Search results

Generic quality management system standard ISO 9001 and the automotive quality management system standard IATF 16949 both require organisations to demonstrate continual improvement in their customer satisfaction and the number of non-conformities identified during quality system audits. However, the long-term trends of these two parameters under ISO 9001 and IATF 16949 standards are not researched so far. It is expected that under continual improvement, organisations will achieve a step-function/stair-case shaped pattern. This study evaluates if this expectation is true when long-term performance of certified organisations is assessed.

A longitudinal exploration of three organisations certified to ISO 9001 standard and three certified to IATF 16949 standard is done. The observations are further substantiated using secondary data for the same ten years period about customer satisfaction of the major automobile manufacturers.

It is observed that none of the two indicators, i.e. the customer satisfaction and number of non-conformities, in any of the six organisations show step-wise/stair-case type improvement. All indicators followed random up and down patterns like ocean waves. It is paradoxical that certified organisations are claiming continual improvement and are remaining certified but there is actually no long-term improvement.

Longitudinal studies for the generic quality management standard ISO 9001 and the quality system standard for automotive sector IATF 16949 are rare. The revelation about ocean wave patterns observed in the long-term trends for customer satisfaction and the number of non-conformities in ISO 9001 and IATF 16949 certified organisations is a startling finding. It is outlandishly different from the conventional perception of a staircase-styled continual improvement pattern expected a priori in certified organisations.

The integration of industry 4.0 has become a priority for many organizations. However, not all organizations are suitable and capable of implementing industry 4.0 because it requires a dynamic and flexible implementation strategy. The implementation of industry 4.0 often involves overcoming several tensions between internal and external stakeholders. This paper aims to explore the paradoxical tensions that arise for health-care organizations when integrating industry 4.0. Moreover, it discusses how a paradox lens can support the conceptualization and proposes techniques for handling tensions during the integration of industry 4.0.

This qualitative and in-depth study draws upon 32 semi-structured interviews. The empirical case concerns how two health-care organizations handle paradoxical tensions during the integration of industry 4.0.

The exploration resulted in six recurring technology tensions: technology invention (modularized design vs. flexible design), technology collaboration (automation vs. human augmentation), technology-driven patient experience (control vs. autonomy), technology uncertainty (short-term experimentation vs. long-term planning), technology invention and diffusion through collaborative efforts among stakeholders (selective vs. intensive collaboration) and technological innovation (market maintenance vs. disruption).

A paradox theory-informed conceptual model is proposed for how to handle tensions during the integration of industry 4.0. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to introduce paradox theory for quality management, including lean and Six Sigma.

The purpose of this paper is to advance the understanding of paradoxes, underlying tensions and potential management strategies when integrating digital technologies into existing lean-based production systems (LPSs), with the aim of achieving synergies and fostering the development of production systems.

This study adopts a collaborative management research (CMR) approach to identify patterns of organisational tensions and paradoxes and explore management strategies to overcome them. The data were collected through interviews and focus group interviews with experts on lean and/or digital technologies from the companies, from documents and from workshops with the in-case researchers.

The findings of this paper provide insights into the salient organisational paradoxes embraced in the integration of digital technologies in LPS by identifying different aspects of the performing, organising, learning and belonging paradoxes. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate the intricacies and relatedness between different paradoxes and their resolutions, and more specifically, how a resolution strategy adopted to manage one paradox might unintentionally generate new tensions. This, in turn, calls for either re-contextualising actions to counteract the drift or the adoption of new resolution strategies.

This paper adds perspective to operations management (OM) research through the use of paradox theory, and we (1) provide a fine-grained perspective on why integration sometimes “fails” and label the forces of internal drift as mechanisms of imbalances and (2) provide detailed insights into how different management and resolution strategies are adopted, especially by identifying re-contextualising actions as a key to rebalancing organisational paradoxes in favour of the integration of digital technologies in LPSs.

This research study aims to inquire into the technostress phenomenon at an organizational level from machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) deployment. The authors investigated the role of ML and AI automation-augmentation paradox and the socio-technical systems as coping mechanisms for technostress management amongst managers.

The authors applied an exploratory qualitative method and conducted in-depth interviews based on a semi-structured interview questionnaire. Data were collected from 26 subject matter experts. The data transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis.

The study results indicated that role ambiguity, job insecurity and the technology environment contributed to technostress because of ML and AI technologies deployment. Complexity, uncertainty, reliability and usefulness were primary technology environment-related stress. The novel integration of ML and AI automation-augmentation interdependence, along with socio-technical systems, could be effectively used for technostress management at the organizational level.

This research study contributed to theoretical discourse regarding the technostress in organizations because of increased ML and AI technologies deployment. This study identified the main techno stressors and contributed critical and novel insights regarding the theorization of coping mechanisms for technostress management in organizations from ML and AI deployment.

The phenomenon of technostress because of ML and AI technologies could have restricting effects on organizational performance. Executives could follow the simultaneous deployment of ML and AI technologies-based automation-augmentation strategy along with socio-technical measures to cope with technostress. Managers could support the technical up-skilling of employees, the realization of ML and AI value, the implementation of technology-driven change management and strategic planning of ML and AI technologies deployment.

This research study was among the first few studies providing critical insights regarding the technostress at the organizational level because of ML and AI deployment. This research study integrated the novel theoretical paradigm of ML and AI automation-augmentation paradox and the socio-technical systems as coping mechanisms for technostress management.

This paper seeks to understand kaizen in practice as it travels through time and space in the organisational setting.

A qualitative case study was carried out at a multinational company using mainly interviews for the data collection that were analysed from an actor-network theory (ANT) perspective.

This paper finds that the company deals with a series of paradoxes while managing the kaizen process. Efficiency and quality paradoxes are the basis for starting kaizen projects. Furthermore, intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation, emerge in these processes, and paradoxes relate to how spontaneous ideas emerge in a deliberated context of cost-saving objectives. The supply chain finance team coordinates kaizen projects with the collaboration of plant managers, promoting the paradox of autonomy and control. In addition, as kaizen mobilises and enrols the actors, some trials of strength emerge, showing actors who oppose the kaizen network and create competing networks that mutually exist in the firm.

This study presents valuable insights for professionals to successfully implement kaizen methodologies that take advantage of developing a network for problem-solving in organizations.

This study highlights the supply chain finance team's role in enrolling the actors within a network built by practitioners engaged in kaizen projects. Usually, engineers, quality, or manufacturing teams lead kaizen projects, and only occasionally, accounting and financial teams participate, including multidisciplinary teams.

This study aims to propose a multi-level (bottom-up) analysis to build an organizational change capability (OCC) development model by integrating paradox and social cognitive theories. Using these theories, OCC (Level 2) is influenced by the leader’s paradox mindset (Level 1) and collective PsyCap (Level 2). The study also examined the moderating effect of magnitude to change on the effect of leader’s paradox mindset on OCC.

The proposed hypotheses were tested empirically using data from 327 respondents and 48 work teams from 21 leading private higher education institutions in Indonesia. To analyze the data, a multi-level analysis was conducted with Mplus software.

The results showed that, in a cross-level relationship, leader’s paradox mindset had a positive effect on OCC, whereas OCC mediated the effect of leader’s paradox mindset on organizational change performance. On an organizational level, collective PsyCap affected OCC, and OCC significantly mediated the relationship between collective PsyCap and organizational change performance. Moreover, the authors found a moderating effect of magnitude on change of leader’s paradox mindset to OCC.

This study used a multi-level analysis to evaluate the mechanisms of influence of leader’s paradox mindset (bottom-up) on OCC and the moderation effect of magnitude to change in an Indonesian context.

This study aims to investigate the relationship between strategy intent (product-service innovation intention) and outcome (product-service innovation outcome), and the role that external sources of innovation play in influencing this relationship.

Using data obtained from the community innovation survey, we apply a logit regression to a sample of 1,419 Portuguese firms. By examining the moderating effect of open innovation breadth, we assess how the relationship between differentiation intent and outcome is contingent upon the involvement of external stakeholders.

Our findings reveal that the relationship between differentiation intent and outcome is contingent upon the moderating effect of open innovation breadth. Our analysis suggests that the negative influence of different sources of innovation can be addressed by adopting a paradox lens.

This research provides valuable insights for managers. By simultaneously pursuing a differentiation strategy and engaging in collaboration with external sources, firms may compromise their ability to effectively differentiate their offer. Managers should consider the potential tensions arising from internal and external stakeholder relationships to optimize their innovation strategies.

This study contributes to the existing literature by shedding light on the role of external innovation sources in influencing the relationship between differentiation intent and outcome and the importance that information systems may have in this relationship. By exploring the moderating effect of open innovation breadth, we provide a nuanced understanding of how firms can navigate organizational tensions and leverage innovation for competitive advantage.

Digital transformation (DT) is a major challenge for incumbent organisations, as research on this phenomenon has revealed a high failure rate. Given this consideration, this paper reviews the literature on DT in incumbent organisations to identify the main themes and research directions to be undertaken.

The authors adopt a systematic literature review (SLR) and computational literature review (CLR) employing a machine learning algorithm for topic modelling (LDA) to surface the themes discussed in 103 peer-reviewed studies published between 2010 and 2022 in a multidisciplinary article sample.

The authors identify and discuss the five main themes emerging from the studies, offering the state-of-the-art of DT in established firms' literature. The authors find that the most discussed topics revolve around the DT of healthcare, the process of renewal and change, the project management, the changes in value performances and capabilities and the consequences on the products of DT. Accordingly, the authors identify the topics overlooked by literature that future studies could tackle, which concern sustainability and contextualisation of the DT phenomenon.

The authors further propose managerial insights which equip managers with a revolutionary mindset that is not constraining but, rather, integration-seeking. DT is not only about technology (Tabrizi B et al., 2019). Successful DT initiatives require managerial capabilities that foster a sustainable departure from the current organising logic (Markus, 2004). This study pinpoints and prioritises the role that paradox-informed thinking can have to sustain an effective digital mindset (Eden et al., 2018) that allows for the building of momentum in DT initiatives and facilitates the renewal process. Indeed, managers lagging behind DT could shift from an “either-or” solutions mindset where one pole is preferred over the other (e.g. digital or physical) to embracing a “both-and-with” thinking balancing between poles (e.g. digital and physical) to successfully fuse the digital and the legacy (Lewis and Smith, 2022b; Smith, Lewis and Edmondson, 2022), enact the renewal, and build and maintain momentum for DTs. The outcomes of adopting a paradox mindset in managerial practice are enabling learning and creativity, fostering flexibility and resilience and, finally, unleashing human potential (Lewis and Smith, 2014).

The authors propose insight that will equip managers with a mindset that will allow DT to fail less often than current reported rates, which failure may imply potential organisational collapse, financial bankrupt and social crisis.

The authors offer a multidisciplinary review of the DT complementing existing reviews due to the focus on the organisational context of established organisations. Moreover, the authors advance paradoxical thinking as a novel lens through which to study DT in incumbent organisations by proposing an array of potential research questions and new avenues for research. Finally, the authors offer insights for managers to help them thrive in DT by adopting a paradoxical mindset.

This paper aims to examine the perspectives of auditors, regulators and financial report preparers on the effects of key audit matters (KAMs) reporting on audit effort, fees, quality and report transparency.

The authors conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (13 Audit Partners, 5 Chief Financial Officers and 3 regulators) and thematically analysed the interviews. They use the frame of “Paradox of Transparency” to explain the findings.

Auditors perceive that the overall quality control of their audits has improved both in the planning and execution stages, and such improvement can mostly be attributed to the coercive pressures from professional bodies and regulators. Nevertheless, audit fee remains unchanged. Auditors disclose industry generic items and descriptions of KAMs, sometimes masking the real problem areas of the clients. Even after improving the performative audit quality, transparency of audit reporting has not improved. Issues that warrant going concern qualifications or audit report modifications are now reported as KAMs. Hence, KAMs reporting might make the audit report less transparent.

Localised audit environments and institutions affect the transparency of KAMs reporting. Without attention to corporate governance and auditors’ independence issues, paradoxically, performative improvement in audit quality (due to the KAMs reporting requirement) does not enhance the transparency of audit reports.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to provide field-level evidence in Bangladesh and other developing countries about the perceptions of auditors, financial report preparers and regulators on the effects of KAMs reporting on audit efforts, fees, quality and report transparency.

This study explores the use and perceptions of scholarly journal ranking lists in the management field based on stakeholders’ lived experience.

The results are based on a survey of 463 active knowledge management and intellectual capital researchers.

Journal ranking lists have become an integral part of contemporary management academia: 33% and 37% of institutions and individual scholars employ journal ranking lists, respectively. The Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List and the UK Academic Journal Guide (AJG) by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) are the most frequently used national lists, and their influence has spread far beyond the national borders. Some institutions and individuals create their own journal rankings.

Management researchers employ journal ranking lists under two conditions: mandatory and voluntary. The forced mode of use is necessary to comply with institutional pressure that restrains the choice of target outlets. At the same time, researchers willingly consult ranking lists to advance their personal career, maximize their research exposure, learn about the relative standing of unfamiliar journals, and direct their students. Scholars, academic administrators, and policymakers should realize that journal ranking lists may serve as a useful tool when used appropriately, in particular when individuals themselves decide how and for what purpose to employ them to inform their research practices.

The findings reveal a journal ranking lists paradox: management researchers are aware of the limitations of ranking lists and their deleterious impact on scientific progress; however, they generally find journal ranking lists to be useful and employ them.