Search results

This study aims to investigate the adoption of Quality 4.0 (Q4.0) and assess the critical failure factors (CFFs) for its implementation and how its failure is measured.

A qualitative study based on in-depth interviews with quality managers and executives was conducted to establish the CFFs for Q4.0.

The significant CFFs highlighted were resistance to change and a lack of understanding of the concept of Q4.0. There was also a complete lack of access to or availability of training around Q4.0.

The study enhances the body of literature on Q4.0 and is one of the first research studies to provide insight into the CFFs of Q4.0.

Based on the discussions with experts in the area of quality in various large and small organizations, one can understand the types of Q4.0 initiatives and the CFFs of Q4.0. By identifying the CFFs, one can establish the steps for improvements for organizations worldwide if they want to implement Q4.0 in the future on the competitive global stage.

The concept of Q4.0 is at the very nascent stage, and thus, the CFFs have not been found in the extant literature. As a result, the article aids businesses in understanding possible problems that might derail their Q4.0 activities.

Being acquainted with both lean and action learning in theory and in practice, this study finds that the theoretical complementarity of these two research streams has traditionally been underexploited. In this conceptual paper, this study aims to advance the theoretical understanding of lean by exploring the complementarity of lean thinking and action learning leading to a proposed integrated theory of these two research streams. Target audience is the operations management research community.

By deliberately adopting a process of theorising, this paper explores, reflects upon and combines individual experiences of researching, teaching and engaging in lean and action learning as operations management scholars.

Having taken a gemba walk through the literature and practices of lean and action learning, this study views and notices a systematic and complementary relationship between the two domains. The overlapping theoretical and practical complementarities of lean and action learning suggest that these two research streams are ripe for synthesis into an integrated theory. This finding provides an opportunity to (1) progress towards an integrative design of interventions leading to more sustainable lean system adoptions and (2) add new depth to our theoretical explanation of the success and failures of lean system adoptions.

This paper contributes an original integrated theory perspective on lean and action learning.

This study aims to uncover the ongoing discourse on generative artificial intelligence (AI), literacy and governance while providing nuanced perspectives on stakeholder involvement and recommendations for the effective regulation and utilization of generative AI technologies.

This study chooses generative AI-related online news coverage on BBC News as the case study. Oriented by a case study methodology, this study conducts a qualitative content analysis on 78 news articles related to generative AI.

By analyzing 78 news articles, generative AI is found to be portrayed in the news in the following ways: Generative AI is primarily used in generating texts, images, audio and videos. Generative AI can have both positive and negative impacts on people’s everyday lives. People’s generative AI literacy includes understanding, using and evaluating generative AI and combating generative AI harms. Various stakeholders, encompassing government authorities, industry, organizations/institutions, academia and affected individuals/users, engage in the practice of AI governance concerning generative AI.

Based on the findings, this study constructs a framework of competencies and considerations constituting generative AI literacy. Furthermore, this study underscores the role played by government authorities as coordinators who conduct co-governance with other stakeholders regarding generative AI literacy and who possess the legislative authority to offer robust legal safeguards to protect against harm.