Continuous improvement implementation models: a reconciliation and holistic metamodel

Lameijer, Bart A.; Boer, Hendrik; Antony, Jiju; Does, Ronald J. M. M.

doi:10.1080/09537287.2021.1974114

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…QMSs are defined as “formalized systems that document processes, procedures, and responsibilities for achieving quality policies and objectives” (American Society for Quality, 2021). Common contemporary manifestations of QMS's include Six Sigma (Shafer and Moeller, 2012; Swink and Jacobs, 2012), Lean (Netland et al , 2015, 2021) and ISO 9001 (Ivanova et al , 2014), to name a few. However, these systems are related to a vast array of both production and quality systems that have been developed over time.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To prevent such failure, the literature proposes a variety of implementation guidance to support management decision-making in the form of lessons from case studies (e.g. Hirzel et al , 2017; Pierce and Rich, 2009; Nonthaleerak and Hendry, 2008) and implementation and maturity models (Lameijer et al , 2021).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hirzel et al, 2017;Pierce and Rich, 2009;Nonthaleerak and Hendry, 2008) and implementation and maturity models (Lameijer et al, 2021). Lameijer et al (2017Lameijer et al ( , 2021 systematically studied the large volume of QMS implementation and maturity models in both academic and practitioners' literature. With almost no exception, these models describe the implementation process as driven by programmatic patterns.…”

Section: Quality Management System Implementation Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The concept of continuous improvement stems from the American discipline of statistical quality control (Shewhart, 1931) and the Japanese “Kaizen” (Imai, 1986). Continuous improvement is about “striving for the best in quality and performance in all operations of the business” (Hammer, 2004, p. 85), and companies typically choose to organize this by QMS implementation (Lameijer et al , 2021). Despite the fact that these QMSs (e.g.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The purpose of this study is to empirically discover the process and degree to which implementing a new QMS follows a "turn-key" programmatic process versus a constructive and adaptive process. The practitioners' literature portrays QMS implementation as a straightforward process of implementing best-practice prescriptions (Lameijer et al, 2017(Lameijer et al, , 2021. Some of the academic literature echoes this perspective, for example, Chakravorty (2009) attributes implementation failure to either the organization's failure to adhere to the prescribed model or imperfections in the model itself.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Exploring the process of management system implementation: a case of Six Sigma

Mast

Lameijer

Linderman

et al. 2021

IJOPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to discover the learning mechanisms and temporal dynamics of implementing systems (Six Sigma) as it unfolds over time.Design/methodology/approachThe data come from a European engineering company that was implementing a Six Sigma-based quality management system (QMS) over a seven-year period. The analysis is based on an event-sequence reconstruction of the implementation process as it unfolded over time and discovers four different learning mechanisms that emerged: programmatic, persistent, adaptive and dialectical learning mechanisms. The research follows a process design study, where the authors study how the process unfolds over time.FindingsMuch of the literature on implementing management systems suggests that implementation follows a prescribed sequence of “turn-key” steps. However, the findings show that only 40% of all events were driven by prescribed “turn-key” generic practices, while 56% of events required constructing new practices via adaptive and dialectical learning. Moreover, the implementation process did not proceed in a linear programmatic fashion, but instead followed a punctuated equilibrium pattern, which alternated between periods of incremental change and major organizational change. The study also found that implementation required changing many complementary organizational structures and practices that were interdependent with the management system (i.e. Six Sigma). By understanding the implementation process, managers can better assess the time and effort involved, better adapt the system to their situated context and predict critical junctures where implementation could break down.Originality/valueThis research complements the few studies that have examined the process of implementing management systems. Most studies examine factors or conditions that result in implementation success (the what of implementing systems), but few examine the process of implementation and the learning that takes place during implementation (the how of implementing systems), which is a complex nonlinear process that involves different modes of learning.

show abstract