Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how successful lean six sigma (LSS) manifests in the Australasian (Australian and New Zealand) context relative to the context in the USA in terms of LSS project definition, structure and practices.

In-depth investigation through case studies – 12 Australian/New Zealand cases and 4 US cases – on the implementation mechanisms of successful LSS initiatives.

A significant difference was found between Australasian and US definitions of an LSS project. However, firms in both regions followed similar project selection, initiating and execution practices. LSS reporting structures were found to be well-established in US organizations, but none of the Australasian organizations were found to be equipped with such a structure, although the effectiveness of LSS implementation success remained unaffected.

Sufficient uniformity of LSS was found across two regions implying its usefulness/generalizability, but the findings are based only on 12 cases.

The paper provides the groundwork to develop a unique LSS model for Australasian organizations to improve processes in an effective and efficient manner.

The paper provides a theoretical framework for interdisciplinary accounting scholars interested in performances of accountability in front of live audiences.

This is a processual case study of “Falkirk in crisis” that covers the period from September 2021 to September 2022. The focus of this paper is two-fan-Q&A sessions held in October 2021 and June 2022. Both are naturally occurring discussions between two groups such as are found in previous research on routine events and accountability. This is a theoretically consequential case study.

A key insight of the paper is to identify the practical and symbolic dimensions of accountability. The paper demonstrates the need to align these two dimensions when responding to questions: a practical question demands a practical answer and a symbolic question requires a symbolic answer. Second, the paper argues that most fields contain conflicting logics and highlights that a complete performance of accountability needs to cover the different conflicting logics within the field. In this case, this means paying full attention to both the communitarian and results logics. A third finding is that a performance of accountability cannot succeed if the audience rejects attempts to impose an unpalatable definition of the situation. If these three conditions are not met, the performance is bound to fail.

An important theoretical coontribution of the study is the application of Jeffery Alexander’s work on political performance to public performances of accountability.

The phenomenon explored in the paper (what the authors term “grassroots accountability”) has broad applicability to any situation in organizational or civic life where the power apex of an organization is required to engage with a group of informed and committed stakeholders – the “community”. For those who find themselves in the position of the fans in this study, the observations set out in the empirical narrative can serve as a useful practical guide. Attempts to answer a practical complaint with a symbolic answer (or vice versa) should be challenged as evasive.

This paper studies an engagement of elite actors with ordinary (or grassroots) actors. The study shows important rules of engagement, including the importance of respecting the power of practical questions and the need to engage with these questions appropriately.

This paper offers a new vista for interdisciplinary accounting by synthesizing the accountability literature with the political performance literature. Specifically, the paper employs Jeffery Alexander’s work on practical and symbolic performance to study the microprocesses underpinning successful and unsuccessful performances of accountability.