Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing an implementation capacity: justifications from prior research

  • Theoretical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Implementing innovative operational research solutions into organizations can be messy. Pragmatic inquiry suggests the first step in dissolving a mess is to determine the mindset, or set of concepts, that will be used by decision makers to inform their day to day choice of activities. Van de Ven and Poole reviewed much of the organizational change literature and identified four reasons why change occurs. They labelled them, life cycle, evolution, teleology and dialectic. It would seem logical to suggest that any attempt to make sense of the mess of implementation needs to span these four reasons. However, these reasons need to be operationalized into a mindset for implementers. To do this, the management implementation literature was reviewed under each of these reasons. The result is a justification of four concepts that can create a mindset likely to improve the implementation capacity of organizations. This mindset is that organizations make greater use of ‘champions’ ‘continuous improvement’ ‘job rotation’ and ‘debate’ over alternative activities. Exactly how so, is for individual organizations to interpret.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdel-Maksoud A (2004). Manufacturing in the UK: Contemporary characteristics and performance indicators. J Manuf Technol Mngt 15(2): 155–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff RL (1967). Management misinformation systems. Mngt Sci 14(4): 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiman-Smith LD (1996). New technology implementation into manufacturing: Technology characteristics, training, group processes, organizational support and individual learning. Purdue University: Indiana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiman-Smith L (2002). Implementing new manufacturing technology: The related effects of technology characteristics and user learning activities. Acad Mngt J 45(2): 421–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleyard M and Kalsow GA (1999). Knowledge diffusion in the semiconductor industry. J Knowledge Mngt 3(4): 288–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C and Schön D (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison Wesley: Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamber C, Sharp J and Hides M (1999). Factors affecting successful implementation of total productive maintenance. J Qual Maintenance Eng 5(3): 162–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty C and Gordon J (1991). Preaching the gospel: The evangelists of new technology. Calif Mngt Rev 33: 73–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson KJ (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Admin Sci Quart 22: 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessant J (1993). The lessons of failure: Learning to manage new manufacturing technology. Int J Technol Mngt 8(3): 197–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessant J (1998). Developing continuous improvement capability. Int J Innovation Mngt 2(4): 409–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessant J and Francis D (1999). Developing strategic continuous improvement capability. Int J Opns Prod Mngt 19(11): 1106–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhutta K and Huq F (1999). Benchmarking – best practices: An integrated approach. Benchmarking: An Int J 6(3): 254–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bititci U, Carrie AS and McDevitt L (1997). Integrated performance measurement systems: A development guide. Int J Opns Prod Mngt 17(5): 46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braglia M and Petroni A (1999). Shortcomings and benefits associated with the implementation of MRP packages: A survey research. Logistics Inform Mngt 12(6): 428–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caffyn S (2000). Development of a continuous improvement self assessment tool. Int J Opns Prod Mngt 19(11): 1138–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caffyn S and Silano M (2000). Continuous improvement in the UK. In: Boer H., Berger A., Chapman R. and Gersten F. (eds). CI Changes; from Suggestion Box to Organizational Learning. Ashgate: Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrie A, Bell S, Bircumshaw B and Coutts M (2000). Strategic technology management in the Basque Country (The Basque Autonomous Region): 129. Centre for Strategic Manufacturing, University of Strathclyde: Glasgow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew B, Leonard-Barton D and Bohn R (1991). Beating Murphy's law. Sloan Mngt Rev 32(3): 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman CW and Schainblatt AH (1965). The researcher and the manager: A dialectic of implementation. Mngt Sci 11(4): 69–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daghfous A (2004). Organizational learning, knowledge and technology transfer: A case study. Learn Organ 11(1): 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David P (1986). Technology diffusion public policy and industrial competitiveness. In: Rosenburg N. (ed). The Positive Sum Strategy. National Academy of Sciences: Washington DC, pp. 373–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson M (2000). The Management of Technological Innovation. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer JH (2004). Using supplier networks to learn faster. Sloan Mngt Rev 45(3): 63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonson A, Bohmer R and Pisano G (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Admin Sci Quart 46(4): 197–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren FH and Grootendorst R (2003). Pragma-dialectical procedure for a critical discussion. Argumentation 17: 365–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ettlie J (2000). Managing Technological Innovation. Wiley and Sons: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng M, Terziovski M, Samson D (2001). Benefits and key success factors in implementing ISO 9000 certified quality management system. Paper presented at the Quality Innovation Knowledge Conference, Kuala Lumpur.

  • Fernandez P, McCarthy I and Rakotobe-Joel T (2001). An evolutionary approach to benchmarking. Benchmarking: An Int J 8(4): 281–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol C (1996). Squeezing harder doesn't always work. Acad Mngt Rev 21(4): 1012–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster J (2000). Competitive selection, self-organization and Joseph A. Schumpeter. J Evol Econ 10: 311–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frambach R (1993). An integrated model of organizational adoption and diffusion of innovations. Eur J Market 5(22): 22–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold BP and Rosseger (1975). Diffusion of major technological innovations. In: Gold B (ed). Technological Change: Economics, Management and Environment. New York: Pergamon Press.

  • Green SE (2004). A rhetorical theory of diffusion. Acad Mngt Rev 29(4): 653–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haider M and Kreps G (2004). Forty years of diffusion of innovations: Utility and value in public health. J Health Commun 9: 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison N and Samson D (1997). International best practice in the adoption and management of new technology. Department of Industry Science and Tourism: Canberra, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holweg M and Pil F (2004). The Second Century Reconnecting Customer and Value Chain through Build-to Order. MIT Press: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornik R (2004). Some reflections on diffusion theory and the role of Everett Rogers. J Health Commun 9: 143–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hvolby H and Thorstenston A (2001). Indicators for performance measurement in small and medium-sized enterprises. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Institute of Mechanical Engineers.

  • Hyland P, Mellor R and Sloan T (2004). Performance measurement and continuous improvement: Are they linked to manufacturing strategy? Paper presented at the Continuous Improvement Conference, Sydney.

  • Jaikumar R (1986). Post-industrial manufacturing. Harvard Bus Rev 6(6): 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones A (2001). Innovation in Australia's small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Paper presented at the 2nd Arab Forum on Small and Medium Industries, Kuwait.

  • Karpin (1994). Karpin report: Enterprising nation. In: AGPS (ed). Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills. Canberra, Australia.

  • Katzenbach J and Smith D (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Bus Rev 71(2): 111–119 111–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearney AT (1989). CIM: Competitive advantage or technological dead end? Consultant Report. London.

  • Kenney M and Florida R (1993). Beyond Mass Production: The Japanese System and its Transfer to the US. Oxford University Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney M and Florida R (2000). Venture capital in silicon valley. In: Kenney M. (ed). Anatomy of an Innovative Region. Stanford University Press: Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein GA (1989). Recognition primed decisions. In: Rouse W.B. (ed). Advances in Man–Machine Systems Research Vol. 5. JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, pp. 47–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein K and Sorra J (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Acad Mngt Rev 21(4): 1055–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton D and Kraus W (1985). Implementing new technology. Harvard Bus Rev 63(6): 102–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin K (1951). Field Theory and Social Science. Harper & Row: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liker J (2004). The Toyota Way. McGraw Hill: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liker J and Wu Y (2000). Japanese automakers, US suppliers and supply chain superiority. Sloan Mngt Rev 42(1): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • List D and Metcalfe M (2004). Sourcing forecast knowledge using argumentative inquiry. Technol Forecasting Social Change 71: 525–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDuffie JKT (1995). Do US firms invest less in human resources? Training in the world auto industry. Indust Relations 34(2): 147–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin L and Matlay H (2001). ‘Blanket’ approaches to promoting ICT in small firms: Some lessons from the DTI ladder adoption model in the UK. Internet Res: Electron Networking Appl Policy 11(5): 300–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason RO (1996). Commentary on varieties of dialectic change processes. J Mngt Inquiry 5(3): 293–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe M (2008). Pragmatic inquiry. J Opl Res Soc, 59: 1091–1099.

  • Morgan G (1986). Images of Organizations. Sage: California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen RP (1996). Varieties of dialectic change processes. J Mngt Inquiry 5(3): 276–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod R (2006). The history and ideas of pragmatism. J Opl Res Soc 57: 892–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orton JD and Weick EK (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Acad Mngt Rev 15(2): 203–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano G (1996). Learning-before-doing in the development of new process technology. Res Policy 25: 1097–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano G, Bohmer R and Edmonson A (2001). Organizational differences in rates of learning: Evidence from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Mngt Sci 47(6): 752–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter M (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Bus Rev 76(6): 99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray GF (1988). Full circle: The diffusion of technology. Res Policy 18: 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Readman J and Bessant J (2004). What have UK firms learnt about implementing CL? Results of the UK Continuous Improvement Survey 2003. Paper presented at the Continuous Innovation: Strategic Priorities for the Global Knowledge Economy 5th International CINet Conference, 22–25 September, Sydney.

  • Rhodes E and Wield D (1985). Implementing New Technologies. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson M, Townsend J and Pavitt K (1988). Sectoral patterns of production and use of innovations in the UK: 1945–1983. Res Policy 17: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers E (1994). Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn,. Free Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rost K, Holzle K and Gemunden H-G (2007). Promotors or champions. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 59: 340–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachdeva RT, Williams T and Quigley J (2007). Mixing methodologies to enhance the implementation of healthcare operational research. J Opl Res Soc 58(2): 159–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter J (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper and Brothers: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seo MG and Creed DWE (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Acad Mngt Rev 27(2): 222–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sexton C (1994). Self-managed work teams: TQM technology at the employee level. J Organ Change Mngt 7(2): 45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeds R (2001). Implementation of business process innovations: An agenda for research and action. Int J Technol Mngt 22(1): 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sowell T (1985). Marxism. Unwin: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor WA and Wright GH (2002). Achieving sustained performance improvement from TQM: A longitudinal study of UK companies. Paper presented at the Quality Innovation Knowledge Conference, Kuala Lumpur.

  • Terziovski M (2002). Achieving performance excellence through an integrated strategy of radical innovation and continuous improvement. Measuring Bus Excellence 6(2): 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidd J, Bessant J and Pavitt K (2001). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological Market and Organizational Change, 2nd edn,. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twigg D, Voss C and Winch G (1992). Implementing integrated technologies: Developing managerial integration for CAD/CAM. Int J Opns Prod Mngt 12(7/8): 76–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven A and Poole MS (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Acad Mngt Rev 20(3): 510–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hooft S (1999). Socratic dialogue as collegial reasoning. Ethics Justice: An Interdisciplinary Public Affairs J 2(1): 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss C (1984). Research in Production/Operations Management. Gower Publishing: Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss C (1986). Managing advanced manufacturing technology. Paper presented at the Managing Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Warwick, UK.

  • Voss C, Åhlström P and Blackmon K (1997). Benchmarking and operational performance: Some empirical results. Int J Opns Prod Mgnt 17(9/10): 1046–1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage: California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellbourne M, Wardrop M and Bryant K (1994). The Pace of Change: Technology Uptake and Enterprise Improvement. AGPS: Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson B, Dobrovolny J and Lowry M (1998). A Critique of How Technology Adoption Models Get Used. University of Colorado: Denver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Womack JP, Jones DT and Roos D (1991). The Machine that Changed the World: The story of Lean Production. Harper Row: New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North Central University, Prescott Valley, Arizona, USA

    C Martin

  2. University of South Australia, City West Campus, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    M Metcalfe & H Harris

Authors
  1. C Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M Metcalfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M Metcalfe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, C., Metcalfe, M. & Harris, H. Developing an implementation capacity: justifications from prior research. J Oper Res Soc 60, 859–868 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602634

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602634

Keywords

Search

Navigation