Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A measurement model of dynamic capabilities of the continuous improvement project and its role in the renewal of the company’s products/services

  • Published:
Operations Management Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most continuous improvement (CI) projects fail due to poorly developed hard/soft enablers. Previous studies have considered these enablers mainly at the organizational level. Although the context of each CI project is complex and unique and represents a temporal organization that also determines the project’s success, its internal factors have been under-researched. The paper analyzes the CI project from a dynamic capability (DC) perspective by differentiating between zero/first-order and second-order routines (i.e., the DCs of the CI project). Moreover, it conceptualizes, operationalizes, and validates a measurement model of such DCs. The unit of analysis is the CI project, and the sample consists of 68 projects (one per organization) in Colombia. The empirical validation criteria comprise goodness-of-fit, reliability (Cronbach’s alpha and composite), and validity (convergent and discriminant). The paper provides a reasonable/parsimonious measurement model comprising five DCs (synergy, ideation, absorption, integration, and coordination) at the CI project level. It clarifies the DCs of the CI project and how they can be operationalized. Based on this measurement model, we argue the role of such DCs in facilitating organizational adaption to changes in the environment (a novel conceptual model). These insights will be valuable for decision-making by researchers and managers in quality/project/operational management.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Akel K, Marian LO (2020) The lean six sigma algorithm - a pathway for decreasing the continuous improvement projects failure rate. In Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings 63(1):47

  • Al-Hammoud R, Hurst A, Prier A, Mostafapour M, Rennick C, Hulls C, Jobidon E, Li E, Grove J, Bedi S (2017) Teamwork for engineering students: Improving skills through experiential teaching modules. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)

  • Aldás-Manzano J, Uriel-Jimenez E (2017) Análisis multivariante aplicado con R. Ediciones Paraninfo, SA

  • Ambrosini V, Bowman C (2009) What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management? Int J Manag Rev 11(1):29–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amin ANM, Mahmood WHW, Kamat SR, Abdullah I (2018) Conceptual framework of lean ergonomics for assembly process: PDCA approach. J Eng Res 2(1):51–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Amos A, Taylor K, Johnson K, Comitz E, Adams R, Tracton G, Chera B, Marks L, Mazur L (2017) Assessing the Quality of the A3 Thinking Tool for Problem Solving. In Advances in the Human Side of Service Engineering (pp. 49–61). Springer, Cham

  • Anand G, Ward PT, Tatikonda MV, Schilling DA (2009) Dynamic capabilities through continuous improvement infrastructure. J Oper Manag 27(6):444–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azyabi A, Karwowski W, Davahli MR (2021) Assessing patient safety culture in hospital settings. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(5):2466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakkali S, Hadek A, Chaibate H, Ajana S (2017) The lean thinking approach: implementation in Moroccan engineering education. Int J Eng Res Generic Sci 5(3):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Banker RD, Field JM, Schroeder RG, Sintia KK (1996) Impact of work teams on manufacturing performance: A longitudinal field study. Acad Manag J 39(4):867–890

  • Bateman N (2005) Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement. Int J Oper Prod Manag 25(3):261–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessant J, Caffyn S (1997) High involvement innovation through continuous improvement. Int J Technol Manage 14(1):7–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessant J, Burnell J, Harding R, Webb S (1993) Continuous improvement in British manufacturing. Technovation 13(4):241–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessant J, Caffyn S, Gilbert J, Harding R, Webb S (1994) Rediscovering continuous improvement. Technovation 14(1):17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogodistov Y, Moormann J (2019) Theorizing on operational excellence: a capability-based approach. In Academy of Management Proceedings 2019(1):12174. Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management

  • Bortolotti T, Boscari S, Danese P (2015) Successful lean implementation: Organizational culture and soft lean practices. Int J Prod Econ 160:182–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caffyn S (1999) Development of a continuous improvement self-assessment tools. Int J Oper Prod Manag 19(11):1138–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cakir S (2019) Administrative skills of principals and students academic performance in public secondary schools in Langata Constituency Nairobi, Kenya. CUEA, The Catholic Univesity of Eastern Africa Digital Repository. http://ir.cuea.edu/jspui/handle/1/6837. Accessed Date 4 May 2022

  • Carrick R, Czekanski A (2017) Preparing students for success through implementation of a unified curriculum design spine. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)

  • Castka P, Bamber CJ, Sharp JM, Belohoubek P (2001) Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams. Team Perform Manag 7(7/8):123–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan MM, Lane HW, White RE (1999) An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Acad Manag Rev 24(3):522–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas D, Jenkins W, Kennedy J (2012) Understanding continuous improvement in an English local authority: A dynamic‐capability perspective. Int J Public Sect Manag

  • Du QL, Cao SM, Ba LL, Cheng JM (2008) Application of PDCA cycle in the performance management system. In 2008 4th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing (IEEE) pp. 1–4

  • Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg Manag J 21(10–11):1105–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falconi V (1994) Gerenciamento de Rotina. Belo Horizonte. Fundação Chistiano Ottoni

  • Fallon-Byrne L, Harney B (2017) Microfoundations of dynamic capabilities for innovation: a review and research agenda. Ir J Manag 36(1):21–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraris A, Mazzoleni A, Devalle A, Couturier J (2019) Big data analytics capabilities and knowledge management: impact on firm performance. Manag Decis

  • Flores-Fillol R, Iranzo S, Mane F (2017) Teamwork and delegation of decisions within the firm. Int J Ind Organ 52:1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furlan A, Vinelli A (2018) Unpacking the coexistence between improvement and innovation in world-class manufacturing: A dynamic capability approach. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 133:168–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galeazzo A, Furlan A, Vinelli A (2017) The organizational infrastructure of continuous improvement–an empirical analysis. Oper Manag Res 10(1–2):33–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gattiker T, Carter C (2010) Understanding project champions’ ability to gain intra-organizational commitment for environmental projects. J Oper Manag 28(1):72–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover WJ, Farris JA, Van Aken EM (2015) The relationship between continuous improvement and rapid improvement sustainability. Int J Prod Res 53(13):4068–4086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glowalla P, Sunyaev A (2014) Process-driven data quality management: A critical review on the application of process modeling languages. J Data Inf Qual 5(1–2):1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez R, Martins M (2016) Capability for continuous improvement: analysis of companies from automotive and capital goods industries. Total Qual Manag 28(2):250–274

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunasekaran, A, Subramanian, N, & Ngai, WTE. (2019) Quality management in the 21st century enterprises: Research pathway towards Industry 4.0. Int J Prod Econ 207, 125–129.

  • Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L. and Antony, J. (2020). Continuous improvement initiatives for dynamic capabilities development: A systematic literature review. Int J Lean Six Sigma 11(1): 125–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-07-2018-0071

  • Helfat CE (1997) Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: the case of RandD. Strateg Manag J 18(5):339–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines P, Holweg M, Rich N (2004) Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean thinking. Int J Oper Prod Manag 24(10):994–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imai M (2012) Gemba Kaizen: a commonsense approach to a continuous improvement strategy second edition

  • Irani Z, Beskese A, Love P (2004) Total quality management and corporate culture: constructs of organizational excellence. Technovation 24(8):643–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jena A, Satpathy SS (2017) Importance of soft skills in project management. Int J Sci Res 5(7):6173–6180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung JY, Wang YJ (2006) Relationship between total quality management (TQM) and continuous improvement of international project management (CIIPM). Technovation 26(5–6):716–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanji GK, Tambi AMBA, Wallace W (1999) A comparative study of quality practices in higher education institutions in the US and Malaysia. Total Qual Manag 10(3):357–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlbacher M (2013) The impact of dynamic capabilities through continuous improvement on innovation: The role of business process orientation. Knowl Process Manag 20(2):71–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kump B, Engelmann A, Kessler A, Schweiger C (2019) Toward a dynamic capabilities scale: measuring organizational sensing, seizing, and transforming capacities. Ind Corp Chang 28(5):1149–1172

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam M, O’Donnell M, Robertson D (2015) Achieving employee commitment for continuous improvement initiatives. Int J Oper Prod Manag 35(2):201–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li J (2013) Continuous improvement at Toyota manufacturing plant: applications of production systems engineering methods. Int J Prod Res 51(23–24):7235–7249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liker JK, Hoseus M (2010) Human resource development in Toyota culture. Int J Hum Resour Dev Manag 10(1):34–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liker J, Rother M (2011) Why lean programs fail. Lean Enterprise Institute 2011:45–79

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean RS, Antony J, Dahlgaard JJ (2017) Failure of continuous improvement initiatives in manufacturing environments: a systematic review of the evidence. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 28(3–4):219–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLean R, Antony J (2014) Why continuous improvement initiatives fail in manufacturing environments. Int J Product Perform Manag 63(3):370–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moumen M, Elaoufir H (2018) An integrated management system: from various aspects of the literature to a maturity model based on the process approach. Int J Product Qual Manag 23(2):218–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira J, Sá JC, Fernandes A (2017) Continuous improvement through lean tools: An application in a mechanical company. Procedia Manuf 13:1082–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson J, Belohlav J, Cook L, Hays J (2008) Examining quality improvement programs: the case of Minnesota hospitals. Health Serv Res 43(5):1787–1806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orgland MY (1997) Horizontal process redesign. in initiating, managing and sustaining strategic change (pp. 138–175). Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Pakeltienė R, Ragauskaitė A (2017) Creative synergy as a potential factor for the development of social innovations. Res Rural Dev 2:174–181. https://doi.org/10.22616/rrd.23.2017.065

  • Pavlou PA, El Sawy OA (2011) Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decis Sci 42(1):239–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pay R (2008) Everybody’s jumping on the lean bandwagon, but many are being taken for a ride. Industry Week 5:21–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng DX, Schroeder RG, Shah R (2008) Linking routines to operations capabilities: A new perspective. J Oper Manag 26(6):730–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira J, Silva FJG, Bastos JA, Ferreira LP, Matias JCO (2019) Application of the A3 methodology for the improvement of an assembly line. Procedia Manufacturing 38:745–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Rave JI, Correa-Morales JC, González-Echavarría F (2019) A machine learning approach to big data regression analysis of real estate prices for inferential and predictive purposes. J Prop Res 36(1):59–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Rave JI, Fernández-Guerrero R, Correa-Morales JC (2022a) Critical thinking and continuous improvement: a scientific text mining approach. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 33(1–2):1–27

  • Pérez-Rave J (2021) MinerConstructo: marco inteligente para aprender, actualizarse y practicar minería de constructos con rigor científico. MinerConstructo: an intelligent framework to learn, update and practice construct mining with scientific rigor. IDINNOV id: 10–986–55, 13-ago.-2021

  • Pérez-Rave J, Patiño-Rodríguez C, Úsuga-Manco O (2010) Uso de herramientas de mejoramiento y su incidencia en costos, fallas y factores de éxito de grandes y medianas empresas industriales del Valle de Aburrá [Use of improvement tools and their impact on costs and on key success factors for large and medium industrial companies of Valle de Aburrá]. Gestão and Produção 17:589–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Rave, J, Sánchez-Figueroa, G, González-Echavarría, F (2022b) A scale for measuring healthcare service quality incorporating patient-centred care and using a psychometric analytics framework, J Health Organ Manag, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-10-2021-0387

  • PMI (2016) Pulse of the Profession 2016: the high cost of low performance. New York, Project Management Institute

  • Rahman SU, Bullock P (2005) Soft TQM, hard TQM, and organizational performance relationships: an empirical investigation. Omega 33(1):73–83

    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(5):509–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samson D, Terziovski M (1999) The relationship between total quality management practices and operational performance. J Oper Manag 17(4):393–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schonberger R (1982) Japanese manufacturing techniques: nine hidden lessons in simplicity. Free Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter JA, Nichol AJ (1934) Robinson’s economics of imperfect competition. J Polit Econ 42(2):249–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan L, Angell R (2015) Learn about Pearson's Correlation Coefficient in SPSS with Data from the UK living cost and food survey (2010). SAGE Publications

  • Su H, Linderman K (2016) An empirical investigation in sustaining high-quality performance. Decis Sci 47(5):787–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunder MV, Prashar A (2020) Empirical examination of critical failure factors of continuous improvement deployments: stage-wise results and a contingency theory perspective. Int J Prod Res 58(16):4894–4915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 28(13):1319–1350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S (2003) Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strateg Manag J 24(10), 991–995

  • Womack J (2007) Raising the game [continuous improvement programme]. Manuf Eng 86(5):44–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo M, Winter S (2002) Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organ Sci 13(3):339–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IDINNOV Research Group, IDINNOV S.A.S, Medellín, Colombia

    Jorge Iván Pérez-Rave

  2. Dirección de Empresas Juan José Renau Piqueras, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain

    Rafael Fernández Guerrero & Andrés Salas Vallina

  3. Industrial Engineering Department, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia

    Favián González Echavarría

Authors
  1. Jorge Iván Pérez-Rave
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rafael Fernández Guerrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrés Salas Vallina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Favián González Echavarría
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge Iván Pérez-Rave.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

1.1 The proposed scale of dynamic capabilities of the continuous improvement project

Instructions: Focusing on the last CI project in which you participated in your current company, please indicate the answer that best describes the development process of said project. Scale: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

1.1.1 CI ideation

  • dpc2. We proactively addressed concerns about possible project difficulties.

  • dpc5. We quickly understood the needs and expectations of the users of the project.

  • dpc6. We identified the fundamental requirements for the project deliverables.

1.1.2 CI absorption

  • dpc8. We assimilated new information when developing the project deliverables.

  • dpc9. We considered new evidence when analyzing the root cause of the problem to be solved through the project.

  • dpc10. We incorporated new information when defining objectives and goals during the project.

  • dpc12. We expanded our knowledge as the project progressed.

1.1.3 CI integration

  • dpc14. We generated solutions that considered ideas, contributions, or knowledge from other sources in the project (e.g., colleagues, bosses, teachers, manuals, and the scientific literature).

  • dpc16. We designed action plans that took into account the needs and expectations of the project’s main internal or external users.

  • dpc17. We executed action plans that were supported by solid evidence collected during the project.

  • dpc18. We define how each team member would contribute to the achievement of the project objectives.

1.1.4 CI coordination

  • dpc22. We were able to document and transfer the lessons learnt or best practices collected throughout the project.

  • dpc23. We ensured the provision of the required resources at each stage of the project.

  • dpc24. We achieve that the organization still uses the solutions generated by the project.

1.1.5 CI synergy

  • dpc27. We supported each other even when difficulties arose during the project.

  • dpc28. We worked as a team to carry out each stage of the project.

  • dpc29. We were committed to a common purpose around the project.

    dpc30. We strove to overcome our weaknesses as new challenges arose during the project.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pérez-Rave, J.I., Guerrero, R.F., Vallina, A.S. et al. A measurement model of dynamic capabilities of the continuous improvement project and its role in the renewal of the company’s products/services. Oper Manag Res 16, 126–140 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-022-00281-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-022-00281-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation