File(s) not publicly available

CI tools and techniques : are there any differences between firms?

conference contribution
posted on 06.12.2017, 00:00 by Paul HylandPaul Hyland, Vitale Di MiliaVitale Di Milia, T Sloan
Continuous improvement (CI) has proved to be a useful way of business investing in people-centred low cost, high return improvements in firms both large and small. CI methods have become widely adopted and regarded as providing an important component of increased company competitiveness. CI enables a company to be more successful in the pursuit of a specific strategy or set of objectives. An important area of research has examined the adoption and use of tools and techniques to support and enhance continuous improvement. CI has many attractions, one of the most important being the potential for a low cost approach. However, Bessant and Caffyn (1997) note that despite their attractions, CI tools and techniques can often fail. Successful CI requires long-term organisational commitment to a course of action and the development of a consistent set of shared values or beliefs. Bessant and Caffyn (1997) have developed a CI maturity index that proposes firms vary in their CI maturity, and that high maturity firms will use more sophisticated tools and techniques than less mature firms. While this model is widely accepted it has not yet been widely tested empirically. This paper presents an initial analysis of CI maturity in Australian manufacturing firms.


Category 1 - Australian Competitive Grants (this includes ARC, NHMRC)


Start Page


End Page


Number of Pages


Start Date


Finish Date





Sydney, N.S.W.


Causal Productions [for] InCITe

Place of Publication

Adelaide, S. Aust.

Peer Reviewed


Open Access


External Author Affiliations

Faculty of Business and Law; University of Western Sydney;

Era Eligible


Name of Conference

International CINet Conference

Usage metrics