Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The organizational infrastructure of continuous improvement – an empirical analysis

  • Published:
Operations Management Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To pursue constant incremental improvements, firms must develop the dynamic capability of continuous improvement (CI). Research suggests that an organizational infrastructure is necessary to sustain CI capability. Although there have been some attempts to delineate a comprehensive model for CI infrastructure, empirical investigation is still underdeveloped. The present study explores key dimensions of the organizational infrastructure—strategic alignment, teamwork for problem solving, and goals management systems. We analyze their effects on CI capability by using a database of 266 firms. We identify the variables that underlie the organizational infrastructure through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of measurement items, and then we perform a structural equation model linking the infrastructure to CI capability. Our findings suggest that strategic alignment and teamwork for problem solving affect CI capability. This study contributes to the operationalization of the organizational infrastructure and to the understanding of how it affects CI capability in operations management contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmad S, Schroeder RG, Sinha KK (2003) The role of infrastructure practices in the effectiveness of JIT practices: implications for plant competitiveness. J Eng Technol Manag 20:161–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alegre J, Chiva R (2008) Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: An empirical test. Technovation 28(6):315–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile TM, Hennessey BA, Grossman BS (1986) Social influences on creativity: the effects of contracted-for reward. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(1)

  • Anand G, Ward PT, Tatikonda MV, Schilling DA (2009) Dynamic capabilities through continuous improvement infrastructure. J Oper Manag 27:444–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand G, Chhajed D, Delfin L (2012) Job autonomy, trust in leadership, and continuous improvement: An empirical study in health care. Oper Manag Res 5:70–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote L, Miron-Spektor E (2011) Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organ Sci 22:1123–1137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arumugam V, Antony J, Kumar M (2013) Linking learning and knowledge creation to project success in Six Sigma projects: An empirical investigation. Int J Prod Econ 141:388–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asefeso A (2013) Lean implementation (why lean fails and how to prevent failures). AA Global Sourcing

  • Bagozzi RP, Heatherton TF (1994) A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: application to state self-esteem. Struct Equ Model 1:35–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker MC (2004) Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Ind Corp Chang 13:643–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessant J (1998) Developing continuous improvement capability. Int J Innov Manag 2:409–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessant J, Caffyn S (1997) High-involvement innovation through continuous improvement. Int J Technol Manag 14:7–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessant J, Francis D (1999) Developing strategic continuous improvement capability. Int J Oper Prod Manag 19:1106–1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer KK (1996) An assessment of managerial commitment to lean production. Int J Oper Prod Manag 16:48–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiva R, Alegre J, Lapiedra R (2007) Measuring organisational learning capability among the workforce. Int J Manpow 28:224–242

  • Choo AS, Linderman KW, Schroeder RG (2007) Method and context perspectives on learning and knowledge creation in quality management. J Oper Manag 25:918–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choo AS, Nag R, Xia Y (2015) The role of executive problem solving in knowledge accumulation and manufacturing improvements. J Oper Manag 36:63–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker L, Algina J (1986) Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Harcourt Brace. Fort Worth, TX

  • Curran B, Walsworth S (2014) Can you pay employees to innovate? Evidence from the Canadian private sector. Hum Resour Manag J 24:290–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dal Pont G, Furlan A, Vinelli A (2008) Interrelationships among lean bundles and their effects on operational performance. Oper Manag Res 1:150–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbridge R, Barton H (2002) Organizing for continuous improvement: structures and roles in automotive components plants. Int J Oper Prod Manag 22(6):680–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Stefano G, Peteraf M, Verona G (2010) Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: a bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the research domain. Ind Corp Chang:1–18

  • Di Stefano G, Peteraf M, Verona G (2014) The organizational drivetrain: A road to integration of dynamic capabilities research. Acad Manag Perspect 28(4):307–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson M (1993) Organizational learning: a review of some literatures. Organ Stud 14:375–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q 44(2):350–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg Manag J 21:1105–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 4:272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn BB, Sakakibara S, Schroeder RG (1995) Relationship between JIT and TQM: practices and performance. Acad Manag J 38:1325–1360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger R, Konovsky MA (1989) Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Acad Manag J 32:115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res:39–50

  • Forza C, Salvador F (2001) Information flows for high-performance manufacturing. Int J Prod Econ 70:21–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss NJ, Minbaeva DB, Pedersen T, Reinholt M (2009) Encouraging knowledge sharing among employees: How job design matters. Hum Resour Manag 48:871–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fugate BS, Stank TP, Mentzer JT (2009) Linking improved knowledge management to operational and organizational performance. J Oper Manag 27:247–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galeazzo A, Furlan A, Vinelli A (2014) Understanding environmental-operations integration: the case of pollution prevention projects. Int J Prod Econ 153:149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover WJ, Farris JA, Van Aken EM, Doolen TL (2011) Critical success factors for the sustainability of Kaizen event human resource outcomes: An empirical study. Int J Prod Econ 132:197–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindaraj S, Jaggi B, Lin B (2004) Market overreaction to product recall revisited- the case of Firestone tires and the Ford Explorer. Rev Quant Finan Acc 23:31–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granerud RL, Rocha RS (2011) Organisational learning and continuous improvement of health and safety in certified manufacturers. Saf Sci 49(7):1030–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith DA, Harvey MG, Lusch RF (2006) Social exchange in supply chain relationships: The resulting benefits of procedural and distributive justice. J Oper Manag 24:85–98

  • Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (2006) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall, New York.

  • Hayes RH, Wheelwright SC (1984) Restoring our competitive edge: competing through manufacturing (Vol. 8). Wiley, New York

  • Helfat CE, Peteraf MA (2015) Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strateg Manag J 36:831–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat CE, Winter SG (2011) Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: Strategy for the (N) ever-changing world. Strateg Manag J 32(11):1243–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang X, Rode JC, Schroeder RG (2011) Organizational structure and continuous improvement and learning: Moderating effects of cultural endorsement of participative leadership. J Int Huang Bus Stud 42:1103–1120

  • Hung RYY, Yang B, Lien BYH, McLean GN, Kuo YM (2010) Dynamic capability: Impact of process alignment and organizational learning culture on performance. J World Bus 45:285–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huselid MA (1995) The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Acad Manag J 38:635–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Industryweek (2014) New Toyota recall targets 175 million vehicles, 3 separate problems http://www.industryweek.com/quality/new-toyota-recall-targets-175-million-vehicles-3-separate-problems. Accessed 5 May 2016

  • Jiang Y, Jackson SE, Colakoglu S (2015) An empirical examination of personal learning within the context of teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior. In press

  • Jinhui Wu S, Melnyk SA, Swink M (2012) An empirical investigation of the combinatorial nature of operational practices and operational capabilities: Compensatory or additive? Int J Oper Prod Manag 32:121–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi MP, Kathuria R, Porth SJ (2003) Alignment of strategic priorities and performance: an integration of operations and strategic management perspectives. J Oper Manag 21:353–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson C, Ahlstrom P (1996) Assessing changes towards lean production. Int J Oper Prod Manag 16:24–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman BL, Jones RG, Shapiro DL (2000) Why do employees resist teams? Examining the “resistance barrier” to work team effectiveness. Int J Confl Manag 11:74–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laohavichien T, Fredendall LD, Stephen Cantrell R (2011) Leadership and quality management practices in Thailand. Int J Oper Prod Manag 31:1048–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin HF (2007) Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Informations Science

  • Linderman K, Schroeder RG, Zaheer S, Choo AS (2003) Six Sigma: a goal-theoretic perspective. J Oper Manag 21:193–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linderman K, Schroeder RG, Zaheer S, Liedtke C, Choo AS (2004) Integrating quality management practices with knowledge creation processes. J Oper Manag 22:589–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linderman K, Schroeder RG, Sanders J (2010) A knowledge framework underlying process management. Decis Sci 41:689–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luckett PF, Eggleton IRC (1991) Feedback and management accounting: a review of research into behavioural consequences. Acc Organ Soc 16:371–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlin DB, Sweeney PD (1992) Research notes. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Acad Manag J 35:626–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mollenkopf DA, Frankel R, Russo I (2011) Creating value through returns management: exploring the marketing–operations interface. J Oper Manag 29:391–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison B (2015) The problem with workarounds is that they work: The persistence of resource shortages. J Oper Manag 39:79–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulaik SA, James LR, Van Alstine J, Bennett N, Lind S, Stilwell CD (1989) Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychol Bull 105:430–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

  • Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Orginazion Sci 5:14–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary-Kelly SW, Flores BE (2002) The integration of manufacturing and marketing/sales decisions: impact on organizational performance. J Oper Manag 20:221–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldham GR, Cummings A (1996) Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Acad Manag J 39:607–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olkkonen ME, Lipponen J (2006) Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 100:202–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ DW (1990) The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL (eds) Research in organizational behavior. CT JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 43–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng DX, Schroeder RG, Shah R (2008) Linking routines to operations capabilities: A new perspective. J Oper Manag 26:730–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez Lopez S, Manuel Montes Peon J, José Vazquez Ordas C (2005) Organizational learning as a determining factor in business performance. Learn Organ 12:227–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf M, Di Stefano G, Verona G (2013) The elephant in the room of dynamic capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together. Strateg Manag J 34:1389–1410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen T, Snartland V (2004) Firms, wages, and incentives: Incentive systems and their impacts on wages, productivity, and risks. Res Soc Stratification Mobil 21:253–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramezan M (2011) Intellectual capital and organizational organic structure in knowledge society: How are these concepts related? Int J Inf Manag 31:88–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rondeau PJ, Vonderembse MA, Ragu-Nathan TS (2000) Exploring work system practices for time-based manufacturers: their impact on competitive capabilities. J Oper Manag 18:509–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth AV (1996) Achieving strategic agility through economies of knowledge. Strateg Leadersh 24:30–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder RG, Flynn BB (2002) High performance manufacturing: Global perspectives (Eds.). John Wiley & Sons

  • Siemsen E, Roth AV, Balasubramanian S, Anand G (2009) The influence of psychological safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing. Manuf Serv Oper Manag 11:429–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Spear S, Bowen HK (1999) Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system. Harv Bus Rev 77:96–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Su HC, Linderman K (2016) An Empirical Investigation in Sustaining High-Quality Performance. Decision Science. In press

  • Su HC, Linderman K, Schroeder RG, Van de Ven AH (2014) A comparative case study of sustaining quality as a competitive advantage. J Oper Manag 32(7):429–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swink M, Jacobs BW (2012) Six Sigma adoption: Operating performance impacts and contextual drivers of success. J Oper Manag 30(6):437–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swink M, Nair A (2007) Capturing the competitive advantages of AMT: Design–manufacturing integration as a complementary asset. J Oper Manag 25(3):736–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor A (2003) Mercedes hits a pothhole. Fortune 148:44–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro-foundations of sustainable enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 28:1319–1350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18:509–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JB, Sussman SW, Henderson JC (2001) Understanding “strategic learning”: Linking organizational learning, knowledge management, and sensemaking. Organ Sci 12:331–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold D, Yu ZY, Hui C (2004) Team Learning from Mistakes: The Contribution of Cooperative Goals and Problem-Solving. J Manag Stud 41:1223–1245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay M, Sire B, Balkin DB (2000) The role of organizational justice in pay and employee benefit satisfaction, and its effects on work attitudes. Group Organ Manag 25:269–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker AL, Nembhard IM, Edmondson AC (2007) Implementing new practices: An empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care units. Manag Sci 53:894–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turkulainen V, Ketokivi M (2012) Cross-functional integration and performance: what are the real benefits? Int J Oper Prod Manag 32:447–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickramasinghe D, Wickramasinghe V (2011) Differences in organizational factors by lean duration. Oper Manag Res 4:111–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter SG (2003) Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strateg Manag J 24:991–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter SG (2013) Habit, deliberation, and action: Strengthening the microfoundations of routines and capabilities. Acad Manag Perspect 27:120–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang D, Hill AV, Schroeder RG, Linderman K (2008) Project management infrastructure: The key to operational performance improvement. Oper Manag Res 4:40–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang D, Linderman K, Schroeder RG (2012) The moderating role of contextual factors on quality management practices. J Oper Manag 30:12–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo M, Winter SG (2002) Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organ Sci 13:339–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zott C (2003) Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm performance: insights from a simulation study. Strateg Manag J 24:97–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Marcello Gurian e Giulia Malimpensa for constructive comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Management, University of Padova, Via del Santo, 33, 35123, Padova, Italy

    Ambra Galeazzo & Andrea Furlan

  2. Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padova, Stradella San Nicola, 3, 36100, Vicenza, Italy

    Andrea Vinelli

Authors
  1. Ambra Galeazzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Furlan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Vinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ambra Galeazzo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Galeazzo, A., Furlan, A. & Vinelli, A. The organizational infrastructure of continuous improvement – an empirical analysis. Oper Manag Res 10, 33–46 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-016-0112-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-016-0112-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation