• Practice of continuous 1

Practice of continuous 1
Running head: Continuous Improvement
The Practice of Continuous Improvement in Higher Education
Deborah M. Thalner
Western Michigan University
 Practice of continuous 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE .............................................................................................................................................4
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................4
Problems with TQM Efforts to Date ....................................................................................................7
Proposed Research ...............................................................................................................................9
Methods..............................................................................................................................................14
Delimitations ......................................................................................................................................14
Limitations..........................................................................................................................................14
Summary ............................................................................................................................................15
CHAPTER 2..................................................................................................................................................16
Literature Review ...............................................................................................................................16
Continuous Improvement and the Total Quality Management Theory ..............................................16
A Definition of Continuous Improvement..........................................................................................18
Baldrige Criteria ......................................................................................................................19
Benchmarking..........................................................................................................................21
Continuous Quality Improvement Teams ................................................................................21
Balanced Scorecard..................................................................................................................22
Common Components .............................................................................................................24
Why Continuous Improvement for Higher Education? ......................................................................25
Impact on Higher Education...............................................................................................................29
Strategies for Successful Implementation................................................................................30
Perceived Obstacles .................................................................................................................32
Lack of Administrative Support and Leadership. .........................................................33
Faculty resistance..........................................................................................................34
Lack of reward systems.................................................................................................35
Difficulty defining customer and quality. .....................................................................36
Individual-based work...................................................................................................38
Lack of appropriate data collection...............................................................................39
 Practice of continuous 3
Culture. .........................................................................................................................39
Unique Perspective of Michigan Schools...........................................................................................40
Pockets of Change ..............................................................................................................................41
Summary of Literature Review ..........................................................................................................43
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN ..........................................................................................................45
Research Design .................................................................................................................................45
Sample, Population, and Participants .................................................................................................45
Instrumentation...................................................................................................................................46
Data Collection Methods....................................................................................................................48
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................................49
Summary ............................................................................................................................................51
References .....................................................................................................................................................52
Appendix A: Survey Instrument...................................................................................................................61
Appendix B: Research and Survey Questions..............................................................................................76
Appendix C: Email to Participants ...............................................................................................................80
Appendix D: Grouped Variables ..................................................................................................................81
 Practice of continuous 4
The Practice of Continuous Improvement in Higher Education
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
The gauntlet has been thrown. Higher education is being challenged to become
more responsive, effective, and efficient in the same way that American businesses have
been challenged over the past two decades (Alexander, 2000; Cullen, Joyce, Hassall, &
Broadbent, 2003; Downey, 2000). Legislators and the public are concerned about quality
issues and threatening higher education institutions with everything from reduced funding
to required reporting of performance outcomes (Burke, Modarresi, & Serban, 1999;
Granholm, 2004; Harbour, 2002). As a result, these institutions are attempting to
implement many of the same methods for operational and quality improvement that have
worked successfully in business and industry (Birnbaum, 1999; Carey, 1998; Fritz, 1993;
Malaney, 1998; Xue, 1998).
American businesses began using total quality management (TQM) practices in
the early 1980s in response to increasing competition and pressures from customers to
improve product quality (Goetsch & Davis, 1997). TQM has its roots in the studies
conducted by Frederick Taylor in the 1920s focused on standardizing work processes. A
variety of quality improvement methods have been used in the ensuing years and are
considered within the scope of TQM, such as benchmarking, six sigma quality
improvement programs, and the Baldrige National Quality award criteria.
The underlying philosophies and concepts behind TQM are discussed in more
detail in the next chapter; however, it is important at this point to provide a general
description of TQM. Holmes (1996) succinctly describes it as “an administrative
 Practice of continuous 5
approach geared toward long-range success through customer satisfaction” (p. 33). Key
elements include ties to an institutional strategic plan, employee empowerment and
teamwork, continuous process improvements, collaborative work, and the use of a
scientific approach to process analysis. Underlying the entire concept is the philosophy
that improving quality improves customer satisfaction, which in turn improves business
performance (Goetsch & Davis, 1997).
One portion of TQM is called “continuous quality improvement” (CQI), and these
efforts will be the focus of this research. While TQM focuses on quality improvements
in all areas of an organization, CQI may focus on improvement efforts in a single area or
department. For CQI, the timeframe for improvements may be based in months rather
than years, and it does not require all aspects of TQM elements such as being
strategically based or having empowered employees. Although there are distinct
differences, CQI and TQM are often used interchangeably in the literature. For the
purposes of this research, it is simply important for the reader to understand that the basic
concept underscoring both CQI and TQM is using employee teams to proactively review
processes to reduce waste and improve customer satisfaction, rather than reacting to
problems as they occur (Goetsch & Davis, 1997). Customers’ needs change, so the
process is an ongoing one. An important concept championed by Deming (1986), Juran
(1989), and Crosby (1979) is that such continuous improvement efforts can result in
improved product or service quality without jeopardizing production output. This
concept has been embraced by business and has resulted in improved product and service
quality (Baldrige national quality program, n.d.; Goetsch & Davis, 1997; Kaplan &
Norton, 1992). After the success of TQM and CQI in production operations in the 1980s,
 Practice of continuous 6
service sectors and non-profit organizations began using the same concepts to improve
customer satisfaction.
In the 1990s a further step was taken when higher education institutions began to
implement TQM and CQI methods. The National Consortium for Continuous
Improvement in Higher Education (NCCI) lists 63 active university members, indicating
some continuing degree of continuous improvement implementation within its respective
schools (National consortium for continuous improvement in higher education, n.d.). As
an example, the University of Wisconsin-Stout, winner of the 2001 Malcom Baldrige
award, has a continuous improvement process that uses input from three different internal
sources to determine improvement areas (University of Wisconsin-Stout 2001 application
for Malcom Baldrige National Quality award, n.d.). Since 2002, four higher education
institutions in Michigan have used the Michigan Quality Leadership award criteria to
improve their performance (Michigan's best organizations honored for commitment to
quality, 2004; 2002 Michigan quality council awards listing, n.d.)
While there have been success stories of quality improvements within higher
education, others report that the CQI and TQM methods attempted within their higher
education institutions have been reduced in scope or dropped entirely (Baldwin, 2002;
Birnbaum, 1999; Klocinski, 1999). Birnbaum (1999) determined that 41 percent of
higher education institutions which had adopted TQM or CQI later discontinued those
programs. Klocinski (1999) reports that of the 46 higher education institutions
implementing TQM in 1991, only 17 still had TQM processes underway in 1996. These
results were counter-balanced however, by an increase in the overall number of
institutions implementing TQM, from 46 to 155 over the same time period (Klocinski,
 Practice of continuous 7
1999). Birnbaum notes that it is difficult to sift through the various studies, estimates,
and conclusions to find an accurate answer. He does, however, conclude that TQM has
not been maintained as an active process in higher education: “The inflated rhetoric
notwithstanding, the claimed use of TQM/CQI in the academy has been both myth and
illusion” (1999, p. 36).
Problems with TQM Efforts to Date
To date, the studies conducted in higher education institutions have primarily
been on the use of TQM as an institutional initiative (Carey, 1998; Klocinski, 1999;
Noble, 1994; Roopchand, 1997; Sanders, 1993) with recent studies indicating that TQM,
in many cases, has not been successful institution-wide (Baldwin, 2002; Birnbaum,
1999). This apparent lack of success at institution-wide implementation may be
explained by general systems theory, which involves open and loosely coupled
organizations. Higher education institutions have been described as open systems, with
inputs from the external environment requiring responses by the organization (Bush,
1995; Marion, 2002). Higher education institutions are also described as loosely-coupled
organizations, and as such may have built-in difficulties implementing system-wide
improvement processes (Bush, 1995). Loosely coupled systems are those in which
activities in one area will not necessarily impact other areas (Marion, 2002). With a
loosely coupled open system, inputs from the external environment may cause the
institution to react with a corrective action in the form of CQI or TQM, but these actions
might never really take hold in the entire institution. Therefore, while TQM as an
institutional initiative may have disappointing results, CQI might be effective within
departments of a given institution.
 Practice of continuous 8
For example, in her article on the use of CQI in the Psychology Department at
Ursinus College in Pennsylvania, Chambliss (2003) reports that CQI can be an effective
tool within a single department. When surveying personnel in non-academic service
units of one Midwestern university, Fritz (1993) found that most employees perceived
that there were benefits of CQI for their department, and they were open to the use of
Baldrige criteria within their area. Roopchand (1997) reports that within five higher
education institutions studied, TQM efforts were successful within their Continuing
Education departments. While these studies describe success stories for implementing
improvement efforts within one or more departments at an institution, these were
primarily descriptive studies of implementation within an institution, or in one case a
comparison between five institutions.
Beyond the limitations of loosely coupled systems, research to date has identified
other factors that have impacted the implementation of TQM or CQI in higher education.
For example, reluctance by faculty to engage in customer service improvement has
reduced the impact of TQM on higher education institutions (Albert, 2002; Hatfield,
1999; Nixon, Helms, & Williams, 2001; Storey, 2002). Other problems with
implementing TQM or CQI in higher education include a lack of team-based reward
systems (Albert, 2002; Fritz, 1993), the difficulty in defining customer and quality
(Lawrence & Sharma, 2002; Nixon et al., 2001), lack of leadership support (Benson,
2000; Davis, 2000; Xue, 1998), limited collection of appropriate data (Fritz, 1993), lack
of teamwork (Dailey & Bishop, 2003; Munoz, 1999), and overall cultural differences
between higher education and business (Albert, 2002; Birnbaum, 2000; Roopchand,
1997).
 Practice of continuous 9
Overall, there have been few studies on the success of CQI efforts within
individual departments, with most work focused on institutional-wide initiatives of TQM.
Samples sizes in such studies have also been small. A research study, therefore, focused
on department-implemented CQI efforts in all higher education institutions within a
given state would provide more comprehensive data than has been available to date. The
results of this study will allow leaders to draw better conclusions about the value of CQI
efforts within higher education institutions.
Proposed Research
The problem illuminated thus far is one of a perceived need for continuous
improvement in higher education coupled with mixed results from previous attempts at
implementation. This research study will focus on higher education’s use of continuous
improvement methods; however, the focus will be on specific departmental initiatives
(i.e., CQI), rather than on institution-wide implementation (i.e., TQM). A departmental
focus is used to validate prior study findings while expanding the scope to a larger
sample size from which to draw conclusions. The departments chosen will be those that
would be likely to have both internal and external drivers requiring their improved
performance. Internal drivers include those pressures internal to the institution, such as
the desire for improved employee morale or the need to reduce overhead costs. External
factors include issues from outside of the institution, such as pressure from governmental
agencies to improve productivity or pressures from businesses to adopt business
techniques. A departmental focus may reveal that CQI is an ongoing benefit to those
departments in the organization, even though the institution as a whole has not accepted
CQI or TQM. The study will be further focused on three departments within each
 Practice of continuous 10
institution: facilities and grounds services; business affairs; and the department that
provides non-credit training for professionals, businesses, and industry (i.e., lifelong
learning). These departments were chosen for specific reasons in addition to having both
internal and external drivers requiring improved performance. The business affairs
department and the facilities and grounds services department have little to no faculty
involvement, and therefore are not likely to face the internal conflict reported by
academic departments to CQI efforts and terminology. The lifelong learning department
may have some faculty involvement, but not to a significant extent as faculty in many
cases do not report directly to these departments. In addition, the significant amount of
interaction between lifelong learning personnel and business area leaders would be likely
to increase the extent to which the lifelong learning directors feel pressure to adopt CQI
techniques from industry. As a result, all of these departments may be more likely to
have attempted CQI methods, and therefore should be a good source for this research.
Within some higher education institutions lifelong learning has been decentralized. For
example, 16 of Michigan’s community colleges have Michigan Technical Education
Centers (M-TEC) that address business training needs in addition to the training needs
delivered by the traditional lifelong learning department. Other institutions have lifelong
learning centers within the various colleges such as Business or Engineering. Where
additional lifelong learning centers or M-TECs are in place those directors will also be
included in the survey.
Public higher education institutions in Michigan will serve as the population for
this study. Michigan is one of only two states in which the governance structure does not
include a statewide coordinating or governing board (Nicholson-Crotty & Meier, 2003).
 Practice of continuous 11
As a result, Michigan schools are relatively free to respond to competition. As with most
states, funding continues to be a source of concern and a driver for improved
performance (Granholm, 2004). This combination of an independent system of
universities and significant drivers for improved performance creates an environment ripe
for continuous improvement efforts.
This research is based upon the theoretical concept map shown in Figure 1. As
shown, open systems theory supports the notion that external drivers will influence an
institution’s use of CQI methods, both by increased pressures to improve performance,
and by the knowledge gained from the business sectors. The map also shows the
potential obstacles that may inhibit CQI’s use in higher education, such as resistance
from faculty; however, in a loosely coupled system these factors may not inhibit all
departmental implementation. For organizations that do implement CQI there are
potential rewards such as improved services and improved relationships.
The research questions posed by this study will be:
1. What, if any, Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) methods are being used,
or have been used, in select non-academic departments in Michigan’s public higher
education institutions (i.e. within the departments of facilities and grounds services,
finance and business affairs, and non-credit lifelong learning)?
2. What, if any, have been the perceived internal and external drivers for any CQI
efforts?
3. What, if any, types of institutional support have been perceived to be in place
within the institution to assist CQI efforts, including financial resources, leadership
support, personnel resources, training, or support from other areas of the institution?
 Practice of continuous 12
4. What, if any, obstacles have been encountered when implementing CQI
efforts, including lack of financial resources, lack of leadership support, lack of personnel
resources, lack of training, or resistance from other areas of the institution?
5. In reference to any improvements as a result of CQI efforts, such as increased
financial returns, improved communication and teamwork, improved relationships,
increased productivity, and improved service or product quality,
a. what specific outcomes were expected, and
b. what specific outcomes were achieved?
6. To what extent, if any, are there differences between the level of outcomes
achieved and:
a. type of CQI method used,
b. type of institution,
c. type of department,
d. obstacles encountered, or
e. support given?
7. To what extent, if any, are there any differences between the drivers to
continuous improvement and:
a. type of institution, or
b. type of department?
8. For those institutions that did not implement or that abandoned continuous
improvement efforts, what were the:
a. key obstacles, and
b. support given?
 Practice of continuous 13
Figure 1. Theoretical concept map underlying research design.
 Practice of continuous 14
Methods
Quantitative research methods will be used, with a web-based survey sent to 145
participants. Participants are chosen from 43 public higher education institutions in
Michigan, and are directors of each institution’s physical plant, business office, or
lifelong learning department(s). A Likert-scaled survey was created with 18 main
questions to determine perceptions of the use of departmental CQI efforts, drivers to CQI,
support and obstacles to CQI efforts, and results derived from CQI. Descriptive statistics
and ANOVAs will be used to analyze the data collected.
Delimitations
This study will be confined to public higher education institutions in Michigan.
Within each institution three departments will be surveyed: lifelong learning, the
business office, and physical plant operations. Within each department the director will
be surveyed. For those higher education institutions that have multiple lifelong learning
departments, each director will be included in the survey.
Limitations
Because the study participants were not chosen in a random manner, the results of
this study will not allow us to predict how other departments might benefit from CQI nor
how institutions in other states might benefit from CQI. Because the results cannot be
generalized to other populations, the uses of these results are limited. Additionally, the
research design itself has some limitations. The results derived from this quantitative
methodology may be more limited in depth than if a qualitative interview process was
utilized. Lastly, with a relatively small sample size, response rate becomes critical.
Without significant returns, the power of the analysis will be low.
 Practice of continuous 15
Summary
TQM and CQI have had years of successful implementation in business and
industry. Educational institutions have begun implementing TQM and CQI over the past
10 to 15 years, but the results have been mixed. By focusing on institution-wide TQM
implementations, previous research has been overlooking departmental CQI initiatives
and therefore potentially missing the benefits derived from implementation at the sub-
unit level.
To facilitate this study, a literature review was conducted to determine the most
common quality improvement methods used by business, their benefits of use, and what
methods have been used to date by higher education institutions. The result of this work
is presented in the next chapter, and the methods for this study derived from that
literature review are presented in Chapter 3.
 Practice of continuous 16
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
There are many examples in the literature of the use of Total Quality Management
(TQM) and Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) in business and industry, as well as
subsequent attempts of the use of these methods in higher education. This section will
review the implementation of CQI in business and industry, the most common examples
of CQI methods, some examples of implementation in higher education, the perceived
obstacles and benefits of CQI for higher education, and finally the rationale for further
study of CQI in specific higher education departments. A brief review of TQM theory
and Open Systems theory is also included.
Continuous Improvement and the Total Quality Management Theory
A review of literature from the 1980s through the early 2000s results in many
examples of the use of continuous improvement methods in American business and
industry. The continuous improvement programs found in business and industry were
built primarily upon the TQM theories developed from the concepts provided by Deming
(1986), Juran (1995), and Crosby (1979). TQM has taken on many forms, both in
business and education; however, there seems to be general consensus among authors
that TQM involves at a minimum the concepts of consensus decision-making, a shared
focus on customer satisfaction, and continuous improvement. Quality and customer
satisfaction are key, and therefore most improvements address these two key areas.
Organizations which have implemented TQM exhibit eleven critical elements:
(a) they are strategically based; (b) they are customer focused; (c) they are obsessed with
quality in all areas; (d) they use a scientific approach to analyzing quality and
 Practice of continuous 17
improvements; (e) they have a long-term commitment to TQM; (f) they use teamwork
extensively; (g) their systems are continually improved; (h) they focus on education and
training for all employees; (i) they involve and empower their employees; (j) they
encourage collaboration at every level; and by doing so, (k) they allow their managers to
have more time for activities such as finding new markets rather than fire-fighting
problems (Goetsch & Davis, 1997). TQM supports the concept that a manager’s job is to
eliminate obstacles that prevent employees from doing their best work, and that all errors
are due to systems problems, not to unmotivated employees (Deming, 1986).
Deming (1986), generally thought of as the father of TQM, detailed 14 points for
management in a TQM environment. These included (a) consistency of purpose toward
improvements, (b) adopting a new philosophy, (c) ceasing dependence on inspections for
quality, (d) not awarding business based just on price, (e) constantly improving products
and services, (f) including training for employees, (g) changing from a management to a
leadership philosophy, (h) driving fear out of the organization so people can do their best
work, (i) breaking down barriers between departments, (j) eliminating slogans such as
zero defects, (k) eliminating quotas, (l) eliminating numerical goals, (m) removing
barriers to high quality, (n) removing annual merit increases, (o) instituting programs of
self improvement, and (p) including everyone in the company in the transformation
process. Crosby (1979), with his 14 steps to quality, and Juran (1989), with his 10 steps
to quality both echoed Deming’s basic concepts, including in their lists fostering
management commitment, establishing cross-functional quality improvement teams,
establishing training, measuring and then improving quality, and then cycling through the
process again.
 Practice of continuous 18
An underlying principle discussed by all TQM authors is that focusing on
continual improvements increases quality, customer satisfaction, and productivity at the
same time. The Deming circle of Plan-Do-Check-Act implies a continuing and
everlasting process of incremental improvements (Deming, 1986). The cycle starts with
a plan to determine what the goals of a continuous improvement team will be. Next, the
team carries out their changes. The next step is to observe what happens as a result of the
changes, and the last step is to analyze the results to determine what the next plan should
be. This last step is the heart of continuous improvement. As a result of Deming’s
foundational work, many continuous improvement programs have been created. Quality
Improvement Circles, the Malcom Baldrige Quality Award, Lean Manufacturing, Six
Sigma, Benchmarking, and Balanced Scorecard are just a few of the programs businesses
have used to improve their processes and ultimately their productivity (Goetsch & Davis,
1997; Harrington, 1991; Kaplan & Norton, 2001). Underlying each of these processes is
the concept of continuous improvement.
A Definition of Continuous Improvement
When discussing continuous improvement, as when discussing quality, one can
find many and varied interpretations. Searching Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary for
the terms continuous and improvement yields the following definition: “marked by
uninterrupted extension in space, time, or sequence” and “enhanced value or excellence”
(Merriam-Webster online, 2004). A more focused definition from Grandzol and Gershon
(as cited in Benson, 2000, p. 8) is a system of “incremental and innovative improvements
in processes, products, and services.”
 Practice of continuous 19
Numerous programs adopted within higher education could fit within either
definition, including accreditation and academic program review. Both accreditation and
academic program review were created specifically for education in an attempt to assure
the quality of academic programs. Neither program, however, is free of criticism. Critics
of accreditation indicate that it is only a periodic exercise built on low standards, and
academic program review is sometimes thought to be more busywork than an actual
continual improvement program (Bogue, 1998). While an analysis of the use of
accreditation and academic program review would give us additional insight into
continuous improvement processes in education, it is outside the scope of this study.
The purpose of this study is to determine if certain departments within higher
education institutions are successfully adopting continuous improvement processes
derived from the business environment. Specifically this research will focus on four
specific continuous improvement methods that were developed in industry and that
educators have attempted to adopt: (a) Baldrige Quality Award Criteria, (b) Quality
Improvement Teams, (c) Benchmarking, and (d) Balanced Scorecard (BSC). Each of
these will be briefly described below.
Baldrige Criteria
Institutions can use the Malcom Baldrige criteria to evaluate their own
organization against standards for excellent organizations. Intrinsic to the criteria is the
determination of a continuous improvement process (Baldrige national quality program,
n.d.). The criteria and resulting award were developed by the United States government
in the late 1980s in response to a concern that the comparatively poor quality of
American-made goods, particularly in the automotive industry, would result in the
 Practice of continuous 20
possibility of U.S. companies losing their competitive advantage to higher quality
imports (Malcom Baldrige national quality improvement act of 1987, 1987). Criteria are
available for businesses, health care organizations and educational organizations. The
Baldrige criteria have been touted as a means to ensure that organizations are focusing on
good managerial practices (Goetsch & Davis, 1997). The National Institute for Standards
and Technology (NIST) found that in the first eight years of its annual stock survey,
Baldrige award winning companies outperformed the Standard and Poor 500 each year
(NIST tech beat, 2004). Within the last two years this trend has turned around; however,
and NIST attributes this to poor performance by technology companies overall, which
make up a large portion of the Baldrige winners.
Similar to the national Baldrige criteria are the Michigan Quality Leadership
(MQLA) criteria. These criteria are identical to the Baldrige criteria (Michigan quality
council, n.d.). In general, the both sets of criteria focus on seven key areas: (a)
leadership; (b) strategic planning (c) customer and market focus; (d) measurement,
analysis and knowledge management; (e) human resource focus; (f) process management;
and (g) business results (Baldrige national quality program, n.d.). For educational
institutions, the criteria are changed to reflect the organization. For example, instead of
customer and market focus, the educational criteria focus on student, stakeholder, and
market knowledge. Instead of human resource focus, the criteria describe a faculty and
staff focus, and instead of business results, the educational criteria use organizational
performance results (Blazey, Davison, & Evans, 2003). Baldrige and MQLA criteria
include best practice concepts for all areas of an organization, but also pay particular
attention to a continuous improvement cycle. The 2004 Baldrige criteria for educational
 Practice of continuous 21
organizations state, “ achieving the highest levels of organizational performance requires
a well-executed approach to organizational and personal learning. Organizational
learning includes both continuous improvement of existing approaches and adaptation to
change, leading to new goals and/or approaches” (Education criteria for performance
excellence, 2004 p. 2).
Benchmarking
Process benchmarking, which also began in the 1980s, is a systematic method for
identifying an area of improvement and then comparing the procedures used by ‘best
practice’ organizations to your own system and making appropriate adjustments.
Pioneered by Xerox, benchmarking provides a means to improve competitiveness and
introduce stretch goals to an organization (Zairi & Hutton, 1995). According to Goetsch
and Davis (1997), benchmarking is defined as “the process of comparing and measuring
an organization’s operations or its internal processes against those of a best-in-class
performer from inside or outside its industry” (p. 434). The four steps identified by
Alstete (1995) are (a) planning, (b) research, (c) analysis, and (d) adaptation of findings.
The benchmarking process as defined by Goetsch and Davis (1997) has essentially the
same steps, including (a) conducting an analysis of your own process, (b) identifying
both strengths and areas for improvement, (c) researching the best-in-class organization
for that process, and then (d) implementing changes in your system to make
improvements. Because one of the main steps in Benchmarking is researching other
institutions, educational institutions may be more likely to be open to this process than
other methods which seem more business-oriented (Alstete, 1995).
Continuous Quality Improvement Teams
 Practice of continuous 22
Originally started as Quality Circles (Hill, 1997), some organizations have used
quality improvement teams as a method of implementing continuous improvement.
Essentially these teams of employees focus on one particular area for improvement
within the organization. These quality improvement teams are often referred to as Kaizen
teams in business, from the Japanese word for continual improvement (Wittenberg,
1994). Teams may be created solely for process improvement on one particular process
and then disbanded; other teams are created and maintained to oversee continuous
improvement for multiple processes.
Sometimes called business process improvement