Process improvement capability: a study of the development of practice(s)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report on a research project, using intervention research (IR), which aims to identify how a higher education institution could develop process improvement (PI) capability. Design/methodology/approach The paper adopts a practice perspectives of routines, and classifies and catalogues the potential routines that could form PI capability. The development of these routines are investigated using the constructive research approach, a form of IR), in the action research mode. Within this approach, the methodology of mediated discourse analysis was employed to trace the empirical trajectory of the routine development, in a student management office within the context of an improvement project by the institutions PI unit. Findings Of relative significance is the implication that there is a small group of initialising PI practices which are accessible to practitioners, in contrast to a large set of critical success factors. Second, these PI practices transcend particular methodologies, meaning their development can be incorporated into customised, contextualised methodologies, by individual organisations. Practical implications The set of PI practices identified are able to be enacted by practitioners and are not dependent on macro-management factors. Second they are relatively simple to understand and are not associated with any particular improvement fad or fashion. Originality/value The study contributes to the appreciation of PI in higher education as a capability, and outlines the potential array of routines that could constitute that capability. It provides a theoretical view on how key PI routines are developed in an organisational field, and a more nuanced and richer view of “process mapping” and its effect on other PI practices.

Developing a Reference Framework for Claim Management Office: A Multi-Method Approach of an International Construction Firm

“…More importantly, the reference framework (refer to Figure 5) provides three main functions, along with 20 subfunctions, which can be used systematically by firms considering the multiple-level groups. Moreover, if the results are compared with other studies and the difference is described, some of the parts in Figure 5 remain true to previous studies concluded: (1) closeout claims [26]; (2) improvement of organisational ambidexterity [31][32][33]72,73]; (3) dispute settlement [23,77,79,81]; (4) claim phases and timeline [9,61,62]; (5) CMO maturity level [21]; (6) claim performance indicators [22,58]. However, as previous scholars have reported on OPM-related decisions [17,19,20], past research has not figured out how all of these behavioural-based concepts can be integrated into the design structure of CMO in firms' organisations.…”

“…(1) considering the rejected requests of project issue management-Shalwani and Lines [25] proffer that issue management (as a project control technique) as a solution for mitigating project challenges by using the issue log during execution for the remainder of the project; and (2) considering organisational project/program management [70,71]. In addition, some scholars [72,73] claim that process improvement of organisational ambidexterity is critical to understanding its conflicting aims and contradictory variations. 'Ambidextrous program management' (as a new type of multi-project management) bridges the project management and ambidexterity literature [30].…”

Developing SME performance management practices: interventions for improving productivity

“…This would consist of an assemblage of performance management practices a priori to an implementation of a fully-fledged PMS system, but with the explicit goal of productivity improvement. Jones et al (2019) refer to this type of inaugural assemblage as 'initialising practices'.…”

Development of a Kaizen series model: abducting a blend of participatory formats to enhance the development of process improvement practices

“…The working code of gathering process data best fits Biazzo's ( 2002) term of 'process analysis', which is about collecting and investigating information about the process. Jones et al (2019) introduces the idea of working with a process map, which 'sits' between defining and mapping a process, and adherence to a process. It is about revising and correcting a process map with key actors, as well as talking about the process, utilising the process map artefact.…”