Search results

Previous research has identified factors that enable lean change to be sustained. What remains unknown is how the interaction effects amongst these factors vary as lean change programmes mature. When are particular factors at their most influential?

Using a data and investigator triangulated qualitative research strategy, this paper tests an a priori model of change sustainability factors. In phase one, the research reveals the influence and significance of the model's change sustainability factors within 13 manufacturers. In phase two, four factors (Leadership, Political, Individual and Managerial) were selected for in-depth case study analyses in three manufacturers.

These point to when in the lean change, certain factors have the most influence on its sustainability. The Leadership factor and political factor are essential at the beginning and remain influential throughout. Employees' individual commitment (Individual factor) is significant in sustaining the change but it is at its most influential in the later stages. The Managerial factor (management approach) is influential in the mature stages of the programme.

Recognising where to put maximum focus during a lean change programme as it matures is crucial for management.

Sustaining lean change has not been studied from the perspective of what factors need to be emphasised at different stages in the programme for successful maturity to occur. Through empirical validation, this study helps address this knowledge gap.

Interesting because – Researchers have found that the majority of lean implementations fail – changes to structures and working practices are made only to see the gains dissipate. Previous research has suggested that multiple factors including leadership, culture and politics influence the change towards a lean organisation. While studies have shown that such factors play a role, what has not been studied is the time, that is, when the factors influence the change process. This study investigated when 11 factors have the most influence on lean implementation. Theoretical value – The study extends the state-of-the-art understanding of implementation of lean in organisations by adding a time element. It is found that in order to have a change that is sustainable, that is, lasting at least 18 months, factors that indicate the importance to the organisation are influential during the entire implementation process. This includes how central the change is to the organisation, the influence of leadership that sets vision and goals, and the implementation methods. Factors that can set things in motion such as the influence of important stakeholders are important at the beginning of the implementation process but then decline in influence over time. While factors that seem to have to do more with how companies operate have less influence at the start but become more influential over time. These include employees' commitment, the managerial style and approach, the organisational policies and structure, and the organisational culture. Practical value – Introducing lean into an organisation and gaining its sustained benefits is often not successful. While factors have previously been identified that influence the success of lean implementation, this study provides additional practical insight. It helps manufacturers be more effective by pinpointing which factors should be focused on during the various stages of the implementation process.

The purpose of this paper is to close the gap between theoretical approaches to strategic operations auditing and empirical analysis of practice in service organisations. Through analysis of the two different views of strategy formulation – environment‐market and resource‐based – the paper aims to provide insights on how strategic operations audit methods are being used and under what circumstances.

The case study methodology was employed which involved a three‐stage data collection and analytical process. Its purpose was to identify how strategic operations audit methods were being used, why they were used and the particular circumstances of their use. Trails of operational improvement within each of six case studies show links between service operational activities, the benefits achieved by the improvements and the formulation and/or execution of each service company's business strategy. These trails of improvement provided a means by which to reveal some of the strategic operations audit methods being used. In addition, interviews and analysis of supporting documentation ensured the complete set of methods being utilised was identified.

The results indicate three main findings. First it is recognised that the service companies all look to adopt a top down approach to strategic operations auditing and seek to maintain, and where possible, gain greater strategic impact from their service operations. Second, the competitive state of the business impacts the choice of strategic operations audit method used. All companies studied employed an environment‐market method to assess operations – market fit. Only when a company is confident of its competitive position will managers then look to also devise a resource‐based method in order to assess its current ability to nurture new capabilities to exploit. Third, companies use a variety of integration techniques to verify on‐going cohesion across infrastructural decision‐making categories of the content of service operations strategy. The assessment of cohesion within service operations strategy takes place within subsets of the content of the strategy. The authors did not find integration techniques that hone structural decision categories or service operations strategy as a whole. The results also show that methods used by managers are pale imitations of the rigorous procedures originally devised by researchers.

Service operations managers possess inadequate understanding of how the application of a strategic operations audit method should be made and limited ability to undertake the audit in a structured and meaningful way. A strategic operations audit methods selection process is put forward to remedy this. The process acknowledges that the choice of a particular method is contingent on the stage of development of the company's service operations strategy. It guides managers through the decision‐making process of what strategic operations audit method to use and when managers should be using it. The message for academics is that new resource‐based methods need to be created that are accessible to managers and relevant when service operations strategy has successfully evolved to the point where greater influence is being sought from it in the formulation of business strategy.

An empirical study within service operations management of the practice of strategic operations auditing is rare. The paper's findings begin to address the gap between theory and practice. The paper presents revisions and additions to the operations manager's tool kit of strategic operations audit methods and culminates in a selection process to guide managers on which tool to use and when.

Lilly ICOS is preparing to launch Cialis, a prescription drug that treats erectile dysfunction, and executives must decide how to position Cialis against market leader Viagra and recent entrant Levitra.

Explains that servant‐leadership is a leadership term and philosophy which was originated by Robert K. Greenleaf, and which puts serving the greater needs of others as the primary goal of leadership. In a ground‐breaking 1970 essay, entitled The Servant as Leader, Robert Greenleaf suggested how caring for our many institutions, and each other, can occur through the practice of servant‐leadership. In the 1980s and 1990s servant‐leadership has become a major focus and goal in leadership and management writings, and in organizational practice.

Despite extensive adoption of Simons’ Levers of Control (LoC) framework, there is still considerable diversity in its operationalization which impedes the coherent development of the literature and compromises its value to researchers. The purpose of this paper is to draw researchers back to the conceptual core of the framework as a basis for stable, consistent definitions of the domain of observables.

We derive the conceptual core of the framework from Simons’ writings. We highlight instability in existing operational definitions of the LoC, weaknesses in the extent to which these definitions reference this conceptual core, and inconsistencies in the restriction of LoC to formal information-based routines.

We draw on the inconsistencies identified to build the case for commensuration or a “common standard” for the framework’s use on two levels: the constructs within the framework (through reference to the conceptual core of the framework) and the framework itself (through explicit inclusion of informal controls).

We illustrate the benefits of commensuration through the potential to guide the scope of the domain of observables in empirical LoC studies, and to study LoC as complementary or competing with other management control theories.

Our approach to resolving tensions arising from inconsistencies in the empirical definitions of LoC differs from others in that we focus on the strategic variables underlying the framework to define the conceptual core. We believe this approach offers greater potential for commensuration at the level of the constructs within the framework and the framework itself.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.