Search results

We analyze the role of top managers in the process of improving existing products in large established firms. The results of an inductive study reveal two key arguments. First, we find that the process is an “involved” top-down approach, rather than middle-up-down or bottom-up, discussed in previous studies on new product creation. Top managers actively participate throughout the process, taking on four roles: evaluation of product market performance, selection of products for improvement, initiation of the innovation process through delegation to middle managers of the responsibility to organize bottom-level employees to take actions toward product improvement, and monitoring of progress to ensure improvement (ESIM). Top managers become involved as necessary to reduce the resistance of people at the middle and lower levels to change in current routines. Second, we find that in companies that achieve superior product improvement, managers have well-developed professional absorptive capacity and have routinized frequent interactions to evaluate, select, initiate, and monitor. Other characteristics of managers, such as personal absorptive capacity, incentive system, or mandate from above, are common across both high and low performers.

This study examines challenges to the retrospective financial evaluation of continuous improvement (CI) activities. Through a review of the literature and active engagement with CI implementations, we identify several issues that may lead to divergence between operational and financial assessments. Out of this conflict emerges a set of concepts that we find important − the delineation of soft versus hard capacity benefits, the distinction between capacity used and capacity paid for, and the data gaps that relate to these benefits – and recognize operational improvement and financial improvement as distinct, yet interrelated, theoretical constructs. This study helps explain a series of persistent gaps in the management accounting literature: Conflict between operations and accounting managers, the divergent perspectives of Johnson and Kaplan after their publication of Relevance Lost (Johnson & Kaplan, 1987), and the need for both operational control (including detailed capacity control) and accounting control in CI firms. Instead of one control system being at odds with the other, or co-existing despite each other, each of these systems support a different component of the financial improvement process. Operational control systems in CI firms emphasize non-financial information and social and behavioral controls that empower decision-making by employees, while accounting control systems seek to motivate and translate operational gains into financial gains. Soft and hard benefits linked to capacity play an integral role in understanding the difference in focus of each control system, while data limitations help to explain why these systems remain loosely coupled in practice (or absent, as seems to be the case with detailed Capacity Management Systems).

This chapter introduces benchmarking as a multifaceted concept based on action-oriented approach that goes beyond the simple study of a process or the search for a performance measure; through the measurement, analysis, and comparison with the best internal or external references benchmarking encourages the organization to identify areas for improvement and activate the corresponding actions. The experiences of the last 30 years brought out different types of benchmarking, defined and used in relation to the different dimensions of analysis and objectives of a benchmarking project. The analysis provides guidelines for the understanding and implementation of a benchmarking project, and emphasizes that there are no formal rules to identify the most suitable configuration of all, but different business objectives simply pave the way for methods and structures more consistent with the expected results.