Search results

Business process re‐engineering (BPR) is certainly one of the latest buzzwords and is the subject of great interest and also great controversy. Organizations need to shake themselves out of complacency to close competitive gaps and achieve superior performance standards ‐ the reason why many have embarked on huge BPR projects. In view of the high risks associated with radical change, there are, however, many problems associated with BPR. For some BPR is going off the rails before it is properly understood, and many BPR exercises are not delivering the goods. Sometimes, organizations are expecting “quick fixes”, thus displaying their lack of understanding of a complex system. It is unreasonable to expect quick results when so much change is involved, especially when these business processes involve not only machines, but also people. Many believe, such as Mumford, that the management of change is the largest task in re‐engineering. Many people perceive re‐engineering as a threat to both their methods and their jobs. Owing to this recognition, many authors concentrate on the need to take account of the human side of re‐engineering, in particular the management of organizational change.

Discusses the techniques used by Tracor Aerospace, award winning supplier to the US military. Features examples of control charts and graphs used at Tracor. Looks at factors such as Tracor’s route to continuous improvement. Considers elements such as leadership, strategic planning, and customer and market focus. Gives detailed information about the company’s statistical process control program.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a framework for the design and management of a Kaizen event program where short‐term improvement projects (Kaizen events) are systematically used to introduce rapid change in targeted work areas, often relying on lean work system principles.

To develop the framework and the assessment approach, a comprehensive literature review and a field study of Kaizen event programs in three organizations were conducted. To illustrate the potential usefulness of the framework and the assessment approach, this paper presents a case study of how the framework was applied to design and improve a Kaizen event program in the Belgian Armed Forces.

Use of the framework as a design and assessment tool appeared to make the Kaizen event program more effective in the case study organization. Specific areas of improvement identified included: clearly defining event goals, scheduling extended follow‐up activities, defining measures to track results, assigning roles for Kaizen event evaluation activities, and sharing lessons learned in areas of the organization outside the work processes targeted by Kaizen events.

With the increased use of lean work system practices in recent years, many organizations are using Kaizen events to rapidly introduce change and to create a culture of continual improvement (or kaizen). However, organizations lack systematic, research‐based guidance on how to best design and implement Kaizen event improvement programs and how to best assess results. The proposed framework attempts to address these gaps.

This paper uses data from 349 employee involvement (EI) team projects to explore the relationships between process type, operational performance, employee involvement, and environmental performance. We investigate the stated goals and outcomes of EI team projects and relationships among these. For repetitive manufacturing processes in particular, we find strong relationships between the operational goals and outcomes of teams and the positive environmental impact outcome. To the extent that environmental performance results from operational systems, this paper suggests that the continuous improvement efforts of operations managers, including EI team projects, can be a key source of environmental improvements. Managers who understand this will take overt steps to leverage their operational improvement systems for environmental gains. From a theory development standpoint, questions are raised regarding the areas of potential synergy between operational and environmental improvement.

As organizations become more team oriented, research on teams continues to increase especially involving how teams contribute to organizational performance and effectiveness. Although there has been existing research on Kaizen teams in the private sector, very little research has included Kaizen teams in the public sector. In this paper, we present a method to study Kaizen teams in a local Spanish government that have been using Kaizen teams for more than ten years.

Quantitative research was adopted for this study. Twenty teams participated in the study by filling out the Team Learning and Development Inventory (TLI) proposed by Lingham (2004). In addition, we interviewed members of the teams in order to clarify and assure our quantitative results.

Based on the findings, we propose that Kaizen teams should practice both Continuous (CI) and Process Improvements (PI) in their projects. We also propose that Kaizen teams should not be teams skilled only at developing better improvement processes (both CI and PI) for the organization but that such teams should also be skilled at engaging in team development using both CI and PI processes internally – a Kaizen within Kaizen teams approach.

Its based in one case study. However, it is working paper and the research project still is developing.

Serve as a guide to practitioners (Public managers) who desire to understand how their Kaizen teams involves both internal (conversational spaces) and external (methodology) perspectives that would contribute to both team and organizational effectiveness. In this paper, we focus on the Internal Processes (both CI and PI) using the TLI as an effective method for Kaizen teams to engage in the Kaizen process.

This study is one of the first to look at team’s performance using Team Learning and Development Inventory in Spain’s public sector. It is also the first to mention about the relationship of the team’s performance and the implementation of process improvement methodologies in Spain local government environment.

This paper describes SPICE (Structure Process Improvement for Construction Enterprises), which is a process improvement framework for construction organizations. SPICE is a five level step by step maturity framework. It assesses an organization’s performance against levels of process maturity, identifies their strengths and weaknesses and highlights their improvement priorities. SPICE was developed in close collaboration with the construction industry and tested on real projects. This allowed the framework to take into account practical industrial needs. This paper provides an outline of the SPICE framework. It focuses on a best practice case study of SPICE implementation on a partnering relationship between a major client and a major contractor. The paper details the SPICE assessment and fact finding process. Based on this assessment, it identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the partnering operation and provides specific guidelines for project improvement. Main strengths of the partnering included: (1) close physical proximity of client, design and project management teams; (2) top level commitment to improve productivity; and (3) adoption of manufacturing philosophies and methods in order to deliver improvements. Main weaknesses included: (1) lack of integration between systems and processes of the partnering organizations; (2) presence of cultural and incentive differences between the partnering organizations, which led to fragmentation of the project teams; and (3) little evidence of process evaluation and improvement efforts by the teams. Based on these, some recommendations are made for future improvements.

This paper aims to present a method for strategic planning and implementation processes in health care based on lean management.

Within the framework of the action research methodology, the authors present the ten steps of a kaizen project, which enable lean transformation over a period of time. The study is underpinned by a literature review of enablers and barriers and an implementation case in a tertiary care hospital.

Key points and possible contingency issues are presented for each of the steps, and a successful lean tools intervention is illustrated by examples of improvement projects of the surgical process. Conclusions of the implementation establish a roadmap for improvement projects in hospital environments based on lean management, thus bridging the existing gap between the large number of theoretical projects (much of the projects described are not sustainable over time as the hospital sector is very particular) that have failed to be implemented, or been paused mid-term, and the self-sustaining projects developed by improvement teams in the hospital.

The study details knowledge gleaned from a three-year project entailing various stages: forming improvement teams; training health-care professionals in lean management; drawing up a process map to identify value stream mapping improvement opportunities; implanting projects and verifying the results obtained; and finally, laying the cornerstones, which would make the project self-sustaining and open to long-term continuous improvement.

That someone can make us feel good is a quality in itself. There has been much talk within British government circles, for example, about “the feelgood” factor, which is constantly reminding us that it is just around the corner! Whether or not we can believe in this is another matter but it certainly displays an awareness that making other people feel good can also have positive benefits for ourselves. How this can be achieved will differ depending on our particular line of business. Having a good‐quality product does not in itself guarantee success as service quality must also be taken into account. This is where the feel‐good factor comes into play. It is all very well, for example, going to a restaurant to have a top‐class meal (in that the food was good), only to have it thrown at you. Quality, therefore, must not be seen as a separate entity, but more as a package deal. Service quality is important if you wish to retain your customer base as acquiring new customers can be both time‐consuming and costly. It quite often takes very little apart from good manners to keep customer loyalty as in the case of the restaurant. Other factors can, however, start creeping into the framework such as efficiency, timeliness and good communication. Is there, for example, a time limit on how long you can reasonably be expected to wait for your meal before it arrives at the table, and if there is a delay is this communicated to you? In other words, we all have expectations as to what is acceptable and what is not. The clever part is for the organization to learn by what criteria the customer judges its service quality performance.

Remarkable improvements in results achieved during the past decade by some US manufacturing companies show the crucial role played in these companies by quality teams which we can call improvement support systems (ISS). The team infrastructure is modelled here in terms of a three‐stage sequential process with simple measures to evaluate the infrastructure elements. The approach is applied to study six Australian companies on their way to becoming continuous improvement systems. The findings expose different levels and patterns of team infrastructure. The enterprises differ in the context of their training models, the extent of autonomy of the teams as well as in the scope of the employees′ participation on teams. Considers the challenge for management finding the right extent to which monitoring and control should be applied to improvement teams as well as avoiding process stagnation. Suggests that the latter can be realized by extending active participation of employees, systematic generation of new improvement topics (eventually through splitting and continuation of old ones) as well as by continuous upgrading of training. A steady output flow of successfully finished projects can be considered evidence of an active (as opposed to a stagnant) improvement system.