Frank Gertsen

From continuous improvement to continuous innovation: a (retro)(per)spective

The new name of the industrial game is continuous innovation. But what is continuous innovation? And how can we manage and organise for it? This article addresses these questions by, first of all, defining continuous innovation as the ability to combine operational effectiveness and strategic flexibility - exploitation and exploration - capabilities that have traditionally been regarded as antithetical. Next, an old debate between organisation theorists on the question of whether it is at all possible to combine the two capabilities in one system is summarised to conclude that the majority of scholars argue that it is difficult, perhaps even impossible, to achieve continuous innovation. However, some authors have challenged this stance and have provided some useful thoughts, though little empirical evidence, as to how operational effectiveness and strategic flexibility can be combined to produce continuous innovation. The question of how empirically supported knowledge could be developed is approached firstly by briefly discussing the bodies of theory underlying the current thinking about continuous innovation, namely organisational theories of innovation, learning, and continuous improvement. Then, the papers presented at the 1995, 1998 and 2000 (Euro)CINet conferences will be analysed to show how these fields are gradually converging into what would more appropriately be labelled continuous innovation (instead of improvement). The analysis also shows that the field has a couple of serious weaknesses that need to be addressed if the research community involved really wants to contribute to the art and science of continuous innovation. The paper concludes with a summary of this analysis, presented as an agenda for further research.

Jump‐starting continuous improvement through self‐assessment

The innumerable accounts of successful implementation of kaizen in Japan during more than 40 years has led to the expectation that continuous improvement (CI) might offer companies a means to gain and maintain a competitive advantage in the turbulent 1980s and 1990s. 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 a longitudinal action research project with a middle management group are presented to illustrate how a process of facilitated self‐assessment was used to identify and address barriers to CI implementation. Through this process, a better understanding of CI implementation issues was gained and CI implementation within the company revitalized.

The formalisation of manufacturing strategy and its influence on the relationship between competitive objectives, improvement goals, and action plans

This paper intends to contribute to a better understanding of manufacturing strategy content by describing and analysing the content and formalisation of manufacturing strategies, and by exploring the relationships between the formalisation of manufacturing strategy, business/competitive objectives, improvement goals, and action plans. The study is based on the data from the third International Manufacturing Strategy Survey, which was conducted in more than 20 countries. The analysis shows that in companies with a formal strategy competitive priorities, improvement goals and action programs are significantly better aligned in companies without such a strategy. This finding is encouraging for operations management scholars, as it suggests that after 30‐odd years Skinners missing link has been re‐discovered, and it supports OM practitioners in their ongoing battle to safeguard the position of manufacturing in the corporate debate.

The trajectory of implementing ISO 9000 standards versus total quality management in Western Europe

This paper investigates the pattern or trajectory of implementing ISO 9000 standards versus TQM in Western Europe from a longitudinal perspective, using empirical data. The research is based on three large‐scale surveys conducted in 1992‐1993, 1996‐1997 and 2001‐2002 respectively, in 13 Western European countries. The results of the surveys show that European companies have put considerable effort into ISO 9000 certification. However, the results also reveal that, around 1996‐1997, European companies had also planned to implement TQM. However, the result of the planned “go beyond ISO to TQM” fell short of the anticipated extent, indicating that the adoption of TQM in Europe was slower than expected. Early in the twenty‐first century, European companies are still very keen on implementing TQM, indicating an obvious intention to shift from ISO 9000 to TQM. To ensure that the shift will occur this time however, the two approaches must be integrated properly. Although both ISO 9000 standards and the TQM/EFQM model have been recently updated or modified, how to best incorporate the two systems remains one of the major tasks of quality management in the future.

The Nexus of Corporate Entrepreneurship and Radical Innovation

This paper explores the linkage between the entrepreneurial orientation of established firms and the development of radical innovation. Through five case studies in firms involved in radical innovation, three propositions are developed, suggesting that proactiveness, risk-taking and autonomy stimulate the development of radical innovation, whereas competitive aggressiveness does not necessarily do so, as radical innovations are directed towards the creation of entirely new arenas of business, where existing competitors are not present.

Organizational changes related to advanced manufacturing technology in the production area

Abstract This paper discusses the necessity, the dimensions and the influential factors of organizational changes in the production area with advanced manufacturing technologies illustrated by three Danish cases and literature studies. The practical implications for organizational changes will also be discussed.

Supporting radical front end innovation: Perceived key factors of pharmaceutical innovation

This article explores how radical front end innovation is supported in pharmaceutical companies. The empirical field is an explorative case study of front end innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, with an in‐depth case study of the Danish pharmaceutical company, H. Lundbeck A/S, and explorative studies of seven European and American pharmaceutical companies. We aim to show how pharmaceutical innovation is unique in terms of front end innovation (FEI) and what this implies for effective management and organization of radical pharmaceutical FEI. The value added and the contribution of this article to the existing FEI literature is therefore in the specificity of the empirical setting in which the issue is investigated.

How continuous Improvement evolves as companies gain experience

We use the term Continuous Improvement to denote the process of focused and systematic incremental changes that are aimed at small step improvements, and to a large extent rely on employee participation. The article takes its outset in the problems that many Western companies seem to have when trying to implement and sustain an efficient process of Continuous Improvement within their business. The purpose of the article is to contribute to a better understanding of these problems by exploring how Continuous Improvement evolves as companies gain experience. A twofold objective is derived from this purpose how does experience with Continuous Improvement relate to the context, practices and outcomes of Continuous Improvement; and what can be learned about the path of evolution towards Continuous Improvement? The study is based on a survey of 87 manufacturing units in Denmark. The sample is segmented into three sub-samples with different levels of experience. Several differences among these three groups of manufacturing units are found and discussed. These differences concern: Continuous Improvement practices, such as motives, content, organisation, support and tools; outcomes, in particular CI performance; and context, such as manufacturing unit size. Some implications for the path of Continuous Improvement evolution are suggested.

Development of a team‐based framework for conducting self‐assessment of continuous improvement

The study presented in this article is based on two basic premises. First, successful continuous improvement (CI) is dependent on shop floor level involvement and participation in improvement efforts. Second, the term “self‐assessment” clearly implies that those whose performance is being measured, and who are involved in conducting the assessment process. Excerpts from longitudinal case studies in a single Danish manufacturing organization demonstrate how teams involved in the process of conducting self‐assessment of CI developed a better understanding of the basic principles of CI. Furthermore, the study shows how these principles relate to the teams’ own work processes, and a deeper understanding of their organizations strategy and objectives.

The role of CI and learning in an organisational change process: experiences from a longitudinal study of organisational change

Describes a longitudinal single‐case study in which continuous improvement (CI) was implemented during a radical organisational change process. In this case, numerous organisation factors greatly hindered the full integration of certain planned radical changes. In an effort to circumvent these situational barriers, CI, with an emphasis on imbedded learning, was introduced through an action research methodology in the context of an experimental learning lab (“experimentarium”). Contrary to prevailing theory that suggests that CI serves primarily to support and supplement existing radical changes, experiences from this study suggest that CI may be instrumental in facilitating the completion of the change cycle initiated by planned radical changes. Starts with a brief review of related theory, along with a discussion of the differences between radical and incremental changes. Followed by presentation of the case study methodology, two phases of the change process and finally discussion of the findings.