Abstract Despite the well documented advantages of continuous improvement (CI) management, implementation failures are discouragingly high (Jazayeri and Hopper, 1999). In the quality literature the most significant reason for this reported failure is cultural resistance (Irani et al., 2003) due in part to insufficient trust (Chenhall and Langfield-Smith 2003) and learning anxiety (Busco et al.,2006). In the early 1900s Taylor decoupled planning from execution. Continuous improvement recouples these management actions. Consequently, this research suggests that recoupling of planning and execution by CI management creates the need for new accounting systems. Seizing a serendipitous opportunity to develop such a model, the researchers use a constructivist research approach to design and implement a CI control and management system in an American company. Consistent with a position taken by Covaleski et al. (2003) and using constructivist research (Kasanen et al., 1993),(Lukka, 2000), multiple theoretic models were applied as no single theory adequately addressed the critical implementation issues. Consequently, this application uses theoretical elements from Old Institutional Economics (OIE), Agency, and Constructivist Learning theories to develop the application demonstrated in this paper. This is not to deny that different theories may explain the same phenomena (Tolbert and Zucker, 1996). But, while there was some overlap, none of the theoretical models conflicted. However, agency theory developed within a scientific management strategy was found to be deficient in explanatory power and required learning considerations to inform CI strategies. Finally, this work is only a pilot study with all the difficulties and ambiguities of such. Its acceptance and use within the company represents a weak validation (Labro and Tuomela, 2003) of the CI model. It's value will be truly determined by future expansion and application of its insights.
Read full abstract