas, J.M. (1996), “The self-assessment process at 1994 Euro quality winner Ericsson SA”,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 17-20.

Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. (2001), In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes OrganizationsWork, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Coleman, J.S. (1988), “Social capital in the creation of human capital”, American Journal ofSociology, Vol. 94, pp. 95-120.

Jump-startingcontinuous

improvement

1277

Coughlan, P. and Coghlan, D. (2002), “Action research for operations management”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 220-40.

De Lange-Ros, E. Continuous improvement in teams PhD thesis University of Twente, Enschede.

Deming, W. (1991), “Transformation of western-style management. The quest forcompetitiveness”, in Shetty, Y.K. and Buehler, V.M. (Eds), Productivity and Qualitythrough People, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.

Foster, M., Smith, S., Whittle, S. and Tranfield, D. (1994), “Regenerating your TQM effort: what todo when it runs out of steam”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 42-7.

Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hackman, R.J. (2002), Leading teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performance, Harvard BusinessSchool Publishing, Boston, MA.

Hillman, G.P. (1994), “Making self-assessment successful”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 3,pp. 29-31.

Jackson, S. (1999), “Achieving a culture of continuous improvement by adopting the principles ofself-assessment and business excellence”, International Journal of Health Care & QualityAssurance, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 59-64.

Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Larsstuen, A. and Mikkelsen, L.N. (1999), “Introduction of self assessment as driving force forcontinuous improvement and increase involvement of the employees at RaufossAutomotive”, in Skills Profile for Facilitators, Norwegian Society for Quality andLeadership, pp. 181-9.

Lewin, K. (1947), “Group decision and social change”, in Newcomb, T.N. and Hartley, E.L. (Eds),Readings in Social Psychology, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Troy, MO.

Lewin, K. (1951) Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers,Harper Torchbooks, New York, NY.

Likert, R. (1967), The Human Organization: Its Management and Value, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Lindberg, P. and Berger, A. (1997), “Continuous improvement: design, organization andmanagement”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 86-101.

Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), “The concept of “ba”: building a foundation for knowledgecreation”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.

Rijnders, S. (2002), “Four routes to continuous improvement: an empirical process typology of CIimplementation processes”, PhD thesis, Twente University Press, Enschede.

Robinson, A. (Ed.) (1991), Continuous Improvement in Operations. A Systematic Approach toWaste Reduction, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Schroeder, D.M. and Robinson, A.G. (1991), “America’s most successful export to Japan: CIprograms”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 67-79.

Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, RandomHouse, Sydney.

Shergold, K. and Reed, D.M. (1996), “Striving for excellence: how self-assessment using thebusiness excellence model can result in step improvements in all areas of businessactivities”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 48-52.

IJOPM23,10

1278