Paradoxes and Organizational Learning in Continuous Improvement Approaches: Using the TRIZ Principles for Developing Problem Solving Performance in a Michelin Plant

  • Zahir MessaoudeneEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 541)


Continuous improvement approaches advocate the development of organizational learning to support the system of problem solving. For this, companies use different strategies for implementing of continuous improvement. A survey has been conducted showing that these strategies can have a paradoxical impact on the performance of problem solving. How can we explain the difficulties faced by companies in the development of problem solving? The classical learning model used by the majority of companies generates contradictions called “empirical”. To provide an innovative contribution to the problem-solving learning problematic, TRIZ theory and paradox theory are used to characterize a problem model (in the form of paradoxes and organizational tensions) and a solution model (in the form of paradoxical practices). Finally, a case study in the form of experimentation in one of the Michelin factories is realized. The specific problem is modeled using TRIZ and the paradoxical approach. An organizational innovation called “problem solving pull (PSP ©)” has been developed. This specific solution made it possible to eliminate some of the tensions and make the problem-solving learning system more dynamic.


Paradoxes management Problem solving Learning organizational 


  1. 1.
    Liker, J.K.: The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturers. McGraw-Hill, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shah, R., Ward, P.T.: Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance. J. Oper. Manag. 21, 129–149 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cusumano, M.A.: The limits of Lean. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 35, 27–32 (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conti, R., Angelis, J., Cooper, C., Faragher, B., Gill, C.: The effects of lean production on worker job stress. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 26, 1013–1038 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Messaoudene, Z.: Relation entre les pratiques d’amélioration continue et l’apprentissage organisationnel dans des PME française. In: 11th Congrès International de Génie Industriel, Canada (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Piderit, S.K.: Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of attitudes towards an organizational change. Acad. Manag. Rev. 4(25), 783–794 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W., et al.: Resistance to change: the rest of the story. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33(2), 362–377 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perret, V.: Les paradoxes du changement organisationnel, Le paradoxe: penser et gérer autrement les organisations, pp. 253–297. Ellipses, Paris (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Altshuller, G.S.: Creativity as an Exact Science – the Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problem. Gordon and Breach Publishers, Philadelphia (1984)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Argyris, C., Schon, D.A.: Apprentissage organisationnel. Théorie, méthode et pratique. De Boeck, Paris (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Josserand, E., Perret, V.: Pratiques organisationnelles du paradoxe: Le paradoxe – Penser et gérer autrement les organisations, Chapitre 7, pp. 165–187. Ellipses (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Westenholz, A.: Paradoxical thinking and change in the frame of reference. Organ. Stud. 14(1), 37–58 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morin, P.: Le développement des organisations. Dunod, Paris (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ford, J., Backoff, R.: Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox. In: Quinn, R., Cameron, K. (eds.) Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management, pp. 81–121. Ballinger, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lambert, G., Ouédraogo, N.: L’apprentissage organisationnel et son impact sur la performance des processus, Revue française de gestion 2006/7, no. 166, pp. 15–32 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eby, L.T., Adams, D.M., et al.: Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: factors related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Hum. Relat. 53(3), 419–442 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ECAM LyonLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations