Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 41 (2016) 1119 – 1124

48th CIRP Conference on MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS - CIRP CMS 2015

Barriers to continuous improvement: perceptions of top managers, middle

managers and workers
Eirin Lodgaarda,*, Jonas A. Ingvaldsena , Silje Aschehouga, Inger Gammea,
a
SINTEF Raufoss Manufacturing, Box 163, N-2831 Raufoss, Norway.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +47-9954-4358; Fax: + 47-6115-3625. E-mail address: eirin.lodgaard@sintef.no

Abstract

Continuous improvement [CI], as culture, tools and methods, is critical to manufacturing companies’ competitive position. Research has
documented that as many as two out of three CI programs fail, in the sense of not meeting goals and expectations. While poorly designed CI
systems and misguided use of tools and methods may explain some failed CI initiatives, surveys and expert polls indicate that the main barriers
to CI success are organizational and managerial. This paper reports on a case study of barriers to CI. The case company, a medium-sized
manufacturer of maritime systems, has achieved only partial success with CI, despite repeated efforts. Unsurprisingly, both technical and
organizational barriers are important, but the relative importance attributed to the different barriers is strikingly dissimilar across hierarchical
levels in the organization. While top managers attribute the limited success to shortcomings of information systems and improvement methods,
workers primarily point to limited support and commitment from management, in addition to other organizational factors such as lack of
involvement, motivation and teamwork. Middle managers acknowledge both groups of barriers, but tend to agree more with the workers’ view.
If these findings are generalizable beyond the single case-company, there are important implications for both research and practice. Research
should appreciate the complex attribution of barriers, by complementing conventional surveys with in-depth qualitative analysis. Practically,
unless the opinions of different occupation groups at different hierarchical levels are listened to, efforts to overcome the barriers may be
misguided. In addition, top managers should learn to take the roles of CI champions, who not only allocate resources to CI, but also actively
encourage, follow-up and reward the appropriate use of CI tools and methods.
© 2015
© 2015 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of 48th CIRP Conference on MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS - CIRP CMS
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2015.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of 48th CIRP Conference on MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS - CIRP CMS 2015
Keywords: Continuous improvement; production management; organizational behavour

1. Introduction of an organization [2]. Bhuiyan and Baghel further describe

Worldwide, manufacturing companies continuously strive
to sustain their competitive advantages. Common strategies
for competiveness include production systems focusing on
lean and quality.
The Toyota Production System (TPS) is by many
considered to be the world benchmark in production
improvement programs [1]. In addition, many companies
experience customer demands to comply with the ISO
organization’s quality standards (e.g. ISO 9001, ISO TS
16849). Common to TPS and quality standards is a systematic
approach to problem solving throughout the organization,
known as continuous improvement (CI).
CI may be defined as a culture of sustained improvements,
targeting the elimination of waste in all systems and processes
CI as something that occurs through incremental
improvements or through radical improvements based on a
new technology or innovative ideas. Sometimes, large
improvements are the result of many incremental
improvements over time. CI may also be regarded as a
number of approaches, tools and techniques for finding and
eliminating waste and improving quality [2]. Today, the best-
known approaches for CI are: Total quality management
(TQM), six sigma, lean, balanced scorecard, and hybrid
methodologies such as lean six sigma [2, 3].
Even though CI has been known for decades, and many
books have been written about its practical implementation,
companies often find their CI programs in a fledgling state
[4]. The failure rate is high [5]; as many as two out of three CI
initiatives fail to deliver the desired results [6]. Companies

2212-8271 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of 48th CIRP Conference on MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS - CIRP CMS 2015
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.012
1120 Eirin Lodgaard et al. / Procedia CIRP 41 (2016) 1119 – 1124
often achieve significant improvements in the short run, but
CI ultimately falls apart. Clearly, there is a need to understand
why the failure rate is high, and what companies can do to
make their CI initiatives more successful and sustainable.
Against this background, this paper empirically
investigates which barriers to CI top managers, middle
managers and workers consider important. Do the different
groups list the same barriers? Do the different groups put
equal emphasis on the different barriers? If not, how can we
explain the differences in perception? Since several studies of
CI implementation stress the importance of integrating a
technical infrastructure with the soft, behavioral aspects [7, 8],
we explore both technical and organizational factors
influencing CI.
The article has the following structure: First, the theoretical
background for CI is outlined and the literature on barriers to
CI is reviewed. Second, we present a case study of a company
that specializes in manufacturing of high-end, complex
thrusters. Over the last years, their CI results have been
mixed, and we report their perception of barriers. Third and
finally, conclusions and implications for researchers and
practitioners are presented.
2. Nature of continuous improvement
Both American and Japanese manufacturing have played a
significant role in shaping the evolution of CI [9]. Nowadays,
CI is a core principle regardless of which kind of management
system the organization has chosen [9]. There are many
definitions of CI. Two of them are:
“A continuous stream of high-involvement, incremental
changes in products and processes for enhanced business
performance”[3], and
“A company-wide process of focused and continuous
incremental innovation [10].
These definitions emphasize one common aspect: Through
employee involvement in the entire organization, CI aims to
improve the organization's processes in order to meet
customer requirements.
CI can occur through incremental improvement and
through radical change [2]. Incremental improvement refers to
small and gradual improvement, while radical change refers to
improvement based on innovative ideas or new technology
that may require investments. An extended period with
incremental improvements can result in a major improvement.
Consequently, CI is a process of change in which superior
performance is attained [11].
Most organizations are not consistently addressing day-to-
day problems, but instead have developed sophisticated
“firefighting" skills [12]. This shows another important factor
in successful applications: that the CI process is embedded in
the organizational culture [13], so that problem-solving is a
natural road to improvement [14].
Different events may trigger CI activities. The first type of
initiative for CI occurs when there is a deviation from a
desired state, giving rise to a statement of a well-defined
problem to be solved. For example, workers may revise a
standard practice if it produces unexpected or anomalous
results. The second type of initiative for CI occurs when there
is no deviation, but one still sees the opportunity for
improvement through creative thinking.
3. Factors influencing continuous improvement
3.1. Management
In the literature, management commitment and
involvement are highlighted as important success factors
when implementing and performing CI [4, 15]. Jakobsen and
Poppendieck document the importance of management
commitment through a study in which significant and
sustainable improvement was achieved due to the role of the
management team [16]. Managers mentored the improvement
teams to ensure completeness of the improvement program,
and supported the improvement activities. Bhuiyan and
Baghel mention another dimension of management’s role [2]:
There is no clear way of prioritizing major improvement
programs by management. Another important element is that
management needs to pay close attention to follow-up
mechanisms to ensure sustainability and the ability to capture
and create knowledge [12].
3.2. Organizing for continuous improvement
The application of CI within the entire organization
presents a variety of challenges. Garcia-Sabater and Marin-
Garcia report that in many cases, there is a lack of strategic
orientation with respect to CI [4]. This finding may indicate
that the organization has not sufficiently reflected on how to
organize for integration of CI at all levels.
The experience of disappointment and failure with CI
reported by many organizations derives mainly from a lack of
understanding of the behavioral dimension [5]. Too much
focus on CI tools and methods, to the neglect of human
factors and how CI behavioral patterns emerge in the
workplace, is also reported as a pitfall in a study by
Ljungström and Klefsjö [3]. Jakobsen and Poppendieck also
highlight the importance of obtaining commitment from
employees, in addition to commitment from management
[16]. A study by Yan and Makinde point out that an effective
communication channel between management and employees
working with the CI programs, is important to ensure
sustainability [17].
The composition and structure of the improvement team
are crucial to success, and one must be knowledgeable about
both the improvement approach and the issues to be improved
[12]. Normally a CI team is established to solve a specific
issue, and the team includes personnel who have the
necessary competence and mandate to achieve the desired
improvement. People working with improving specific issues
should be the same people who normally work on those issues
[16]. This view is supported by Jarvinen et al. who point out
the importance of getting the experts together, and
consequently ensuring acceptance through participation [18].
Through involvement, employees gain a sense of belonging
and satisfaction, and they are allowed to put their creativity,
knowledge and skills to good use. Intrinsic motivation of
individual team members is another success factor [19]. The
use of cross-functional teams with close collaboration and
good communication between teams is an enabler for
successful implementation of CI [4].
Soares et al. have found that perhaps the greatest challenge
in the accomplishment of improvement initiatives is to ensure
 Eirin Lodgaard et al. / Procedia CIRP 41 (2016) 1119 – 1124
that the improvement persists over time [19]. In order to be
sustainable, changes should be propagated throughout the
organization to all employees involved, both inside and
outside the CI team [20]. Otherwise, only a few people will
know about it. The improvement should be codified as a new
standard and spread throughout the organization as “best
practice” [14].
3.3. Continuous improvement method
CI is achieved through application of a number of methods
and techniques [2]. If the goals are to reduce waste, streamline
the flow of the manufacturing process and improve product
quality, a systematic approach is preferable to ad-hoc problem
solving. A systematic approach helps the improvement team
stay focused on completion of the improvement initiative by
carrying out pre-defined steps until goal satisfaction prevails
[21].
It is important for companies to select proper CI methods
according to their needs, and demand that CI is carried out
throughout the organization [13]. All CI methods have
strengths and weakness, which should inform management’s
choices. Then, the chosen methods should be applied
correctly to the appropriate processes in the organization and
be supported by planning, training and monitoring of the CI
activities.
Accomplishment of improvement by applying a defined
method requires both knowledge about the method and the
skills to perform the method in the correct way. A study by
Kitching found that learning by interacting was considered
more important than externally provided training [22]. These
findings support the claim that knowledge about the method is
enhanced by prior accomplishment of improvements.
Nevertheless, basic knowledge about the methods must first
be established [23].
Another important element is that management needs
knowledge about the chosen method and implementation of
CI to be able to understand what CI is all about [24]. Sobek
and Smalley report that many managers who have chosen the
PDCA cycle as a CI method, are not familiar with the PDCA
or do not really understand it [12].
3.4. Capturing and sharing of knowledge
In a cyclic process of implementing changes, studying the
results and reflecting on the lessons learned, new knowledge
is derived. Both successes and failures may lead to new
knowledge [25]. Reflective communication enhances
learning, ultimately resulting in higher performance.
Reflective communication is a process whereby the team
members transfer and combine insights to reach a common
understanding of what the experience or information means
[26]. Throughout the process, participants are encouraged to
ask questions, challenge assumptions and seek different
perspectives.
Sharing of knowledge created in the CI process is often
challenging, due to the lack of support systems. Knowledge
created in the CI processes may be documented as explicit
knowledge, by text and visualization, on a single sheet of
paper with A3 format [12]. The philosophy behind this
approach is to develop deep learning about the improvement
1121
issue to solve in addition to developing skilled improvement-
solvers. A3 helps document progress, what is learned inside
each of the improvement programs in addition to transfer of
knowledge between the different improvement programs.
4. Research design
This study is part of a national research project concerning
work organization and operations in the Norwegian
manufacturing industry. The reported findings are the results
of a two-year in-depth single case study. As the research team
has worked closely with the case company for two years, we
have gained thorough understanding of their operational
challenges and opportunities.
The case company is a manufacturing company in Norway
with engineering to order based production. The company
experiences global market pressure to deliver high quality and
reliable products. It employs approximately 300 employees,
and has an annual turnover of approximately 150 million
US$.
The research design is qualitative case study [27, 28]. A
protocol describing research questions and data collection
methods was developed and discussed within the research
team. Several sources of evidence were collected during the
case study to address construct validity [28]. This includes
semi-structured interviews, unstructured interviews, field
visits, observations, access to databases, and document
reviews. In addition, we arranged workshops with the
company, where CI and the usability of its supporting
technical system were discussed. Thirteen formal interviews
were conducted at the case company's location over a two-
year period. This allowed for reflections in between the
interviews and for the development of more specific
questions.
The collected data was analyzed in order to identify
perceived barriers that hinder CI performance in the
organization. Transcribed interviews and company
documentation were coded and visualized in data displays to
find patterns and recurring themes [29]. Findings were also
discussed with company managers, adding respondent
validation.
The results in this article should be regarded as indicative,
as they are based on a single case study. Although a single
case only gives limited generalizability, it is possible to obtain
an extensive comprehension of the phenomena studied. Using
a single case can, according to Yin [30], “offer a significant
contribution to knowledge and theory building.”
5. Results and discussion
The case company is organized in functional departments,
with multiple hierarchical levels (3-6 dependent on
department function).
All employees are expected to report and contribute to
solving all kinds of operational problems including deviations
in their daily work. To a large extent, such problem solving is
carried out in all departments every day. Still, the company
experiences that the same types of deviations and quality
issues repeat themselves, often multiple times. This indicates
that the company has challenges when it comes to how to
1122 Eirin Lodgaard et al. / Procedia CIRP 41 (2016) 1119 – 1124

report, handle, and learn from deviances and improvement documenting and sharing information. Many managers
initiatives. thought that investments in new technology would solve their
In order to identify the perceived barriers to CI at different information-sharing challenges. However, as shown by
organizational levels, top managers, middle manager and previous studies, installing new systems for information
workers were interviewed. Results are summarized in Table 1. sharing is seldom the only solution – it is equally important to
Barriers are categorized according to the literature review in ensure that there is willingness among the people to share
section 3. An ‘x’ indicates that the group of informants information [33]. A surprising finding is that top managers
(horizontal axis) focused on this barrier (vertical axis) as one apparently do not acknowledge the importance of their own
of the main barriers with regard to achieving success with CI. support and commitment to the CI program. Exiting research
shows that the main driving force to succeed with CI is
Table 1. Perceived barriers to CI. management commitment and active leadership [4, 15, 16].
Category Perceptions of Top Middle Workers Middle managers pointed to most types of barriers
barriers managers managers explored in the literature. Curiously, they were concerned
Management Limited management x x about lack of top management commitment, but rarely
commitment reflected on their own roles as managers of CI. One of the
Limited support from x x middle managers explained how he thought CI
management implementations should proceed: "It should start from the top
CI not a daily focus x x management and be implemented further down in the
organization structure, or start with the whole organization at
Organizing Roles/responsibilities x x
the same time. If the process starts at the bottom, and nothing
for CI not defined
happens, the process will stop halfway, and nothing more will
Lack of involvement x x happen. Hence, it will be difficult to start all over again."
Lack of teamwork x x Both middle managers and workers reported that
Lack of motivation x x involvement, teamwork and motivation were lacking. Top
CI method Not according to best x
managers, however, did not have this as a key focus area.
practice Bessant et al. highlight the behavioral dimension, more than
specific tools and methods for achieving CI [5]. Teamwork
Not user-friendly x x
system [technical] and collaboration foster skill development across functional
boarders, and contribute to a common understanding of
Not covering all x
relevant CI initiatives
challenges. One of the top managers mentioned that he
involved both middle managers and workers in problem
Not adding sufficient x x
solving. Nevertheless, there was a shared opinion among
value
middle managers and workers that there was a lack of
Knowledge Lack of knowledge x x x employee involvement in the CI processes. Involvement is
about CI method
identified in the literature as a key component for integration
Lack of capturing x x x of CI at all levels [4]. Insufficient collaboration and different
and sharing of expectations to the CI processes at different hierarchical
knowledge
levels may be reasons why informants focused on different
barriers. And this recognition reveals that increased
Table 1 shows that perceptions of barriers for achieving CI collaboration with employees in all levels and across of the
are strikingly dissimilar across hierarchical levels in the organization is with potential of improvement. Their opinion
organization. While top managers primarily attribute the of lack of involvement, teamwork and motivation could be
limited success to shortcomings of improvement methods and explained by following; normally employees want to feel
supporting technical systems, workers primarily point to appreciated by involvement and the possibility to contribute
limited support and commitment from management, in with their knowledge and experience.
addition to other organizational factors such as lack of The following quotation from an operator is illustrative of
involvement, motivation and teamwork. Middle managers the workers’ perception of barriers: "I tried to contribute on
acknowledge both groups of barriers, but a closer inspection solving some improvement issues, but experienced that it did
of the table reveals that they agree more with the worker. In not work very well since there were little response from the
general, the findings indicate that employees at different management. Hence, the improvement process came to an
hierarchical levels perceive different barriers when embarking end." If the CI initiatives are managed in this way, the
on CI. Bhasin makes similar observations in relation to the motivation of the workers will be poor and CI will fall apart
implementation of lean in the U.K.; among other things, after a short time [5]. Managers did not expect operators to
workers and managers disagree on whether management’s document the improvement activities in the existing technical
attitude was appropriate for lean to prosper [31]. Often, system or be well trained in their chosen CI method. This
people from different functions and hierarchical levels have could be a reason why the workers were not focused on
different backgrounds, and hence different world views [32]. barriers related to CI method and the technical system. It
More specifically, interviews with top managers at the case should be noted that only the managers had been trained in CI
company revealed that a holistic view on the determinants of method and how to use the supporting technical system.
CI success was lacking. Their main focus was on how to Despite important differences between the hierarchical
achieve CI by choosing best practice methods and levels, our informants also agreed on some of the barriers.
implementing a user-friendly technical system for Insufficiently knowledge about CI methods and lack of
 Eirin Lodgaard et al. / Procedia CIRP 41 (2016) 1119 – 1124
knowledge sharing were mentioned directly or indirectly in
every interview. The fact that all informants focused on these
barriers, indicates that basic knowledge about the CI method
and knowledge sharing are seen as important, as described in
the existing literature [12, 23]. One reason for this common
opinion may be that employees recognize that CI can help
them in improving productivity indicators and satisfying
customers. Therefore, they appreciate the importance of
knowledge about the approach, so that they can contribute in
the problem solving and knowledge sharing.
6. Conclusion
This study indicates that employees at different
hierarchical levels perceive barriers to CI differently. We find
that top managers attribute the limited success to
shortcomings of information systems and improvement
methods, and that workers primarily point to limited support
and commitment from management, in addition to other
organizational factors such as lack of involvement, motivation
and teamwork. Middle managers acknowledge both groups of
barriers, but tend to agree more with the workers.
Although much research has been conducted on barriers to
CI, little focus has been directed towards identifying opinions
of different groups at different hierarchical levels in an
organization. If the findings of this study are generalizable, it
follows that future empirical research on barriers to CI should
sample a broad range of informants in each organization.
Simply asking management or CI specialists what the barriers
are may re-produce biased perceptions. Preferably,
quantitative or structured qualitative data should be
complemented by unstructured qualitative data so that it is
possible to understand the informants’ worldviews, and
address why the different groups perceive barriers differently.
The same logic of diverse opinions probably applies to the
related questions of enablers and success factors as well; these
may also be perceived differently depending on the
individual’s hierarchical position.
The main practical implication of this study is that unless
the opinions of different groups at different hierarchical levels
are listened to, efforts to overcome barriers to CI may be
misguided. In particular, top managers should take care to
consult different groups of employees before choosing a path
of action. Additionally, there should be put in place
mechanisms that create confidence and trust between groups
at different hierarchical levels.
This study also supports common recommendations about
the role of top management in CI programs. Only allocating
resources to CI and empowering employees to respond to
deviances and make changes may be insufficient. Top
managers should also actively encourage, follow-up and
reward the appropriate use of CI methods.
Acknowledgements
The current research was funded by the Norwegian
Research Council through the project "Adaptive and
Integrated Production Systems (TIP)".
1123
References
[1] New SJ. Celebrating the enigma: the continuing puzzle of the Toyota
Production System. International Journal of Production Research.
2007;45[16]:3545 - 54.
[2] Bhuiyan N, Baghel A. An Overview of Continuous Improvement: From
the Past to the Present. Management Decision. 2005;43[5]:761-71.
[3] Ljungström M, Klefsjö B. Implementation obstacles for a
workdevelopment-oriented TQM strategy. Total Quality Management.
2002;13[5]:621 - 34.
[4] Garcia-Sabater JJ, Marin-Garcia JA. Can we still talk about continuous
improvement? Rethinking enablers and inhibitors for successful
implementation. International Journal of Technology Management.
2011;55[1]:28-42.
[5] Bessant J, Caffyn S, Gallagher M. An Evolutionary Model of
Continuous Improvement Behavior. Technovation. 2001;21[2]:67-77.
[6] Lillrank P, Shani ABR, Lindberg P. Continuous Improvement:
Exploring Alternative Organizational Designs. Total Quality
Management. 2001;12:41-55.
[7] Yang C-C, Yang K-J. An Integrated Model of the Toyota Production
System with Total Quality Management and People Factors. Human
Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries.
2013;23[5]:450-61.
[8] Anand G, Ward PT, Tatikonda MV, Schilling DA. Dynamic capabilities
through continuous improvement infrastructure. Journal of Operations
Management. 2009;27[6]:444-61.
[9] Dahlgaard-Park SM. The Quality Movement - Where Are You Going?
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 2011;22[5]:493-
513.
[10] Bessant J, Caffyn S, Gilbert J, Harding R, Webb S. Rediscovering
Continuous Improvement. Technovation. 1994;14[1]:17-29.
[11] Juran JM, Gryna FM. Juran's Quality Handbook. New York: McGraw-
Hill; 1988.
[12] Sobek DK, Smalley A. Understanding A3 Thinking, A Critical
Component of Toyota`s PDCA Management System. New York:
Productivity Press; 2008.
[13] Sokovic M, Pavletic D, Pipan KK. Quality Improvement Methodologies
- PDCA Cycle, RADAR Matrix, DMAIC and DFSS. Journal of
Achievements in Material and Manufacturing Engineering.
2010;43[1]:476-83.
[14] Imai M. Kaizen. The Key to Japan's Competitive Success. First ed. New
York: Random House; 1986.
[15] Lodgaard E, Gamme I, Aasland K. Success Factors for PDCA as
Continuous Improvement Method in Product Development. In:
Emmanouilidis C, Taisch M, Kiritsis D, editors. Advances in
Production Management Systems Competitive Manufacturing for
Innovative Products and Services: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2013. p.
645-52.
[16] Jakobsen CR, Poppendieck T. Lean as a Scrum Troubleshooter. Acile
Conference: IEEE; 2011.
[17] Yan B, Makinde OD. Impact of Continuous Improvement on New
Product Development within SMEs in the Western Cape, South Africa.
African Journal of Business Management. 2011;5[6]:2200-29.
[18] Jarvinen J, Perklen E, Kaila-Stenberg S, Hyvarinen E, Hyytiainen S,
editors. PDCA-cycle in Implementing Design for Environment in an
R&D Unit of Nokia Telecommunications. Electrics and Environment
Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Symposium; 1998.
[19] Soares D, Bastos J, Gavazzo D, Pereira JP, Baptista AJ. Lean
Management Methods in Product Development - A Case Study.
Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing FAIM2013; Porto,
Portogal2013.
[20] Jørgensen F, Boer H, Gertsen F. Jump-starting continuous improvement
through self-assessment. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management. 2003;23[10]:1260-78.
[21] Reid RR, Koljonen EL. The Deming Cycle Provides a Framework for
Managing Environmentally Responsible Process Improvements. Quality
Engineering. 1999;12:199-209.
[22] Kitching J. Regulating Employment Relations Through Workplace
Learning: A Study of Small Employers. Human Resources Management
Journal. 2007;17[1]:42-57.
[23] de Souza CC, dos Anjos MC, Cezar IM, Arias ERA, dos Reis Neto JF.
The Use of PDCA Method and Quality Tools in Agribusiness
Management in Mato Grosso do Sul State. Dourados. 2012;5[15]:75-83.
[24] Morgan JM, Liker JK. The Toyota Product Development System,
Integrating People, Process and Technology. New York: Productivity
Press; 2006.
[25] Ning JF, Chen Z, Liu G. PDCA Process Application in the Continuous
1124 Eirin Lodgaard et al. / Procedia CIRP 41 (2016) 1119 – 1124

Improvement of Software Quality. International Conference on source book. Second Edition ed: Sage Publications Inc.; 1994.
Computer, Mechatronics, Control and Electronic Engineering [CMCE]: [30] Yin RK. Case study research: Design and methods: Sage publications;
IEEE; 2010. 2014.
[26] Gibson C, Vermeulen F. A Healthy Divide: Subgroups as Stimulus for [31] Bhasin S. An appropriate change strategy for lean success. Management
Team Learning Behavior. Administrative Science Quartely. Decision. 2012;50[3]:439-58.
2003;48:202-39. [32] Griffin A, Hauser JR. Integrating R&D and marketing: a review and
[27] Karlsson C. Researching Operations Management. Karlsson C, editor: analysis of the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Management.
Taylor & Francis; 2009. 1996;13[3]:191-215.
[28] Yin RK. Case Study Research, Design and Methods. Fourth Edition ed. [33] Fawcett SE, Wallin C, Allred C, Magnan G. Supply chain information-
Leonaard Bickman DJR, editor: Sage Publications Inc.; 2009. sharing: benchmarking a proven path. Benchmarking: An International
[29] Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analyises, an expanded Journal. 2009;16[2]:222-46.