International Journal of Operations & Production Management

Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement

Nicola Bateman

Article information:

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

To cite this document:

Nicola Bateman, (2005),"Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement", International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 Iss 3 pp. 261 - 276
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570510581862
Downloaded on: 09 November 2014, At: 09:44 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 23 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2369 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Nicola Bateman, Arthur David, (2002),"Process improvement programmes: a model for assessing
sustainability", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 Iss 5 pp.
515-526
Barrie G. Dale, (1996),"Sustaining a process of continuous improvement: definition and key factors", The
TQM Magazine, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 49-51
Nick Rich, Nicola Bateman, (2003),"Companies perceptions of inhibitors and enablers for process
improvement activities", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 Iss 2
pp. 185-199

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 277069 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

Sustainability: the elusive

element of process improvement

Sustainability

Nicola Bateman
Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK

261

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose This paper identifies ten enablers for sustaining process improvement (PI) activities.
Design/methodology/approach The enablers are derived from analysing 40 activities and
identifying the significant enablers from the more successful activities.
Findings Five enablers associated with activities that fully realise the PI activity are identified and
a further five enablers associated with those activities that go on to achieve continuous improvement
are identified.
Practical implications The enablers are designed to assist people who conduct PI activities, cell
leaders whose areas are involved in PI activities and change agents and change champions who are
co-ordinating PI programmes. The practical nature of the enablers means that they are based on
processes that cell leaders, change agents and change champions can affect.
Originality/value PI activities are a crucial tool for companies undergoing a lean transformation
and removing waste from their processes. PI activities have been conducted widely throughout many
industries and countries, but little analytical work has been done into what sustains the improvements
made by these activities.
Keywords Process management, Continuous improvement, Economic sustainability
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Inspired by the dramatic improvements demonstrated, many companies have
undergone a process improvement (PI) programme and have found that the application
of PI techniques has led to significant improvements in operational areas. Over the
long term, however, many companies have found it difficult to sustain the original
improvements made during kaizen breakthrough or Blitz type activities.
This phenomenon has led the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders
Industry Forum to investigate what causes some improvement activities to have high
levels of sustainability and others lower levels of sustainability.
Industry Forum is a non-profit making organisation set up by the Society of Motor
Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) and the Department of Trade and Industry
to improve the competitiveness of the automotive sector in the UK. The method used to
improve competitiveness is to conduct hands-on improvement activities in companies
throughout the UK. These improvement activities have been conducted using PI
techniques pioneered by the Japanese automobile manufacturers. Industry Forum
conducts several types of improvement activities including MasterClass, supply chain
activity and team leader training. This research studied the MasterClass activity
(Bateman and Brander, 2000), which is a PI activity that occurs over three months and in
many organisations acts as a catalyst and foundation for continuous improvement (CI).
This research was funded with an EPSRC grant. Thanks to the Industry Forum engineers and
companies who took part in this research.

International Journal of Operations &

Production Management
Vol. 25 No. 3, 2005
pp. 261-276
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0144-3577
DOI 10.1108/01443570510581862

IJOPM
25,3

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

262

At the time of the research, Industry Forum employed 32 engineers and in addition
had six seconded Japanese Master Engineers, two each from Honda, Nissan and Toyota
and two UK Master Engineers seconded from General Motors and Volkswagen.
The purpose of this research was to identify enablers that could be employed
by the Industry Forum engineers and change agents within organisations to improve
the sustainability of PI activities. At the beginning of the research there was a large
number of ideas from total quality management, change management and lean
literature that could be relevant to the sustainability of the PI activities. In addition, the
experience of Industry Forum engineers and academics in the field provided other
more specific enablers. However, it was not clear from this mass of possible enablers
which were significant and likely to have a high impact on sustainability. The aim of
the research was to synthesise a short list of the most significant enablers.
2. Literature review
The principle of lean manufacturing, of which process improvement is an element, was
brought to the attention of the West by the publication of The Machine that Changed
the World by Womack et al. (1990). This was followed by Lean Thinking (Womack
and Jones, 1996), which was more practitioner focussed. In addition, there have been
many Japanese inspired books that have been focussed on company specific production
systems (Ohno, 1996; Shingo, 1989; Cusumano, 1985). Since then PI has been adopted by
many companies and there have been many case studies from companies outlining their
successes in PI (Jowit, 1999; Sumner Smith, 2000; Griffiths, 1998).
In response to papers extolling the virtues of PI there have been many papers that
identify issues with applying PI techniques, in particular focussing on problems with
sustainability. Griffiths describes how Perkins Engines, from a PI activity, managed to
achieve a 41 per cent improvement in operator productivity and a 25 per cent reduction
in cycle time. He also states that it is often easy to make gains initially But it is much
more difficult to sustain. Friedli (1999) identifies that a half-hearted approach can
cause problems and Mackle (2000) emphasises that a long-term approach must be
taken to avoid cynicism and backsliding.
Jorgensen et al. (2003) examine the role of the team leader in CI[1]. In their
longitudinal case study based in Denmark, Jorgensen et al. (2003) identify that there
was a gap in perception between the senior management and team leaders in terms of
enablers that were in place. The senior managers perceived enablers to be fully present
whereas in reality they were in place in name only. For example, senior managers
stated that restructuring to a team organisation had occurred whereas the team
leaders stated the existing production shifts had simply been renamed, whilst other
teams of team leaders never recognised themselves as teams at all. Team leaders also
reported that although they were given initial training, this was not followed up with
further development to help them establish team identity. For other enablers, it appears
that senior managers had taken a tick box approach without gaining proper
understanding. Jorgensen et al. (2003) state Top managers believed the enablers
referred to as training in CI tools and clear strategy were in place but other members
of the organization were not aware of them. This reflects a desire by senior managers
to take action to resolve problems and put new working practices into action, but in
reality they are rarely prepared to undertake more radical changes required to resolve
the root cause of problems.

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

There have also been a number of papers trying to identify what can be done to
improve sustainability. Bessant et al. (1994) in their CIRCA project (Continuous
Improvement Research for Competitive Advantage) identify that there are different
issues associated with setting up a CI programme to sustaining a CI programme.
They state that some of the factors associated with maintaining momentum for CI
include lack of commitment, lack of training, culture clashes, etc. A summary of these
issues is shown in the Appendix (Table AI). Upton (1996) looked at features of
successful improvement initiatives in his paper. He identifies a number of features
(see Appendix) including:
.
Clear targets and common understanding of direction. This involves a unifying
picture to hold the improvement programme together.
.
Consistent focus on improvement. This means using the picture identified above
and using previous improvement activities to direct new activities.
.
Compelling motivation and energy. Upton identifies the lack of such motivation
as an important cause of failure. He states three mechanisms to be useful: a crisis
to get things moving, a charismatic leader and a credible plan of campaign.
.
Structures to stop backsliding. This means removing methods that typify old
way of doing things.
This practical approach from Upton (1996) can be largely implemented by a change
agent. There are, however, some issues that are beyond the control of the change agent
in that, if there is no crisis in a company it could be difficult to generate one and
changing your leader for a more charismatic one could be considered difficult.
Sustainability is also an issue with other types of improvement programme Dale
et al. (1997) identify those factors that negatively impact on sustaining total quality
management by studying a number of case study companies. They divide these
negative impact factors into five categories: internal/external environment,
management style, policies, organisational structure and process of change. Dale et al.
(1997) conclude that a number of factors affected the sustainability in their case-study
companies including inadequate leadership, failure to complete projects, etc.
These factors are summarised in the Appendix (Table AI).
Kaye and Anderson (1999) surveyed 18 organisations to verify a model for CI.
The model was modified on the basis of survey findings, to reflect greater emphases
on the role of management stakeholder focus, measurement and feedback and learning
from results. The final model has a strong emphasis on strategy and objectives, but
generally covers areas addressed by other researchers, details of which are identified in
the Appendix (Table AI).
The Appendix Table AI shows a comparison of the inhibitors and enablers
identified by Upton (1996), Bessant et al. (1994), Dale et al. (1997) and Kaye and
Anderson (1999). They have been categorised into six major areas: process issues,
strategy and objectives, leadership and innovation, cultural issues, measurement and
information, training, learning and skills and in addition a miscellaneous category was
required. Each of these areas would bear further exploration in the application of
existing research in lean but would take this paper beyond its remit. There has been
some exploration of these issues linked with lean, for example, Lewis (2000) considers
the implications of lean, learning and sustainable competitive advantage, proposing
that the successful application of lean principles will encourage a firm to focus its

Sustainability

263

IJOPM
25,3

264

learning activities into refining existing processes to exclusion of broader innovations.

His three case study organisations do not provide any clear cut conclusions to this
hypothesis, but he proposes this as an area for further investigation.
The approach taken in most of the literature tends to focus on the larger
improvement programmes and generally draws from case study material. The access
to the Industry Forum activities allowed the unusual opportunity, in this field, to
conduct quantitative research across a group of activities that were executed in a
consistent way. The research outlined in this paper intends to draw upon the factors
for sustainability identified in the literature and assess the extent to which they are
successful at the level of the shop-floor based PI activity. Thus, the case-study material
provides a starting point for hypothesis testing on a larger sample.

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

3. Structure of the research

The research is aimed at people who conduct PI activities, for example, Industry
Forum engineers and change agents in companies who are undergoing a PI
programme. Thus, the output of the research was focussed on practitioners and had to
be practical for managers and engineers to implement.
The first stage of the research was to define what was meant by sustainability. To
this end, a model was developed that defined several classes of sustainability, outlined
in Section 3.1. The next stage of the research was to identify those inhibitors and
enablers (outlined in Section 3.2) for sustaining PI that were to be tested using the
sustainability model. Using this structure, 21 companies who had conducted Industry
Forum MasterClasses were visited and 40 PI activities were studied. The data from
these activities were then collated and those enablers or inhibitors that were important
to sustaining PI activities were identified.
3.1 Model for sustainability
Crucial to the development of the sustainability model was the realisation that
sustainability is not a binary concept, with only two states: of sustaining and not
sustaining, but rather sustainability has a number of states. This multiplicity of states
is reflected in the sustainability model shown in Figure 1 (Bateman and David, 2002), it
shows five classes of activities that have different levels of sustainability. The model

Figure 1.
Model of sustainability

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

was developed by following the different stages of an improvement activity and

considering the different outcomes in terms of sustainability at each stage.
The sustainability model is based on the Industry Forum MasterClass (Bateman
and Rich, 1999). This structure of improvement process or near variants is commonly
used by organisations conducting PI activities. The MasterClass activity has four
stages: diagnostic, workshop, follow-up and post follow-up. The diagnostic identifies
what needs to be done in the improvement area by analysing data. At this stage no
improvements are made. The next stage is the workshop, this is when the major
changes to the improvement area take place. The improvement team apply PI tools
such as 5C and 7 wastes (Bicheno, 2000) and the performance of the area is improved.
This is shown in Figure 2 during days 0-5. The application of these PI tools will usually
result in new working methods and a list of technical changes that need to be made to
the cell.
During the follow-up period, the improvement team has two types of task. The first
type is to maintain the new methods of operating specified during the workshop.
The second type of task is to close out technical issues that were identified during the
workshop. The degree of success of these tasks is shown during days 5-90 in Figure 1
as alternative classes of activity. Class A and B activities succeed in both maintaining
the new working practices and closing out technical issues. Class C activities succeed
in maintaining the new working practices, but fail to close out the technical issues.
Class D activities, conversely, close out the technical issues but fail to maintain the new
operating procedure. This results in an area that does improve the operating
performance through technical solutions, but fails to fully exploit the potential by
modifying working practices. Class E activities fail to maintain the new operating
procedures and fail to close out technical issues. A summary of these states is shown in
Table I.

Sustainability

265

Figure 2.
Development of list of
enablers

Classification
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class

A
B
C
D
E

Improvement in
workshop?

Maintain
new procedure?

Close out
technical issues?

Continuous
improvement?

u
u
u
u
u

u
u
u
X
X

u
u
X
u
X

u
X
X
X
X

Table I.
Summary of classes of PI
activity

IJOPM
25,3

After the follow-up period (90 days), the most successful activities, class A and class B
can go on to continue improving the area. This is where a PI activity
becomes a CI activity. If the teams deal with new issues and improve the
operational area on a weekly basis, CI is integrated as part of the normal activity in the
area. These types of activities are specified as class A. Class B activities are those that
do not go on to CI.

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

266
3.2 Selection of enablers and inhibitors
The inhibitors and enablers had to be selected to be practical within the resources of
the research programme and to meet the needs of the Industry Forum engineers and
change agents in companies. Thus, the following criteria were identified to aid
selection of the inhibitors and enablers:
(1) The inhibitors or enablers had to be measurable or demonstrable. This was
required so that data could be collected as objectively as possible.
(2) The inhibitors or enablers had to be process based rather than culturally based.
This is because Industry Forum engineers and company change agents can
directly change processes but cannot change company culture directly.
(3) Companies would be likely to have and be prepared to divulge information
about the inhibitor or enabler. This was required so that the data could be
consistently collected.
(4) The number of inhibitors and enablers should cover as many important areas
as possible whilst still not placing too onerous a burden on companies in terms
of the number of questions asked.
The initial development of the list of inhibitors and enablers was done by consultation
with the Japanese Master Engineers and the UK Engineers at Industry Forum and
through consultation with other academics in the field. This fairly long list was then
reduced by removing any near duplications and removing those inhibitors and
enablers that did not fit the above-mentioned criteria. The resulting list was then
compared with the enablers and inhibitors outlined in the existing literature, shown in
the Appendix, and modifications were made to the Industry Forum inhibitors and
enablers to cover any deficiencies, whilst still complying with the above-mentioned
criteria (Figure 2).
The list was then finalised by following the MasterClass process and making sure
that each stage that could hinder or enhance the sustainability of the process was
covered by a question about an inhibitor or enabler. The final list of questions is given
in Table II.
The questions are divided initially into two groups. The first group is factory level
questions, which were asked once for each factory visited. The second group is cell
level questions, which were asked for each improvement activity studied at a factory
and therefore may have been asked several times for each factory visit.
Each of these two sets of questions is further divided so that the questions are
grouped by the person interviewed.
The types of people identified in Table II are defined as follows:
.
Change champion. The person who champions the change process, who is
generally a person at board level who sanctions and funds the change process.

Factory level
General questions
1.1 Is the motivation for doing PI internally or externally (to the company) driven?
1.9 Are incentives used to encourage PI activities?
1.10 Does the company have Accreditations?

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

Change agent
2.2 Is there continuity in personnel involved with PI activities?
2.4 Is there a person with a significant per cent time responsible for co-ordinating PI activities?
2.7 Has company developed a system for raising and solving new problems?
2.8 Is time dedicated to 5C activities?
2.9 Is support gained from other cell members (who were not part of team) in a formal way?
2.10 Is maintenance support provided?

Sustainability

267

Team leader (of PI activity)

3.9 Have cell leaders been trained in PI?
Change champion
6.2 Does company learn from other companies?
6.3 Is strategy broken down to cell level?
6.4 Are senior management involved in activities?
6.5 Has the company managed to stay focused on PI activity without being distracted?
6.6 Coherent business plan?
6.7 Does the plan have target values?
6.8 Have business indicators improved?
Cell level
Shop-floor manager
4.1 Are problems from shop-floor documented in a PDCA format?
4.2 Is manufacturing strategy broken down to cell level?
4.3-4.7 Are there graphs to monitor current status and guide further improvement activity?
Operator
5.2 Are senior managers involved with PI activities?
5.3 Are problems from shop-floor documented in a PDCA format?
5.4 Has the company managed to stay focused on PI activity without being distracted?
5.5 Do operators have a high level of decision making?
5.6 Are there formal communications in the cell from factory level?
.

Change agent. The person who co-ordinates improvement activities and acts as a
facilitator for the change process.
Team leader. This is the person from the company who led the PI activity, and
who can often also be the first line supervisor or cell leader.
Area manager. This is the first level of management of the improvement area,
and can be the cell leader or their manager. The important criterion is that they
should be able to report on how the model area is currently operating.
Operator. This should ideally be someone who took part in the improvement
activity, and who still works in the area.

3.3 Research methodology

The methodology for the research (Figure 3) was relatively straightforward once the
sustainability model was developed and the list of inhibitors and enablers had been
identified. Once the sustainability model and inhibitors and enablers were developed

Table II.
Questions to identify
inhibitors and enablers

IJOPM
25,3

268
Figure 3.
Research methodology

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

then the first visit for each company was conducted. The purpose of this first visit was
to establish the class of sustainability for each improvement activity and to identify
which inhibitors and enablers were present at each activity/factory as appropriate.
The data from these visits were then collated so that all the class A activities were
grouped together, all the class B together and so on. The next stage was to visit the
companies for a second time to verify that the classification of their activities in terms
of class A-E was correct and the inhibitors and enablers identified as present were also
correct.
The final stage was to analyse the data using the x 2 test. This allows factors related
to associated groups of data to be compared and identifies those factors that are
significant to particular groups. The groups that were compared were class A and B
activities versus classes C, D and E, activities, and, class A activities versus class B, C,
D and E activities. This allows those inhibitors and enablers that are important to
obtaining at least class B activities to be identified and the second comparison
identifies which inhibitors and enablers are important to go into CI or class A activities.
The level of significance was tested at p , 0:1:
4. Results
The first set of tests was to identify those enablers (for simplicity of analysis inhibitors
were rephrased to make them enablers) that were associated with class A and B
activities in comparison to class C, D and E activities. This process identifies which of
the enablers are important for fulfilling the potential identified in the workshop, that is
maintaining the new working practices and closing out all the actions. Table III
identifies the enablers that were shown to be significant.
These enablers can be divided into two categories (shown in Figure 4);
(1) processes for ensuring contribution and buy-in by the cell members and
(2) processes for maintaining the standard and continuing focus on the PI activity.

Table III.
Inhibitors and enablers
for class A and B
activities

No.

Enablers

2.8
4.3-4.7
5.3
5.4
5.5

Time should be dedicated to 5C (or 5S) activities on a frequent (e.g. daily) basis
QCD type measures should be used to monitor the shop floor
Problems should be communicated properly from the shop floor
Managers should stay focussed on process improvement activities
Operators should have a high level of decision-making

Level
Factory
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

The processes for contribution and buy-in are to ensure better decisions, based on
hands on knowledge of the processes, are made about the running of the cell and as
cell members contribute to these decisions, improved ownership of improvements.
Formally documenting ideas from the shop floor means having a process that
documents issues raised by cell operators and deals with them in a prescribed,
thorough way. These issues would typically be ideas on how to improve the process,
highlighting potential quality or safety issues, or solving a current problem. The
process for documentation has to be formal but need not be burdensome, examples
include:
.
A flip chart in the cell area where operators can note down ideas.
.
A review process at the end of every week where all operators can get direct
access to a minuted meeting. Often it is not feasible for all operators to attend
every week, particularly if there is a shift system in operation, but all operators
should rotate attendance.
.
Having a review between cell or shift leaders where operator ideas are a specific
part of the review process.

Sustainability

269

The important elements of this process are:

(1) A method of recording ideas or issues.
(2) A method for reviewing the ideas and identifying those that are most important.
(3) Acting upon the idea and closing it out.
(4) Reviewing the action and raising any further actions required.
Simply relying on the cell leader to do something about operator suggestions is not
sufficient. This is because an informal process is reliant on the cell leader being
dedicated to taking notice of operator input if the cell leader is under additional
pressures or is replaced, the system for operator input may not be robust.
The second element of contribution and buy-in is ensuring operators can make
decisions about their work place. This is important as it allows the operators to have
ownership of their area. Where there is more than one person working in an area, the
decision-making process should be done in groups. This can typically be managed
using a five to ten minute team brief at the beginning (or end) of each shift.
Issues associated with maintenance and focus ensure that continuing effort is
directed towards keeping the standard achieved in the improvement activity.

Figure 4.
Summary of inhibitors
and enablers for class A
and B activities

IJOPM
25,3

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

270

Maintaining the standard achieved in the workshop is an essential part of 5C (also

known as 5S or CANDO) the first three Cs are dealt with in the workshop phase of
the activity clear out, clean and check and configure set the standard to which
the cell should adhere (Bicheno, 2000). The final two conformity and custom and
practice can only be adhered to on an ongoing, day-to-day basis. Conformity ensures
that everyone adheres to this standard. Typically 5C check lists need to be developed
as a reference standard. Custom and practice means that everyone does 5C and so the
execution of the 5C check lists takes place. This thoroughness of approach is
exemplified by one company change agent who commented 5C is part of life here.
The identification of 5C as an important enabler is unsurprising as 5C is the basis of
PI and fundamental to all the other aspects of PI. As Bicheno (1998) states 5S (5C) is
one of the cornerstones of Lean Management and has had a long association with
Shingo and the Toyota Production System.
Measurement of improvement achieved is also an important part of sustaining the
improvements made. Measurement is a way of indicating what is important in an
operational area and motivates people to support the measures (Jonson, 1992). If no
measure exists, people in the cell will not know what the standard is, and as other
priorities occur, the performance achieved in the workshop will gradually degrade.
Also, measuring the performance can highlight if any problems occur, and therefore, a
solution can be developed. Care should be taken to ensure that measures are at the
correct level because the purpose of having measures is to allow people to take
corrective action. If a measure aggregates the performance of several machines, this is
useful for monitoring but cannot directly tell an operator which machine has a
problem.
Managers staying focussed on PI activities is an important enabler because it
reinforces the view that PI activity is still significant to the company despite the initial
workshop being completed. This enabler is focussed particularly at the immediate
managers to the cell, i.e. the cell leader and his or her manager. What this means is
managers do not get distracted into neglecting PI activities in favour of other
improvement drives. This can occur with flavour of the month syndrome when
managers undertake one initiative, then undertake another without fully realising the
first (Repenning and Sterman, 2001). There will always be situations when an
emergency occurs and managers attention is drawn elsewhere, for example, a problem
with raw materials or installing new machinery, but PI should always be returned to.
This is exemplified by one company in the research group that stated This (PI) is
something we have to keep coming back to.
To further develop an area so that it goes on to CI (shown as class A in Figure 1),
enablers in addition to those shown in Figure 4 are required. These enablers were
identified by comparing the enablers associated with class A activities to those
associated with class B-E activities. The enablers identified are shown in Table IV.
These enablers can be summarised into three categories; consistency and buy-in,
strategy, and factory level support and focus as shown in Figure 5. The first of
these, consistency and buy-in, should be achieved by introducing changes to all cell
members using a formal method. This is necessary because it is frequently not possible
for all people who work in an area to be involved in all PI activities. The type of formal
method required is a short presentation to each shift to outline the new features and

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

working practices of the cell. This type of presentation can be supported by

documentation such as written standard operations and practical demonstration.
A link to the organizational strategy of the company for class A activities is
particularly important because it guides the further activities that are an essential part
of CI and ensures consistency in these improvements. To achieve integration with the
organizations strategy, it is important that the cell has a goal or direction. This would
normally take the form of a statement with numerical goals derived from the
manufacturing strategy; however, not all organisations have a formal strategy
development process and so a more informally derived strategy is sufficient.
Improvement teams need this direction so that they can identify what issues are
important for the company. Direction, in addition to internal issues of the cell, provides
the improvement team with future actions.
For ongoing improvement, additional factory level support and focus is required.
This should take the form of a person co-ordinating PI activities. The co-ordination role
was defined as requiring at least 30 per cent of a co-ordinators time. This person
should not be doing the improvements but rather facilitating and aiding cell leaders
and improvement teams. In addition, senior managers, for example, the manufacturing
and managing directors, should be involved in PI activities by attending improvement
activity meetings and by looking at how PI and lean principles can be integrated into
the organisation of the company. Maintaining focus should be achieved by reviewing
the progress of the shop floor as a whole, not imposing unnecessary additional

No.

Inhibitor or enablers test

Level

2.4

There should be a person with a significant percent of their time dedicated to

co-ordination of process improvement activities
There should be a formal process to introduce cell members who are not part of
the improvement team
Managers should involve themselves in PI activities
Strategy should be broken down to cell level or the cells should have explicit
numerical goals
Senior managers should stay focussed on PI activities

Factory

2.9
5.2
6.3
6.5

Sustainability

271

Factory
Cell
Factory
Factory

Table IV.
Inhibitors and enablers
for class A activities

Figure 5.
Summary of inhibitors
and enablers for class A
activities

IJOPM
25,3

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

272

initiatives and as much as possible by protecting improvement activities from external

interference. Focus can also be maintained by having the improvements made as part
of the performance measures for the factory.
4.1 Validation of findings
On the second research visit to each company (Figure 3), feedback was provided and
the class of each of the companies activity and the presence of inhibitors and enablers
were agreed. This served to validate the sustainability model and provided a clearer
picture to companies of what could be achieved with improvement activities. The
second visit also ensured the correct inhibitors and enablers were attributed to each
company.
To further validate the research findings, the results from this research were shown
to Nissan Motor Manufacturing UK, supplier development team. This team is involved
with PI activities in suppliers. They concluded that the findings fitted with their view
of the inhibitors and enablers for sustaining PI programmes.
The findings were also presented to the SMMT Industry Forum and SBAC (Society
of British Aerospace Companies) engineers. These engineers have gained a wealth of
experience in PI. The general comment from the audience of 46 engineers was that the
findings concurred and substantiated their own ideas on sustainability.
4.2 Research issues
As with most research based in real companies, there were issues associated with
gathering data. The most significant was the issue of many companies not collecting
accurate data about performance at cell level. This meant that categorisation of
activities into classes A-E could not be done on the basis of numerical data, as was
originally intended, but had to be based on other indicators of the class of improvement
activity.
These indicators were developed from the processes that form part of the definition
of the classes of sustainability shown in Table I. For example, if a company had closed
out all the actions from a workshop (sometimes there were some actions that were not
completed because they were subsequently found to be impractical, but these were
discounted), they would be categorised as class D, B or A. If they also had maintained
the standard set in the workshop, this would then specify the activity as class A or B. If
the improvement team had then gone on to tackle new issues in the improvement area
and had ongoing improvement meetings at regular, frequent intervals, every week for
example, then the activity could be classified as class A. Thus by examining the
processes that follow the workshop the class of sustainability of the improvement
activity may be obtained.
5. Discussion
For this research to be useful beyond companies using the Industry Forum approach,
inferences need to be derived from which the PI community can draw. The enablers
identified above can be grouped to form three levels of generic enablers:
(1) The need to follow the PDCA loop in closing out actions.
(2) The need for an enabling process to allow CI to take place.
(3) A supportive management infrastructure.

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

The need to follow the PDCA loop in closing out actions encompasses the need to fully
realise actions by not only doing them, but also to check they work and take any
remedial action required. The enablers that support this conclusion are: time for 5C;
formally record ideas; cell measurements; formal introduction to new methods, and cell
managers staying focussed. These enablers support the idea of PDCA either in
providing the whole loop or by providing an enabling process for part of a larger loop.
For example, time for 5C is a whole PDCA loop whereby the team plan and do a 5C
activity, they then check this with a 5C check list and take any appropriate action
required. Whereas the cell measures act as the check phase in a larger
improvement cycle whereby the improvements made are checked by measurement to
ensure they are working properly. The relationship between this generic enabler and
the IF enablers are shown in Table V.
The second generic enabler An enabling process for CI to take place is about
having processes whereby the cell team can meet, discuss and solve problem within a
structured environment. The emphasis on the structured environment is important
because it is too easy for teams gathered for problem-solving ending up in aimless
discussion. Equally, management sometimes expect CI to evolve out of PI without
setting up a process for CI to occur. The process for CI should revolve around using
the goals for improvement for the cell and the cell measurements to inform
team-based decisions. The team leader needs to be a facilitator for this process which
would typically form part of the daily team meeting utilising their communications
board.
The third generic element a supportive management infra-structure needs to have
the specific elements identified in the enablers all management teams undertaking PI
activities would describe their approach as supportive, but often they lack the required
Generic enablers

IF enablers

Sustainability

273

Explanation

The need to follow the PDCA Time for 5C

loop in closing out actions
Formally record ideas
Cell measurements
Formal introduction to
new methods
Cell managers staying
focussed

Enabling process for CI

Strategy and supportive

structure

Whole PDCA loop

Whole PDCA loop
Forms check part for PI
Forms act part for introducing new
working methods
This is the enabling process for
the PDCA loops to be enacted.
The role of the team leader
and their manager shifts ensure that
the PDCA processes is managed and
resources accessed where required
Team decisions
The plan part of the PDCA
loop for improvement
Cell measurements
Inform decisions for improvements
Strategy
Provides direction for improvements
Strategy
Ensures improvements are useful to the
organisation
Co-ordinating
Enabling process
Management focus
Provides resources and purpose
Management involvement Provides understanding

Table V.
Generic enablers derived
from IF enablers

IJOPM
25,3

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

274

elements. These are an understanding of PI techniques and this would be obtained

through participation in activities and having PI as part of the management agenda,
that is PI has a role to play in the development of this organisation and this is set out in
the strategy. This ensures people know why they are doing PI, and in what way they
are trying to improve the processes. With this solid role within the organisation it is
easier to get the commitment to resources that will be required. The co-ordinator
provides the resource to ensure the infrastructure is in place. Table V shows
how these three levels of generic enabler maps to specific enablers identified in the
research.
These three generic enablers are not dependent on the IF approach, but it seems
likely that some kind of formal PI approach will be required to ensure adherence to
these enablers.
6. Conclusions
The major conclusion that can be deduced is that within a formalised approach to PI it
is possible to identify common enablers for activities that have a higher level of
sustainability. Specifically for companies using the Industry Forum approach that
have the processes identified in Figures 4 and 5 improve the chance of sustaining PI
programmes. To achieve at least a class B activity, companies need to have explicit
processes to allow contribution and buy-in for a wide range of people. Maintenance and
focus on improvements made also needs to be present.
To achieve class A activities, this approach needs to be broadened and more
infrastructural support is required. This takes the form of a person co-ordinating PI
activities across the factory and a strong support structure from the senior
management team to maintain and develop the improvement activities.
The improvement areas also need direction in the form of a strategy, so that people
making the improvements can do so within a coherent backdrop in the whole
operational environment.
The general enablers proposed in the discussion are:
(1) The need to follow the PDCA loop in closing out actions.
(2) The need for an enabling process to allow CI to take place.
(3) A supportive management infrastructure.
These are supported by the specific enablers from the research but need to be
researched in a wider context with organisations using a range of PI methodologies.
In terms of other further research, the link between PI, CI, sustainability and long-term
strategy support should be explored with a three to five-year longitudinal study.
A major theoretical area that needs to be explored is the characteristics of
organisational learning and CI.
Note
1. For the purpose of this paper CI is regarded as the extension of process improvement where
the PI activity has sustained see section on model for sustainability.
References
Bateman, N. and Brander, C. (2000), The drive for process improvement, Manufacturing
Engineer, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 241-5.

Bateman, N. and David, A. (2002), Process improvement programmes: a model for assessing
sustainability, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, pp. 515-26.

Sustainability

Bateman, N. and Rich (1999), Making the numbers work: a study of performance measures for
process improvement teams, paper presented at the Managing Operations Network
EUROMA Conference, Venice, 7-8 June, pp. 735-42.
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S. and Gilbert, J. (1994), Mobilising continuous improvement for strategic
advantage, EUROMA, Vol. 1, pp. 175-80.
Bicheno, J. (1998), The Quality 60, 3nd ed., Picsie Books, Buckingham.
Bicheno, J. (2000), The Lean Toolbox, 2nd ed., Picsie Books, Buckingham.

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

Cusumano, M. (1985), The Japanese Automobile Industry: Technology and Management at Nissan
and Toyota, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Dale, B., Boaden, R., Willcox, M. and McQuater, R. (1997), Sustaining total quality management:
what are the key issues?, TQM Magazine, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 372-80.
Friedli, D. (1999), UK firms may suffer from kamikaze kaizen strategy, The Engineer, pp. 14, 8
November.
Griffiths, J. (1998), Lessons for improvement, Financial Times.
Jonson, H. (1992), Relevance Regained: From Top-down Control to Bottom-up Empowerment,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Jorgensen, F., Boer, H. and Gertsen, F. (2003), Jump-starting continuous improvement through
self assessment, International Journal Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23
No. 10, pp. 1260-78.
Jowit, J. (1999), A dirty job that someones got to do well, Financial Times, pp. 6, 7 December.
Kaye, M. and Anderson, R. (1999), Continuous improvement: the ten essential
criteria, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 16 No. 5,
pp. 485-506.
Lewis, M. (2000), Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 959-78.
Mackle, K. (2000), Theres no quick fix, The Engineer, pp. 12, 14 January.
Ohno, T. (1996), The Toyota Production System: Beyond Large Scale Production, Productivity
Press, Portland, OR.
Repenning, N.P. and Sterman, J.D. (2001), Nobody ever gets credit for fixing problems that never
happened: creating and sustaining process improvement, Californian Management
Review, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 64-92.
Shingo, S. (1989), A Study of the Toyota Production System from an Industrial Engineering
Viewpoint, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Sumner Smith, D. (2000), Kaizen: thats Japanese for helping Britain work better, Sunday
Times, 16 January.
Upton, D. (1996), Mechanisms for building and sustaining operations improvement, European
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 215-28.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking, Simon and Schuster, London.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson
Associates, New York, NY.

275

IJOPM
25,3

Appendix

Upton (1996)

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

276

Bessant et al.
(1994)

Process issues
Structures to stop
backsliding

Lack of formal
problem-solving
process
Failure to implement
changes suggested
Strategy and objectives
Changes of
Clear targets and
organisational
common
direction
understanding of
Lack of CI strategy
direction
Consistent focus on
improvement
activities, growing
from centre of
previous activity
Credible plan of
campaign
Leadership and motivation
Top management
Failure, cause of
support
lack of clear
motivation as to
why improvement
is important
Charismatic leader
Cultural issues
Culture clash b/w
espoused and
practical values

Dale et al.
(1997)

Kaye and Anderson (1999)

Failure to
complete
projects

Long-term objectives
Aims and objectives links to CI
activities
Managers should be aware of
long-term strategy and have
measurable objectives for
achievement for themselves and
their teams
Business objectives and critical
success factors that link vision,
mission and business plans
Inadequate
leadership

Senior management involvement

Leadership and active commitment
demonstrated by all managers

Resistance to
change

Culture for continuous

improvement (Awareness of CI by
employees, managers reinforce
culture by checking awareness,
effective communication,
multidisciplinary teams)

Measurement and information

Lack of measurement
Training learning and skills
Lack of training

Table AI.
Inhibitors and enablers
review of current
research

Miscellaneous
Selecting projects
based on ability to
improve a specific
target and ability
to provide
improvement
opportunities for
the future

Emphasis on big bang

innovation and
undervaluing of
incremental changes
Inappropriate
infrastructure
Lack of suitable
vehicles for CI

Inadequate
information and
its analysis

Measurement and feedback systems

Lack of quality
management and
problem-solving
skills

The learning organisation

Break up of
improvement
teams
Lack of
resources
devoted to
quality
improvement

Stakeholder focus
Focussing on employees (involving
all employees)
Focus on critical processes (VSM)
Quality management systems

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Richard J. Holden, Andrea Eriksson, Jrgen Andreasson, Anna Williamsson, Lotta Dellve. 2015.
Healthcare workers' perceptions of lean: A context-sensitive, mixed methods study in three Swedish
hospitals. Applied Ergonomics 47, 181-192. [CrossRef]
2. Thomas Bortolotti, Stefania Boscari, Pamela Danese. 2014. SUCCESSFUL LEAN
IMPLEMENTATION: ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND SOFT LEAN PRACTICES.
International Journal of Production Economics . [CrossRef]
3. Manuel F. Surez-Barraza, Jos . Miguel-Dvila. 2014. Assessing the design, management and
improvement of Kaizen projects in local governments. Business Process Management Journal 20:3, 392-411.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Terry Sloan, Anneke Fitzgerald, Kathryn J. Hayes, Zoe Radnor, Suzanne Robinson and Amrik Sohal,
S. Al-Balushi, A.S. Sohal, P.J. Singh, A. Al Hajri, Y.M. Al Farsi, R. Al Abri. 2014. Readiness factors
for lean implementation in healthcare settings a literature review. Journal of Health Organization and
Management 28:2, 135-153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Hyun Woong Jin, Toni L. Doolen. 2014. A comparison of Korean and US continuous improvement
projects. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 63:4, 384-405. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
6. Jorge L. Garca, Aid A. Maldonado, Alejandro Alvarado, Denisse G. Rivera. 2014. Human critical
success factors for kaizen and its impacts in industrial performance. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 70, 2187-2198. [CrossRef]
7. Christina Machado Guimares, Jos Crespo de Carvalho. 2014. Assessing Lean Deployment in Healthcare
A Critical Review and Framework. Journal of Enterprise Transformation 4, 3-27. [CrossRef]
8. Jacinta Baker. 2014. Letter to the Editor. Quality Management in Health Care 23, 64-65. [CrossRef]
9. Pedro Jos Martnez-Jurado, Jos Moyano-Fuentes, Pilar Jerez-Gmez. 2014. Human resource
management in Lean Production adoption and implementation processes: Success factors in the
aeronautics industry. BRQ Business Research Quarterly 17, 47-68. [CrossRef]
10. Andrew Taylor, Margaret Taylor, Andrew McSweeney. 2013. Towards greater understanding of success
and survival of lean systems. International Journal of Production Research 51, 6607-6630. [CrossRef]
11. Pedro Jos Martnez-Jurado, Jos Moyano-Fuentes. 2013. Lean Management, Supply Chain Management
and Sustainability: A Literature Review. Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef]
12. Jorge L. Garca, Denisse G. Rivera, Alejandro Alvarado Iniesta. 2013. Critical success factors for
Kaizen implementation in manufacturing industries in Mexico. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 68, 537-545. [CrossRef]
13. Wiljeana J. Glover, WenHsing Liu, Jennifer A. Farris, Eileen M. Van Aken. 2013. Characteristics of
established kaizen event programs: an empirical study. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 33:9, 1166-1201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Wiljeana Glover, Jennifer Farris, Eileen Van Aken, Toni Doolen. 2013. Kaizen Event Result Sustainability
for Lean Enterprise Transformation. Journal of Enterprise Transformation 3, 136-160. [CrossRef]
15. Pedro Jos MartnezJurado, Jos MoyanoFuentes, Pilar Jerez Gmez. 2013. HR management during
lean production adoption. Management Decision 51:4, 742-760. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

16. Anees Janee Ali, Md. Aminul Islam, Lim Poon Howe. 2013. A study of sustainability of continuous
improvement in the manufacturing industries in Malaysia. Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal 24:3, 408-426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Torbjrn Netland. 2013. Exploring the phenomenon of company-specific production systems: one-bestway or own-best-way?. International Journal of Production Research 51, 1084-1097. [CrossRef]
18. Jose Eguren, Carmen Jaca, Sandra Martnez, Raul Poler, Javier SantosPlanning/Scheduling Integrated
System and ShopFloor Management 191-224. [CrossRef]
19. Kyle B. Stone. 2012. Lean Transformation: Organizational Performance Factors that Influence Firms
Leanness. Journal of Enterprise Transformation 2, 229-249. [CrossRef]
20. Nicola Burgess, Zoe Radnor. 2012. Service improvement in the English National health service:
Complexities and tensions. Journal of Management & Organization 18, 594-607. [CrossRef]
21. Gulshan Chauhan, T.P. Singh. 2012. Measuring parameters of lean manufacturing realization. Measuring
Business Excellence 16:3, 57-71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. SangChan Park, SangChul Lee, Manuel F. SurezBarraza, Juan RamisPujol. 2012. An exploratory
study of 5S: a multiple case study of multinational organizations in Mexico. Asian Journal on Quality 13:1,
77-99. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Mikael Brnnmark, Suzanne Benn. 2012. A Proposed Model for Evaluating the Sustainability of
Continuous Change Programmes. Journal of Change Management 12, 231-245. [CrossRef]
24. Jos MoyanoFuentes, Macarena SacristnDaz. 2012. Learning on lean: a review of thinking and
research. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 32:5, 551-582. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
25. Julio J. Garcia-Sabater, Juan A. Marin-Garcia, M. Rosario Perello-Marin. 2012. Is implementation of
continuous improvement possible? An evolutionary model of enablers and inhibitors. Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 22:10.1002/hfm.v22.2, 99-112. [CrossRef]
26. James H. Ford, Dean Krahn, Karen Anderson Oliver, JoAnn Kirchner. 2012. Sustainability in Primary
Care and Mental Health Integration Projects in Veterans Health Administration. Quality Management
in Health Care 21, 240-251. [CrossRef]
27. Manuel F. SurezBarraza, Juan RamisPujol, Fernando SndovalArzaga. 2011. Finding kaizen approach
in small Mexican family businesses: an exploratory study. Journal of Family Business Management 1:2,
107-129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Goutam Kumar Kundu, B. Murali Manohar, Jayachandra Bairi. 2011. A comparison of lean and CMMI
for services (CMMISVC v1.2) best practices. Asian Journal on Quality 12:2, 144-166. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
29. Wiljeana J. Glover, Jennifer A. Farris, Eileen M. Van Aken, Toni L. Doolen. 2011. Critical success factors
for the sustainability of Kaizen event human resource outcomes: An empirical study. International Journal
of Production Economics 132, 197-213. [CrossRef]
30. Adrian Done, Chris Voss, Niels Gorm Rytter. 2011. Best practice interventions: Short-term impact and
long-term outcomes. Journal of Operations Management 29, 500-513. [CrossRef]
31. James H. Ford, Dean Krahn, Meg Wise, Karen Anderson Oliver. 2011. Measuring Sustainability Within
the Veterans Administration Mental Health System Redesign Initiative. Quality Management in Health
Care 20, 263-279. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by University of Toledo At 09:44 09 November 2014 (PT)

32. Eileen M. Van Aken, Jennifer A. Farris, Wiljeana J. Glover, Geert Letens. 2010. A framework for
designing, managing, and improving Kaizen event programs. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management 59:7, 641-667. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Michel Leseure, Mel HudsonSmith, Manuel F. SurezBarraza, Juan RamisPujol. 2010.
Implementation of LeanKaizen in the human resource service process. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 21:3, 388-410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Gopesh Anand, Peter T. Ward, Mohan V. Tatikonda, David A. Schilling. 2009. Dynamic capabilities
through continuous improvement infrastructure. Journal of Operations Management 27, 444-461.
[CrossRef]
35. Ravi Seethamraju, Olivera Marjanovic. 2009. Role of process knowledge in business process improvement
methodology: a case study. Business Process Management Journal 15:6, 920-936. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
36. Su Mi DahlgaardPark, Manuel F. Suarez Barraza, Tricia Smith, Su Mi DahlgaardPark. 2009. Lean
kaizen public service: an empirical approach in Spanish local governments. The TQM Journal 21:2,
143-167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Jennifer A. Farris, Eileen M. Van Aken, Toni L. Doolen, June Worley. 2009. Critical success factors
for human resource outcomes in Kaizen events: An empirical study. International Journal of Production
Economics 117, 42-65. [CrossRef]
38. Katsuki Aoki. 2008. Transferring Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants in China. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 28:6, 518-539. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Hendrik Van LandeghemA Management System for Sustainable Lean Implementation 173-187.
[CrossRef]