Critical Success Factors for the Implementation of Lean Improvement Programs: a Comparative Analysis of Failed and Successful Cases

``

[i]

Critical Success Factors for the Implementation of

Lean Improvement Programs: a Comparative

Analysis of Failed and Successful Cases

Master Thesis

Max van Apeldoorn | University of Groningen – Faculty of Economics and Business: 2027267 |

Newcastle University Business School: 5063267 | 1

_{supervisor: dr. J. Veldman |2}

_supervisor:

prof. C. Hicks

Date: 12-12-2016

Words: 14996

Abstract

This study investigated how the approach towards soft critical success factors (CSF) impacted the

success or failure of the implementation of lean improvement programs. To that end, it performed

an in-depth case analysis at an international manufacturing organisation on several failed

implementations, and compared this with successful external cases. The data was obtained through

semi-structured interviews with practitioners directly involved in the implementation of the

programs. The findings suggest that management commitment and involvement, employee

participation and empowerment and communication are the most important CSFs. Additionally,

the research deepens the knowledge on the content of the CSF by specifying elements that

positively impact the accomplishment of the CSFs. The research has provided insight into the

CSFs in lean implementations by theorising relationships between CSFs and by presenting

elements that are crucial to the successful accomplishment of the identified CSFs. These insights

can aid practitioners in developing a more comprehensive understanding of lean implementations,

and added to the literature by deepening the content knowledge on CSFs.

``

[ii]

`` [iii]

C

ONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ... V

LIST OF FIGURES ... V

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... V

1

INTRODUCTION ... 1

2

LITERATURE REVIEW ... 4

2.3 Hard Lean Practices ... 6

2.4 Soft lean practices ... 7

2.5 Soft Critical Success Factors in LP Implementation ... 8

2.6 Successful LP Implementation ... 9

2.7 Research questions ... 13

3

METHODOLOGY ... 14

3.1 Systematic literature review ... 14

3.2 Case research ... 14

3.3 Case data collection ... 15

3.4 Data analysis ... 16

3.5 External case selection... 16

3.6 Focal case description ... 17

3.7 Quality criteria and methodological limitations ... 18

``

[iv]

4.1 Acknowledgement ... 19

4.2 CSF Elements ... 19

4.2.1 Management commitment and involvement ... 19

4.2.2 Employee participation and empowerment... 21

4.2.3 Training and education ... 22

4.2.4 Alignment to strategy and long-term plan ... 23

4.2.5 Teamwork ... 24

4.2.6 Continuous improvement ... 24

4.2.7 Multi-functional integration ... 25

4.2.8 Managing cultural change ... 26

4.2.9 Communication... 26

4.2.10 Project management skills / performance management and control ... 27

4.2.11 Rewards and recognition ... 29

4.3 Overview CSFs... 30

5

DISCUSSION ... 33

6

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ... 36

7

RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS ... 38

8

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 40

9

CONCLUSION ... 40

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 42

11

APPENDICES ... 46

11.1 Appendix A: Hard lean practices ... 46

11.2 Appendix B: Soft lean practices ... 47

11.3 Appendix C: CSFs ... 49

11.4 Appendix D: Soft practices / CSFs combined literature count ... 51

``

[v]

L

IST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Hard World-class Lean Tools ... 7

Table 2.2: Combined ranking soft lean practices and soft CSFs ... 9

Table 2.3: Literature on CSFs (Adjusted from Netland, 2016) ... 11

Table 2.4: Literature on CSFs (continued) ... 12

Table 3.1: Participant companies and programs ... 16

Table 3.2: Participant role and pseudonym ... 17

Table 3.3: Focal case participant's organisational level and pseudonyms ... 17

Table 4.1: CSF codes & differences ... 32

Table 11.1: A1 Hard lean practices ... 47

Table 11.2: A2 Soft lean practices ... 48

Table 11.3: A3 CSF literature ... 50

Table 11.4: A4 Soft practices / CSFs combined literature count ... 52

L

IST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Participants focal case ... 15

Figure 3.2: Timeline X’s improvement programs... 17

Figure 6.1: CSF implementation model ... 39

L

IST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LP ………... Lean Production CSF ………. Critical Success Factors WCM ………... World-class Manufacturing TQM ………Total Quality Management TQC ……… Total Quality Control JIT ………... Just-in-Time

``

[1]

1 I

NTRODUCTION

The recent economic downturn and competitive global economy forced companies to cut costs and increase productivity (Netland, 2016; Muchiri & Pintelon, 2008). All organisations should aim to improve their processes to remain competitive in the global markets (Becker, et al., 2015). At the backdrop of this increasingly competitive global environment, more organisations are switching to strategies such as lean production (LP) (Tsang, 2002). LP is defined as an integrated socio-technical system that aims to improve performance through reducing supplier, customer or internal variability (Shah & Ward, 2007). Applying lean thinking to the organisation can increase the potential to deliver greater customer value with less effort (McCarthy & Rich, 2004). There is a significant increase in the number of published articles over the last few years, because of the perceived positive impact on organisational performance (Jasti & Kodali, 2015; Marodin & Saurin, 2013). Moreover, LP has gained momentum across different industrial sectors (Mostafa, et al., 2015) and can therefore righteously be called one of the most influential paradigms in manufacturing (Hines, et al., 2004).

Regardless of this increased momentum and attention in the literature, many companies fail to implement LP or fail to sustain the long-term lean philosophy (Jasti & Kodali, 2015), i.e. the conceptual dimension of lean based on the principles of variability reduction (Shah & Ward, 2007). In most organisations lean management is only a skin-deep collection of smaller improvement ideas (Schonberger, 2007). Often, soft human dimensions such as communication, problem solving and teamwork are vital for success (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006) and the fact that the majority of research is focused on the technical rather than the human side of lean is remarkable (Marodin & Saurin, 2013). Lean should be regarded as more than a set of mechanistic hard tools and practices and additional attention should be paid to the soft human dimensions (e.g. motivation and employee empowerment) as these are the key to the long-term sustainability of any lean program, irrespective of the industry (Hines, et al., 2004). Especially since many western manufactures have emulated the shop-floor techniques and hard tools while often struggling with changing the organisational culture and mind-set (Hines, et al., 2004). There is a lack of effective theories or practices to manage the soft human-related dimensions of lean, which is a sharp contrast compared to the more developed body of knowledge on the use of hard technical lean tools (Marodin & Saurin, 2013). Netland and Aspelund (2014) agreed and raised the question of how firms can avoid mere application of tools and superficial implementation to achieve real change.

``

[2]

these implementations have failed to be sustainable. The findings of this case will be compared with successful ‘external’ cases to investigate the soft critical success factors in LP implementations.

1.1 L

Having established the fact that more research is needed on the soft practices of LP implementations, this paper recognises this as an opportunity for research. For improvement programs to be successful, certain critical success factors (CSFs) have to bet met. Netland (2016) stated that while the majority of CSFs are known, how these are implemented is currently largely unspecified. Given that the majority of companies do not succeed with their lean programs (Lucey, et al., 2005) there might be a difference in the way these CSFs are implemented across companies. Previous research shows an abundance of roadmaps and advices on lean implementation, but the vast majority of these are described at such a high-level that they are useless to practitioners (Netland & Aspelund, 2014). A more practical and tactical rather than strategic approach to CSFs in the implementation of improvement programs is required (Netland & Aspelund, 2014). The primary research question addressed by the literature is therefore no longer whether lean benefits the organisation’s performance, but rather how to successfully implement lean with success (Liker and Convis, 2011; Netland and Ferdows, 2014; Rother, 2010 cited in Netland, et al., 2015). Schonberger (2007) added to this by stating that most companies have only skin-deep lean management and lack a holistic implementation of lean thinking.

For example, the CSF of ‘management commitment’ often carries no explanation of what that commitment actually involves (Netland & Aspelund, 2014; Näslund, 2008). Marodin and Saurin (2013) agreed and stated that in their literature review 55% of studies mentioned the importance of CSF of ‘management support and commitment’ though none clearly described criteria that distinguish a supportive from a non-supportive management team. This research will therefore focus on the soft side of lean improvement programs to answer the questions associated with how to implement soft practices and CSFs. It will try to gain an insight into the tactical side of CSFs to help practitioners get a grip on these high-level abstract CSFs such as ‘management support and commitment’ and ‘employee participation and empowerment’ (Netland, 2016).

``

[3]

there is a need to propose countermeasure that could be used to manage these factors to ensure the successful implementation of LP (Marodin & Saurin, 2013).

``

[4]

2 L

ITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 W

-C

M

The term world-class manufacturing (WCM) was coined by Hayes and Wheelwright (1984) and has since been embraced and expanded upon (Flynn, et al., 1999). WCM plants show higher levels of automation, lower rework levels and smaller inventories than their non-world-class counterparts (Oliver, et al., 1994). WCM frameworks in literature consistently refer to improving quality, treating suppliers as partners, investing in the human side of the organisation and enhancing customer value (Flynn, et al., 1999; Mishra, et al., 2006). WCM plants also showed ‘high commitment’ human resource management through training efforts, progressive employment practices and by creating a sense of shared destiny between the employee and the company (Oliver, et al., 1994). Subsequently, all firms seeking to perform at the highest level should aim for world-class practices.

WCM can be considered as the grouping of manufacturing strategies like Total Quality Control (TQC), Just-in-time systems (JIT), Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), and other programs that contribute to the aforementioned objectives (Mishra, et al., 2006; Flynn, et al., 1999). Multiple authors agree that TPM is a WCM program that seeks to optimize the effectiveness of manufacturing equipment by providing good maintenance practices (Ahuja & Khamba, 2008; Mishra, et al., 2006; Yamashina, 2000; Piechnicki, et al., 2015). Laugen, et al (2005) showed that process focus, pull production and equipment productivity were significant contributors to performance and should be considered world-class practices.

``

[5]

2.2 L

P

The foundation for the lean philosophy is considered to be the Toyota Production System (TPS) as introduced by Taiichi Ohno of the Toyota Motor Company in Japan (Jasti & Kodali, 2015). While the term ‘lean’ was introduced by Krafcik (1988), the recognition of LP only exploded after the publication of the book “The Machine That Changed the World” (Womack, et al., 1990). In their book, Womack, et al. (1990, p. 13) stated that LP uses “half the human effort in the factory, half the manufacturing space, half the investment in tools, half the engineering hours to develop a new product in half the time. Also, it requires keeping far less than half the inventory on site, results in fewer defects, and produces a greater and ever growing variety of products”. Since this early definition of LP, a more comprehensive understanding has been developed. The main goal that resonates through lean is the endless pursuit of eliminating waste (Ramesh & Kodali, 2012). Shah and Ward (2007, p. 791) defined LP as: “an integrated socio-technical system whose main objective is to eliminate waste by concurrently reducing or minimizing supplier, customer, and internal variability”. Waste, as referred to by Shah and Ward (2007) exists of three components: muda, mura and muri. In Japanese muda means waste, mura means irregularity referring to variability in the value chain, and muri means unreasonable and refers to overburdens placed on employees (De Mente, 2011). Muda however consists of seven different types of waste: defects, unnecessary inventory, waiting, transportation, inappropriate processing, over production and unnecessary motions (Jasti & Kodali, 2015).

``

[6]

Figure 2.1: Strategic and Operational levels of lean (Hines, et al., 2004)

2.3 H

L

P

The term LP represents an umbrella of practices that can be classified as either soft or hard. The literature is in agreement over criteria to apply in defining the characteristics of and differences between these two bundles of tools and practices. Lean practices are classified as ‘hard’ when they consist of technical and analytical tools to improve production systems e.g. Kanban, single-minute-exchange of dies or statistical process control (Bortolotti, et al., 2015). On the other hand, soft practices are classified as principles, managerial concepts, people and relations (Bortolotti, et al., 2015). While this classification is exclusive, some practices are slightly ambiguous. For example, a pillar of TPM is autonomous maintenance, which can be considered a hard practice (Bortolotti, et al., 2015). However, an important TPM concept revolves around teamwork and group culture (Bamber, et al., 2003) which should be classified as a soft practice.

Nonetheless, the majority of practices can clearly be classified as either hard or soft. Practices such as standardising work, JIT and quality control (Smith & Hawkins, 2004) are hard lean practices. Table 2.1 displays an overview of hard lean tools gathered from literature. To identify world-class lean tools, literature on both LP and WCM was analysed. The tools that were found in WCM literature were cross-checked with the LP literature and only tools that were found multiple LP articles or in both LP and WCM articles were included in Table 2.1. This was done to ensure that only world-class lean tools were included and non-lean tools were excluded. A complete overview of all hard tools can be found in Appendix A: Hard lean practices

Hard world-class lean tool Literature

Pull production Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Shah & Ward, 2007; Bortolotti, et al., 2015; Jasti &

Kodali, 2015; Hines, et al., 2004; Laugen, et al., 2005; Netland, 2013; Shah & Ward, 2003

TPM / preventive maintenance Shah & Ward, 2007; Bortolotti, et al., 2015; Jasti & Kodali, 2015; Hines, et al.,

``

[7]

Quality Management / TQC Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Shah & Ward, 2007; Jasti & Kodali, 2015; Hines, et

al., 2004; Netland, 2013; Smith & Hawkins, 2004; Laugen, et al., 2005; Shah & Ward, 2003; Hayes & Wheelwright, 1984

Set-up time reduction Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Shah & Ward, 2007; Bortolotti, et al., 2015; Jasti &

Kodali, 2015; Hines, et al., 2004; Shah & Ward, 2003

Flow production Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Shah & Ward, 2007; Bortolotti, et al., 2015; Jasti & Kodali, 2015; Netland, 2013; Shah & Ward, 2003

JIT principles Shah & Ward, 2007; Bortolotti, et al., 2015; Jasti & Kodali, 2015; Netland, 2013;

Smith & Hawkins, 2004; Shah & Ward, 2003

Cellular manufacturing Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Shah & Ward, 2007; Jasti & Kodali, 2015; Hines, et al.,

2004; Shah & Ward, 2003

5S workplace organisation Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Jasti & Kodali, 2015; Hines, et al., 2004; Netland, 2013 Statistical process control Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Shah & Ward, 2007; Bortolotti, et al., 2015; Hines, et

al., 2004

Standardized work Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Jasti & Kodali, 2015; Netland, 2013; Smith & Hawkins,

2004

Lot size reduction Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Shah & Ward, 2007; Jasti & Kodali, 2015; Shah & Ward,

2003

Visual management Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Jasti & Kodali, 2015; Netland, 2013 performance control Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Ramesh & Kodali, 2012; Netland, 2013

VSM Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Ramesh & Kodali, 2012; Jasti & Kodali, 2015

Focused factory Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Shah & Ward, 2003

Table 2.1: Hard World-class Lean Tools

2.4 S

A significant number of companies implement lean programs by focusing on lean tools and techniques, paying little attention to the human-related soft practices (Hines, et al., 2004; Liker & Rother, 2011). This will often lead to a superficial implementation, that is, a failure to implement a lean culture. Companies adopt the practices that are clearly “visible”, i.e. hard practices (Table 2.1: Hard World-class Lean Tools), while neglecting the importance of the intangible and less immediately effective soft practices (Bortolotti, et al., 2015). These soft, organisational and human practices are more subtle, yet are regarded as important long-term factors in improvement programs (Yamashina, 2000).

``

[8]

However, the soft practices are vital for success and it is true that these, along with people and cultural change, are predominant reasons for lean failures (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006). Furthermore, soft practices can enhance the optimal performance of hard practices. Furlan, et al. (2011) found that soft lean practices such as employee commitment and involvement, communication, and training are important foundations for synergies between hard lean practices like TQM and JIT. In line with this, Schonberger (2007) noted that employee involvement is crucial for the implementation of JIT and TQM practices.

2.5 S

C

S

F

LP

I

Marodin and Saurin (2013) defined the implementation of LP as the process of applying the principles and practices of LP, exploring their synergies and adapting them to the specific context of each organisation. One of the particularities of LP implementation is that it has no end (Hines, et al., 2004) since its foundation is continuous improvement (Shah & Ward, 2007).

For successful LP implementations, certain CSFs have to be met (Netland, 2016). Boynton and Zmud (1984, p. 17) defined CSFs as “those few things that must go well to ensure success for a manager or an organization, and therefore, they represent those managerial or enterprise areas that must be given special and continual attention to bring about high performance”. Across a multitude of lean improvement programs such as TQM, JIT, six sigma and TPM, there is a consensus on CSFs that are most important. One of the most important CSFs is ‘management commitment and involvement’ (Netland, 2016; Ramarapu, et al., 1995), followed by ‘training and education’ and ‘employee participation and empowerment’ (Netland, 2016).

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, to become successfully lean, it is paramount that companies adopt soft practices during the lean implementation (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006; Bortolotti, et al., 2015; Schonberger, 2007). Managers should recognise that successful lean plants do not differ from unsuccessful ones in the hard practices they use, the difference is rather in the application of soft practices (Bortolotti, et al., 2015). The fact that not hard, but soft practices differentiate successful lean plants leads to the notion that soft practices are conceptually related to CSFs.

``

[9]

the soft CSF ‘employee participation and empowerment. Table 2.2 shows the combined literature count of soft practices and soft CSFs. Only those that occurred in 5 or more sources are included in this table.

Soft CSF Combined literature count

Management commitment and involvement 22 Employee participation and empowerment 20 Training and education 20 Alignment to strategy and long-term plan 12

Teamwork 11

Supplier involvement 11

Continuous improvement 10

Customer involvement 10

Multi-functional integration 10 Managing cultural change 10

Communication 7

Project management skills 5

Rewards and recognition 5

Table 2.2: Combined ranking soft lean practices and soft CSFs

The similarities between the soft practices and soft CSFs are so concrete that it can be assumed that the soft practices are CSFs for the successful implementation of LP improvement programs. Previous literature agreed, stating that the successful implementation of soft practices was crucial for success in LP implementations (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006; Bortolotti, et al., 2015). Without accomplishing these soft CSFs, successful LP implementation is hard to achieve.

Because the soft practices and soft CSFs are conceptually similar, this research will combine the two analogous concepts under the label of soft CSFs. Henceforth they will be addressed as such. Table 2.3 and Table 2.4 provide an overview of the literature that addressed these soft and other CSFs.

2.6 S

LP

I

``

[10]

LP implementations are successful, since they are built on continuous improvement and thus have no end (Hines, et al., 2004; Shah & Ward, 2007).

Since a failure to accomplish soft CSFs is a predominant reason for implementation failure (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006), this research reasons that the accomplishment of the identified soft CSFs, combined with implementing the appropriate hard practices should lead to success. However, companies put less effort in culture-building than the lean literature advises, thus running the risk of becoming mere tool boxes rather than systems of sustained improvement (Netland, 2013). This often leads to an initial increase in performance, but an inability to sustain this increased performance (Mohanty, et al., 2007 cited in Jasti & Kodali, 2015).

[11]

References: (1)Saraph, et al., 1989;(20)Sila & Ebrahimpour, 2003;(3)Karappusami & Gandhinathan, 2006;(4)Nitin, et al., 2011;(5)Motwani, 2001; (6)Schroeder, et al., 2008;(7)Banuelas Coronado & Antony, 2002;(8)Brady & Allen, 2006;(9)Kwak & Anbari, 2006;(10)Netland, 2016;(11)Shah & Ward, 2007; (12)Hayes & Wheelwright, 1984;(13)Netland, 2013

[12]

References: (14)Ahuja & Khamba, 2008;(15)Ramarapu, et al.,1995;(16)Näslund, 2008;(17)Netland & Aspelund, 2014;(18)Marodin & Saurin, 2013;(19)Aminuddin, et al., 2016(20)Bortolotti, et al.. 2015;(21)Bhasin & Burcher, 2006;(22)Piechnicki, et al., 2015;(23)Laureani & Antony, 2016;(24)Jasti & Kodali, 2015;(25)Shah & Ward, 2003;(26)Hines, et al., 2004

``

[13]

2.7 R

From the earlier identified literature gaps, we can establish that there is a need for more research on the soft side of lean implementations. Through a systematic literature review, this research has identified the most crucial CSFs in LP implementations. These soft CSFs are listed in Table 2.2, while Table 2.3 and Table 2.4 provide an overview of hard and soft CSFs and the respective literature. It is clear from the literature that these CSFs are crucial to achieve implementation success, though it remains largely unclear how the CSFs are approached and how practitioners can ensure successful and sustainable implementation of these improvement programs. For example, Netland (2016) describes CSFs in a more practical way compared to other literature (e.g. Laureani & Antony, 2016; Näslund, 2008), though his descriptions did not go deeper than ‘lead actively’, ‘communicate, inform and discuss’ or ‘invest time and money’. This research aims to provide more insight into the content of soft CSFs.

Finally, there is need for research on failed implementation since these can provide more insight on what factors are essential for successful implementations. This research aims to gather further insight into these topics by answering the following main research question:

How can CSFs be accomplished to ensure the successful implementation of LP improvement programs?

To answer this question, an organised approach is demanded. Hence, this research is structured according to the following sub-questions:

RQ1: How are the identified soft CSFs approached in successful lean improvement programs? RQ2: How are the identified soft CSFs approached in failed lean improvement programs?

RQ3: What is the difference between successful and failed programs in terms of their approach to and accomplishment of the identified soft CSFs?

``

[14]

3 M

ETHODOLOGY

3.1 S

This paper employed a systematic literature review as the foundation for the theory building. A systematic literature is a systematic, comprehensive and reproducible methodology to evaluate the body of literature produced by researchers, scholars or practitioners (Okoli and Schabram cited in Mostafa 2015). The first step in a systematic literature is to establish the research criteria i.e. definition of scope, conceptualisation and research questions (Thomé, et al., 2016). After this step, the databases are selected and keywords are formulated. The articles are then reviewed based on their abstracts and the researcher’s criteria, after which they are submitted to a full-text review (Thomé, et al., 2016). Additionally, snowballing techniques were employed in which the researcher uses the references from highly relevant articles to continue establishing a theoretical foundation. The analysis and coding were performed using the qualitative data analysis and research software ‘Atlas.ti’ and the search engines used in this literature review were: University of Groningen WordCat, Newcastle University libsearch and Google Scholar. By storing the coding schemes, it is possible for future researchers to replicate the coding and measure the degree of agreement about the concepts in order to improve reliability. After the coding, the type of analysis performed was a taxonomy of CSFs, as taxonomy can lay the ground for synthesis and new theorising (Torraco, 2005).

3.2 C

This research primarily focuses on how soft CSFs are accomplished in LP implementations. This research goal can be identified as theory refinement, since most CSFs are already known, yet how they are approached or achieved is largely unknown (Netland, 2016). Case research is particularly suitable for theory refinement and investigating how and why questions (Voss, et al., 2002). Additionally, when soft human elements of the organisation are to be studied in management research, case research is widely used (Karlsson, 2009). As a unit of analysis the case study is used, which offers the opportunity to answer the why and how question with a relatively full understanding of the nature and complexity of the phenomenon (Meredith, 1998). Case studies can be used as a follow-up to survey-based research to examine previous empirical results in more detail (Voss, et al., 2002).

``

[15]

detail, they will help counter the aforementioned disadvantages of a single case study. Other cases should be selected so that they either produce similar results or produce contrary results for predictable reasons (Voss, et al., 2002). Therefore, the main focus will be on selecting cases that have successfully implemented lean improvement programs, enabling the analysis of the differences in implementing the CSFs. Retrospective cases allow for controlled case selection, enabling the researcher to select cases that reflect either success or failure (Voss, et al., 2002).

3.3 C

The primary source of data in this research will be semi-structured interviews, backed up by unstructured interviews and interaction (Voss, et al., 2002). Semi-structured interviews provide significant insights into behavioural aspects (Yin, 1994) and thus were the primary data collection method. All data collected in this research was of primary nature. The main sources of data were stakeholders in the implementation process of lean improvement programs. The focal case presented the unique opportunity to collect data across all levels of the organisation, as depicted in Figure 3.1. The interviews were conducted in person and within the environment of the interviewee, to minimize external influences. Interview length ranged from 50 to 120 minutes including (de-)briefing of the interviewee.

``

[16]

3.4 D

Coding was used to manage and build ideas from the collected data (Bazeley, 2013). Inductive coding was employed to catch ideas and concepts as they happened whilst reducing the data. As a coding unit, paragraphs were used, since this is useful in clarifying content and meaning when dealing with conversations (Bazeley, 2013). As the list of codes grew during this process, they were managed in an array. After this, the codes were sorted into categories (i.e. the CSFs), to understand which phrases belonged to which CSFs. The coding structure was first applied as a within-case analysis, after which the cross-case patterns were analysed. This was done by constructing an array with the categories and searching for similarities or differences between the cases (Voss, et al., 2002). By using predetermined selection criteria (see section 3.5) in the case selection, cases that confirm an emerging relationship can increase the confidence level in the theory or hypotheses (Karlsson, 2009). Because of the nature of this research, statistical significance cannot be achieved from the data. Rather, through analytic induction, the goal is to abstract theory from the events related to the phenomenon (Bazeley, 2013). By comparing the cases, similarities and differences are identified, and their consequences for the theory are evaluated (Bazeley, 2013).

3.5 E

The external cases are selected on the premise that they might produce contrary results for predictable reasons (Voss, et al., 2002). The predetermined selection criteria for case selection were that the LP implementation was successful (as judged by the interviewees) and lead to sustained improved performance. The interviewees were selected based on their involvement with the implementation program. Since this research focused on world-class lean CSFs the companies included in this paper had to have implemented an improvement program under the umbrella of lean production and it had to be competing on a “best-in-class” or world-class level. For confidentiality purposes, the companies and participant positions have been separated in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2.

Company Improvement Program Fokker NL. Lean

Royal Dutch Shell TQM, various other AkzoNobel TPM, Lean, various other

Heineken TPM

Vrumona B.V. TPM

Heijmans Lean, six sigma

Philips Lean

`` [17] TPM • 1996 TQM • 2000 WCM / TPM • 2005 TQM-2 • 2012 LEAN • 2016

Figure 3.2: Timeline X’s improvement programs Table 3.2: Participant role and pseudonym

3.6 F

The focal company in this research was a large international manufacturer operating in the plastics industry with more than 30 manufacturing sites. The research was conducted at X’s leading production location in the Netherlands. Over the previous two decades, X has implemented several improvement programs based on the principles of TPM, TQM, WCM and lean as shown in Figure 3.2. The focus of these programs was mostly in operations, and while the focus was international, they were rolled-out separately at each production location. However, with the exception of the TQM-2 program, none of these programs resulted in sustained improved performance. All programs caused a spike in performance, though most aspects of the programs died over time. This research aims to investigate whether the approach to the CSFs in these failed programs differs from successful implementations.

As the majority of the participants preferred their identity to stay anonymous, pseudonyms will be used to identify the level (as indicated in Figure 3.1: Participants focal case) at which the participants operated.

Organisational level Pseudonym Strategic S#1, S#2, S#3, etc. Tactical T#1, T#2, T#3, etc.

Operational O#1, O#2, O#3, etc.

Table 3.3: Focal case participant's organisational level and pseudonyms

Role Pseudonym

Manager supply-chain planning / former TPM-coordinator #1

Planning manager / former lean program manager #2

Operations manager #3

Chief Engineering #4

Director manufacturing excellence #5 Manager quality & safety / lean six sigma #6

``

[18]

3.7 Q

The internal validity of the research data may be enhanced by a well-designed research protocol and by using explanation building for establishing causal relationships (Yin, 1994; Voss, et al., 2002). The research protocol included a set of questions to be used in interviews as well as procedures and general rules that should be used in using the instrument (Voss, et al., 2002). Special care was taken when developing the interview questions and the research protocol to ensure that the research is repeatable. External validity is established by using the same predetermined criteria (see section 3.5) when selecting the external cases (Yin, 1994).

Construct validity of the CSFs was established through a rigorous literature review using multiple sources of evidence. Furthermore, interviewing a multitude of different participants across various levels in the organisations ensured additional source triangulation and offset the chances of respondent biases (Voss, et al., 2002). Where possible and agreed upon by the interviewees this research taped, transcribed and stored the answers in a database to increase reliability (Voss, et al., 2002). If the interviews were not be taped, the researcher kept notes and transcribed these directly after the interview to maintain the accuracy of the data.

Appendix E: Research protocol displays the questionnaire, which was structured according to the CSFs found in the literature review (Table 2.2)

4 F

INDINGS

This section presents the findings of the research, more specifically the findings related to RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3. Since the CSFs were identified through a systematic literature review, these findings are related to how the CSFs are approached. The CSFs were addressed in the interviews, and the personal experiences and insights of the interviewees are presented. The findings related to the successful and focal case are presented in this section.

``

[19]

4.1 A

The focal case study was centred around the implementation of improvement programs on the production floor. Early in the research it was discovered that the CSFs supplier- and customer involvement could not be researched in a relevant way. In the area that was researched, the only interaction with suppliers was during the acquisition of equipment, and this is another field of study completely. Additionally, in the research environment, very little data could be gathered on customer involvement, as most interviewees had very little to do with this. Since an absence of data on these CSFs would inevitably lead to the inability of this research to answer research questions 1, 2, and 3 the researcher regrettably decided that the CSFs of ‘supplier involvement’ and ‘customer involvement’ would be excluded from the research. However, for purposes of integrity, they were included in the taxonomy of CSFs in the literature review.

4.2 CSF

E

The external data was collected during five interviews and one day-long non-participant observation. This data was reduced to 166 useful quotes related to the implementation of world-class lean improvement programs.

The focal case study at X consisted of seventeen interviews (Figure 3.1: Participants focal case) held at X’s main production site in the Netherlands. This data was reduced to 315 quotes, of which 198 were specifically about the soft CSFs in LP implementations. A substantial number of quotes were judged to have more relation to the current organisational environment and were therefore excluded in the analysis. The following sections highlight a selection of the most relevant CSF elements from both the external and focal case interviews.

4.2.1 Management commitment and involvement

The first CSF is often described in the literature without an explanation (Netland & Aspelund, 2014). The most frequently mentioned element behind this CSF was that the program should be supported by all levels of management.

‘High level and plant or site management has to be very supportive of the program. Without [management] support, resources and commitment nothing happens.’ (#2)

Another respondent stated that:

``

[20]

Getting management support can be achieved by continuously putting the program on the agenda of management at meetings Also, the participants mentioned that management should stay committed and not be afraid to commit resources or make tough decisions when it comes to e.g. laying people off. More importantly, the participants stated that managers should be role models during the implementations and drive the improvement program with their own behaviour.

‘Managers should be more than [managers], they should be leaders and role models who show how to behave, they have to coach other people in their behaviour to ensure that they are engaged in the

change.’ (#3)

During the implementations at X, most participants recognised that management was committed to the program. However, a common trend was that while management was involved in the beginning of the program, as time progressed, there was a decline in commitment and management stopped interacting with employees and being present on the shop-floor.

‘At a certain moment in time during the implementation you notice that the attention from higher up in the organisation weakens. (…) management decreasingly engage [employees]. [Management] has

to actually be present on the floor to prove that the program is important to them.’ (T#1) One of the reasons for this decline in management commitment was that not enough time and resources were allocated to fully motivate and convince managers of the program.

‘In Hardenberg the plant manager at the time (…) underestimated the amount of effort and time it would cost to mobilise and motivate management.’ (T#3)

The main difference between the external and focal cases is that in the failed implementations, management didn’t stay committed extensively after the implementation. This might be related to accountability and responsibility issues. While it can be argued that accountability and responsibility are part of the ‘hard’ CSF of performance management, some external participants argued otherwise. They noted that though accountability is based on progress and performance, it is a crucial element in both management and employee commitment and participation.

‘Management commitment is obviously important, though it is also crucial that with every program, someone high up in the organisation is responsible and accountable. If this isn’t the case then the

program will not succeed.’ (#4)

At X, middle management or team leaders were not held accountable for specific targets related to the improvement programs. This could explain why management commitment would decrease over time, as one employee mentioned:

``

[21]

4.2.2 Employee participation and empowerment

Following the data, this CSF is divided into four areas; employee empowerment, engagement, involvement and ownership. These areas all have underlying elements for success. Employee involvement was the most frequently mentioned theme. Before, during and after the LP implementation, it is crucial to make the employees the driving force behind the program.

‘With certain projects employees can become the driving force, this means that they invest in themselves, improve their skills (…) and pass on these skills to other operators.’ (#7)

Employee empowerment was related to giving employees the knowledge and authority to solve minor problems such as production stops or failures, though also giving them the power to stop production whenever line integrity was in danger.

‘Operators are able to solve a lot of things themselves, you just have to give them the authority, confidence and trust. If they cannot solve issues, then there has to be an escalation to a higher level.’

(#5)

It is important to sustain the connection with employees and operations on the shop-floor while implementing improvement programs. By maintaining this connection, operators will be more involved and committed to the program, because they were part of the design and implementation. Not establishing a connection with operations leads to the not-invented-here phenomenon (#1) meaning that operators are unmotivated because they were not involved in the program.

‘The problem with continuous improvement is that often problems are solved by teams without involving the department and employees in the solution. This leads to an initial spike in performance

but almost always to a relapse.’ (#5)

The main sentiment expressed by X’s employees was the lack of team leader and operator involvement before and during the implementation of the improvement programs. This created a situation in which the team leaders and operators had very little knowledge about the content and context of the improvement programs. As a result they felt disconnected from the program and unmotivated to engage in the change.

‘Every time a new program is implemented, management tells the team leaders: this is the way we’re going to do it and you have to execute it. (…) this makes it very hard for them to motivate the

operators. (…) the plan is imposed upon the employees.’ (O#3)

``

[22]

‘It is important to involve the team leaders right from the start in the implementation process, this way you give them ownership of the program which will increase motivation and commitment. This

didn’t happen at X.’ (T#4)

4.2.3 Training and education

In order to be a world-class manufacturer, it is important to have a workforce that is knowledgeable and capable. The majority of participants stressed that continuous investments in people is crucial for organisations to be successful. Employees should receive training about the program, though they should constantly be supported to increase their skills, and the company should provide opportunities for any necessary training or education.

‘All new operators (…) receive a full day of core TPM training. (…) whenever they need additional training (…) they go to a central training facility where they receive the training. These central facilities provide trainings to all levels of employees, even management. A lot of attention is paid to

training and education.’ (#1)

These trainings should ideally be certified, since that gives the employee an extra incentive to develop themselves. Trainings should also have a comprehensive scope, not just training on hard skills, but also softer aspects such as the program’s philosophy and principles. Finally, it is important for the training to have a sound structure, as opposed to it being on an ad hoc basis.

‘When quality management was introduced, all managers and employees worldwide got training on that. Not just the tools but the principles and philosophy were addressed as well.’ (#4) Related to the training structure, one participant mentioned the following:

‘The most important thing when it comes to training is to set up a training program instead of one or multiple isolated trainings. The program has to be consistent and rolled out in a specific time frame to

really get the employees on board and consistently confront them with lean.’ (#2).

One reason for the implementation failure was the lack of leadership capabilities in the organisation. At all levels of the organisation this was recognised as a major area for improvement. The team leaders felt inadequately trained to motivate their employees for improvement programs.

‘The team leaders want more training so they can learn tools and have guidance in how to motivate, lead and engage their operators. The team leaders sometimes feel that they don’t have the proper

training to actually lead and motivate their teams.’ (O#5)

``

[23]

continuous investment in the employees. Younger student employees sometimes received a process operator education from an external firm, but after one of the modules that education stops.

‘The younger [employees] that work at X receive a basic [process operator] training and after that their education stops. X doesn’t continue to invest in its employees. There are other relevant modules

in [the external training program] such as maintenance, from which these young employees would certainly benefit but these aren’t provided.’ (O#4)

Additionally, a lot of X’s employees recognised the fact that there was a significant lack of operator knowledge related to adjusting and setting-up equipment. This is yet another result of the company not investing enough in its lower level employees.

4.2.4 Alignment to strategy and long-term plan

Alignment to strategy and long-term plan is one of the key CSFs according to five out of six participants. The in-depth analysis of this CSF is rather straightforward. The participants agreed that it is imperative to have a long-term plan before implementing anything, and to actually stick to that plan. Small deviations are always allowed if they improve the plan, though it is crucial to remain true to the core of the strategy. The main strategy should be an umbrella that overshadows smaller improvement projects. It should be communicated throughout the company that the improvement program is the philosophy of the company, rather than a project.

‘It is important to set up a long-term vision and plan. It is fine if this plan is tweaked along the way, but it has to stick to the general idea.’ (#2).

Another important aspect is that it is crucial to understand that cost reduction is a short term solution and that it should never affect the core processes.

‘You can’t on the one hand reduce costs in the production processes and on the other hand expect to achieve process improvement.’ (#6)

There is a shrill contrast between the ideas expressed by the external participants and X employees. Because of the lack of a long-term plan and the frequent shift in focus (Figure 3.2: Timeline X’s improvement programs) leading to a decrease in commitment in the previous program, the employees described the organisation as being tired of change. The employees noted that a solid implementation structure and long-term plan had been missing in the past. Often this was caused by the arrival of a new manager with an idea on how to improve performance without assessing the past programs and failures.

‘There is a belief within X that every improvement program will last for [a few] years and then will die down again. The employees are tired of this. Every time new management arrives the focus shifts

``

[24]

Another noticeable element at X was that failed aspects from past implementations were again implemented in a new program. This led to demotivated employees because they had already seen that these aspects had not worked in the past. It is therefore important to learn from the past mistakes.

‘A lot of the programs repeated things that were tried in the past. These failed earlier (…) so it was hard to motivate the employees. For example the labels (…) were implemented during WCOM but (…) there were still labels on the machines from the TPM implementation. They hadn’t worked then

and they wouldn’t now.’ (O#1)

4.2.5 Teamwork

Teamwork is closely related to multi-functional integration, since most integration happens through the inception of teams. Moreover, the majority of CI should occur in teams and by involving employees, making teamwork a CSF that is a support for several other CSFs.

The participants stressed the importance of having a good team culture and knowing how to deal with resistance. Especially when involving employees without prior training, it is crucial to not push them, so they will identify improvements from their own perspective. One of the participants mentioned the following about dealing with resistance:

‘Every team exhibits resistance, 20% of the members are key drivers, 60% just goes along and 20% are hard resisters. (…) You just have to give the top 20%, the ambassadors your attention and

recognition, rather than spend all your time on the resisting bottom 20%.’ (#5)

At X, a key issue was that the operator teams had too little capacity to execute their normal tasks and implement the programs simultaneously. Additionally, there was significant pressure on team leaders to work on the line besides their activities as team leaders. Additionally, this lack of capacity created difficult situations for the training of operators by the team leaders.

‘The team leaders say that they do not have the time to manage their teams properly. Because they have a lot of process knowledge, they often have to solve breakdowns and machine adjustments. This

gives them less time to manage and educate their operators.’ (S#2)

Additionally, the operators felt that the extra activities were too hard and time consuming to do next to their required work. The extra required activities should be easier for the operators to continuously execute them.

‘In order for the operators to engage in an activity you have to make it simple and accessible. A checklist that consists of 40 different items will not be filled in after a while.’ (T#1)

4.2.6 Continuous improvement

``

[25]

identifying gaps in performance and improving in those areas. While this systematic approach might appear as a hard tool, it is significantly linked to continuous improvement, making it a crucial element in the creation of a CI mind-set.

‘With continuous improvement you want to go from a reactive problem solving mode, to a proactive, intrinsically motivated continuous improvement state.’ (#6)

The CI mind-set that was stressed as a crucial element by some of the external participants was not apparent in X. Whereas some aspects were being improved by gap identification, the general lack of CI culture was an important obstruction for success.

‘X’s focus is on producing as cheaply as possible. Excellence is not high up on the agenda of corporate management (…) it’s all about saving costs and through that increasing profits.’ (T#1) A more tangible effect of this lacking CI culture was the fact that there was a lack of resource commitment for CI. Especially bottom-up improvement initiatives did not receive the resources that were needed.

‘Ideas that come from the team leaders often find very little support and rarely get a budget. This doesn’t motivate us to come up with improvements.’ (O#4)

Finally, CI was seen as a complementary part of the program, rather than it being addressed as a stand-alone aspect of the improvement program and it receiving the attention it deserves. To paraphrase, CI was not approached in a structural manner.

‘[at X] CI was mainly viewed as something that was ‘part of the program’ or ‘was done on the side’.’ (T#3)

4.2.7 Multi-functional integration

To fully exploit the collaborative potential of your employees, five out of seven external participants recommended using multi-functional teams. Multi-functionality was used during the implementation of improvement programs to ensure communication across departments and involve all departments in the program.

‘When creating a plan or strategy, it is important to use multi-functional teams and to evaluate if all departments are involved in the right way.’ (#2)

``

[26]

‘Operators are sometimes linked with the mechanics to learn from them while the mechanics do their job. (…) The operators increase their knowledge and can take this to their job and perform better

autonomous maintenance and problem solving.’ (#7)

Within X, multi-functional integration is very rare. Operators could benefit from knowledge transfers between them and e.g. maintenance, though this did not happen. While there are a few initiatives that link several departments to improve performance, this did not occur during the previous improvement programs.

‘There is a big us and them culture, all departments operate as islands and blame each other for problems.’ (O#3)

4.2.8 Managing cultural change

Before the implementation of an improvement program, it is crucial to recognise the importance of culture. As one interviewee stated that:

‘Change management received a lot of attention from management after they noticed that the organisation was quite good at implementing tools but there were certain cultural aspects that just

weren’t optimal.’ (#1)

Also, the reason for change should be clear and a sense of urgency should be instilled in the organisation. However, contrary to what one might expect, the key to managing cultural change is a somewhat ‘hard’ practice. The majority of the participants recognised that if you want to achieve cultural change, you must give the recipients of this cultural change solid and robust handles to effectively push them in the right direction. As one of the participants put it eloquently:

‘Implementing a (…) culture is like saying to someone: be spontaneous! It doesn’t work like that, you have to give that person solid steps on how to change their mind-set. Changing a culture should

happen according to a well-thought out plan.’ (#4)

Such a plan for cultural change management is not in use at X, which is surprising regarding the fact that employees described the company culture at X as rigid, due to a high average age and long retention of employees. As such, a systematic and rigorous approach to change management is necessary.

‘The high average age is a problem, the older employees don’t want to learn new skills.’ (O#9)

4.2.9 Communication

``

[27]

Additionally, with improvement programs, it is crucial that feedback and information loops exist from management to operations. It was noted by the participants that without these loops, employees were less motivated, engaged and involved with the programs.

‘(…) the most important thing we discovered is that there always has to be a feedback loop. (…) When this feedback loop didn’t exist, the operators didn’t submit the [TPM] labels voluntarily.’ (#1) Establishing effective communication lines can be done through creating communication procedures. These procedures (e.g. daily team meetings) are meant to improve communication up and down the organisation, as well as across different functions. Ultimately, the goal is to ingrain the procedures in the DNA of the organisation such that they become rituals.

‘[every day] there is a meeting between the team leader, unit manager, logistics planner and installation manager to see which problems from the shop-floor couldn’t be solved by the operators and need to be escalated in the organisation. These daily meetings ensure communication between the

different layers in the organisation.’ (#7)

A frequently mentioned element for failure was a missing link between management and operations. Management communicated inadequately and did not allocate the necessary time and resources to motivate and mobiles the employees for the programs. The implementations happened too quickly, without making sure that the employees were on board. Many of the programs were just introduced through a single meeting, which is not enough according to the participants.

‘Senior management has been briefed about the improvement program numerous times and are convinced that it will work. (…) they then wrongly assume that the floor level employees will

understand the same story after one meeting and be motivated and comply.’ (O#10)

The fact that there is a missing link between management and operations is illustrated by the following: ‘Management doesn’t understand the impact on the shop-floor, it might seem like something small for

management but the implications on the shop-floor might be experienced as huge.’ (T#4) Similar to performance management, a lack of feedback and information loops was frequently mentioned. This lack of communication might also explain the experienced gap between management and operations.

4.2.10 Project management skills / performance management and control

``

[28]

an implementation. This CSF, performance management and control, will therefore be analysed as part of project management skills.

Discipline was named by an external interviewee as the most important aspect in implementations. Performance managements and control helps to standardise discipline and attach consequences to it. It is therefore crucial if an organisation wishes to hold management or employees accountable and responsible for progress. Additionally, performance management is a crucial element in improvement, as it provides direction and purpose in the improvement program.

‘Key performance indicators are analysed on a high level and then translated to a lower level to decide which aspects of the organisation to improve.’ (#1)

Performance management and control is crucial in making employees aware of the need for change by addressing this gap in performance. Additionally, the aim of visualising performance and confronting employees with this performance is to engage them. A key component of this is to attach actions to gaps in performance. Rather than mere reporting, performance management should be used to actively close identified gaps in performance as they occur.

‘The goal of visual performance management is that by confronting people with measurements, they will take actions to decrease the gap [in performance].’ (#5)

Another critical aspect of performance management and control is that the external companies appointed employees to appoint different production locations. These audits were never performed by employees that worked at the side. Also, it was ensured that these audits were no management affair and employees were actively involved in interviews and observations.

‘Audits were done by experts at other locations as a different part of their job. That way, the audits were reliable and you also got to see how other locations went about the business so that

cross-learning and knowledge transfers could be established.’ (#4)

Similarly to the external findings, X’s employees stressed the importance of a control structure and discipline as a crucial factor in the implementation. A lack of control structure and discipline was most frequently mentioned among all CSFs as the prime reason for implementation failure.

‘Sustaining is the hardest part on the shop-floor, control is rarely being done systematically and the employees just lose focus after a while.’ (T#2)

‘In the beginning of the implementation (…) performance is measured (…) to see whether everyone sticks to the agreements. Often this quickly decreases. (…) once a single team stops doing certain

``

[29]

Again, the previous quote illustrates the importance of discipline during the implementation. Once there is a weakness in the structure then everything deteriorates. Several external interviewees mentioned that this discipline can be effectively implemented by imposing accountability and responsibility targets and measures. Moreover, a lack of feedback and information loops was reported as a source for performance management failure. Team leaders and operators did not see the benefits of performance management as results were rarely linked back to them.

4.2.11 Rewards and recognition

Traditionally, one participant mentioned, it was thought that handing out rewards was the best way to incentivise employees. However, they found that recognition of success by employees’ management turned out to be far more effective in motivating the employees.

‘(…) [people in our organisation] have found that it is very effective and rewarding for the employees that after an improvement is sustainable, management will go out to the floor and the improvement team will present their results and improvement. This type of social reward and recognition for their

efforts is very satisfying since most people just want the recognition for their work.’ (#1) Additionally, during the implementation of improvement programs, it is important to create awareness of the benefits the program has for the employees. One of the participants made these benefits visual for the employees and noted that this was very effective.

‘(…) we made videos of the before and after situation. A lot of the employees were very against the implementation, but after seeing the video they became aware of the difference, and this made them

enthusiastic about the change. It is very important to be aware of the ‘what is in it for me’ phenomenon.’ (#6)

At X videos were also shot of the before and after situation and this was also very effective in motivating employees. The need to create awareness of the benefits for the employees was understood perfectly since without this awareness, many of the employees were not willing to change.

‘The employees are too stubborn to accept change, even team leaders, they have to experience the positive effect of change before accepting and actually doing it.’ (O#2)

``

[30]

4.3 O

CSF

Table 4.1 on pages 31 and 32 provides an overview of the main elements of the CSFs from both the internal and external interviews. Through a cross-case analysis the relevant elements were compared and the most striking differences are displayed in column 3 of Table 4.1. Column 3 lists either elements that were missing at X during the implementation, or elements that were so significantly different that the only explanation is that they must have had an impact on successfully accomplishing the CSFs. The next section is based on the findings in section 4 and will elaborate on the differences listed in Table 4.1.

``

[31]

CSF External CSF elements Focal case (X) CSF elements Missing or significantly different CSF elements

Management commitment & involvement

Program supported by all levels of management Appoint sponsors

Have a clear vision for management Support program by allocating resources Commitment to make tough decisions

Declining management commitment over time Management stopped showing presence on the

floor and interact with employees about program

Ensure management fairness during implementation

Support and motivation from all management levels

Discipline and perseverance Interaction with employees

Allocate resources and make tough decisions

Employee participation & empowerment

Involvement Empowerment Engagement Ownership

Make employees the driving force Use operators knowledge

Make operators owner of projects

Give operators authority and knowledge to solve problems

Engage employees by visualising and creating awareness of performance

Ensure link with operations in improvement programs

Lack of operator involvement in program Lack of team leader involvement in program Inadequate communication and a lack of time

and resources from management to motivate employees

Missing link between management and operations

Involve team leaders and operators at an early stage Make employees the driving force

Maintain link with operations during program Give employees knowledge and authority to solve

problems

Allocate time and resources to motivate employees

Accountability and Responsibility

Management accountability and responsibility Set employee targets and hold them accountable Appoint change leader

Inability to link outcomes to actions or work Lack of audit evaluation and consequences Assign key driving people and hold them

accountable

Lack of operator and team leader targets

Hold management and employees accountable for progress and performance

Appoint sponsors & champions

Training and education Continuous investments in people Comprehensive training focus Certification

Sound training structure

Lack of leadership capabilities Lack of operator knowledge Not investing in people Focus on hard tools and skills

Continuous investments in people Comprehensive training focus Good training structure Certification

Continuous Improvement Systematic approach to CI Creating a CI mind-set

Establishing an excellence culture

Lack of CI / Excellence culture Lack of resource commitment to CI Lack of systematic approach to CI

Systematic approach to CI Commit resources to CI Create CI mind-set

Multi-functional integration Multi-functional teams Establish knowledge transfers Multi-functional communication

Lack of knowledge transfers between