Search results

Prior institutional duality research asserts that ceremonial implementation of organisational practice protects multinational corporations’ subsidiaries. However, the temporal dynamics of the safeguarding function has been under researched. Public sector organisations have also been ignored. This research aims to explore how the safeguarding function is created, maintained and disrupted using the overseas offices (OOs) of a bilateral development agency (BDA) as a case.

A multi-case study, underpinned by neo-institutionalism, was conducted. Data obtained from in-depth remote interviews with 39 informants from the BDA OOs were analysed using the “asking small and large questions” technique, four analytical techniques, cross-case synthesis and theoretical propositions.

A three-phase process was identified. The first phase is the appearance of discrepancies due to institutional duality. The second is the emergence of ceremonial implementation as a solution. In the third phase, “the creation, maintenance and disruption of a safeguarding function” begins. When ceremonial implementation successfully protects the OOs, the safeguarding function is created. The OOs are likely to repeat ceremonial implementation, thus sustaining the function. Meanwhile, when conditions such as management staff change, ceremonial implementation may not take place, and the safeguarding function disappears.

The BDA OOs may not face strong host country regulative pressures because they are donors to aid-recipient countries. Hence, the findings may not directly apply to other public sector organisations.

Development cooperation practitioners should understand that ceremonial implementation is not exclusively harmful.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first institutional duality research that explores the temporal dynamics of safeguarding functions targeting public sector organisations.

The research explores the shift to Quality 4.0, examining the move towards a data-focussed transformation within organizational frameworks. This transition is characterized by incorporating Industry 4.0 technological innovations into existing quality management frameworks, signifying a significant evolution in quality control systems. Despite the evident advantages, the practical deployment in the Indian manufacturing sector encounters various obstacles. This research is dedicated to a thorough examination of these impediments. It is structured around a set of pivotal research questions: First, it seeks to identify the key barriers that impede the adoption of Quality 4.0. Second, it aims to elucidate these barriers' interrelations and mutual dependencies. Thirdly, the research prioritizes these barriers in terms of their significance to the adoption process. Finally, it contemplates the ramifications of these priorities for the strategic advancement of manufacturing practices and the development of informed policies. By answering these questions, the research provides a detailed understanding of the challenges faced. It offers actionable insights for practitioners and policymakers implementing Quality 4.0 in the Indian manufacturing sector.

Employing Interpretive Structural Modelling and Matrix Impact of Cross Multiplication Applied to Classification, the authors probe the interdependencies amongst fourteen identified barriers inhibiting Quality 4.0 adoption. These barriers were categorized according to their driving power and dependence, providing a richer understanding of the dynamic obstacles within the Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework.

The study results highlight the lack of Quality 4.0 standards and Big Data Analytics (BDA) tools as fundamental obstacles to integrating Quality 4.0 within the Indian manufacturing sector. Additionally, the study results contravene dominant academic narratives, suggesting that the cumulative impact of organizational barriers is marginal, contrary to theoretical postulations emphasizing their central significance in Quality 4.0 assimilation.

This research provides concrete strategies, such as developing a collaborative platform for sharing best practices in Quality 4.0 standards, which fosters a synergistic relationship between organizations and policymakers, for instance, by creating a joint task force, comprised of industry leaders and regulatory bodies, dedicated to formulating and disseminating comprehensive guidelines for Quality 4.0 adoption. This initiative could lead to establishing industry-wide standards, benefiting from the pooled expertise of diverse stakeholders. Additionally, the study underscores the necessity for robust, standardized Big Data Analytics tools specifically designed to meet the Quality 4.0 criteria, which can be developed through public-private partnerships. These tools would facilitate the seamless integration of Quality 4.0 processes, demonstrating a direct route for overcoming the barriers of inadequate standards.

This research delineates specific obstacles to Quality 4.0 adoption by applying the TOE framework, detailing how these barriers interact with and influence each other, particularly highlighting the previously overlooked environmental factors. The analysis reveals a critical interdependence between “lack of standards for Quality 4.0” and “lack of standardized BDA tools and solutions,” providing nuanced insights into their conjoined effect on stalling progress in this field. Moreover, the study contributes to the theoretical body of knowledge by mapping out these novel impediments, offering a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced in adopting Quality 4.0.