Convergence or National Specificity? Testing the CI Maturity Model across Multiple Countries

Abstract

This study empirically tests the Continuous Improvement (CI) maturity model across multiple countries. The analysis is based on data from the 2nd International CINet Survey, limited to the situation in Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Despite some differences in Continuous Improvement maturity level between countries, findings lend support to the convergence argument. Regardless of national specificity, Continuous Improvement behaviour patterns emerge in a similar fashion, and furthermore, correspond to improved operational performance if adopted. In addition, findings show that other contextual variables such as company size and type of production system are of limited importance. This implies that Continuous Improvement is something that can be implemented and developed successfully if managed properly, irrespective of contextual influences such as those stemming from cultural and industrial factors.

The relative importance of improvement routines for implementing lean practices

“…In a later study using survey data from 452 European and Australian manufacturing companies, Dabhilkar et al (2007) remarkably found no significant differences in the relative 217 Implementing lean practices importance of improvement routines for operational performance, neither within nor across countries. A possible explanation is that they analysed this relationship using a regular regression.…”

“…This study was based on a Dutch sample and small set of cases, which does not allow for generalisation to other contexts and types of companies. Although Dabhilkar et al (2007) found no national differences amongst the relationships between improvement routines and operational performance, this study took a novel approach. Future research should replicate this approach and study improvement routines as necessary conditions in different countries and industries, and/or use suitable samples to test the propositions developed in this study.…”

“…The NCA approach could also be used to investigate other relationships to provide further improvement focus for increasing operational performance. Caffyn (1997) Bessant et al (2001) and Dabhilkar et al (2007) De Jager et al n/a Employees at all levels articulate, consolidate and share their learning (e.g. using a formal knowledge management system) (ix) n/a n/a n/a Systematic and strategic improvement A formal improvement system has been introduced to involve all employees in ongoing improvement activities.…”

“…The routines of de Jager et al (2004) show great overlap with the ones listed by Bessant et al (2001). The ones Dabhilkar and Bengtsson (2004) found differ, but Dabhilkar et al (2007) again found routines that were more in line with Bessant et al (2001). An overview is given in Table AI.…”

Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments

“…Construct definitions and labels assigned to scales guided but did not dictate categorisation because labels were highly varied and often not a good indicator of instrument content ( e . g ., authors used the following construct labels for very similar measures of QI climate: organizational culture that supports QI [56], organizational commitment to QI [57], QI implementation [58], degree of CQI maturity [59], quality management orientation [60], and continuous improvement capability [61]). Instrument content was summarised in separate tables for each of the content domains from the InQuIRe framework: (1) CQI implementation and use, (2) organizational context, and (3) individual level factors.…”