Enablers of Continuous Improvement When Using a PDCA Cycle ...kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1258906/FULLTEXT01.pdf · INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT AND THE MAIN FIELD

IN THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGYDEGREE PROJECT INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENTAND THE MAIN FIELD OF STUDYINDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT,SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

, STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2018

Enablers of Continuous Improvement When Using a PDCA Cycle Based Information Technology Tool

A Comparative Study of Two Swedish Logistics Centers Within Grocery Retail

AMANDA HEYDARI

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

Enablers of Continuous Improvement When Using a PDCA Cycle Based Information

Technology Tool

A Comparative Study of Two Swedish Logistics Centers Within Grocery Retail

by

Amanda Heydari

Master of Science Thesis INDEK 2018:115 KTH Industrial Engineering and Management

Industrial Management SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM

Främjande faktorer för ständiga förbättringar vid användandet av ett IT-verktyg baserat på

PDCA-cykeln

En jämförelsestudie av två svenska logistikcenter inom dagligvaruhandeln

Amanda Heydari

Examensarbete INDEK 2018:115 KTH Industriell teknik och management

Industriell ekonomi och organisation SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM

Abstract

Logistics centers can implement continuous improvement in order to stay competitive.Enablers of continuous improvement have been widely researched in academia. However,there is a gap regarding research about enablers in organizations using a plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle based IT tool to support their continuous improvement process. Thisstudy investigates the enablers of employees posting, implementing, and following upcontinuous improvement suggestions when using a PDCA cycle based IT tool and thesupport this IT tool provides for a logistics center.

This was done by conducting a comparative study of two logistics centers working withgrocery retail; one center in Västerås, where the employees had exceeded their goals foramount of posted, implemented, and followed up suggestions for 2017, and another onein Kallhäll, where they did not meet their goal for 2017. Qualitative data was gatheredby carrying out eight interviews, four at each logistics center, with employees holdingdifferent positions within the organization.

The study identified that for a logistics center to succeed with its continuous improvementefforts, it should have a well developed understanding of continuous improvement and theIT Tool. Employees need to be supported by providing them with an easy way to givesuggestions and a leadership where improvement initiatives are supported. Employeesshould also be provided with sufficient resources, examples of successful improvementimplementations, and feedback on all their suggestions. The organization must alsoconsider continuous improvement as a long-term commitment and set a clear goal fortheir work with it. Lastly, employees at all levels need to be involved in all stages of thecontinuous improvement process and have a committed management team.

The study also identified that the PDCA cycle based IT tool supported the organizationin their work with continuous improvement by providing them a structure, which theemployees were enforced to work by. The structure also enabled the organization to handlea large amount of suggestions and employees to easily post suggestions independently oftheir location. The tool also supported the organization by acting as a database, sendingnotifications, and providing the centers with statistics.

Key terms: Continuous Improvement, Information Technology, PDCA Cycle, Enablers,Digitalization, Logistics Center, Grocery Retail

I

Sammanfattning

Ständiga förbättringar kan implementeras för att göra ett logistikcenter konkurrens-kraftigt. Det har sedan tidigare bedrivits forskning för att identifiera faktorer som främjarimplementationen av ständiga förbättringar. Det finns dock brist på forskning gällandevilka faktorer som främjar ständiga förbättringar i en organisation som använder sig avett IT verktyg som är baserat på PDCA (planera-göra-studera-agera) cykeln. Den härstudien syftar därför till att identifiera vad som främjar medarbetare att föreslå, imple-mentera, och följa upp förbättringsförslag i ett logistikcenter som använder ett PDCA-baserat IT-verktyg och vilket stöd verktyget ger ett logistikcenter.

För att besvara forskningsfrågorna gjordes en jämförelsestudie av två logistikcenter inomdagligvaruhandeln; ett center i Västerås där medarbetarna hade överträffat 2017 års målgällande antalet inlämnade, genomförda, och uppföljda förslag, och ett center i Kallhälldär målen för 2017 inte hade uppnåtts. Kvalitativ data samlades in genom att intervjuaåtta personer, fyra på varje center, med olika befattningar inom organisationen.

Studien identifierade ett antal faktorer som hjälper en organisation att lyckas med sinsatsning på ständiga förbättringar. Bland annat måste medarbetarna ha en förståelseav ständiga förbättringar och IT-verktyget. Medarbetare behöver ett enkelt sätt att geförslag som är oberoende av var de befinner sig och ett ledarskap som stödjer förbät-tringsinitiativ. Medarbetare behöver också förses med tillräckliga resurser, exempel påframgångsrika förbättringar, och återkoppling på de förbättringsförslag de lämnat in.Logistikcentret måste dessutom se ständiga förbättringar som en långsiktig satsning ochsätta ett tydligt mål för arbetet. Slutligen, borde alla medarbetare involveras i helaförbättringsprocessen och ledningsgruppen måste vara engagerad i frågan.

Studien identifierade även att ett IT-verktyg baserat på PDCA-cykeln stödjer ett lo-gistikcenter med deras arbete med ständiga förbättringar genom att förse dem med enstruktur som måste efterföljas. Denna struktur möjliggör även för logistikcentret atthantera en stor mängd förbättringsförslag och att ge förslag oberoende av var de befinnersig. IT-verktyget stödjer även logistikcentret genom att skicka notifikationer, förse demmed statistik, och samla alla förbättringsförslag på ett ställe.

Nyckelord: Ständiga Förbättringar, Informationsteknik, PDCA-Cykeln, Främja, Digi-talisering, Logistikcenter, Dagligvaruhandel

II

Nomenclature

ERP Enterprise Resource Planning

IT Information Technology

TQM Total Quality Management

III

Contents

1 Introduction 11.1 Problem Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Purpose and Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.4 Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5 Proposed Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.6 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.7 Outline of the Master Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Literature Review 62.1 Continuous Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.1.1 The Four Kaizen Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.1.2 The Eight Deadly Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.1.3 Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.1.4 The PDCA cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2 Implementation of Continuous Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.2.1 Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.2.2 Enablers and inhibitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.2.3 Continuous Improvement and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.3 Information Technology Tools and Continuous Improvement . . . . . . . 162.4 Summary of Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3 Method 183.1 The Author’s Philosophy of Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183.2 General Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183.3 Literature Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203.4 Pre-Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.5 Qualitative Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.5.1 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.6 Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4 C2 Management and ICA Sweden 264.1 C2 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.1.1 System C2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264.2 ICA Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.2.1 Logistics Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5 Empirical Results 305.1 The Västerås Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5.1.1 Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305.1.2 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325.1.3 System C2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

IV

5.1.4 Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335.1.5 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.2 The Kallhäll Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365.2.1 Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365.2.2 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375.2.3 System C2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385.2.4 Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.2.5 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

6 Analysis 436.1 Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436.2 Integrated processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456.3 Ease of Posting suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456.4 Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476.5 Successful projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476.6 Measuring continuous improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496.7 Management Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506.8 Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516.9 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526.10 Employee Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526.11 Understanding of the IT tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536.12 The Support of a PDCA Cylce Based Information Technology Tool . . . 546.13 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

7 Conclusion 577.1 Research Question One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577.2 Research Question Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587.3 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

7.3.1 Theoretical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587.3.2 Practical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

7.4 Discussion about Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597.5 Limitations and Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Bibliography 62

Appendices 65

A Pilot Study Interview Questions 65A.1 First Interview Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65A.2 Second Interview Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

B Qualitative Interview Questions 67B.1 First Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67B.2 Second Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68B.3 Third Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

C Translated Quotes 69

V

List of Figures

2.1 The concept of continuous improvement versus reengineering (Santos et al.,2006, page 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2 The Deming-Shewhart Cycle of continuous improvement (Bell, 2006, page23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1 Illustration of the research process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.1 Graphic illustration of the C2 process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274.2 Accumulated turn-out of Västerås compared to the set goal (Interview,

2018-03-27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284.3 Accumulated turn-out of Kallhäll compared to the set goal (Interview,

2018-03-27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

List of Tables

3.1 Summary of the interviews, listed in the order they were conducted . . . 24

VI

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to thank Per Åström and my supervisor at the Royal Institute ofTechnology, Åsa Johansson Palmkvist. I appreciate all the support and valuable feedbackyou have provided me with throughout the research process. Your willingness to helpwhenever needed, is greatly appreciated.

Secondly, I extend my gratitude to everyone at C2 Management. Thank you for giving methe opportunity to write my Master Thesis together with you and for giving me an insightto your company culture. I also want to thank all the interviewees at ICA for sharingyour time and knowledge with me. Without you, this Master Thesis would not haveexisted. I hope the results of this research prove to be interesting and educational.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their unwavering encouragement,support, and enthusiasm throughout the process.

Stockholm, May 2018

Amanda Heydari

VII

Chapter 1

Introduction

This chapter introduces the research topic and presents the problem formulation, aim,and the research question. The proposed contribution and delimitations of this study arealso discussed and explained. At the end of this chapter, an outline of the Master Thesisis provided.

1.1 Problem Background

Globalization, internalization, and the revolution within information technology (IT) hasresulted in a greater awareness of quality, increased competition, and higher demandsfrom customers (Ujwary-Gil, 2012). According to Christensen (2015), businesses mustadapt fast to megatrends such as digitalization, globalization, sustainability, and ethicalrequirements to stay competitive, which has forced companies to introduce new productsand services. At the same time the customers’ demands have increased and they nowexpect tailor made products and services to be delivered fast. This has resulted in amore pull oriented market strategy, where the customers are in charge (Christensen,2015).

More goods and services are sold than ever before and the competition has increased(Christensen, 2015). Companies depend on customer satisfaction, quality, and price tostay competitive. To keep prices low, processes must be optimized and waste reduced(Christensen, 2015). In a commercial or manufacturing company, logistics account for5-20% of the total costs (Ioan et al., 2013). According to Ioan et al. (2013), low logisticscosts are essential for the competitiveness of a company and determines the position thecompany holds in the world-wide competition.

Continuous improvement is a way for companies to improve their performance and com-petitiveness (Tarí et al., 2014). Continuous improvement is a management philosophywith the main idea of making incremental changes based on employees’ suggestions (San-tos et al., 2006). Garcia-Sabater et al. (2012) defines it as "... a planned, organized,and systematic process of continued and incremental change." (Garcia-Sabater et al.,2012, page 100). The goal with continuous improvement is to minimize sources of wastewithout having to make large investments (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2016). Instead, smallchanges are made to develop safer and better processes to improve quality, cost, design,safety, response time, and customer satisfaction, which is essential to stay competitiveand gain market share (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2016). According to Bessant and Caffyn(1997), continuous improvement can also facilitate innovation, which is a key strategic

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION A. HEYDARI

resource. By involving employees in the innovation process, products and services withdistinctive competitive advantages can be developed (Bessant and Caffyn, 1997).

In the beginning of 1990’s, computers and the internet became an increasing part of peo-ple’s daily lives in developed and fast developing countries and in the 2010’s, computerstook hold of all information processes (Christensen, 2015). A study carried out in 2015showed that 70% of the participating companies were using IT tools and the internet toseamlessly share information among employees (Hambach et al., 2017). More processesare being digitized and continuous improvement is no exception (Rosenzweig, 2015).

1.2 Problem Formulation

According to Christensen (2015), trends show that there is a tougher environment forcompanies with a continuously growing competition. A company’s logistics operationsare considered to have a large influence on their competitiveness (Ioan et al., 2013), andtherefore companies are forced to adapt fast and optimize their processes to maintainand gain market share (Christensen, 2015).

A way to become competitive, is implementing continuous improvement to make pro-cesses better, faster, and safer by taking small improvement steps (Garcia-Alcaraz et al.,2016). The implementation requires organizational change on many levels, which makesit challenging to achieve the expected results of a modern day continuous improvementprogram (Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005). Knowledge, education, and involvement of the em-ployees play a major part in enabling continuous improvement and making it a part of thecompany culture (Santos et al., 2006). Bessant et al. (2001) argues that there is a clearcorrelation between the number of potential positive benefits and the degree of imple-mentation of the continuous improvement methodology in an organization. This impliesthat it is important to implement the methodology correctly and to ensure dedicationwithin an organization.

Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005) state that there has been valuable research done on continuousimprovement, but more perspectives are required. There is especially a need to developtheory regarding continuous improvement within the field of operations management sinceit is underdeveloped (Suàrez-Barraza et al., 2011). Continuous improvement is todaymainly carried out in a traditional way with paper-based documentation and therefore adigitalization of the process can support the effectiveness and efficiency (Hambach et al.,2017). Research mainly focuses around either the actual development of such IT toolsor the traditional implementation of continuous improvement. The actual usage of an ITtool to work with continuous improvement, has however not been explored to a greaterextent.

Since continuous improvement is a way for companies to stay competitive, and moreresearch is needed within the field, this paper aims to investigate what the enablers forposting, implementing, and following up suggestions are when using a PDCA based ITtool. This paper will also identify how an IT tool based on the PDCA cycle supports anorganization’s work with continuous improvement.

2


1.3 Purpose and Aim

The purpose of this Master Thesis paper is to investigate what the enablers of posting,implementing, and following up improvement suggestions are when using a PDCA cyclebased IT tool. In this study, an enabler is defined as a factor, which contributes to theimplementation of continuous improvement. A comparative study of two logistics centersof a company using an IT tool to facilitate continuous improvement is conducted in orderto attempt to identify these enablers. By carrying out interviews with four employees ateach center, this study aims to identify factors which enable employees at one center togive, implement, and follow up improvement suggestions better than the other.

The purpose is also to investigate how an IT tool based on the PDCA cycle supportsa logistics center’s work with continuous improvement. This is attempted by analyzingqualitative data collected from both centers.

The aim of this study is to gain an insight to why one logistics center reached the center’sset goal for their work with continuous improvement better than the other. The aim isalso to investigate how the PDCA cycle based IT tool supported the logistics centers. Thisis done by gathering qualitative data from the logistics centers and analyzing it.

1.4 Research Question

The following research questions have been formulated and will be answered in this thesispaper:

• What factors enable employees to post, implement, and follow up improvementsuggestions in a logistics center, where a PDCA cycle based IT tool is used?

• How does a PDCA cycle based IT tool support a logistics center when working withcontinuous improvement?

1.5 Proposed Contribution

The intended contribution of this thesis paper is to give an insight about what factorspromote a logistics center’s work with continuous improvement when using a PDCAcycle based IT tool, and how this IT tool supports the improvement process. Froma literature point of view, there is a broad variety of research done about enablers ofcontinuous improvement. Also, research has been done about the requirements on anIT tool, to be successful when working with continuous improvement. Research aboutthe combination of the topics is limited and the aim of this paper is therefore to givean insight regarding the enablers for a successful continuous improvement effort whenusing a PDCA cycle based IT tool. The intention of this paper is also to contribute withan additional perspective to the research area which Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005) andSuàrez-Barraza et al. (2011) expresses a need for. From a practical point of view, thisresearch aims to give organizations an insight to how they can improve their work withcontinuous improvement to become more competitive.

3


1.6 Delimitations

The delimitations of this study are active choices made to limit the scope. This MasterThesis paper is within the field of continuous improvement with focus on the manage-ment aspect, i.e. how an organization is managed. The chosen area of research for theliterature review is therefore within the fields of continuous improvement and the manage-ment related challenges of implementing it. The literature review also includes researchregarding the implementation of IT tools.

This study includes two logistics centers within grocery retail where the PDCA cycle basedIT tool is regularly used to work with continuous improvement. Other types of marketsand operations, such as e.g. production, are excluded from this study. The evaluationof enablers of continuous improvement when using this IT tool is based on qualitativedata gathered from interviews. When IT tool is referred to, it alludes to a web-basedtool based on the PDCA cycle which collects, processes, and presents information. Thispaper will particularly look at System C2, which is an IT tool based on the PDCA circleand is developed with the purpose to facilitate continuous improvement. Other types ofIT tools are therefore also excluded from this study.

In this paper, continuous improvement is defined as making improvements based oncustomer, employee, and supplier suggestions without making large capital investments.Examples of suggestions are reports of deviations, complaints, and abnormalities. Moreabout the different definitions of continuous improvement is discussed in section 2.1.

1.7 Outline of the Master Thesis

Chapter 1 - Introduction. This chapter introduces the research topic and presentsthe problem formulation, aim, and the research question. The proposed contribution anddelimitations of this study are also discussed and explained. At the end of this chapter,an outline of the Master Thesis is provided.

Chapter 2 - Literature Review. In this chapter, the results of the literature studyare presented. Firstly, an overview of continuous improvement’ evolution, fundamentalparts, and methodologies are introduced. Secondly, previous research about the imple-mentation of continuous improvement and its enablers are presented. Lastly, the impactof culture and information technology on the implementation of continuous improvementis discussed.

Chapter 3 - Method. This chapter will present the scientific methodology used forthis study. The chapter has been divided into the following sections: The Author’s Phi-losophy of science, general approach, literature study, pre-study, qualitative interviews,and analysis. It also contains a discussion of the ethics. The aim of this chapter is togive an insight to the research process, the context in which it was carried out, and anunderstanding of the decisions made throughout the thesis.

Chapter 4 - C2 Management and ICA Sweden. In this chapter, the company C2Management and their PDCA cycle based information technology tool, System C2, ispresented. System C2 is the IT tool which is evaluated in this study. This chapter will

4


also introduce ICA Sweden and two of their logistics centers, which are the two casesstudied in this paper. Both logistics centers use System C2 to support their work withcontinuous improvement. All information presented in section 4.2.1 is a result of thepre-study where one of ICA’s business developers was interviewed.

Chapter 5 - Empirical Results. In this chapter, the results of the qualitative inter-views are presented. They are summarized according to identified themes and presentedindividually for each center. To clearly present the interviewees’ answers and make themcomparable for the analysis, they are presented individually.

Chapter 6 - Analysis. In this chapter, an analysis of the empirical results is presented.The collected qualitative data is analyzed to attempt to answer the research questions"What factors enable employees to post, implement, and follow up improvement sug-gestions in a logistics center, where a PDCA cycle based IT tool is used?" and "Howdoes a PDCA cycle based IT tool support a logistics center when working with continu-ous improvement?". The analysis is divided accordingly to identified enablers for givingand implementing improvement suggestions. The last section analyzes the support aninformation technology tool provides to the continuous improvement process.

Chapter 7 - Conclusion. Firstly, this chapter present the conclusions of this study byanswering the two research questions. Secondly, the implications are discussed from twoperspectives; theoretical and practical. After this, a short discussion about sustainabilityis presented. Lastly, the limitations of this study are discussed and suggestions givenabout future research.

5

Chapter 2

Literature Review

In this chapter, the results of the literature study are presented. Firstly, an overviewof continuous improvement’s evolution, fundamental parts, and methodologies are intro-duced. Secondly, previous research about the implementation of continuous improvementand its enablers are presented. Lastly, the impact of culture and information technologyon the implementation of continuous improvement is discussed.

2.1 Continuous Improvement

Both revolutionary and evolutionary changes are made to processes and products to im-prove productivity. Revolutionary change process refers to making radical changes byusing methods such as reengineering and requires large investments (Santos et al., 2006).Evolutionary change on the other hand does not require large investments but consists ofcontinuous improvement made based on suggestions from employees, customers, and sup-pliers (Santos et al., 2006). These two different ways of process and product developmentare illustrated in figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: The concept of continuous improvement versus reengineering (Santos et al.,2006, page 2)

The management philosophy continuous improvement was developed in the United Statesin the end of the nineteenth century (Santos et al., 2006). As the philosophy arrived toJapan, the most important improvements took place and was given the Japanese name"kaizen" (Santos et al., 2006). Although Japan was already using tools such as qualitycircles as a regular part of their quality management, the oil crisis in 1973 made im-plementing continuous improvement attractive (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2016). According

6

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW A. HEYDARI

to Garcia-Alcaraz et al. (2016), Toyota implemented the management philosophy andas a result they received six times more suggestions from their employees compare to1970. Furthermore, Canon set a goal to become the world leader in continuous improve-ment implementation, which resulted in saving 200 million US dollars in direct costs(Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2016). It is believed that total quality can be achieved by involv-ing an entire organization to the continuous improvement process (Bhuiyan and Baghel,2005).

The word kaizen originates from two Japanese ideograms; "Kai", meaning change and"zen", which means "to improve" (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2016). Garcia-Alcaraz et al.(2016) explain that when kaizen is applied to the workplace, it implies steadily enhancinghuman resources, managers, and workers alike. From a strategy perspective kaizen is along term systematic action, with the aim to accumulate improvements and savings tobeat competitors in the terms of quality, productivity, cost, and delivery times (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2016). Thus, it is a way to reduce costs without having to make largeinvestments (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2016). Today kaizen is a vital part of modern man-agement and quality systems (Hambach et al., 2017). Kaizen puts emphasis on makingthe management focus on developing safe processes, since it is believed that good resultswill automatically follow (Berger, 1997). The concept has gained so much value over thelast three decades of the twentieth century, that it is considered to be the key to Japanesecompetitiveness (Suàrez-Barraza et al., 2011).

In Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005)’s journal "An overview of continuous improvement: fromthe past to the present", an extensive literature review about the history, evolution andexisting research of continuous improvement has been done. In the journal, they explainthat there is a broad variety of definitions for continuous improvement. Some exam-ples of the definitions are; "Improvement initiatives that increase successes and reducefailures", "a company-wide process of focused and continuous incremental innovation",and, as Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005) themselves define it, "a culture of sustained improve-ment targeting the elimination of waste in all systems and processes of an organization"(Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005, page 761).

Kaizen can also be defined as an ethical force that exists within employees that causesthem to continuously solve problems (Styhre, 2001). Another view is considering it as"philosophy of life", which is applied to both personal life and work (Suàrez-Barrazaet al., 2011). Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005) claim that there is no theoretical basis forcontinuous improvement. It is a term, which is generally referred to and has acquiredits characteristics from other quality initiatives. Hence, it is an umbrella concept thathas taken bits and pieces from total quality management (TQM) and lean manufacturing(Berger, 1997). However, some view continuous improvement as a part of excising qualityinitiatives such as TQM or as a new approach to facilitate creativity and competitiveexcellence in today’s market (Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005).

Suàrez-Barraza et al. (2011) summarize the different views of continuous improvement asfollows:

1. Kaizen as a "management philosophy" - Embraces all methodology, practices,and techniques which are Japanese-inspired. Continuous improvement is seen assomething long-term and should be part of the company culture. Examples ofthis are top management commitment, employee participation, focus on processes,

7


PDCA cycle, maintain and improve processes.

2. Kaizen as a component of TQM - Together with client orientation and teamwork, continuous improvement is considered to be a part of TQM. By statisticalcontrol, flow diagrams, and problem solving, they want to improve technical andadministrative processes.

3. Kaizen as a theoretical principle for improvement methodologies andtechniques - This perspective has a very limited scope, where focus is to cutwasteful activities across the organization. Kaizen workshops and events are heldwith the aim to cut waste. These continuous improvement activities only last for afew days.

2.1.1 The Four Kaizen Principles

Kaizen is based on four principles, which Garcia-Alcaraz et al. (2016) summarize asfollows:

1. Positive constraints - Creating constraints that prevent producing defect prod-ucts and processes being carried out in a wrongful way.

2. Negative constraints - Constraints that disrupt and slow down production andprocesses.

3. Focus - Allocating an organization’s limited resources to activities, which makesthem more competitive. Also, being aware of their weaknesses to be able to analyzeif it is more efficient to outsource those activities and focus on the strengths.

4. Simplify - Tasks, activities and processes should be simplified by standardizingprocesses and making them fool proof.

2.1.2 The Eight Deadly Wastes

The main goal of continuous improvement is to eliminate the eight deadly wastes withoutmaking large investments (Santos et al., 2006). In 1990 Womack, Jones, and Roos intro-duced the concept of ’lean’ to be able to describe the working philosophy and practiceswhich Toyota was carrying out in Japan (Hicks, 2007). According to Hicks (2007) theymore specifically observed how continuous improvement was used to eliminate waste andunnecessary actions in the value creation process.

A critical part of the lean process is to identify and understand the different types ofwastes (Hicks, 2007). Within the context of manufacturing, eight different types of wasteshave been identified.

1. Overproduction - Producing excess number of products that are not neededand causing large inventory.

2. Waiting - Periods of inactivity caused by late deliveries from previous processes.

8


3. Transport - Unnecessary movement of material. Transportation should beminimized since it is non-value creating and could damage the material.

4. Extra processing - Extra operations that occur because of e.g. defects, over-production, or excess inventory.

5. Inventory - Inventory that does not fulfill an existing customer order. Takesup extra space and requires additional handling.

6. Motion - Extra movement of employees and equipment because of inefficientlayout, defects, overproduction, or excess inventory. Motion does not add valueand should therefore be minimized.

7. Defects - Finished goods that does not fulfill the product requirements andwill cause customer dissatisfaction.

8. Untapped competence - Underutilization and not using full competence ofthe workforce, which can cause loss of employees and potential improvements.

(Hicks, 2007; Santos et al., 2006)

2.1.3 Methodologies

Several methods have been developed to continuously improve on a larger scale. Theaim of these methods is to improve quality and processes. Some of the most commonmethodologies used are: lean manufacturing, six sigma, the balanced scorecard, and leansix sigma (Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005). Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005) describes the differentmethodologies as follows:

Lean manufacturing aims to systematically eliminate sources of waste within all areasof production. This includes customer relations, product design, supplier network, andfactory management. Waste is generally defined as something that the customer is notwilling to pay for. This is done by eliminating non-value adding operations in processes. Ifan organization manages to apply lean manufacturing in a correct way, it will result in anenvironment which will continuously learn from its mistakes and not repeat them.

Six Sigma can be defined as "an organized and systematic method for strategic processimprovement and new product and service development that relies on statistical methodsand the scientific method to make dramatic reductions in the customer defined defectrates". The goal is to set an acceptance level of error that is close to zero and reducingthe variation in processes.

The Balanced Scorecard translates the organization’s financial, customer, internalbusiness process, and learning and growth objectives into goals, measurements and ini-tiatives. It helps the organization to link their vision and mission to the budget, activities,and strategy and measure their performance.

Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005) explain that methodologies help organizations to improvetheir operations in many aspects. However, one methodology does not address all prob-

9


lems. Therefore, organizations combine methodologies to increase the effects. The mostextensively used combination of methodologies is called lean six sigma and is a mixtureof lean manufacturing and six sigma (Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005). Lean manufacturingcannot on its own bring statistical control to processes and six sigma cannot increaseprocessing speed (Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005). By combining these two methodologiesbenefits of greater extent can be gained compared to only using one (Bhuiyan and Baghel,2005).

2.1.4 The PDCA cycle

The Deming-Shewhart Cycle of continuous improvement is a method used for continuousimprovement for processes and products (Bell, 2006). PDCA, Plan-Do-Check-Act, is aniterative process, where new facts and insights are gained from previous cycles leadingto incremental improvements (Bell, 2006). The cycle is a standardized model for theimprovement-process with the purpose to support desired behavior (Berger, 1997). Asillustrated in figure 2.2, the tool visualizes the process which makes it easy to understandand measurable (Berger, 1997).

Figure 2.2: The Deming-Shewhart Cycle of continuous improvement (Bell, 2006, page23)

Bell (2006) describes the PDCA cycle as follows:

Plan. As a problem is identified, hypothesis about the solution is formulated. Processmapping, value stream mapping, and narratives are used to visualizes and verbally clarifythe situation to prevent assumptions to be made. An example of such assumption couldbe "We have always done it in that way". Goals about the desired outcome is then setand could be to decrease lead time or increase customer satisfaction. During the planstage of the process it is important to also define responsibilities of the group membersto make sure that everyone knows what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Do. During the do period, a pilot of the suggested change is tested. The conditions of thetest environment should be as similar to the actual one as possible which can be restrictedby plant capacity, space or resources. This period should be quick and focused.

Check. Now the team compares their result with the goal set at the plan phase. Invalidhypothesis, bad measurements, and failed test can all be factors that contribute to an un-satisfying result. But regardless of the results, they are always considered to be a success.It the results meet the goal, a solution has successfully been found, and another factor

10


can be tested to facilitate incremental improvements. If they do not, a hypothesis hassuccessfully been invalidated and they can start a new cycle with a new hypothesis.

Act. When the hypothesis has been planned, executed and validated it is time to im-plement and standardize it. This process can be fast and smooth or long and requirediligent project management. Once the PDCA cycle is completed, it is time to start anew one where ideas captured in the first cycle are carried on the next.

2.2 Implementation of Continuous Improvement

A positive relationship between quality management and the organization’s performancehas been documented by several papers (Lam et al., 2015). However, some papers havealso documented unsatisfying results (Lam et al., 2015). Nevertheless, quality manage-ment is considered to be an important part for the company’s performance and compet-itiveness (Lam et al., 2015).

Bessant et al. (2001) identify that there is a correlation between the level of continuousimprovement activity and its impact on organizational problems. It is therefore essentialthat the implementation of continuous improvement is successful for the organizationto optimize its benefits. The implementation requires a cultural transformation in theorganization (Haims and Carayon, 1998) and to carry out the continuous improvementprocess efficiently, it must be a long-term commitment (Bessant et al., 2001). Bessantand Caffyn (1997) explain that continuous improvement is not a destination but rathera journey. The work should not be temporary, but something that employees consider tobe part of their everyday job (Haims and Carayon, 1998). Continuous improvement ismainly implemented in Swedish organizations as a part of the daily work routine (Bhuiyanand Baghel, 2005). Despite this, research has also shown that continuous improvementcan be successfully implemented as a parallel activity to the daily routines (Bhuiyan andBaghel, 2005). However, no advantage was found and it resulted in higher administrativecosts (Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005).

To successfully implement continuous improvement, the mindset of the employees must bechanged from the traditional one, which is found to be hard (Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005).To achieve this, theory must be presented to the employees, an understanding developedand education provided (Haims and Carayon, 1998). Another key factor for the successof the implementation is the engagement and support of the management (Haims andCarayon, 1998; Bessant et al., 2001). In Bessant and Caffyn (1997)’s research article"High-Involvement Innovation Through Continuous Improvement", they highlight thatmanagers fear of uncontrolled change, expectations of short-term returns, disbelief in theability of employees to contribute, and belief of having an inappropriate organizationalstructure to support continuous improvement, are factors that inhibit the widespreadpractice. They further explain that these factors derive from lack of understanding ofthe concept, limited organizational skills, and will to implement it (Bessant and Caffyn,1997).

11


2.2.1 Evolution

The implementation process of continuous improvement is a long process which evolvesover time. Several models about the evolution of companies implementing continuousimprovement have been developed and one of the most referenced one is formulated byBessant et al. (2001). The model contains five different levels.

• Level 1 - Interest in continuous improvement has been triggered. This couldbe by a crisis, attending a seminar, or visiting another organization. At thisstage, implementation is on an ad hoc basis.

• Level 2 - The organization has formally committed to implementing continuousimprovement.

• Level 3 - Continuous improvement at the "local" level becomes part of theoverall organizational strategy.

• Level 4 - The organization tries to grant autonomy to enable groups and indi-viduals to manage and direct their own processes.

• Level 5 - The organization is fully developed and is reaching to a model "learn-ing organization".

(Bessant et al., 2001)

Bessant et al. (2001) explain that during level 1, there is no structure for improving theorganization and problems are solved randomly. The solutions are short-term, have nostrategical impact, and are non-measurable. Employees are not aware of the continuousimprovement as a process (Bessant et al., 2001) and the problems and solutions are verybasic (Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012).

Continuous improvement is introduced to staff and managers during level 2. The problem-solving process becomes structured and the majority of the staff participates in the ac-tivities (Bessant et al., 2001). Continuous improvement activities have yet not become apart of the day-to-day operations (Bessant et al., 2001).

Continuous improvement becomes the main part of the business operations when theorganization reaches level 3. The results are measured and monitored (Bessant et al.,2001). The focus is on cross-boundary and cross-enterprise problem solving (Bessantet al., 2001).

At level 4, there is a high level of experimentation and responsibilities are devolved toproblem solving units (Bessant et al., 2001). Employees are given the responsibility tomanage and control their own improvement projects (Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012).

As the organization reaches level 5, the learning behavior becomes extensive and widelydistributed (Bessant et al., 2001).

Bessant et al. (2001)’s model of evolution has been evaluated by many quantitative studiesconfirming that the higher level of hierarchy the company reaches, the larger is the positive

12


impact on business performance (Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012).

2.2.2 Enablers and inhibitors

By doing an extensive literature study, Garcia-Sabater et al. (2012) identify enablersand inhibitors for implementation of continuous improvement in their research article "Isimplementation of continuous improvement possible? An evolutionary model of enablersand inhibitors". Enablers are factors that contribute the success of the implementationand inhibitors are factors that that prevent or slow it down (Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012).The key findings of Garcia-Sabater et al. (2012) can be summarized as follows:

• Management and strategy - Having the support of the management and thecompany strategy is one of the key elements. A supporting strategy and involvedmanagement enables the business to actively link activities to improvement. Thisprevents activities from working against each other, which is found in traditionaloperations management.

• Setting objectives and the need for metrics - To facilitate successful and sus-tainable change, the ability to measure and identify targets is important. By estab-lishing the objectives and setting goals which are continuously measured, evaluated,and learned from, continuous improvement is enabled. It is also recommended thatthe set goals are agreed upon, or at least taken on, by the team leaders.

• Leadership management - The continuous improvement (lean) manager- Effective or poor leadership can work as an enabler or inhibitor of the implemen-tation. To enable the process, supervisors from all the different levels should havehigh involvement and act as a change agent. Their belief in the process is essentialfor the success. It is also argued that there are advantages of having a full-timelean manager for continuous improvement projects.

• Worker involvement - All employees should be engaged and a part of the im-provement process. They are the ones that come with suggestions, execute theproposals and implements the improvements. Research shows that the workerstrained and involved in continuous improvement acquire skills requested by otheremployers which results in various job offers. However, other research shows thatworkers slow down the process of continuous improvement in fear of losing theirjob.

• Resources - One of the key characteristics of continuous improvement is that itis associated to low costs. However, some resources must be put in for the processto run successfully. Financial resources as well as the devoted time of employeesto work with the projects are needed. Continuous improvement is a long processand the time dedicated to the projects should be a part of employee’s daily workroutines.

• Clarification and creation of new structures - Just like departments haveclearly defined functions, it can be advantageous to define team structures whenworking with continuous improvement. These teams should be supported by higherlevel teams, which can help to overcome obstacles and monitor proposed action

13


plans. The leaders of these teams should be selected based on their knowledge andthe tools needed to resolve the problem.

• Methods for expanding continuous improvement - The firm’s creation oftheir own methodology, allows sustainability for the implementation and causes thepractical improvements to diffuse throughout the rest of the company. One of thesuccess factors of Toyota was that they created their own method, which was welladjusted to their organization, for implementing lean. This also made it very hardto copy for others. Developing a standardized approach to working with continuousimprovement allows it to expand outside the department to future expansion withinthe company.

• Selection of continuous improvement projects - The success of the first im-provement projects is important. It is recommended that the management sets thegoals and distributes the first projects. This will gain even the critical employeesattention.

• Cultural Aspect - The culture of a company is a determinant to continuousimprovement. A nontraditional culture, where there is less resistance of change,is favorable to the process. Also, organizations with less experienced and youngeremployees have it easier to implement continuous improvement.

• Training and abilities - The lack of training among employees can be considereda barrier. Also, the lack of problem solving skills and low quality managementpractices, can be an inhibitor of continuous improvement.

In Lam et al. (2015)’s research "Achieving employee commitment for continuous improve-ment initiatives", a shortcoming of research about the effects of management actions andbehaviours on employees’ committing to continuous improvement is identified. Theyfound several papers which have shown successful implementations of continuous im-provement with positive outcomes. However, a large amount of continuous improvementinitiatives were not successful. To investigate what factors contribute to the success andfailure of initiatives, Lam et al. (2015) carried out surveys to identify correlation betweenproactive influence tactics and commitment to continuous improvement task. Proac-tive influence tactics are actions taken to influence someone to carry out a task (Lamet al., 2015). They found that all of the 11 proactive influence tactics had some sortof correlation but the following tactics had the strongest one; consultation, ingratiation,collaboration, rational persuasion, and inspirational appeals. The following definitionsof the proactive influence tactics are used by Lam et al. (2015) and comes from Yukl(2010)’s book "Leadership in Organizations", page 172:

Consultation - "[encouraging] the target to suggest improvements in a proposal or tohelp plan an activity or change for which the target person’s support and assistance aredesired"

Ingratiation - "[using] praise and flattery before or during an influence attempt, or[expressing] confidence in the target’s ability to carry out a difficult request"

Collaboration - "[offering] to provide relevant resources and assistance if the target willcarry out a request or approve a proposed change"

Rational persuasion - "[using] logical arguments and factual evidence to show a pro-

14


posal or request is feasible and relevant for attaining important task objectives"

Inspirational appeals - "[making] an appeal to values and ideals or [seeking] to arousethe target person’s emotions to gain commitment for a request or proposal"

2.2.3 Continuous Improvement and Culture

Grey (2013) describes the modern organization’s culture to develop from a small amountof people who "program" other to follow a pattern by either imposition or throughguile.

In "How to Succeed With Continuous Improvement: A Primer for Becoming the Best inthe World", Ahlström (2015) describes that there are five cultural pitfalls that preventsyou from succeeding with continuous improvement. His explanation of each pitfall ispresented below.

The first one is "The Low-Hanging Fruit Trap", which is a very common pitfall duringthe first phase of implementing continuous improvement. In the early stage, there are alot of low-hanging fruit, that are easily picked. This is a great foundation for developinga structure for using the continuous improvement tools. The fast and visible results willalso create commitment around the process as positive results gives new energy. However,it is easy to become eager and start picking the fruit randomly. This prohibits theorganization to build competencies and a habit for systematically working with continuousimprovement. "The organizations that do not use the energy from early successes tointroduce a structured approach based on distributed competence and decision makingfall into the Low-Hanging Fruit Trap." (Ahlström, 2015, page 66).

The second pitfall is "The Reality Illusion", which is when two people relate to each otheras if they have perceived a situation in the same way. Not understanding how a situationoccurs to another person creates irritation and friction. An example of this is a managergiving his/her employee an advice without fully understanding how the situation occursto them. As the advice is given without understanding the employee’s perspective, theadvice will have little or no effect on the other person’s behavior. The most common signof "The Reality Illusion" is feeling irritation and disbelief when observing other peoplebehavior and having frequent misunderstandings.

The pitfall "The Emperor’s New Clothes" is named after HC Andersen’s tale about twoweavers who make the emperor a suit made from material which is invisible for the oneswho are unfit for their position, stupid, or incompetent. When the emperor shows off hisnew suit nobody dares to say that they cannot see it until a child points out the obviousfact. This pitfall affects organizations where a lot of effort and resources are put in todevelop the right structure and use the right methods and tools. When looking separatelyat this, the improvement process looks unflawed. However, the improvement process isrunning in parallel to the value creating process, which causes the performance of theorganization to remain the same. The cause of this pitfall is that the organization hasforgotten the original purpose of what they do and use the right tools without remember-ing why. The members of the organization take part of praised continuous improvementprocesses but feel that they are pointless.

"The Efficiency Paradox" pitfall affects organizations where what counts is the the time

15


you spend at work the looking busy. The organization focuses on keeping all their re-sources busy. Active and stressed people are praised and people who have nothing to doare given assignments which are sometimes pointless. Employees in these organizationsspend a lot of time sorting, storing, moving, structuring, and searching and get a badconscience when there is free time for reflection. This develops an environment full ofineffectiveness.

The fifth pitfall is "The Friendship Fallacy", which occurs when people in an organizationare not challenged and become a lesser version of themselves. A skillful person who is notchallenged easily becomes bored. On the other hand, a too big challenge can cause distressand can even be a threat. Since it is generally easier to handle bored people than irritatedor frustrated people, organizations tend to demand less from their employees. This limitsemployees from feeling mental flow; "Feeling of energized focus, full involvement, andenjoyment in the process of the activity." (Ahlström, 2015, page 71). To break out of thistrap, the manager is required to let the employee know that more is expected from them.This will encourage the employee to reach their full potential and result in improvedbusiness results.

2.3 Information Technology Tools and Continuous Im-provement

The use of IT tools in administration and across supply chain activities has shown com-petitive advantages (Miraz et al., 2016). Traditionally, information flow between functionshave been paper based and the value of good communication has not been understood(Miraz et al., 2016). Boukhatem et al. (2011) describe that the development of IT toolshas enabled large amount of information to be shared and accessed instantly. Simula-tion models, databases, decision support systems, and artificial intelligence, has madeit possible to develop methods for complex modelling. Furthermore, they explain thatresearchers, engineers, and practitioners can develop, search, store, and spread knowledgebecause of this. This has had a big impact on civil engineering and attracted researchersto further explore the use of these techniques (Boukhatem et al., 2011).

According to Miraz et al. (2016)’s research "An Overview of Information TechnologyTools Implementation in Supply Chain Management", the manufacturing trends such asglobalization, outsourcing, customization, time to market, and pricing has resulted inincreased competition. For companies to survive, they must optimize their supply chain.An adaption of the IT landscape is vital to achieve this (Miraz et al., 2016).

Bell (2006) describes that an important part of continuous improvement is to have theright information available in the right place, at the right time, and in the right format.As companies grow and become more diversified, the situation becomes more complexdue to geography, velocity, volume and variation (Bell, 2006). This generates a greaterneed for information technology and a well-designed information system, with the rightmixture of visual, manual, and electronic tools (Bell, 2006).

An IT tool for continuous improvement can, according to Hambach et al. (2017), solveinfrastructure problems and offer a more efficient continuous improvement process. Itcan also help employees to develop their competency and increase the transparency of

16


continuous improvement activities (Hambach et al., 2017). By giving employees access toinformation, which they have not had access to earlier, issues facing their existing productscan be discovered and the awareness can prevent it from happening again (Beckett et al.,2000). The transparency can also increase the acceptance of continuous improvement,since it helps employees to justify why certain targets must be reached and thereforedevelop an understanding for the process (Hambach et al., 2017).

Even though a well-developed IT tool, which fulfills the purpose, is introduced, it isnot certain that it is implemented well and accepted by the users (Castillo, 2016). Oneof the main issues that can arise from a IT tool for continuous improvement is thatemployees might be unsure how, why, and if they want to use it (Beckett et al., 2000).This was problem was especially identified in groups where continuous improvement wasnot implemented well (Beckett et al., 2000). An understanding of the purpose mustbe developed to handle the resistance, which might arise when a change is introduced(Castillo, 2016).

2.4 Summary of Literature Review

To beat competitors in the terms of quality, productivity, cost, and delivery times, con-tinuous improvement can be implemented (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2016). The main goalof continuous improvement is to eliminate the eight deadly wastes without making largeinvestments (Santos et al., 2006). This can be achieved by using several different method-ologies. One methodology is the PDCA cycle which is a standardized model for theimprovement process (Berger, 1997).

Since there is an identified correlation between the level of continuous improvement ac-tivity and its impact on the organization (Bessant et al., 2001), it is essential for orga-nizations to optimize the implementation. To achieve this, enablers and inhibitors havebeen identified for the implementation of the continuous improvement process, which arepresented in this literature review.

More processes are becoming digitalized and continuous improvement is no exception.IT tools are used to enable a large amount of information to be shared and accessedinstantly (Boukhatem et al., 2011). This can solve infrastructure problems and offera more efficient continuous improvement process (Hambach et al., 2017). To gain theseadvantages, the IT tool needs to be implemented well and accepted by the users (Castillo,2016). This is obtained by employees developing an understanding for how and why theIT tool is used (Beckett et al., 2000).

17

Chapter 3

Method

This chapter will present the scientific methodology used for this study. The chapterhas been divided into the following sections: The Author’s Philosophy of science, generalapproach, literature study, pre-study, qualitative interviews, and analysis. It also containsa discussion of the ethics. The aim of this chapter is to give an insight to the researchprocess, the context in which it was carried out, and an understanding of the decisionsmade throughout the thesis.

3.1 The Author’s Philosophy of Science

This Master Thesis is written from a postpositivism point of view where the background,knowledge, and values of a person can influence what is being observed (Robson, 2002).Hence, a scientist’s research is impacted by their social life (Khun, 2009). Since the aimof this paper was to develop an understanding for why one center performs better thanthe other by interpreting gathered data, and not prove causality, a qualitative methodwas used to answer the research questions. As this research was carried out from a post-positivism point of view, it is believed that my social life and previous work experiences,such as working with continuous improvement at Scania, has shaped me as a researcherand impacted the choices I have made when conducting it. My presence, and how I askedthe questions at the interviews are factors which has impacted how the interviewees haveanswered the questions meaning that they might have answered in another way if some-body else asked them. Furthermore, I believe that my previous experiences and valueshave had an impact on how I have formulated my research question and analyzed theempiric data. Hence, the belief of producing objective results, which can be replicatedby anyone and are principles of the traditional positivism (Khun, 2009), is not believedto be applicable.

3.2 General Approach

I contacted C2 Management after reading Master Thesis papers written in collaborationwith them. All the papers were about continuous improvement, which is a topic I haddeveloped an interest for through my education and from previously working at Scania.After a meeting with the Chief Executive Officer at C2 Management, I defined a problem,which could be addressed by continuous improvement and information technology tools;

18

CHAPTER 3. METHOD A. HEYDARI

the globalization of companies and the fact that they are facing more competition thanever requires them to reduce their costs, optimize their processes, and communicate inan efficient way.

Based on my problem definition, a pre-literature study within the field of continuousimprovement and IT tools was carried out. I found researchers mentioning that moreresearch about continuous improvement and operation management is required. Also, Ifound that there was little done regarding the usage of IT tools to support continuousimprovement. Since C2 Management has developed their own IT tool, which their cus-tomers use to facilitate their operations management, I decided to combine these topicsand formulate an initial research question.

To answer the research question, I chose to do a comparative case study as this wouldhelp me "understand the complex relationship between factors as they operate withina particular social setting" (Denscombe, 2010, page 5). Since the relationships, andprocesses that I wanted to investigate could be complex, a case method would allowme to investigate these complexities in detail by conducting qualitative interviews. Thisprovided me with a holistic view and an opportunity to explore why certain outcomesmight occur.

I chose to include ICA and their logistics centers in this study since one of their centers hadreceived a distinction for successful business development from SIQ (Swedish Institute forQuality). The judges’ motivation for the distinction was that the center in Västerås hadmanaged to systematically develop a culture which fosters quality. Together with theirbusiness developer, it was decided to make a comparative study between another centerto identify their success factors. When choosing the other center, we looked at 2017 years’goal fulfillment and choose the center with one of the lowest degree of fulfillment when itcame to posting, implementing, and following up improvements suggestions; the Kallhällcenter.

A pre-study interview was carried out with the business developer to develop an un-derstanding of how the centers worked with continuous improvement and System C2.Based on this interview I could formulate my research questions and do a more extensiveliterature study. After the literature study, qualitative interviews were carried out atthe logistics centers. When the empiric data was gathered, I used my findings from theliterature study to help me interpret and analyze the empiric data. An illustration of theresearch process is illustrated in figure 3.1. During the entire process, I had close contactwith my supervisor at the Royal Institute of Technology, who provided me with feedbackregarding the research process.

19


Start Problem Definition Pre-studyLiterature Search

Pre-studyInterview

Formulation ofresearch question

In-depthLiterature Review

Semi-structuredInterview

Analysis of Results Answer to theResearch Question

Figure 3.1: Illustration of the research process

3.3 Literature Study

A literature review was conducted, where books, articles, and research papers were stud-ied to develop an understanding of the research area, previous studies, and researchmethodology. This was done to identify potential gaps in the research area to developa research question, which will contribute to the field of study. As the literature wasread, I tried to have a critical mindset, where the content was continuously questioned.Blomkvist (2015) describes this to be essential when doing a literature study and thatthe methods, findings and conclusion should continuously be scrutinized. To position thestudy in relation to previous research in the field, the following questions were asked tomyself: "What will the contribution made by my study be?", "What knowledge gap(s)will my study fill?", "In what way does my study involve another perspective vis-à-visexisting studies?", and "Why is my study needed?" (Blomkvist, 2015).

I initiated my literature study by focusing on existing research about continuous im-provement and its key components. As my research progressed I identified a demandfor further research within the area. Specifically, within operations management and theusage of an information technology tool to support the process. This became the base ofmy research question.

The literature study was carried out throughout the entire research process. However,the amount of literature read subsided as the research progressed.

All the literature was accessed through the search engine Primo, which is provided bythe Royal Institute of Technology’s library, and Google Scholar. Primo searches withinthe library’s collection of e-books, articles, and journals which increases the reliabil-ity of the source. Also, most of the literature accessible from there is peer reviewed.Google Scholar provided me with a broader pool of literature. The key words used whensearching for material were; "continuous improvement", "digitalization", "software", "ITtools", "information technology", "digital tool", "change management", "development","overview", "inhibitors", "enablers", "PDCA cycle", and "effects". They were eitherused alone or together with other key words.

20


When evaluating empirical data three questions should be taken into consideration; "Whois the sender?", "What is the message?", and "Who is the aimed recipient?" (Blomkvist,2015). The authenticity of all used literature was reviewed during the literature studyto make sure they came from a valid source with no personal incentives. Also, onlypublished and reviewed papers were used in this study. The relevance of the research wasalso evaluated, where the date of publication and the goal of the literature was taken intoconsideration.

3.4 Pre-Study

A longer interview, which lasted for 1 hour and 58 minutes, was conducted with a businessdeveloper working at ICA to establish an understanding of how the two logistics centersworked with System C2 and continuous improvement. The business developer had workedat ICA since 1994 and had started his career there at the logistics center in Västerås.He had worked as a business developer for the past four years, where his main taskwas to provide help and support to the centers and their work within the fields of leanand continuous improvement. The interview was held in Swedish over the phone andwas recorded which allowed me to go back and listen to it several times to make sure Iunderstood all the information.

The interview was divided into two blocks. The aim of the first block was to developa deeper understanding of how the company works with continuous improvement, thestructure behind it, and identify similarities and differences when it comes to the imple-mentation. The results of this block are presented in section 4.2.1.

The aim of the second block of the interview was to test the interview questions whichI intended to use at the centers to gather qualitative data. When asking the questions,I could identify that I had written questions, which asked two questions in one. Thisresulted in the interviewee only answering one of the questions or answering both briefly.To prevent this from happening again, the questions were split into two.

The interview questions from both blocks and their English translation are presented inappendix A.

At the end of the interview, the interviewee provided me data of the accumulated amountof suggested, implemented, and followed up employee suggestions for 2017. This data wasused to make figure 4.2 and 4.3.

The carried-out pre-study contributed to the credibility of the study. By interviewing thebusiness developer, I got an insight to the centers daily activities and processes which wasused as a confirmation when evaluating the credibility of the interviewees’ answers.

3.5 Qualitative Interviews

A series of semi-structured interviews were carried out with the aim to evaluate myresearch questions; "What factors enable employees to post, implement, and follow upimprovement suggestions in a logistics center, where a PDCA cycle based IT tool is used?"

21


and "How does a PDCA cycle based IT tool support a logistics center when working withcontinuous improvement?". Since the purpose of this study was to evaluate peoples’experiences, opinions, and feelings to distinguish enabling factors, a qualitative interviewmethod was used. This research method would also allow me to ask the interviewees toprovide me with examples to develop a deeper understanding.

When formulating the interview questions, I based them on enablers of continuous im-provement, which were identified during my literature study. I also included a questionabout usability, since the findings of my literature review indicated that it might affect theusage of an IT tool. The questions were grouped according to the area they concerned;continuous improvement, System C2, and involvement.

Before starting asking questions from the interview guide, I asked each interviewee to tellme what their position was, what they work with, and how long they had worked at ICA.The aim of this, besides gathering information, was to make them feel more comfortable.According to Denscombe (2010), this allows the interviewer to collect useful backgroundinformation and at the same time let the interviewee talk about familiar topics.

Blomkvist (2015) explains that the questions should not be too detailed or extensiveand that new questions can be formulated during the interview. Also, there should be aflexibility when the interview is carried out. Questions that feel the most natural in themoment should be asked (Blomkvist, 2015). This was taken into consideration during theinterviews and caused the interview questions to be asked in different orders each timedepending on the interviewees’ answers to the previous question. The questions were alsoseen as a guideline and were freely reformulated to make them feel natural. To make theanswers comparable between the centers, I always went through the questions at the endof the interview to make sure that all were answered.

Before I conducted the qualitative interviews, I knew that the employees at Västerås werebetter at posting, implementing, and following up improvement suggestions. Since theaim of my study was to identify differences between the centers, this knowledge couldhave an impact on what questions I asked and how I asked them. To prevent this bias, Ideveloped an interview guide, which I used to make sure the same questions were askedat the centers. When I asked additional questions at the first center, I took a note ofthis, so I could ask the same one at the second center.

All interviews were carried out face-to-face at the different logistics centers. This canaccording to Preece (2002), make the interviewee feel more comfortable to talk about theiractivities, make them remember things easier, and gives them the possibility to show theinterviewer things. Also, it is recommended to sit secluded without disrupting things suchas mobile phones (Blomkvist, 2015). I therefore carried out all interviews in a conferenceroom to avoid disruption. This also allowed me to carry out the interviews in a similarenvironment, which reduces the impact of variation in the social surroundings.

At each center, I carried out four interviews with four different positions; change leader,warehouse manager, group manager, and warehouse worker. This was done to establishan understanding of the knowledge level of continuous improvement, the leadership, andhow they work with C2 and continuous improvement at each level. All the intervieweeswere men.

When planning the interviews, the change leaders at each site were assigned to organize

22


four interviews, one with each position, by the business developer. The change leaderswere therefore given free hands to choose whom to include in this study. This could haveresulted in the centers presenting interviewees who are knowledgeable within the area, areengaged in working with continuous improvement, and therefore gives a bias picture ofthe center. This was evaluated in one of the interviews where I asked interviewee E if heconsidered himself to be "top-of the league" when it comes to continuous improvementcompared to his co-workers and he said that he is definitely one of the most engagedwarehouse workers at the center. To improve the credibility, the interviewees could havebeen chosen randomly and asked about how engaged they consider themselves to becompared to their co-workers.

In Västerås the warehouse manager, group manager, and the warehouse worker came fromdifferent work streams which gave me a broad picture. In Kallhäll the group managerand the warehouse worker came from the same stream and therefore a less broad picturewas given. To increase the credibility, a group manager and a warehouse worker fromdifferent streams should have been chosen in Kallhäll.

All interviews were recorded with the help of a mobile phone. This gave me the oppor-tunity to go back and listen to them several times when writing the results and analysis.During the interviews, I took a limited number of notes in the form of bullet points tohighlight important findings in the interview. This helped me to reconnect to the inter-esting parts during the interviews and explore them further. Throughout the interview,I tried to be attentive by listening actively, having eye contact with the interviewee, andnod understandingly to make the interviewee feel comfortable. To increase the credibilityof the gathered data, the validity of the data was checked during the interviews. To makesure that my understanding of the data was correct, I summarized what the intervieweehad told me continuously throughout the interviews.

The results of the interviews were summarized according to themes that were identifiedfrom the interviews. This, to make it easier for the reader to understand and follow.To keep the anonymity of the interviewees, all were assigned with a letter code which isreferred to in the results and analysis chapter. The order, length, code, and a summaryof each interviewee is presented in table 3.1. Citations were used when presenting theresults to help the reader to develop an understanding. As the interviews were carriedout in Swedish, they are translated into English. The original citations in Swedish andtheir translation is presented in Appendix C.

To increase the credibility of the data, the summarized results of my findings could havebeen sent to the interviewees for them to confirm. I could also have carried out a largernumber of interviews and used triangulation, in the form of questionnaires, to confirmmy findings by a larger group. However, due to the time constraint, I was not able to dothis.

23


Table 3.1: Summary of the interviews, listed in the order they were conducted

Center Title Time atICA

Time at currentposition

InterviewDuration

Code

Västerås Warehouse Manager 10 years 3 years 49:03 AVästerås Group Manager 17 years 14 years 33:09 BVästerås Warehouse Worker 3 years 3 years 29:48 CVästerås Change Leader 11 years 3 years 36:22 DKallhäll Warehouse Worker 4 years 4 years 37:00 EKallhäll Group Manager 12 years 6 years 46:35 FKallhäll Warehouse Manager 5 years 3 years 36:08 GKallhäll Change Leader 15 years <1 year 33:46 H

3.5.1 Analysis

When a qualitative research method is used, a relatively large amount of data is collectedin the form of words. To handle this large amount of data, the researcher must acceptthat not all data can be presented (Denscombe, 2010). Instead, they must act like areporter and identify central parts of the data findings and prioritize some parts overothers (Denscombe, 2010). To achieve this, I listened to the recorded interviews severaltimes and summarized them individually. Based on these summaries, I identified themes,which I then used to structure my findings. When presenting the results, I presentedthe results for each center and interviewee separately. This was done to help the readerdevelop an understanding and to make it easier for me to compare the answers.

After writing the results of my findings, I started to compare the answers to find sim-ilarities and differences. This was done to identify factors which enabled the Västeråscenter to hand in, implement, and follow up employee suggestions better than the centerin Kallhäll. I also wanted to identify how the PDCA cycle based IT tool supported thelogistics centers’ work with continuous improvement. To support my analysis, I usedexisting research within the area, which I had identified from my literature study, tointerpret and discuss my findings.

As I carried out this study with C2 Management, there was a risk that I was given a biasedview of the advantages and disadvantages of the IT tool. However, by evaluating howtheir IT tool contributed to a logistics center working with continuous improvement, thedisadvantages were not taken into consideration which reduced some of the bias. Also, noincentives in the form of money or employment was offered to me when carrying out thisstudy meaning that I did not gain anything by conveying a more positive picture.

Dependability is evaluating if the study would produce the same results and reached thesame conclusions if it was carried out by another researcher (Denscombe, 2010). As thestudy was carried out I effected the results in two ways; when gathering the informationand when analyzing it. As mentioned earlier, one of the drawbacks of qualitative methodsis that they are hard to repeat. The challenges are mainly to set up interviews withsimilar people in and social settings. However, to decrease the dependability of the study,extensive interview guides and a fundamental description of the method was written.Also, I would consider the decisions and conclusions made throughout the process to bereasonable and something that other researchers would "see".

24


3.6 Ethics

The Swedish Research Councils principles of ethical research for the humanities and socialscience was followed throughout the research process. This implies that all the peoplewho were included in the study were informed of the purpose and agreed to be studied.Before the interviews were conducted, the interviewees were informed of the purpose ofresearch and that they could end the interview at any time. I also asked the intervieweesfor permission before starting to record the interview.

The casual conversation carried out before and after the interview, was not used asresearch data. All the collected material was treated confidentially and was only usedfor the stated purpose. Also, the names of the interviewees are not included in thereport. Since the length of the interviewees’ employment and their title is stated in thereport, other employees at the logistics centers might be able to work out their identity.However, all interviewees were informed that this information would be published in thereport prior to the interview.

The Swedish Association of graduate engineer’s code of honor was also taken into con-sideration throughout the process of this thesis paper.

25

Chapter 4

C2 Management and ICA Sweden

In this chapter, the company C2 Management and their PDCA cycle based informationtechnology tool, System C2, is presented. System C2 is the IT tool which is evaluatedin this study. This chapter will also introduce ICA Sweden and two of their logisticscenters, which are the two cases studied in this paper. Both of the logistics centers useSystem C2 to support their work with continuous improvement. All information presentedin section 4.2.1 is a result of the pre-study where one of ICA’s business developers wasinterviewed.

4.1 C2 Management

C2 Management was founded in 1999 with the goal to help companies to utilize cus-tomers’, employees’, and suppliers’ ideas to reach management goals. Today, C2 Man-agement is a consultancy, offering consulting services, education sessions, seminars, anda case management system called C2 to help their clients’ work with continuous improve-ment. The IT tool has over 150 000 users from 150 different companies. Examples ofcompanies using System C2 are PostNord, Ica, and Ahlsell.

4.1.1 System C2

System C2, which will from here on also be referred to as C2, is a case management systemthat allows users to gather different types of cases in one place. The different categoriesof cases gathered is determined by the user. Examples of commonly used categories areincidents, deviations, employee suggestions, meeting minutes, customer complaints, andfeedback. The system gives the user and the case creator an overview of the status, caseowner, and estimated date for resolving the case. It is also easy to follow up the resultsof the case with provided statistics. C2 is connected to the clients’ existing enterpriseresource planning (ERP) system, which makes it easy to import and export data as well asadjust to company specific needs. To ensure that the system is used efficiently, companiesare offered consulting, seminars, and training. Process mapping of C2 is illustrated in 4.1and it is based on the PDCA, which is presented in section 2.1.4.

26

CHAPTER 4. C2 MANAGEMENT AND ICA SWEDEN A. HEYDARI

Figure 4.1: Graphic illustration of the C2 process

4.2 ICA Sweden

In 1917 Hakon Swenson started Hakonbolaget, which became to be the foundation of ICAGruppen. Today ICA Gruppen’s operations are divided into the following segments; ICASweden, Rimi Baltic, Apotek Hjärtat, ICA Real Estate, ICA Bank, and Hemtex (ICA,2018a). They have 2085 stores in total, including pharmacies and their core business iswithin grocery retail (ICA, 2018a). In 2017, their net sales were around 106.5 billion SEK(ICA, 2018a).

ICA Sweden is the leading grocery store on the market and have around 1300 storesand a market share of 36% (ICA, 2018b). Their business is operated with independentretailers who operate their own stores. However, there is a collaboration when it comesto logistics, expansion, sourcing, IT, and marketing (ICA, 2018b).

4.2.1 Logistics Centers

A part of ICA’s logistics function is logistics centers, which work with stock operationswhere supplies come in from suppliers and then are distributed to ICA stores. ICASweden has five logistic centers placed in Västerås, Hälsingborg, Kallhäll, Borlänge, andKungälv. The difference between the centers is location, size, and assortment. All fivecenters have a common vision; to become leading within logistics. To achieve this, theyhave three central change leaders, also called business developers, who support the localchange leaders with activities such as education, setting up structures, and doing as-isanalyses.

All centers were introduced to C2 in 2011 when the logistics function decided to investin implementing lean. The centers consider continuous improvement to be a large partof this investment. System C2 is mainly used for employees to give improvement sugges-tions and to handle them. Before this, the work regarding continuous improvement wasunstructured. ICA’s logistics department defines continuous improvement as finding thesolution to make processes better or easier. The introduction of continuous improvementand C2 were similar in the centers. The management provided the centers with a visionand then it was up to the centers to make it reality. To support this process, they were

27


also educated in the use of System C2 and the benefits of continuous improvement. Thenit was up to the managers to ensure that suggestions were registered in the system.

All employees use C2 to give suggestions about improvements at the centers. To enablethis, employees can scan QR-codes with their phones to file a suggestion case, whichthen is evaluated by a dedicated group. This group decides whether to execute or disusethe case. All logistic centers have a set goal for the number of suggested, executed, andfollowed up suggestions per year. This goal is set individually by each center and thenapproved by the top management. Each month’s result is sent out to the entire logisticsfunction and individual results for the centers is sent to the logistics manager.

The Västerås Center

The center in Västerås has approximately 1000 employees. The center’s set goal for 2017was 1400 improvement suggestions and 1200 executed and followed up cases. During2017, the center managed to reach their goal and had 1941 improvement suggestions and1370 executed and followed up cases. The accumulated values for each month is shownin table 4.2. If the accumulated values for the entire year is put in relation to the numberof employees, there were about 1.9 suggestions and 1.4 executed and followed up casesper employee.

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2017

FiledCases

2017 ActualGoal

(a) The accumulated amount of filed cases inVästerås

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0

500

1,000

2017

Executed&

Follo

wed

up 2017 ActualGoal

(b) The accumulated amount of executed andfollowed up cases in Västerås

Figure 4.2: Accumulated turn-out of Västerås compared to the set goal (Interview, 2018-03-27)

The Kallhäll Center

The center in Kallhäll has approximately 350 employees. In 2017, the center had a setgoal of 465 filed suggestions and 260 executed and followed up cases. This goal was notreached at the end of the year, as the center had received 327 improvement suggestions

28


and 134 executed and followed up cases. The accumulated values for each month ispresented in table 4.3. When put into relation to the number of employees, it gives avalue of 0.9 suggestion per employee and 0.4 executed and followed up cases.

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0

100

200

300

400

500

2017

FiledCases

2017 ActualGoal

(a) The accumulated amount of filed cases inVästerås

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0

50

100

150

200

250

2017Executed&

Follo

wed

up 2017 ActualGoal

(b) The accumulated amount of executed andfollowed up cases in Kallhäll

Figure 4.3: Accumulated turn-out of Kallhäll compared to the set goal (Interview, 2018-03-27)

29

Chapter 5

Empirical Results

In this chapter, the results of the qualitative interviews are presented. They are summa-rized according to identified themes and presented individually for each center. To clearlypresent the interviewees’ answers and make them comparable for the analysis, they arepresented individually.

5.1 The Västerås Center

5.1.1 Knowledge

Interviewee A explained that all new managers at the center followed an introductionplan. The plan included several blocks with the change leader, where an introductionof the center’s work with continuous improvement was given. The plan also includedan introduction to System C2. However, interviewee A said that this introduction toC2 was about a month after the employment started and since System C2 was so easyto use, the managers often already knew how to use it. Besides this introduction, hehad not received any education about continuous improvement. The interviewee hada background in quality and business development from previous employments, whichallowed him to apply the capabilities that he had previously developed within continuousimprovement to his work at ICA.

Interviewee A described clearly why the center worked with continuous improvement; allimprovements contribute to some sort of results for the employee satisfaction, quality,efficiency, or environment. He also expressed a need for working with continuous im-provement since the competition on the market was high and their customers expecteddeliveries of high quality. By working with continuous improvement, he believed thatICA could become the obvious alternative for the customers. He also believed that thework with continuous improvement was highly prioritized and expressed it as "It is a partof our DNA".

Interviewee B was introduced to C2 and continuous improvement at an education sessionfor group managers. During this session, they went through how to use C2 and why itwas used. He also mentioned that C2 had a help function which guided the user throughthe functions if extra support was needed. "It is surprising how easy it is to register anew case in regards to how rarely I do it".

30

CHAPTER 5. EMPIRICAL RESULTS A. HEYDARI

Interviewee B explained that all improvements are good, even though some might besmall. He believed that some of the effects of continuous improvement were improv-ing the work environment, ergonomics, and saving money. He considered improving thework environment to be extra important since employees spend many hours there. Work-ing with continuous improvement was not something the interviewee did for a specifiedamount of time every day. Rather, it was integrated into his daily job routines. Fur-thermore, he believed that they were given enough resources to work with improvementprojects and a proof of this was the large number of ongoing projects.

Interviewee C was introduced to C2 when telling a co-worker about a suggestion he had.The co-worker told him to file a "C2", and then explained the concept. At that time,the manager helped them file suggestions in C2, since they had no access. When the QRcodes were introduced, and the stickers distributed, the manager went through how youpost a case with the help of it.

Interviewee C further explained that continuous improvement was a part of the company’sculture and this was something his manager had told him several times. During groupmeetings, the manager sometimes talked about the benefits of continuous improvementand how suggestions could be posted via the QR code or him. Continuous improvementwas something that came very naturally to him now and therefore, he had a hard time toexplain what it is in words. Even though some processes were currently good, he believedthat they could always be improved. He further explained that he spent more time atthe center than at home and hence, it was very important for him to contribute to abetter environment. Working with continuous improvement had become a very naturalpart of the everyday operations and it made him happy to know that he was contributingthe economical aspect of the company and to a better work environment for others. Italso motivated him to know that his suggestions would be considered and not end up inthe trash. He further explained that he believed that all the warehouse workers coulddo more than just packing goods. Since they all come from a different background, theycould contribute with ideas, which could make the center better and more effective. Whatmade continuous improvement and C2 so good, was that everyone could get their voiceheard and contribute to a more secure and efficient environment.

Interviewee D had attended a shorter education session about C2. He believed thatit was enough since there were a lot of useful guides available in the system. He wascurrently acting as an administrator and was responsible for adding new user. He hadtherefore received extra education from C2 Management in how this was to be done. Hisknowledge about continuous improvement, was something that he had developed duringhis years at ICA through meetings and education sessions. He further explained that allnew managers met him at the beginning of their employment. At this session, intervieweeD went trough C2, their work with lean and continuous improvement, fish bone diagram,and other tools used at the center. He believed that the next step for the organizationwas to have a smaller session about their work with continuous improvement with allemployees, not only the managers.

Interviewee D explained continuous improvement as constantly developing the operations;being as profitable and efficient as possible and eliminating waste. "All wastes cannotbe eliminated, but they can be reduced every day". Interviewee D wanted to makethe employees aware of the center’s improvement work. By creating this awareness, amindset could be developed which resulted in employees taking acting when they saw a

31


problem.

5.1.2 Structure

Interviewee A worked with posting new suggestions in C2, taking decisions about sugges-tions, and driving improvement projects. Every week a meeting was held, where he andother managers met to make decisions about posted suggestions. If the suggestion wasdiscontinued, he explained that a motivation was written and emphasized the importanceof providing employees with feedback regarding their suggestion.

Interviewee B worked with posting new suggestions, taking decisions, and driving im-provement projects. All suggestions were registered in C2, which ensured that theywould be followed up upon. When registering a new suggestion, he used a link from theintranet. He had posted several suggestions in the system in the past and received goodresponses. When posting the suggestion, he specified what resources were required andif the involvement of other streams was needed.

Interviewee C mainly used the QR code to post suggestions. But if he did not have timeto post the suggestion himself, he could go to his manager and ask him to do it for him.When registering a suggestion, interviewee C explained that he had the option of addinghis personal email. By doing this, he could receive direct feedback when his suggestion wasprocessed. If the warehouse workers chose not to register the email, the group managergave it to them face-to-face. He further explained that the issuer always received anexplanation if the suggestion was not implemented and that the managers were good atgiving feedback. Both when suggestions were implemented and disused.

Administrating new user, decisions, posting suggestions, and exporting statistics werethe main activities which interviewee D worked with in C2. There was a preset structurein C2 regarding how to work, register, and administrate cases to make the process wasefficient as possible and to ensure that it reached the right person. All the projects wereregistered in C2 and depending on the amount of resources the project required, it waslabeled with four different colors, which each represented a different project structure.Interviewee D also explained that as a change leader, a part of his job was to supportthe different improvement projects. This could be activities such as making a pre-study,coaching, and giving guidance. Each week he looked at previous weeks’ improvementsand tried to identify if they could be applied to other areas of the center. The localmanagement and he choose "the improvement of the month", which was then sent to thetop management. There they selected which improvement they consider to be the bestand communicated the suggestion to all the centers.

5.1.3 System C2

Interviewee A explained that System C2 was a central part in developing a culture of con-tinuous improvement. According to him, C2 made it possible to reach out to all employeesand involve them in the improvement process. Furthermore, C2 helped them measuretheir work and eased the process of giving feedback. C2 gave employees, who did nothave a cooperate email, the option of leaving their private email address, which enabledthem to follow the development of their case without any middle hands. Interviewee A

32


explained that since over 2000 suggestions were registered at the center each year, theIT tool provided them with a structure, which enabled them to handle a large volume ofsuggestions. The structure provided by the IT tool, which was based on the PDCA cycle,forced them work accordingly and helped them to realize long term results. IntervieweeA also used C2’s search function, which made it possible to share improvements betweencenters. Interviewee A claimed that this function was not used as frequently by the centeras it should be. However, it provided them with the ability to share experiences acrosscenters.

Interviewee B said that he did not use C2 that often, but he had understood that it was avery good tool. He found C2 to be good since the system helped the issuer of a suggestionto keep track of all the suggestions and reminded them to continuously work with them asemails were automatically generated when the deadline for the specific task had passed.As it was possible to assign cases and provide feedback to other work streams, it madeit easy to work cross functional. Interviewee B also used System C2’s search function tosearch for current and old cases.

Interviewee C described System C2 as an essential part of the center’s work with contin-uous improvement. Instead of writing notes with suggestions, which might get lost onthe way, C2 made it easy for him to register a new case with the help of an QR code.The QR code opened an online survey, which he filled out. He said that it could be usedanywhere at any time and that he was sure that it would reach the right person sincehe was able to choose recipient. This QR code was distributed to the employees in theform of a sticker. The interviewee himself had this sticker attached to one of his keytags. According to him, many of the employees had these stickers on their key tags orkey cards. When asking about the usability of C2 he said that it is "10 out of 10, nothard at all" and that it took very little time to register a new case.

Interviewee D explained that System C2 supported the Västerås center by providing aneasy way to measure their work, give and organize suggestions, and follow the improve-ment cycle. By forcing each suggestion to through all stages of the cycle, it induced theemployees to think about the desired outcome and a way to reach it. C2 also supported thecenter by sending out remainders about assigned cases to the user. Interviewee D believedthis drove the improvement process forward. He also used C2 as a database for inspirationwhere he looks at previously implemented suggestions and their outcome.

5.1.4 Involvement

Interviewee A believed that all employees wanted to contribute to the organization and doa good job. He believed that there were three key factors which motivated employees towork with continuous improvement: 1. Make it easy to give suggestions. This had beenutilized by introducing an QR code, which enabled all employees to post suggestions.Before most of the employees required help from their manager. 2. It had to feel relevantand all employees must receive feedback on their suggestions. Especially if they werenot implemented. 3. Involve everyone to make them feel involved in the organizationin the sense that they could influence their workplace and contribute to it. He believedthis developed commitment and made the employees grow and feel needed. Furthermore,interviewee A believed that they had successfully been able to involve all levels in theorganization in both giving and implementing suggestions. This involvement was present

33


in all groups. Also, he encouraged the group managers to post their own suggestions andfollowed them up at the meetings.

Each month "the improvement of the month" was presented on screens, Instagram andat group meetings. Interviewee A believed that this was a good initiative that boostedothers to contribute. He also believed that it contributed to a positive work environment,and encouraged employees to talk about the center’s improvements. He however thoughtthat more improvements should be highlighted and that one per month was not enough.When interviewee A was asked about how his manager, which is the logistics manager,encouraged him to work with continuous improvement he explained that he had set thetone for the work with continuous improvement and had made it clear that it was im-portant. He required results and every Friday he evaluated the past week’s performance.Furthermore, be explained that his manager had a lot of confidence in the employees. Ifthey believed in a project, the manager would let them go ahead and implement it. Thismade interviewee A feel a lot of responsibility.

To increase the involvement of the employees, interviewee B encouraged them to contin-uously register their suggestions in C2. He said that it was important to take the timeand help them register cases to show them that their suggestion is important. He furtherexplained that he orally delivered feedback to employees and that they each month choose"the improvement of the month". He used to present the chosen improvement at groupmeetings.

Interviewee C’s manager also encouraged the employees by trying to make them under-stand the purpose and the benefits of continuous improvement. He also continuouslyreminded the warehouse workers to post their suggestions and offered them his help.Each month "the improvement of the month" and "the employee of the month" waschosen and presented on the set-up screens and the center’s own Instagram. The cho-sen improvement was also mentioned at group meetings if it involved someone in thegroup. The interviewee thought this was a very good initiative since it inspired peopleto contribute.

According to interviewee D, knowledge about continuous improvement was continuouslyspread through set up screens, meetings, and a monthly report, which was sent out to allemployees. Also, the center had an Instagram. Recently a video of the best implementedimprovements from previous year was posted with the aim to inspire. Each month a setof slides was sent out with information containing "the employee of the month", "theimprovement of the month", and statistics. This package was aimed to be presented atmonthly meetings. However, interviewee D was unsure if all the slides were presented tothe employees.

When asking interviewee D about the local management, he said the following: "I wouldsay that they are extremely committed. They are very skillful, they require it, and havereally understood the importance of working with continuous improvement to developthe operations. It is a key factor in this." Furthermore, he explained that the localmanagement actively was giving suggestions and creating a good structure around it.They were good at using the competencies that the center had and at allocating resources.Instead of doing everything themselves, they included others, which made people growand develop the capabilities they needed. "I believe that if the management is committedto working with this [continuous improvement], it will spread all the way down. This is

34


the foundation. That it starts in the management and then is spread. This createscommitment."

According to interviewee D, one of the center’s main challenges was to make employeesprioritize the work with continuous improvement. It was important to make them un-derstand that the work they do with improvements and C2, is not creating unnecessaryadministration, but resulting in something they could benefit from. To achieve this, heworked with presenting good examples of previously implemented improvements. Also,he said that when a suggestion was registered, he encouraged them to continue by saying"scratching their ego is always good". He believed that the overall ambition to work withcontinuous improvement was high in the center. However, the time sometimes limitedthe amount of implemented improvements. Especially during the spring, where there area lot of holidays. Nevertheless, improvements could contribute to generating more timeby working more efficiently.

5.1.5 Measurement

Interviewee A explained that they measured the amount of posted, implemented, andfollowed up suggestions on a monthly and weekly basis. There was a set goal for thecenter, and for his stream. Since they were about 200 employees in this stream, they hadset a goal of implementing 200 suggestions. Every Thursday he received the statisticsfrom the past week and presented it to his group managers together with other KPI’s suchas amount of sick leave. All the group managers then took these numbers and presentedthem at their group meetings. He believed that the clear set goal drove the center towork with continuous improvement.

Interviewee B followed up the measurements every Thursday and evaluated the turn-out.He also mentioned that they had set a personal goal for posted suggestions. However,this led to people concentrating on posing as many small suggestions as possible insteadof thinking of larger ones with a greater effect. To prevent this from happening in thefuture, he believed that their work with continuous improvement should be measured inanother way. For example, some degree of the economical, ergonomic, or environmentaleffect of the suggestion.

According to interviewee C, the amount of posted, implemented, and followed up sug-gestions was measured. He was also aware that there was a goal for implemented andfollowed up suggestions. However, he was unsure if there was a goal for employee sug-gestions. He saw these numbers on screens set up around the center. Sometimes, thesemeasurements could be mentioned during the weekly group meetings.

Interviewee D explained that they had a clearly set goal. This goal was followed upweekly and was communicated via mail, the center’s own mobile application, and atweekly meetings to all employees together with other KPI’s. A goal was set for the entirecenter, and was then broken down for each work stream. According to interviewee D, thecenter had previously been very good at giving suggestions but the implementation parthad not been as good. However, they had become better at the implementation over therecent years.

35


5.2 The Kallhäll Center

5.2.1 Knowledge

During interviewee E’s introduction, in the beginning of his employment, he was shownwhere he could find the physical paper forms to give a C2 suggestion. It was not until oneyear later, when C2 was mentioned during a meeting, that he asked his manager what itwas. After the meeting, he went to the place where the forms were placed and posted hisfirst improvement suggestion. He was now responsible for showing new employees aroundand made sure to show them where to post a C2.

Interviewee E explained that things always can be improved at the center. By workingwith continuous improvement, the operations become more efficient, which makes theeveryday job easier to perform. It also benefits the stores and end customers.

Interviewee F explained that working with continuous improvement was important forcontinuously developing the centers operations. "If you see something that does not work,you should act. Especially if it has to do with safety". He believed that suggestions aboutimproving safety and the health of the employees, were the most important ones andshould be prioritized. Together with the local change leader, interviewee F had attendedan education session. There, he learned how suggestions were posted and handled in C2,the different types of improvements which can be made, how to work systematically withimprovements, and what tools that should be used in the implementation process.

When staring at the center, interviewee G received an education in continuous improve-ment and how to use System C2. A couple of weeks before the interview, he attendedan education session, held by the change leader, about structuring projects and improve-ment activities. They also went through their improvement work, improvement cycle,cause analysis, and lean. The group managers were also offered this education session.The warehouse workers were not offered any education sessions, but were included inworkshops tif their competencies were needed.

For interviewee G, continuous improvement supported operations to evolve and becomebetter. According to him, "easy" was an important part of continuous improvementand something that was a part of their cooperate values; making operations as easy aspossible. He however said that he did not want employees to take the easy way outand always challenge people’s opinions. When asking interviewee G why he thought thecenter worked with continuous improvement, he said that he believed that the organiza-tion had identified continuous improvement as a success factor. Things change all thetime and therefore the organization had to change too. As technologies change and newgenerations enter the organization, it had to adapt. He also mentioned that continuousimprovement was also something that employees should work with personally, to developas a manager and leader. According to interviewee G, the benefits of continuous im-provement were more efficient operations, economical benefits, and variation in the dailyassignments. With variation, interviewee G argued that continuous improvement couldprovide new tools for employees to work with, which could offer some variation in theirdaily routines.

When interviewee H became change leader at the center, he received his first educationwithin C2. He also received a minor education session a couple of years ago regarding

36


continuous improvement. He has mainly developed knowledge within this field throughworking at ICA. Interviewee G believed that ICA worked with continuous improvementto reach their goal of becoming leading within logistics.

Interviewee H explained that he was currently developing the strategy for how the centershould work with continuous improvement. The main challenge was to make it a naturalpart of the workday where deviations were liked. Continuous improvement was notconsidered to be a natural part of the daily tasks at the time of the interview. He believedthis was especially noticeable when looking at the handling time of the suggestions. A lotof them had passed the deadline and they were sent back and forth between employees.Instead of implementing them, they were forwarded. This was something he thought wasrelated to knowledge; that employees wanted to be a part of the process, but they didnot know how. They lacked the knowledge and needed education. "I am unfortunatelythe project manager for many projects right now, which is not a part of my role. Itis a question about resources and knowledge. Due to this we are now educating groupmanagers and warehouse manager to make them feel more comfortable driving projects.It is not my place to manage projects".

5.2.2 Structure

Interviewee E explained that if he wanted to give an improvement suggestion, he tooka physical form and filled it out. He put it in a box and then someone registered it inC2. He further explained that the managers could help you register suggestions and thatthey would hopefully register it. He had earlier gone to a manager, which was not his, atseveral occasions and told him about a problem and his proposed solution. This managertold him to come back later and then he went home. He further explained that it couldtake anything from a day to a year to receive feedback or see the improvement in action.It was not common to receive feedback from the manager, but you often noticed thatthe improvement had been implemented or mentioned during the daily meeting. Whenasking what happened if a suggestion was discontinued, he answered that he had neverreceived any feedback about disused suggestions. He just noticed that nothing happened.He could recall that he handed in a suggestion over a year ago and had not heard anythingsince. He did not even remember what it was about anymore. He also mentioned thathe believed the chances for one’s suggestion to be implemented were small.

Interviewee F received all suggestions regarding the process he oversaw. He, togetherwith a newly started improvement group, went through all the suggestions and made adecision every other week. If the suggestion regarded another area, he involved themas well. The tasks which he mainly performed regarding continuous improvement weremaking decisions, planning the next step for the cases, and implementing them. He alsoposted his own suggestions, but said that the time limited him and that he mainly focusedon processing other’s suggestions. He explained that warehouse workers could hand intheir suggestions in two different ways; filling out a physical form, or ask their manager toregister their suggestion. He usually invited employees to write the suggestions togetherwith him in C2, to involve them in the process and get a better understanding of thesuggestion. When receiving a suggestion from an employee, he tried to note their namedown to be able to give feedback.

Interviewee G explained that the center used different models to structure their improve-

37


ment initiatives. They for example frequently used the improvement cycle and had asupporting template, which helped them break down each step. They also had a clearstrategy of becoming leading within logistics. During a larger meeting, which took placetwo times a year, the management communicated this goal to all employees at the centerto develop an understanding for their decisions and operational plan.

Interviewee H explained that the warehouse workers could post their suggestions in threedifferent ways: Scan a QR code, fill out a physical form, or ask their manager for help.The QR code was a solution they had for the past three years and it was set up allover the center. The center had an improvement team, which evaluated all suggestions.If a suggestion was approved for implementation, a work group was formed. Whenimplementing the suggestions, they tried to involve the warehouse workers. They wereoften included in workshops, where they acted as specialists. However, he believed thatthe center could become better at providing suggestions with feedback. He explainedthat there were currently about 188 suggestions in the system, which he confidentlybelieved no feedback had been given on. This was something which he believed effectedthe involvement of the employees and was a result from not having a change leader foralmost a year before he started. During that time, a lot of unresolved cases was builtup.

5.2.3 System C2

Interviewee E said that posting suggestions enables him to influence his work space. Hewas however not sure how System C2 was used more than that suggestions were registeredthere. When asking how his manager worked with C2 he said, "It is not something theywould share with me".

When asking interviewee F why they use C2, he answered "It is a procurement we havedone and it helps us to structure to process". He further explained that there was oneperson responsible for each process which made it easy for him to assign the suggestionsdirectly to the right person. C2 therefore helped them with the structure of assigningcases. Since there were many people working with improvement suggestions simultane-ously, C2 provided an overview of what was being done. Sometimes there were two orthree identical suggestions registered. When this happened, he either linked the casestogether or deleted the excess ones. This prevented several persons from working withthe same case. He also explained that sometimes warehouse workers were unsure if theirsuggestions had been registered. Then it was easy for him to search in the system andfind the status of it. He also explained that C2 helped them to keep track of the activeimprovement initiatives and their deadlines by sending out emails. When a deadline hadpassed, and they had to make an active decision regarding how to proceed with the case.However, he believed that many employees disused cases too easily, to prevent them fromhaving them pending. Interviewee F said that C2 also made it possible for him to searchand look at previous improvements for inspiration. He would however like to be ableto see improvements that had been implemented at other centers, since he believed thatmuch of their initiatives could be applied. This access is something he had asked themanagement for, but had not been given.

Interviewee G used System C2 to give suggestions and take decisions on suggestions whichhe had been assigned. When registering a case, it could either be assigned to a person or a

38


group. If it was assigned to the management, it was brought up on their weekly meetingon Mondays, where a decision was taken. When asking interviewee G why they usedSystem C2 he answered that he had no idea and that it was maybe because they believedit was a good system. It helped them to structure and follow up cases by reminding themwhen deadlines had passed. He also believed that without C2, a lot of cases would havebeen forgotten and not implemented. He also said it was "hard to fail" when asked aboutthe usability. He explained that warehouse workers, who do not have access to C2, couldgive suggestions in three different ways: Fill out a physical form, ask their manager tohelp them, or scan an QR code which is set up around the center.

Interviewee H mainly used C2 for looking at other centers suggestions for inspiration,follow implementation processes, and export statistics. He also went through incomingsuggestions to check if they really were improvement suggestions. He explained that hecould find suggestions like changing a light bulb in there. "I do not know why ICA haschosen to work with C2. But I know why I like C2. It gives us a structure. Suggestionsare not lost, we get reminders of deadlines, and it provides us with a database of allsuggestions for inspiration. Everything is gathered at the same place which makes it easy."He further explained that C2 was built like their improvement circle which supported theprocess.

5.2.4 Involvement

Interviewee E explained that the managers sometimes came up to him and praised him forhis suggestions. When asked about how he was informed about implemented suggestion,he answered "To be honest, not at all" but they could sometimes be displayed on thescreens. He also believed that there was "the improvement of the month" but he had neverbeen informed of one; "It is something the managers go through". He had never beeninvolved in the implementation of an improvement, but he recently posted a suggestion,which he would help to implement.

Interviewee E said that seeing that continuous improvement generated results for him,the co-workers, and his manager motivated him. When asking how engaged other ware-house workers were compared to him he said, "You are definitely interviewing one of themost engaged person here". He explained that there were very few employees that evenconsidered posting an improvement suggestion.

Twice a year, a larger meeting was held by the local management. Interviewee F ex-plained, that after these meetings the amount of posted suggestions increased temporar-ily. He believed that many employees had good ideas but that they did not share themproactively. He therefore asked the employees about their ideas during group meeting tocatch them there. He explained that it was often the same people who posted ideas.

Interviewee F explained that they each year went through their operational plan withmanagement. There, they discussed larger improvement suggestions such as changing theschedule for all warehouse workers. When asking about the involvement of management,interviewee F said that it could be much better. He also believed that implementedimprovements could be better communicated within the organization.

Interviewee F said that they tried to give feedback to each warehouse worker handing inan improvement suggestion. Something that made the process more difficult was that

39


they had to give it orally to them, since they did not have a cooperate email or accessto System C2. It became especially difficult when the employee worked at another shift.This forced him to give the feedback to another manager, working at that shift, whichcould either alter the information along the way or make it disappear completely.

According to interviewee F, the center previously chose the "improvement of the month"to highlight improvements. The improvement was chosen during a meeting where theydiscussed the previous month’s improvements. During this meeting, all work streamspresented their best implementation for the past month. According to interviewee F, thiswas discontinued when the new change leader started. However, he believed that it shouldbe brought back since it inspired people to work with continuous improvement.

Interviewee F believed that allocation of resources was one of the main challenge thecenter faced. Time limited his work with continuous improvement and he wished thathe had more time to focus on it. "It feels like it [continuous improvement] is not a bigpriority here". He explained that it was very hard to be released from the regular jobto work with a larger implementation initiative. The change leader offered to drive theimprovement projects, but did not help them enough. Interviewee F expressed a wishof having a resource, who could help them drive improvements projects and give themsupport in the usage of lean tools. He further explained that Västerås was very good atinvolving the warehouse workers in the implementation of the suggestions. In Kallhäll,the managers implemented all the suggestions themselves. This was something he wantedto change and believed would free up time to work with more initiatives. He also believedthat involving employees in the implementation would increase the commitment to theimprovement process.

To increase the involvement of employees, interviewee F explained that he always tried tosee the good in suggestions, even if they were bad. It was important for him to encourageemployees to influence their workplace instead of complaining about it. He explainedthat the negativity in his group had decreased over time.

Interviewee G said that management mainly communicated their work with continuousimprovement at the larger meetings. This was something which he believed they couldbecome better at, since they had a lot of improvement projects going on, which were notbeing communicated to the center. He also explained that they selected "the improvementof the month" each month, which was presented on the set-up screens. During a meeting,all units presented their best improvement of the month and one was then chosen. Theyhad selected "the improvement of the month" just the other day.

One improvement, which interviewee G believed the center could apply, was the processregarding feedback. The current feedback process was dependent on the manager, whichcould result in it being delivered late or not at all. Also, it was hard to check the statusof the suggestions, since many did not have access to the system.

Interviewee G expressed that their work with continuous improvement required moreresources. He explained that he and the group managers, did not have enough time toadministrate their suggestions in C2. As there were many cases to administrate, it becametime consuming in the long run, and he therefore focused on implementing improvementsrather than administrating them. He therefore believed that the center worked morewith continuous improvement than was shown in the measurements. In the day of theinterview, he had spent about 10 minutes in C2, which he considered to be more than

40


enough and it was a lot more time than he usually spent in the system. "We have morethings to work with than continuous improvement, like quality". He further explainedthat it was very easy to administrate in C2, but if you were unsure about something youhad to think about it for five to ten minutes, and he did not have that time.

According to interviewee H, most of the implemented improvements were very small.There were many suggestions in C2, which would have a great effect, but were not imple-mented due to lack of resources. He believed that there was enough time and resourcesat the center, but the work with continuous improvement was not prioritized enoughto receive them. Many employees considered continuous improvement as an increase ofworkload, and not something they would benefit from in the long run.

Interviewee H believed that the management should set an example to encourage em-ployees to work with continuous improvement. "The management are almost the worst[at working with continuous improvement]. It is something I work with very much, tomake the management request it, and work with it themselves. The management needsto lead the way. Show everyone how it is supposed to work and how we want to work.Otherwise it will never work. And I believe that we are becoming better at it. We use theright tools and work in the way we want; not having old C2’s hanging, but taking care ofthem, and providing feedback.". By valuing employee suggestions, the employees wouldnotice improvements, which will improve their well-being, productivity, and accomplish-ments. The interviewee believed that if employees became involved, the right resourceswere provided, and the purpose was communicated, continuous improvement could onlyhave positive effects on the center. However, most of the employees were currently notinvolved in the process. He believed that the purpose and effects were not communicatedwell enough, and that this was one of the center’s main challenges; making the employeesunderstand that continuous improvement would help drive the center forward and maketheir job easier.

When asking how interviewee H’s manager encouraged him to work with continuousimprovement, he answered "Not at all, it is the opposite". He explained that he hadencouraged his manager to start posting suggestions in C2, but it had been a slow processfor them and a lot of cases were late. The effects of continuous improvement were mainlycommunicated by him. He had taken on this role to encourage the rest of the managementto take after him. He further explained that he had been distributing a survey to theemployees at the center asking how often their manager encouraged activities related tocontinuous improvement. The majority of the center answered "never".

5.2.5 Measurement

Interviewee E was aware that their work with continuous improvement was measuredand that there was a set target. When asking him how often these measurements wasfollowed up, he said that they were presented during larger meetings which took placetwo times per year.

Interviewee F was not aware that there were any measurements of their work with con-tinuous improvement for the center. He had however set a personal goal together withhis manager. Once a year he had a personal meeting with his employees, during which heset a goal of one improvement per person. He mentioned that they sometimes during the

41


group meetings mentioned how many suggestions they had received and implemented.They also followed up improvement cases which had passed their set deadline in C2.The measurements were something personal and not something that was discussed in agroup. When asking interviewee F if the management communicated the measurementswhen going through the operational plan, he answered, "No, that is something the changeleader is in charge of". He further explained that the previous change leader providedthem with an information package including measurements and information about ongo-ing improvement initiatives each month. There, he could follow the development of theirmeasurements. This package was no longer regularly distributed by the change leader."Now it is more of a quarterly package".

Interviewee G explained that the management would meet and talk about last week’sprogress every Friday. During this meeting, the change leader presented the amount ofsuggested, implemented and followed up improvements and related it to the goal. Heexplained that there was a goal set for the entire center, which was broken down acrossmonths and weeks. This progress could also be followed on their visualization board,which was an installation they had set up on a wall.

Each week, interviewee G met with the group managers. During this weekly meeting, themeasurements sometimes were communicated and he could also ask about improvementcases, which had passed their deadlines. The group managers also received an email eachweek with the weekly measurements. When asking interviewee G how the results werefor 2017 he said, "We reached the goal for amount of improvements suggestions, but I donot think we reached the goal for amount of implemented improvements".

Interviewee H explained that he was responsible for exporting statistics from C2 eachmonth. The statistics was sent to all managers who then was responsible for commu-nicating them to their groups. He also presented the results to the management eachFriday. They measure amount of posted, implemented, and followed up cases and theyalso had a set goal for these variables. One for the center, and one for each work stream.However, he believed the center could become better at following up the cases and reallysee the effects of them.

42

Chapter 6

Analysis

In this chapter, an analysis of the empirical results is presented. The collected qualitativedata is analyzed to attempt to answer the research questions "What factors enable em-ployees to post, implement, and follow up improvement suggestions in a logistics center,where a PDCA cycle based IT tool is used?" and "How does a PDCA cycle based IT toolsupport a logistics center when working with continuous improvement?". The analysis isdivided accordingly to identified enablers for giving and implementing improvement sug-gestions. The last section analyzes the support an information technology tool provides tothe continuous improvement process.

6.1 Knowledge

The change leaders and managers at both logistics centers had received the similar amountof education in C2 and continuous improvement. However, since they were carried outseveral years ago, the interviewees had a hard time specifying the length and content,meaning that they might have varied. According to the change leader at Kallhäll, themanagers’ low degree of knowledge about continuous improvement had resulted in aninsecurity about managing projects. The managers therefore recently had been offerededucation sessions about structuring improvement projects and activities. The warehouseworkers had not attended an education session, but had developed an understandingfor continuous improvement by working at the center and by asking their co-workersor managers. It was not until a couple of months into their employment that theyfully developed an understanding of the improvement process. But the group managersoccasionally talk about why they work with continuous improvement and the benefitsduring their group meetings.

When asking the interviewees about why they worked with continuous improvement atthe center, the interviewees at Västerås showed a deeper understanding of continuousimprovement by giving more elaborate answers. For example, they talked about whythey work with continuous improvement and the long-term benefits for customers andcompetitive advantages. In Kallhäll, they were also able to explain the benefits, butnot with the same depth as Västerås. Furthermore, some of the answers indicated thatthe understanding for continuous improvement was not fully developed. An example ofthis was when the warehouse manager at Kallhäll explained that one of the benefits ofcontinuous improvement was providing employees with variation in their daily routines byproviding them with new tools to work with. According to the literature review, variation

43

CHAPTER 6. ANALYSIS A. HEYDARI

in daily assignments is not one of the benefits or aims of continuous improvement. Instead,the main aim is to continuously improve and reduce variety in task and processes (Bhuiyanand Baghel, 2005). By reducing variety in processes, it will preclude them from beingcarried out wrongfully (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2016).

The warehouse manager in Kallhäll, interviewee G, also mentioned that "We have morethings to work with than continuous improvement, like quality". This could also indicatethat the employees’ understanding of continuous improvement might not be fully devel-oped since one of the main purposes of continuous improvement is to improve quality. Byconsidering continuous improvement as a parallel process to the value creating process,it causes the performance of the organization to remain the same (Ahlström, 2015). Thistype of pitfall, which Ahlström (2015) refers to as "The Emperor’s New Clothes", oftenoccurs at organizations where the original purpose is forgotten and the right tools areused without remembering why (Ahlström, 2015). These characteristics can be found atthe center in Kallhäll, as the interviewees were not able to fully explain why they use C2and interviewee G considered it to be extra and unnecessary administration. IntervieweeG also mentioned that the reason they work with continuous improvement was becausethe management must have identified it as a success factor. This comment could beinterpreted as a lack of understanding, since he points out that it is something that themanagement believes is a success factor and not him. Another way the shortcoming ofknowledge is expressed in the Kallhäll center, is that the employees posted suggestions inC2 which were not improvement suggestions. This also indicates that the understandingof their work with continuous improvement is not fully developed.

The lack of knowledge at the Kallhäll center was commented several times throughoutthe interview with their change leader. He stated that some employees saw continuousimprovement as an increased workload instead of something which could reduce it in thelong run. Therefore, they avoided posting improvement suggestions and being part ofimplementation processes. He believed that the lack of knowledge among the employeesacted as a barrier when it came to the implementation of suggestions. He saw thatmany employees wanted to contribute to the process, but did not know how to do it.This insecurity caused cases to remain unresolved or forwarded to someone else. Smalland easily implemented suggestions were often processed, but the larger ones, whichrequired more from the employees, were never executed. This way of picking "Low-Hanging Fruit", could at first have positive effects as the results are fast and visible(Ahlström, 2015). However, as Ahlström (2015) describes, falling into this trap prohibitsthe organization from building competencies and a habit for systematically working withcontinuous improvement.

A shortage of knowledge described above is a barrier to the employee involvement since atrue understanding of why the processes is carried out, and the benefits is not developed(Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012). To achieve a successfully implemented improvement processin an organization the mindset must be changed, which is found to be hard (Bhuiyan andBaghel, 2005). Therefore, theory must be presented to the employees, an understandingdeveloped, and education provided (Haims and Carayon, 1998). A fully developed un-derstanding of why the organization works with continuous improvement, the benefits,and the tools used can therefore be an enabler for giving, implementing, and followingup suggestions in a logistics center that is using an IT tool that is based on the PDCAcycle.

44


6.2 Integrated processes

The process of continuous improvement is well integrated into the Västerås center andconsidered to be a long-term commitment. This was expressed several times in interviews.The warehouse manager referred to continuous improvement as being a part of their DNA,group manager expressed that working with continuous improvement was not somethinghe did for a specific amount of time, it was something which was integrated into his dailytasks, and warehouse worker expressed continuous improvement as something which waspart of their company culture and something which came very naturally to him whenworking.

In Kallhäll, the approach towards continuous improvement was not the same. As dis-cussed earlier, the Kallhäll center had fallen into what Ahlström (2015) calls "The Em-peror’s New Clothes" pitfall, meaning that the process of continuous improvement wasrunning parallel to the value creating processes. The change leader expressed that makingcontinuous improvement a natural part of the work day, was one of the centers main chal-lenges and one way this was shown, was that employees forwarded suggestions instead ofimplementing them. To ensure that the continuous improvement process is implementedsuccessfully into an organization, it must be considered as something long-term and bea part of the company’s culture (Suàrez-Barraza et al., 2011; Bessant et al., 2001). Itshould also be viewed as an integrated part of employees’ everyday tasks (Haims andCarayon, 1998). Even though Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005) have found that continuousimprovement could be successfully implemented as a parallel process to the daily work,they found no benefits compared to having it integrated into the daily operations. Onthe contrary they found that continuous improvement as a pararell process contributedto higher alternative costs.

Many researchers have found that a well-integrated continuous improvement process havepositive effects on its implementation (Suàrez-Barraza et al., 2011; Ahlström, 2015; Beck-ett et al., 2000; Haims and Carayon, 1998). According to Bessant et al. (2001)’s modelof evolution, where level five is the highest level of evolvement, continuous improvementactivities are not part of the day-to-day operation at level two. Furthermore, continuousimprovement is described to be a main part of the business operations at level three.Research shows that reaching a higher level of the hierarchy implies that more positiveaspects are realized (Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012). The well integrated processes of con-tinuous improvement at Västerås could therefore be identified as an enabler for employeesuggestions, implementation, and follow up in a logistics center using a PDCA cycle basedIT tool.

6.3 Ease of Posting suggestions

The QR codes, which facilitate employees to post suggestions with their mobile phones,were introduced to both centers at the same time. During this introduction, the inter-viewed warehouse worker at Västerås received a smaller education session by his managerof how to use the codes to post suggestions. He and his co-workers also received stickerswith the QR code, which they attached to their key tags and key cards. When asking

45


how the warehouse worker at Kallhäll posts suggestions, he had no awareness of the ex-istence of the QR code. Instead he mentioned that they had paper forms which they fillout. His manager, the group manager, also did not mention the QR code when askinghow the warehouse workers post their suggestions. However, the warehouse manager andchange leader at Kallhäll, was aware of the possibility of using QR codes to post sugges-tions. This indicates that the structure of working with continuous improvement had notbeen clearly communicated within the organization, which is found to be advantageous(Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012).

One of Toyota’s main success factors was that they developed a methodology, whichworked well with their organization (Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012). Garcia-Sabater et al.(2012) and Bessant and Caffyn (1997) describe that a methodology, which is designedto suit a company, enables continuous improvement to expand and diffuse within theorganization. By not having a clear structure, that supports continuous improvement,the widespread practice is inhibited (Bessant and Caffyn, 1997). When it comes to givingsuggestions by the employees, Västerås had managed to communicate their structure ofposting suggestion, by using QR-codes and asking group managers for help, to all levels ofthe organization. They also provided the warehouse workers with tools, such as stickers,to support this process. In Kallhäll, the structure was set by the management, but hadnot been communicated to the bottom two levels of the organization. The managementhad set up QR codes around the center without clearly communicating how they shouldbe used. At the same time, they had not taken away the physical forms, which the QRcode was supposed to replace to increase efficiency, which made it possible for the workersnot to adapt to the digital way of working. By not communicating the existence of QRcodes, it could preclude employees from posting suggestions. Filling out a physical formrequired employees to go to a specific place to get the form and go back after fillingit in to put it into a box. This type of reporting causes extra processing, motion, andwaiting which all are deadly wastes (Hicks, 2007; Santos et al., 2006). Also, this could beconsidered as a barrier for the process which the QR code overcame by enabling employeesto post their suggestions independent of their location.

The consequences of the barrier of accessibility to C2 can be identified when comparingthe warehouse workers’ view of posting suggestions. According to interviewee C, it wasvery motivating to know that his suggestions will be taken into consideration and not endup in the trash. Interviewee E on the other hand, expressed that the managers "hopefullyregister" his suggestions and that he had been turned down by a manager, who askedhim to come back later, when wanting to talk about a suggestion. This is supported byinterviewee F, who mentioned that employees were sometimes unsure if their suggestionhad been registered or not. By not having access directly to System C2, employees didnot feel certain about their suggestions being processed. This could lead to a decreasedmotivation for posting suggestions, which interviewee C expressed. It could also result ina negative impact on the employees’ confidence if they felt that their suggestion were notseen as important. This is supported by Lam et al. (2015)’s research where they identifiedthat requesting the support and assistance of an employee in improvement activitiesincrease the employee commitment. They also identified that expressing confidence in animprovement attempt has a positive effect on the commitment. Since worker involvementenables continuous improvement in an organization Garcia-Sabater et al. (2012), the easeof posting suggestions can be seen as an enabler for employee commitment to improvementactivities in a logistics center where an IT tool based on the PDCA cycle is used.

46


6.4 Feedback

When comparing the feedback process at Västerås and Kallhäll, Västerås has been able todevelop a more rigid structure for providing feedback. According to the warehouse workerin Västerås, the managers were very good at providing him with feedback. Both in thecase of implementation and disuse of suggestions. In case of disuse, he had always receiveda motivation. This has resulted in the warehouse worker feeling that his suggestions wouldbe taken into consideration and therefore that they were important. He also mentionedthat this was something that motivated him to post more suggestions. The importance ofproviding employees with feedback was also emphasized several times by the warehousemanager in Västerås. He believed that, providing feedback, was one of the key factorsfor developing employee involvement at the center.

At Kallhäll however, the process of providing feedback to warehouse workers was depen-dent on managers. The warehouse worker there mentioned that it could take anythingfrom a day to a year to hear something. He further explained that it was not commonto receive feedback from the manager. It was more common to notice the implementedchange or hear about it during a group meeting. He also said that he had never receivedany feedback on a disused suggestion and mentioned that he had posted a suggestion overa year ago which he still had not received any feedback for. The centers’ shortage of pro-viding feedback was also mentioned by the change leader, who explained that there wereabout 188 cases in the system which have not received any feedback. He also believedthat this had a negative effect on the involvement of the employees.

Lam et al. (2015) found in their research that "[using] praise and flattery before orduring an influence attempt, or [expressing] confidence in the target’s ability to carryout a difficult request" (Yukl, 2010, page 172), lead to increasing employee commitmentto continuous improvement tasks. When comparing the warehouse worker’s belief, ofhow they can influence their workplace, it is found that the employee working at theKallhäll center did not feel confidence in his ability to have an impact. On the contrary,the warehouse worker from Västerås mentioned that continuous improvement allowedhim to influence his workplace and it motivated him to know that he was contributingto a better environment for others. He also believed that the warehouse workers couldcontribute to more than just packing supplies. This difference in confidence could be aresult of employees not receiving proper feedback on their suggestions. As the employeesin Kallhäll never receive an explanation to the disuse of their suggestion, they do noteven know if they have been considered by the managers. This has negative effects onthe employee’s commitment to improvement activities (Lam et al., 2015). At the sametime, this causes skilled persons not to reach their full potential as they are discouragedwhich according to Ahlström (2015) can have negative impact on the business results.Providing feedback can therefore be an enabler for the improvement activities at theVästerås center and at other logistics centers using an PDCA cycle based IT tool.

6.5 Successful projects

Each month the centers selected "the improvement of the month", which was then sentto the top management, who chose the best one. In Västerås, the awareness of successful

47


project seemed to be high. "The improvement of the month", was presented on theirscreens, Instagram, and at group meetings. Both the warehouse manager and warehouseworker in Västerås believed that highlighting these successful projects contributed to amore positive environment, had a positive impact on the employees, and made themtalk about the improvements. The change leader in Västerås also mentioned that suc-cessful improvements, which are not voted "the improvement of the month", were alsohighlighted on screens, Instagram, and in their monthly report which was sent out to allemployees. Furthermore, they had recently recorded a video of best improvements fromthe previous year with the aim to inspire.

At Kallhäll, the successful projects were not as widely communicated. When asking thewarehouse worker how implemented projects were communicated to him, he answered"To be honest, not at all.". He further explained that there might be "the improvementof the month" but he was unsure. He added "It is something the managers go through".According to the group manager, interviewee F, they could become better at communi-cating implemented improvement initiatives. He also said that they used to have "theimprovement of the month" but that it was discontinued when the new change leaderstarted. Earlier, he and other managers sat down and discussed improvements and votedon the best one. This was something he thought should be brought back since it in-spired employees. The disuse of "the improvement of the month", was contradicted bythe warehouse manager, interviewee G, who explained that they still had meetings withrepresentatives from each work stream to choose "the improvement of the month" andthat they did it just the other day. He also added that it was communicated by puttingit up on the screens.

The contradicting information about "the improvement of the month" can have twocauses: The meeting might still take place but interviewee F might no longer be invitedto it or interviewee G mentioned a routine they did earlier to make the center lookbetter. Regarding the first cause, it is plausible that interviewee F was no longer invitedto these meetings. However, this shows that the chosen improvement is not communicatedthrough the organization and could indicate that the group manager has not been ableto contribute with any nominees. In the other case, the interviewee might feel that hewanted to emphasize that the center is working well with continuous improvement. As hewas part of the management team, he knew that interviews had been carried out earlierat the Västerås center, where the improvement processes had been very successful. Hetherefore might have mentioned an old routine they had and which he felt was good.Regardless of the cause, this shows that "the improvement of the month" is not wellcommunicated within the organization and the existence is not even comprehended bythe warehouse worker.

The communication of successful projects can be seen as a factor which inhibits employeecommitment since the communication in the Västerås center has contributed to a morepositive view towards continuous improvement, where initiatives are discussed. This isalso supported by research, where the success of the first implemented projects haveproven to be important to gain employee attention (Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012). Visibleresults also create commitment around the process as positive results give new energy(Ahlström, 2015). As the Västerås center highlight their successful implementations, theyaddress to the employees’ "inspirational appeals" which according to Lam et al. (2015)increase the commitment to improvement activities. It can therefore be concluded that

48


highlighting successful projects can be an enabler for employees giving, implementing,and following up suggestions when using a PDCA cycle based IT tool.

6.6 Measuring continuous improvement

Both centers measured the amount of posted, implemented, and followed up suggestions.They had a set goal for the center which was broken down for each work stream. Thegoal had also been broken down for each month and day. All interviewees, except thegroup manager at Kallhäll, were aware that the work with continuous improvement wasmeasured. However, the group manager mentioned that he had set an individual goal forhimself together with his manager and that he also set a goal for his employees.

In Västerås, all interviewees followed up their measurements at weekly meetings, exceptthe warehouse workers who were occasionally informed about it during group meetingsand could follow them on the screens. In Kallhäll, the warehouse worker explained thatthe measurements were followed up two times a year and that was when he saw them.The group manager explained that they sometimes mention the amount of posted andimplemented suggestions they had received, but also expressed that it was not somethingthey did regularly. He was not aware of the set goal and expressed that "the measurementsare something personal and not something that is discussed in a group". He furtherexplained that they used to receive a monthly package from the change leader includingstatistics on measurements and information about ongoing initiatives. But with the newchange leader, it was more of a quarterly package. The change leader in Kallhäll, whowas in charge of sending out statistics, however mentioned that this was something thatwas done on a monthly basis. He, and interviewee G, the warehouse manager, followedup the measurements each week and the managers communicated them to their groups.According to interviewee A, it is also the managers’ responsibility to communicate themeasurements to the employees. When comparing the awareness of the measurements andgoals between the centers, it can be concluded that Västerås was better at communicatingthem throughout the organization.

When asking interviewee G about the previous year’s performance he answered that theyhad reached the goal for suggestions but he did not believe they managed to reach thegoal for amount of implemented improvements. Last year Kallhäll missed their goal by138 suggestions and 126 executed and followed up cases according to 4.3. This contra-diction shows indications of unawareness of how the center is performing in relation tothe set goal. This could be a result of not continuously communicating and following upthe measurements. However, interviewee G mentioned that they went through the mea-surements each Friday. This could therefore also indicate that the measurements werecommunicated, but that there was a lack of interest. It could also, as discussed earlier, bean attempt at trying to make the centers performance look better than it really is.

To facilitate successful and sustainable change, the ability to measure and identify targetsis important (Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012). Research also shows that an organization withwell-developed continuous improvement processes, continuously measure, and monitortheir results (Bessant et al., 2001). By setting goals which are continuously measured,evaluated, and learned from, continuous improvement is enabled (Garcia-Sabater et al.,2012). Considering the results, the routines regarding measurement is not as evolved in

49


the Kallhäll center as it is in Västerås. This also implies that the continuous improvementprocess is not as developed and therefore less beneficial for the center (Bessant andCaffyn, 1997). Furthermore, by not continuously following up the set goals at all levelsin Kallhäll, the existence of the goal is not communicated. This could have an impact onthe motivation of the employees since interviewee A believed that a set goal contributedto employees becoming motivated to commit to improvement initiatives to reach it. Thedifferences in following up and communicating measurements could therefore be a factor,which impacts the employee involvement in improvement tasks.

6.7 Management Commitment

Interviewee D, the change leader in Västerås, described the local management as beingextremely committed to continuous improvement. According to him, they were very skill-ful and understood the importance of working with continuous improvement to developthe operations. They also actively participated in the improvement work and demandedthe same from all employees. Interviewee D believes the management’s commitment isthe foundation for a committed organization. In Kallhäll, the management was not de-scribed as committed. On the contrary, their change leader, interviewee H, expressedthat the management team was the least committed. He has also identified this as beingone of the center’s main challenges since he believed that the management should lead byexample and actively work with continuous improvement themselves. Doing this shouldspread the commitment through the organization. He further explained that it was himwho encouraged the management to work with continuous improvement and not the otherway around. He was also the one who tried to communicate the benefits to the rest ofthe organization and hoped that the management would start to take after him. The dif-ferences of management involvement between the centers is a factor which could impactthe employee involvement. According to Haims and Carayon (1998) and Bessant et al.(2001), the engagement and support of the management is one of the key success factors.This is also supported by Garcia-Sabater et al. (2012), who identified the involvementfrom managers at all levels as something essential for the success of implementation ofcontinuous improvement. As there is a obvious difference in the management involvementbetween the centers, it could be identified as a factor which can impact the employee com-mitment to improvement activities. Where the greater commitment at Västerås acts asan enabler.

Regarding management commitment as an enabler, it is also supported by interviewee A’sdescription of how the management’s commitment influenced him. He explained that hismanager, which is a part of the management team, expected him to work with continuousimprovement. As a result, it motivated him to actively work with it since he continuouslyhad to report his progress. Also, by setting a tone of the importance, it influenced him toalso prioritize it. In Kallhäll, the lack of commitment in the management can thereforeon the contrary have a negative impact on the employees. It can therefore be concludedthat management commitment can work as an enabler for improvement activities such asgiving, implementing, and following up suggestions in a logistics center where a PDCAcycle based IT tool is used.

50


6.8 Leadership

Poor leadership is as an inhibitor of the implementation of continuous improvement(Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012). Managers should therefore lead by example and supporttheir employees in the process. Interviewee A, the warehouse manager in Västerås, de-scribed that his managers expected him to work with continuous improvement and thismotivated him to actively work with continuous improvement. Having a manger withhigh involvement who act as a change leader, just like interviewee A’s, is according toGarcia-Sabater et al. (2012) essential for the success for the implementation of continu-ous improvement. By providing the relevant resources and assistance to employees whenproposing a suggestion, increases the commitment to improvement activities (Lam et al.,2015).

In Kallhäll, a manager sent away interviewee E, the warehouse worker, several timeswhen he wanted to discuss an improvement suggestion he had. The manager asked himto come back, but then went home. Not using the full competence of the workforce, isconsidered to be one of the eight deadly wastes (Hicks, 2007; Santos et al., 2006). Themanager’s behavior could indicate that he did not prioritize the employee’s suggestionand continuous improvement in general. It could also be an indication of the manager’sdisbelief in the employee, which inhibits the widespread practice (Bessant and Caffyn,1997). Regardless of the reason, this example of poor leadership could cause the employeeto feel discouraged about giving suggestions and therefore work as an inhibitor.

It is argued that having a full-time change leader is advantageous for continuous improve-ment projects (Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012). Both centers have the advantage of havinga full-time change leader present who support the centers’ improvement process. Thechange leader working at Kallhäll during the time of the interviews, had this role for pastsix months. Before him, the center had been without a change leader for almost a year.During this time a lot of unresolved cases were built up according to their current changeleader. This would imply that the improvement activities of the center were affected bythe absence of the change leader. When looking at figure 4.3, the amount of suggested,implemented, and followed up cases in Kallhäll were low during the entire year. As thechange leader started in October, the center was without one during the period Januaryto September. However, the numbers show no indications of an increase of improvementinitiatives after this point. One reason for this could be that influencing and changinga company’s culture takes time. Thus, an increase in the initiatives cannot be expectedimmediately as the change leader starts.

The main task of the change leader at the centers was to support the improvementprojects and to educate the employees in using the right tools. This was somethingwhich interviewee F expressed a need for when talking about limitations when it comesto their work with continuous improvement. This shows that the role of a change leaderis requested at the Kallhäll center and that the provided support during the past timehas not been sufficient. The direct effect of a change leader cannot be proven in thisstudy; however, the importance of committed leadership has been made evident. Havinga leader which provides support, encouragement, and expects employees to work withcontinuous improvement, can act as an enabler for employees giving, implementing, andfollowing up improvement suggestions in a logistics center using a PDCA cycle based ITtool.

51


6.9 Resources

The group manager at the Västerås center, mentioned that there were a lot of ongo-ing improvement projects, which was a result of the management providing them withenough resources in the form of competencies, time, and money. This was supported byinterviewee D, who said that their management was good at allocating resources to theirproject and structuring them. This is something which enables continuous improvement(Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012). According to Garcia-Sabater et al. (2012), financial re-sources as well as time must be put in for an improvement project to run successfully.When comparing to Kallhäll, interviewees repeatedly mentioned that they were not pro-vided with enough resources. Interviewee F, G and H expressed a need for time andinterviewee H explained that he believed that the shortcoming of resources precludedthem from implementing projects. He also believed that the center had enough timeand resources, but that continuous improvement was not prioritized enough to receivethem. As employees are not given the time to work with continuous improvement, or thefinancing to implement them, this deficiency of resources is inhibiting their work withcontinuous improvement.

According to interviewee H, the implemented improvements were very small and didnot have a great impact. He believed that the lack of resources which were provided,limited their ability to execute suggestions with larger impact. This suggests that thecenter might have fallen into what Ahlström (2015) call "The Low-Hanging Fruit Trap".Falling into this pitfall prohibits the center from building competencies and developing ahabit for systematically working with continuous improvement (Ahlström, 2015). By notproviding enough resources, it has resulted in unprocessed suggestions that could havehad a positive impact on the organization’s performance.

Providing sufficient resources enables continuous improvement in an organization (Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012). This is also applicable in an organization where a IT tool based onthe PDCA cycle is used. In this context, not only resources to give, implement, and followup suggestions needs to be provided. Additionally, time to use the IT tool is required,since this utilizes the full potential of the system.

6.10 Employee Involvement

In Västerås, they actively worked to involve all levels of the organization in both givingand implementing suggestions. This is something interviewee F, the group managerat Kallhäll, believed contributed to employee commitment, personal development, anddeveloping a feeling of being needed. This belief is supported by research, where it isfound that asking for a persons support and assistance, in an improvement proposal,increases their commitment to continuous improvement (Lam et al., 2015).

Interviewee F, the group manager at Kallhäll, believed that the way Västerås involvedwarehouse workers in implementing improvements, was something they should take afterand that it would be an enabler for their work with continuous improvement. At the timeof the interview, the Kallhäll center did not involve the warehouse workers in the imple-mentation process. By not using the full competence of the workforce in Kallhäll, it could

52


result in a loss of potential improvements (Hicks, 2007; Santos et al., 2006). A well evolvedorganization within continuous improvement involves the entire organization in the im-provement activities (Bessant et al., 2001) and gives them the responsibility to manageand control their own improvement projects (Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012). According toGarcia-Sabater et al. (2012) research, involving all employees in giving suggestions andimplementing them, is of importance for the organization’s work with continuous im-provement. As both centers have involved all employees in giving suggestions, the nextstep for Kallhäll would be to take after Västerås and involve them in the implementationas well. This is something which was being implemented, as interviewee E explained thathe had never been involved in the implementation before, but his manager had told himthat he would soon be a part of one.

In section 6.9, the importance of allocating resources for enabling continuous improvementis discussed. According to interviewee F, G and H, there was a shortcoming of time toallocate in the Kallhäll center. Interviewee F further explained that a way they could freeup time was to involve the warehouse workers in the implementation of suggestions. Hebelieved that this would give them the ability to implement more suggestion. Involvingall the employees, does therefore not only contribute to the employees’ commitmentto continuous improvement, but could also enable the organization to implement moresuggestions. It can therefore be concluded that employee involvement can work as anenabler for giving, implementing, and following up suggestions in a logistics center wherea PDCA based IT tool is used.

6.11 Understanding of the IT tool

Both centers use System C2 in similar ways; to register, administer, follow up, and searchfor suggestions. One of the main issues which can derive from using an information tech-nology tool, is for employees to understand how, why, and if they want to use it (Beckettet al., 2000). According to Beckett et al. (2000), this problem is especially identified ingroups where continuous improvement was not implemented well. To overcome the resis-tance that might arise when a change, like the introduction of an IT tool, is introduced,an understanding must be developed (Castillo, 2016). This understanding was identifiedin Västerås, where interviewee A and C described System C2 to be an essential partof their work with continuous improvement. It supported them in several ways, whichcontributed to driving the improvement processes forward.

In Kallhäll, the understanding was not found to be as great. All the interviewees con-sidered C2 to be a useful tool, but the importance of the tool for the center was notemphasized to the same extent as in Västerås. This could be a result of not really under-standing why they use the IT tool, which could have a negative impact on the employees’usage. An indication of this wass interviewee G prioritizing implementing improvementsover registering them. Because of this, he believed that the center was implementing moresuggestions than shown in the measurements. This could suggest that the intervieweehad a picture of C2 being an administrative tool rather than a tool which supports thecontinuous improvement process. The under-utilization of C2 could result in a loss ofpotential improvements in the organization, as it is used as an inspirational database. Itcan therefore be considered as "untapped competence" which is one of the eight deadly

53


wastes (Hicks, 2007; Santos et al., 2006). An understanding for why the PDCA based ITtool is used and its benefits, can therefore act as an enabler for continuous improvementactivities such as giving, implementing, and following up suggestions.

The employees’ view of C2’s usability was also examined. The overall opinion at bothcenters was that the IT tool was easy to use and understand. The only remark they haswas that the search function could become better. Since the interviewees’ view of the ITtools usability was very similar, no conclusions could be made about its impact.

6.12 The Support of a PDCA Cylce Based InformationTechnology Tool

System C2 supported the centers in structuring their improvement process. As C2 is builtaccording to the PDCA cycle, it reinforced the employees to follow it. It is advantageousto follow the PDCA cycle since it provides a standardized model for the improvementprocess (Bell, 2006) and makes it easy to understand and measure (Berger, 1997). Usingan IT tool which provides this structure, does not require the employees to have anyprevious knowledge about it. This can be an advantageous in an organization wherethe level of knowledge is not high. At the same time the IT tool can help these types oforganizations to educate their employees, since an understanding of the cycle is developedwhile using it. This advantage of increased competencies, is also found by Hambach et al.(2017).

Another way which System C2 supported the centers improvement structure, was byproviding them with a tool to handle all the employee suggestions. Paper based infor-mation has traditionally flown between functions (Miraz et al., 2016). This setup, whichis used in the Kallhäll center, requires extra movement of employees, waiting, and extraprocessing which all are wastes (Hicks, 2007; Santos et al., 2006). In the Västerås center,they had removed these types of wastes by using an QR code to enable employees, whodo not have a C2 account, to give suggestions. During 2017, the center received 1941suggestions. According to the warehouse manager at Västerås, C2 had provided themwith a structure, which enabled them to handle this quantity. This was supported byinterviewee C, who expressed that C2 ensured that cases did not get lost, which couldhappen if they were written on paper. It also contributed to make employees independentof location, which is discussed earlier in section 6.3.

All the centers’ suggestions were registered and administered in System C2. This enabledthe center to export statistics, which were used for following up their improvement initia-tives. This ability to measure is important to facilitate successful and sustainable change(Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012) and therefore a valuable support to the organization’s workwith improvements. System C2 therefore supported the center by providing the centerwith statistics to follow up their improvement initiatives.

System C2 supported the logistics centers in several ways when it came to communication;it enabled employees to post suggestions independently of their location, to assign casesto desired recipients, provide feedback, and notify employees about passed and upcomingdeadlines. Since an important part of continuous improvement is to have informationavailable at the right time, in the right place, and in the right format (Bell, 2006),

54


System C2 helped the center to facilitate this process. It also increased the transparencyof the organization since it allowed users to follow cases throughout the entire process.This advantage of transparency has also been identified in previous research carried outby Hambach et al. (2017). By gathering all suggestion in one place, it made it possiblefor employees to use C2 as a database to look at previously implemented suggestions forinspiration. By giving employees access to information about other improvements, whichthey had not access to earlier, awareness can be created in organizations Beckett et al.(2000). The awareness was identified in the interviews as the interviewees explained thatthey looked at cases implemented in other work streams to find cases which was applicableto their own. Some of the interviewees even had the possibility to search for improvementinitiatives at other centers, which they used to look for initiatives which they could applyto their own center.

6.13 Summary

When comparing the gathered empiric data from the centers, it is found that level ofknowledge and understanding for C2 and continuous improvement was higher at theVästerås center. The center in Västerås had also managed to integrate the work withcontinuous improvement better into their daily operations and managers at all levelssupported their employees’ work with improvement activities by providing them with therequired time, resources, and encouragement.

Both centers had a set goal for the amount of posted, implemented, and followed upimprovement suggestions. However, the Västerås center had managed to communicateand follow up this target to a greater extent than the Kallhäll center. Furthermore,the Västerås center had managed to involve the employees better in the improvementactivities. People from all levels were involved in all stages of the continuous improve-ment process and received feedback on their improvement suggestions. Employees werealso provided with examples of successful improvement projects and was provided witha clear structure for posting suggestions which was independent of their geographicallocation.

The PDCA cycle based IT tool provided the centers with a structure which enabledthem to handle a large amount of improvement suggestions and forced the employees towork according to the PDCA cycle. The tool also provided the centers with statisticsand acted as a database where posted, implemented, and followed up suggestions weregathered.

The IT tool facilitated the communication at the centers. It enabled employees to postsuggestions independent of their location, notified users when deadlines passed, and madeit possible for employees to assign cases to desired recipient and provide the creator ofthe case with feedback.

This study combined two research areas; enablers of implementing continuous improve-ment, and enablers of implementing information technology tools. This is a combinationwhich has not previously been explored to a greater extent in academia. The resultsof this study’s analysis confirms that the previously identified enablers for each field isapplicable when combined at a logistics center where a PDCA cycle based IT tool is used

55


to work with continuous improvement.

When evaluating the support which a PDCA cycle based IT tool provides a logisticscenter when working with continuous improvement, it is found that the identified factorsare previously identified enablers for continuous improvement. It can therefore also beconcluded that the usage of an IT tool also could act as an enabler when working withcontinuous improvement.

56

Chapter 7

Conclusion

Firstly, this chapter present the conclusions of this study by answering the two researchquestions. Secondly, the implications are discussed from two perspectives; theoretical andpractical. After this, a short discussion about sustainability is presented. Lastly, thelimitations of this study are discussed and suggestions given about future research.

7.1 Research Question One

To answer the research question "What factors enable employees to post, implement, andfollow up improvement suggestions in a logistics center, where a PDCA cycle based IT toolis used?", a comparative study was carried out at two logistic centers, where they used thePDCA cycle based IT tool C2 to support their work with continuous improvement. Oneof the centers, the center in Västerås, had more employee suggestions, implementations,and follow ups than the other. By conducting four interviews with different positions ateach center, and then comparing the interviewees’ answers, eleven factors were identifiedas enablers.

This study identified the following factors as enablers for employees to post, implement,and follow up suggestions at a logistics center when using a PDCA based IT tool:

1. Have a well-developed understanding of why the organization works with continuousimprovement, the benefits, and the tools used

2. Consider continuous improvement as a long-term commitment and integrating it tothe organizations operations

3. Provide employees with a clear structure for posting suggestions, which is indepen-dent of location

4. Provide employees with feedback regarding their suggestions, especially if they arediscontinued

5. Continuously give employees examples of successful improvement implementations

6. Set a clear goal for the amount of posted, implemented, and followed up sugges-tions, which is continuously followed up and communicated throughout the entireorganization

7. Have a committed management team, which leads by example, prioritizes continu-ous improvement, and demands that the entire organization to works with it

57

CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION A. HEYDARI

8. Have a leadership culture, where improvement initiatives are requested and supportin the form of resources, guidance, and encouragement by managers at all levels

9. Provide employees with sufficient resources to enable them to post, implement, andfollow up suggestions as well as using the IT tool

10. Involve employees at all levels, in all stages, of the continuous improvement process

11. Have a well-developed understanding of why the IT tool is used and its benefits

7.2 Research Question Two

To answer the research question "How does a PDCA cycle based IT tool support alogistics center when working with continuous improvement?", the gathered qualitativedata was analyzed with the aim to identify how the PDCA based IT tool, System C2,supports the centers. Both centers use the IT tool with the same intent; to process alltheir employee suggestions. This study identified seven ways in which a PDCA cyclebased IT tool supports a logistics center with their continuous improvement effort.

This study found that the PDCA based IT tool:

1. Provides a structure, which forces the users to work according to the PDCA cycle

2. Provides a structure, which enables processing of a large amount of suggestions

3. Gathers and compiles statistics

4. Enables employees to post suggestions easily and independently of their location

5. Facilitates internal communication by enabling users to assign cases to desired re-cipient and providing feedback

6. Drives improvement projects forward by notifying users about upcoming and passeddeadlines

7. Provides a database of ongoing, discontinued, and implemented suggestions

7.3 Implications

In this section, the implications of this study are discussed from two perspectives; theo-retical and practical. As this study was carried out at a logistics center, it is mainly ap-plicable within this area. However, many industrial production sites have similar settingsand therefore this study could also be relevant for organizations within that field.

7.3.1 Theoretical

The contribution of this study lays within the fields of continuous improvement andinformation technology. Extensive research has previously been done within both fields,but there seems to be a gap in the research within the combination of the two topics.

58


This research paper therefore aimed to address this gap. By investigating logistics centers,which use a PDCA cycle based IT tool to facilitate continuous improvement, an additionalperspective is given to the field of research, which according to Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005)and Suàrez-Barraza et al. (2011) is required.

Firstly, this paper identified factors, which enables posting, implementing, and followingup employee suggestions in a context where a PDCA cycle based IT tool is used. Enablersand inhibitors for implementing continuous improvement have earlier been investigated byseveral researchers. However, enablers of an logistics center using an PDCA cycle basedIT tool to work with continuous improvement has not been studied to a great extent. Thispaper therefore contributes with an additional insight to this under-explored research fieldand could work as a foundation for future research within the area.

Secondly, this paper identifies how an IT tool based on the PDCA cycle can support alogistics center in working with continuous improvement. This is an additional researcharea, which has not been explored to a great extent, but is highly relevant since moreprocesses are becoming digitalized and the continuous improvement process is not anexception (Rosenzweig, 2015). This study could therefore act as a starting point forfuture studies.

7.3.2 Practical

Many companies implement continuous improvement to stay competitive and gain marketshare. To facilitate the continuous improvement process, companies use PDCA cyclebased IT tools. For these companies, this study is highly relevant since factors for enablingemployee suggestion, implementation, and follow up are identified in this context andcould be used as a pointer. This insight could both benefit them in the implementationphase, where a culture supporting these factors could be built, and in a later phase,where this study could give logistics centers an insight to how they could improve theirprocesses.

Furthermore, this paper identifies how a PDCA cycle based IT tool can support a logisticscenter when working with continuous improvement. For companies, who do not have anIT tool, this study could give an insight to how they could benefit from implementingone. Also, companies who are currently using a PDCA based IT tool could use this studyas an benchmark for evaluating if they are using its full potential.

7.4 Discussion about Sustainability

According to Longoni (2014), there are three different dimensions of sustainability; social,environmental, and economical. This model is called "The Triple Bottom Line" and isused to define sustainable development to ensure the health of humans and the planet(Longoni, 2014).

This paper provides an insight to how logistics centers can enable continuous improvementwhen using a PDCA cycle based IT tool. These insights can, as discussed earlier, provideorganizations with guidelines to how to implement continuous improvement to a greater

59


extent and thus, gain more benefits. The main purpose of continuous improvement is toremove waste without making large investments (Hicks, 2007). By removing companywaste in the form of overproduction, transportation, and defects, the amount of resourcesand greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. As a result, environmental sustainability isfostered.

Continuous improvement also facilitate an environment for workers where important fac-tors such as safety, employee health, and ergonomics are taken into consideration. Italso enables workers to influence their workplace. These are all factors contributing to asocial sustainability. Furthermore, economical sustainability is supported by continuousimprovement since it enables economic growth without having a negative impact on thesocial and environmental sustainability. It can therefore be concluded that by provingan insight to how continuous improvement can be facilitated to a greater extent in alogistics center, this study can contribut to facilitating a more sustainable developmentfor organizations.

7.5 Limitations and Future Research

To answer the research questions, two logistics centers in Sweden were studied. Sinceonly two centers were included in this study, the identified results might be specific forthem and not applicable to logistics centers in general. This could also have contributedto missed aspects which apply elsewhere.

Developing continuous improvement processes, which are well adjusted to the company’sprocesses, is identified as an enabler (Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012). This might affect howthe IT tool is used in different company settings. Since logistics centers within the samecompany was compared in this study, they both had similar cultures and continuousimprovement processes. Other companies, that have different cultures and continuousimprovement processes, could therefore have different enablers when using a PDCA cyclebased IT tool. The fact that only one company was investigated in this study couldtherefore be considered to be a limitation.

Furthermore, only four people from each center were interviewed in this study. Hence,this study only took one persons’ view into account for each position when evaluating andcomparing the centers. Additionally, the interviewees were chosen by the change leadersand not at random. This limitation is another factor, which might have contributed toa view which is not shared by the average person within at each position and since themost committed employees might have been selected.

Another limitation is that only one type of IT tool, C2, was evaluated. This could havecaused the results to apply on organizations using C2. The results of this study couldtherefore also have missed aspects, which might apply when using another PDCA cyclebased IT tool.

To address these limitations, further research should be carried out within this field.Firstly, the identified factors in this study must be evaluated at more centers to determineif they apply to a larger extent, or are specific for the studied centers. By evaluatingdifferent centers with different company cultures, more aspects might also be identified.Secondly, the identified results should also be evaluated in settings that are different from

60


a logistics center to investigate if they are applicable in a different context. During thesestudies, more interviews should be carried out to ensure that a more holistic perspectiveof each center is given

As this study only looked at one PDCA cycle based IT tool, more research is neededabout other PDCA cycle based IT tools to generalize the findings.

Finally, since this study includes a PDCA cycle based IT tool, further research about en-ablers in organizations using different type of IT tools are required to provide the researchfield with additional angles. IT tools based on other types of continuous improvementmethodology, or a combination of them, would be of interest.

61

Bibliography

Joakim Ahlström. Book highlight—sustaining the continuous improvement culture andthe five cultural pitfalls preventing you from succeeding. Global Business and Organi-zational Excellence, 34(5):62–72, July 2015. ISSN 1932-2054.

Alan J Beckett, Charles E.R Wainwright, and David Bance. Implementing an indus-trial continuous improvement system: a knowledge management case study. IndustrialManagement Data Systems, 100(7):330–338, October 2000. ISSN 0263-5577.

Steve Bell. Lean enterprise systems using IT for continuous improvement. Wiley Seriesin Systems Engineering and Management. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2006. ISBN 1-280-23564-0.

Anders Berger. Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizationaldesigns. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 8(2):110–117, April 1997. ISSN 0957-6061.

John Bessant and Sarah Caffyn. High-involvement innovation through continuous im-provement. International Journal of Technology Management - INT J TECHNOLMANAGE, 14, 01 1997.

John Bessant, Sarah Caffyn, and Maeve Gallagher. An evolutionary model of continuousimprovement behaviour. Technovation, 21(2):67 – 77, 2001. ISSN 0166-4972. URLhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497200000237.

Nadia Bhuiyan and Amit Baghel. An overview of continuous improvement: from the pastto the present. Management Decision, 43(5):761–771, June 2005. ISSN 0025-1747.

Pär Blomkvist. Method for engineering students : degree projects using the 4-phase model.Studentlitteratur, Lund, first edition, 2015. ISBN 9789144095554.

Bakhta Boukhatem, Said Kenai, Arezki Tagnit-Hamou, and Mohamed Ghrici. Applica-tion of new information technology on concrete: an overview. Journal of Civil Engi-neering and Management, 17(2):248–258, June 2011. ISSN 1392-3730.

Francisco Castillo. Managing information technology. Springer International Publishing,first edition, 2016. ISBN 3-319-38891-6.

J. Christensen. Digital Business: in The Digital Age. Books on Demand, 2015. ISBN9788771454901. URL https://books.google.se/books?id=wCnYBgAAQBAJ.

Martyn Denscombe. The Good Research Guide: For small-scale social research projects.McGraw-Hill, New York, 2010. ISBN 9780335241392.

Jorge Luis Garcia-Alcaraz, Aide Aracely Maldonado Macias, and Midiala Oropesa-Vento.Kaizen Planning, Implementing and Controlling. Springer International PublishingAG, 2016. ISBN 9783319477473.

Julio J. Garcia-Sabater, Juan A. Marin-Garcia, and M. Rosario Perello-Marin. Is imple-mentation of continuous improvement possible? an evolutionary model of enablers and

62

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497200000237

https://books.google.se/books?id=wCnYBgAAQBAJ

BIBLIOGRAPHY A. HEYDARI

inhibitors. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing Service Industries, 22(2):99–112, 2012. ISSN 1520-6564. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20262.

Chris Grey. A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About StydingOrganizations. SAGE Publications Ltd, third edition, 2013. ISBN 978-1-4462-0737-6.

Marla C. Haims and Pascale Carayon. Theory and practice for the implementation of’in-house’, continuous improvement participatory ergonomic programs. Applied Er-gonomics, 29(6):461 – 472, 1998. ISSN 0003-6870. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000368709800012X.

J. Hambach, K. Kummel, and J. Metternich. Development of a digital continuous im-provement system for production. Procedia CIRP, 63:330 – 335, 2017. ISSN 2212-8271.URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212827117302329.Manufacturing Systems 4.0 - Proceedings of the 50th CIRP Conference on Manufac-turing Systems.

B.J. Hicks. Lean information management: Understanding and eliminating waste. Inter-national Journal of Information Management, 27(4):233 – 249, 2007. ISSN 0268-4012.URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401206001435.

ICA. Ica gruppen in breif. 2018a. URL https://www.icagruppen.se/en/about-ica-gruppen/#!/lb//en/about-ica-gruppen/start/ica-gruppen-in-brief/.

ICA. Ica sweden - the leading grocery retailer in sweden. 2018b. URL https://www.icagruppen.se/en/about-ica-gruppen/#!/lb//en/about-ica-gruppen/our-operations/ica-sweden/.

Interview. Interview with business developer at ica, 2018-03-27.

Popa Ioan, Belu Mihaela Gabriela, and Paraschiv Dorel Mihai. Global logistics , compet-itiveness and the new incoterms. Annals of the University of Oradea: Economic Sci-ence, 22(1):159–166, July 2013. ISSN 1222-569X. URL https://doaj.org/article/9386e4b9b5664696a955a34e18c35492.

Thomas S. Khun. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Thales, second extendededition, 2009. ISBN 978-9172350779.

Marco Lam, Mark O’Donnell, and Dan Robertson. Achieving employee commitment forcontinuous improvement initiatives. International Journal of Operations ProductionManagement, 35(2):201–215, February 2015. ISSN 0144-3577.

Annachiara Longoni. Operations Strategies and Triple Bottom Line. Springer Interna-tional Publishing, Cham, 2014. ISBN 978-3-319-06352-2. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06352-2_1.

Mahadi Hasan Miraz, Md. Mamun Habib, and Mohammad Shahansha Molla. Anoverview of information technology tools implementation in supply chain management.IETI Transactions on Computers, 2(2):110–117, June 2016. ISSN 2414-1429. URLhttps://doaj.org/article/d984d55b1ab64952ba6128b757110692.

Jenny Preece. Interaction design : beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, NewYork, 2002. ISBN 0-471-49278-7.

63

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20262

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000368709800012X

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000368709800012X



https://www.icagruppen.se/en/about-ica-gruppen/#!/lb//en/about-ica-gruppen/start/ica-gruppen-in-brief/



https://www.icagruppen.se/en/about-ica-gruppen/#!/lb//en/about-ica-gruppen/our-operations/ica-sweden/



https://doaj.org/article/9386e4b9b5664696a955a34e18c35492

https://doaj.org/article/9386e4b9b5664696a955a34e18c35492

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06352-2_1

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06352-2_1

https://doaj.org/article/d984d55b1ab64952ba6128b757110692

BIBLIOGRAPHY A. HEYDARI

Colin Robson. Real world research : a resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Blackwell, Oxford, second edition, 2002. ISBN 0-631-21304-X.

Elizabeth Rosenzweig. Morgan Kaufmann, Boston, 2015. ISBN 978-0-12-800985-7. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128009857099907.

Javier Santos, Richard Wysk, and José Manuel Torres. Continuous Improvement Tools.John Wiley Sons, Inc., 2006. ISBN 9781118984031. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118984031.ch1.

Alexander Styhre. Kaizen, ethics, and care of the operations: Management after em-powerment. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6):795–810, September 2001. ISSN0022-2380.

Manuel F Suàrez-Barraza, Juan Ramis-Pujol, and Laoucine Kerbache. Thoughts onkaizen and its evolution. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 2(4):288–308,November 2011. ISSN 2040-4166.

Juan José Tarí, José F. Molina-Azorín, Jorge Pereira-Moliner, María D. López-Gamero,and Eva M. Pertusa-Ortega. Quality Management and Performance in the Hotel In-dustry: A Literature Review. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014. ISBN978-3-319-06453-6.

Anna Ujwary-Gil. Business and Non-Profit Organization Facing Increased Competitionand Growing Customers’ Demands (Vol. 11). Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu - National-LouisUniversity, 2012. ISBN 9788388421808. URL https://books.google.se/books?id=uzy--q8qaZwC.

Gary A. Yukl. Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, N.J.; Harlow, seventh edition, 2010. ISBN 0-13-815714-6.

64

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128009857099907

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118984031.ch1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118984031.ch1

https://books.google.se/books?id=uzy--q8qaZwC

https://books.google.se/books?id=uzy--q8qaZwC

Appendix A

Pilot Study Interview Questions

• Vad är din titel och vad arbetar du med? | What is your titel and what do youwork with?

• Hur länge har du jobbat på ICA och i din roll? | For how long have you worked atICA and at your current position?

A.1 First Interview Block

• Vad arbetar du med och vad är ditt ansvarsområden? | What do you work withand what are your responsibilities?

• Hur länge har du arbetat på ICA? | For how long have you worked at ICA?

• Vad är ständiga förbättringar för ICA? | What is continuous improvement for ICA?

• Berätta hur lite kort om de olika centren. | Tell me breifly about the differentcenters.

• Hur länge har respektive center arbetat med System C2 och ständiga förbättringar?| For how long has each center worked with System C2 and continuous improvement?

• Hur introducerades System C2 och ständiga förbättringar till respektive center? |How was System C2 and continuous improvement introduced to each center?

• Följde det någon speciell struktur eller arbetade man lite hur som helst? | Did theimplementation follow a certain structure?

• Skiljde sig implementeringsprocessen på respektive center? | How did the imple-mentation process differ between the centers?

• Hur arbetar ni med att främja ständiga förbättringar? | How do you work withenabling continuous improvement?

• Har du märkt några märkbara skillnader på respektive center? (Attityd, arbetssätt,motivation) | Have you noticed any difference between the centers? (Attitude, howthey work, motivation)

• Hur arbetar ni med att motivera medarbetare till att arbeta med System C2 ochständiga förbättringar? | How do you motivate employees to work with System C2and continuous improvement?

65

APPENDIX A. PILOT STUDY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS A. HEYDARI

A.2 Second Interview Block

• Hur arbetar respektive logistikcenter med ständiga förbättringar och System C2? |How does each logistics center work with continuous improvement and System C2?

• Varför arbetar ni på ICA med System C2 och ständiga förbättringar? | Why doesICA work with continuous improvement and System C2?

• Vad är din vision för arbetet med ständiga förbättringar? | What is your vision forworking with continuous improvement?

• Hur används System C2 på era center och varför? | How do you use System C2 atthe centers?

• Hur användarvänligt anser anställda att System C2 är? | What do you think aboutthe usability of System C2?

• Vad tycker du är utmaningar när man jobbar med System C2 och ständiga för-bättringar? | What are the challanges of working with System C2 and continuousimprovement?

• Hur ser introduktion och utbildningsprocessen för nyanställda ut gällande använ-dandet av System C2 och ständiga förbättringar? | How are employees introducedand educated in the usage of System C2 and continuous improvement?

• Hur ser strukturen ut för att arbeta med System C2 och ständiga förbättringar? |What are the structures for working with C2 and continuous improvement?

• Mäter ni ert arbete med System C2 och ständiga förbättringar? Hur? Uppföljn-ing? Uppsatta mål? | Do you measure your work with System C2 and continuousimprovement? How? Follow up? Set targets?

• Hur arbetar cheferna med ständiga förbättringar och System C2? | How do man-agers work with continuos improvements and System C2?

• Hur allokeras tid och resurser för att arbeta med System C2 och ständiga för-bättringar? | How is time and resources allocated to work with System C2 andcontinuous improvement?

• Hur stödjer chefer arbetet med System C2 och ständiga förbättringar? | How domangagers support the work with System C2 and continuous improvement?

• Hur uppmuntrar/motiverar chefer medarbetare att arbeta med System C2 ochständiga förbättringar? | How do managers encourage/motivate employees to workwith System C2 and continuous improvement?

• Kan du berätta om en förbättring som har implementerats och vad resultatet avden var? | Can you tell me about an improvement which has been implementedand what the results of the implementation was?

66

Appendix B

Qualitative Interview Questions

• Vad är din titel och vad arbetar du med? | What is your titel and what do youwork with?

• Hur länge har du jobbat på ICA och i din roll? | For how long have you worked atICA and at your current position?

B.1 First Block

• Hur du arbetar med ständiga förbättringar i ditt dagliga arbete? | How do youwork with continuous improvement in your daily job?

• Varför arbetar ni på ICA logistik med ständiga förbättringar? | Why do ICAlogistics work with continuous improvement?

• Vad är ICA logistiks strategi kring ständiga förbättringar och hur kommunicerasden? | What is ICA logistics strategy regardig continuous improvement and how isit communicated?

• På vilket sätt bidrar ständiga förbättringar till er verksamhet? | How does contin-uous improvement contribute to the organization?

• Berätta om vilken utbildning du har fått inom ständiga förbättringar och dess ef-fekter? | Tell me about how you have been educated about continuous improvementand its effects?

• Mäter ni ert arbete med ständiga förbättringar? Uppföljning? Uppsatta mål? | Doyou measure the work you do with continuous improvement? How is it followedup? Is there a set target?

• Kan du berätta om ett förbättringsförslag som har implementerats här i Västerås/Kallhälloch vad resultatet av den var? | Can you tell be about an improvement suggestionwhich has been implemented in Västerås/Kallhäll and what the results were?

• Hur arbetar ledningen med ständiga förbättringar? | How does the managementwork with continuous improvement?

67

APPENDIX B. QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS A. HEYDARI

B.2 Second Block

• Hur du arbetar med System C2 i ditt dagliga arbete? | How do you work withSystem C2 in your daily job?

• Varför använder ni System C2? | Why do you use System C2?

• På vilket sätt stödjer System C2 er verksamhet? | How does System C2 supportyour organization?

• Hur användarvänlig anser du att System C2 är? | What do you think about SystemC2’s usability?

• Hur introducerades du till System C2? | How were you introduced to System C2?

• Finns det någon uppsatt struktur kring hur System C2 och ständiga förbättringar?| Is there a set structure around how to work with System C2 and continuousimprovement?

• Hur får du återkoppling till dina förbättringsförslag? | How do you recive feedbackregardig your improvement suggestions?

B.3 Third Block

• Vad tycker du är utmaningar när man jobbar med System C2 och ständiga förbät-tringar? | What do you think are the main challanges when working with SystemC2 and continuous improvement?

• Hur arbetar din chef med ständiga förbättringar och System C2? | How doeas yourmanager work with continuous improvement and System C2?

• Hur stödjer din chef ditt arbete med System C2 och ständiga förbättringar? | Howdoes your manager support your work with System C2 and continuous improve-ment?

• Hur mycket tid och resurser får du för att arbeta med System C2 och ständigaförbättringar? | How much time and resources do you get to work with System C2and continuous improvement?

• Hur uppmuntrar din chef dig till att registrera förslag i System C2? | How doesyour manager encourage you to register suggestions i System C2?

• Hur uppmärksammar ni bra förbättringar? | How do you highlight good improve-ments?

68

Appendix C

Translated Quotes

Quote 1:

"It is a part of our DNA" - Interviewee A

Translated from

"En del i vårt DNA"

Quote 2:

"It is surprising how easy it is to register a new case in regards to how rarelyI do it" - Interviewee B

Translated from

"Med tanke på att jag inte är inne så ofta så är det förvånansvärt lätt attanvända det"

Quote 3:

"All wastes cannot be eliminated, but they can be reduced every day" - In-terviewee D

Translated from

"Alla slöserier går inte att få bort men, vi kan försöka bli lite bättre varjedag."

Quote 4:

"10 out of 10, not hard at all" - Interviewee C

Translated from

"10 av 10, inte svårt någonstans"

69

APPENDIX C. TRANSLATED QUOTES A. HEYDARI

Quote 5:

"I would say that they are extremely committed. They are very skillful,they require it, and have really understood the importance of working withcontinuous improvement to develop the operations. It is a key factor in this."- Interviewee D

Translated from

"Extremt engagerade skulle jag säga. De är otroligt drivna, otroligt duktiga,efterfrågar det, och har verkligen tagit det till sig och förstår sig på vikten avatt jobba med ständiga förbättringar för att utveckla verksamheten. De ärhelt klart en nyckel i det här"

Quote 6:

"I believe that if the management is committed to working with this [contin-uous improvement], it will spread all the way down. This is the foundation.That it starts in the management and then is spread. This creates commit-ment." - Interviewee D

Translated from

"Jag tror att får du ett engagemang från ledningen som smittar av sig helavägen som vill jobba med de här sakerna, det är grunden. Att det börjar iledningen och sedan rullar vidare. Det skapar engagemang."

Quote 7:

"scratching their ego is always good" - Interviewee D

Translated from

"klia lite på deras ego är alltid bra""

Quote 8:

"If you see something that does not work, you should act. Especially if it hasto do with safety" - Interviewee F

Translated from

"Ser man saker som inte funkar så bör man agera på det. Inte minst vidsäkerhetsmässiga skäl"

Quote 9:

"I am unfortunately the project manager for many projects right now, whichis not a part of my role. Itis a question about resources and knowledge. Due to

70


this we are now educating group managers and warehouse manager to makethem feel more comfortable driving projects.It is not my place to manageprojects" - Interviewee H

Translated from

"Tyvärr så driver jag, projektleder jag många projekt just nu vilket egentligeninte är min roll. Men det är en resursfråga och kompetensfråga. Det ärdärför vi har påbörjat utbildningsinsatsen för att gruppchefer och lagercheferska känna sig trygga att driva projekt istället. Det är inte min uppgift attprojektleda""

Quote 10:

"It is not something they would share with me" - Interviewee E

Translated from

"Det är ingenting jag får ta del av"

Quote 11:

"It is a procurement we have done and it helps us to structure to process" -Interviewee F

Translated from

"Det är väl en upphandling vi har gjort och ger oss också koll på vad vi gör"

Quote 12:

"hard to fail" - Interviewee G

Translated from

"Svårt att misslyckas"

Quote 13:

"I do not know why ICA has chosen to work with C2. But I know why Ilike C2. It gives us a structure. Suggestions are not lost, we get reminders ofdeadlines, and it provides us with a database of all suggestions for inspiration.Everything is gathered at the same place which makes it easy." - IntervieweeH

Translated from

"Jag vet inte varför ICA har valt C2. Men varför jag gillar C2 är för att vi fårdet strukturerer, tappar inte bort förslag, får påminnelse, inspirationsbank,allt är samlat på samma ställe, lätt att följa upp."

71


Quote 14:

"To be honest, not at all" - Interviewee E

Translated from

"Ska jag vara ärlig så absolut ingenting"

Quote 15:

"You are definitely interviewing one of the most engaged person here" - In-terviewee E

Translated from

"Du har garanterat fått en av de mest engagerade att intervjua"

Quote 16:

"It feels like it [continuous improvement] is not a big priority here" - Inter-viewee F

Translated from

"Känns inte som att det är så stor prioritet här"

Quote 17:

"We have more things to work with than continuous improvement, like qual-ity" - Interviewee G

Translated from

"Jobbar inte bara med ständiga förbättringar, vi jobbar även med kvalitet"

Quote 18:

"The management are almost the worst [at working with continuous improve-ment]. It is something I work with very much, to make the managementrequest it, and work with it themselves. The management needs to lead theway. Show everyone how it is supposed to work and how we want to work.Otherwise it will never work. And I believe that we are becoming better atit. We use the right tools and work in the way we want; not having old C2’shanging, but taking care of them, and providing feedback." - Interviewee H

Translated from

"Ledningen är nästan sämst. Det är något jag jobba jättemycket med attfå ledningen att efterfråga och själva efterleva som de lär. Vi måste visa iledningen, vi måste visa vägen, hur det ska gå till och hur vi vill. Annars

72


kommer det aldrig att gå vägen. Och det tycker jag är på gång mer och mer.Vi använder rätt verktyg och jobbar på det sättet vi vill göra. Att inte hamassa gamla C2s själva utan ta hand om det vi har fått och återkopplar."

Quote 19:

"Not at all, it is the opposite" - Interviewee H

Translated from

"Inte alls, det är snarare tvärtom"

Quote 20:

"No, that is something the changeleader is in charge of" - Interviewee F

Translated from

"Det är förändringsledaren som är ansvarig för det."

Quote 21:

"We reached the goal for amount of improvements suggestions, but I do notthink we reached the goal for amount of implemented improvements" - Inter-viewee G

Translated from

"Förra året nådde de målet för inlämnade. Men tror inte att de lyckades medantalet genomförda."

73

www.kth.se

Documents

Enablers of Continuous Improvement When Using a PDCA Cycle ...kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1258906/FULLTEXT01.pdf · INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT AND THE MAIN FIELD