Bridging the gap

Identifying the relevant and contemporary gaps within the literature provides significant justifications for this research project. Therefore, the beginning of this literature review raises particular issues uncovered by other authors as being significant gaps in knowledge relating to IIP that are in need of being addressed. Before directly addressing the relevant gaps in question, a brief overview of IIP and its supporting literature is reestablished. These issues reiterate the discussion within the context chapter, with several precursors introduced for later discussions.

According to Appleby and Jackson (2000), IIP is a recognized initiative for the promotion and development of quality improvement through people. Kidger et al. (2004) would add to this by suggesting that, since its inception at the beginning of the 1990‘s, IIP is now seen as a relatively successful tool for promoting quality and increasing business performance through investment. Indeed, as discussed in the context chapter, Hoque et al. (2005) point out that it is still considered central to the UK government‘s national training policy. This is reflected by the number of companies involved, currently over 38000 (Shipton and Zhou, 2008), and the initiative‘s ability to remain a comprehensive ‗kitemark‘ against which an organization can audit policies and practice in the development of people (Smith et al., 2002). This is supported in a survey by McAdam et al. (2002) that showed 45% of just over 100 organizations found IIP improved performance slightly, and 35% improved performance significantly. Furthermore, recent reports by Tamkin et al. (2008), Cowling (2008), Bourne et al. (2008) and Martin and Elwes (2008) make strong claims that IIP has a direct impact on increases in business performance and profitability.

The above, however, is an extremely positive reflection of the literature and may be a somewhat premature evaluation of the standard. This is especially prudent when considering the very limited qualitative studies of IIP highlighted by Down and Smith (1998) and Collins and Smith (2004), and the lack of research from the employee‘s perspective highlighted by Grugulis and Bevitt (2002) – two matters this research project concentrates on directly. The assumptions made by Appleby and Jackson (2000) and Kidger et al. (2004) are not based on empirical study, instead relying on the suggestion that IIP will enhance business performance through investment. Even though there are supporting studies from a number of authors, like the aforementioned McAdam et al. (2002) and Tamkin et al. (2008), the reality remains that there is still a paucity of studies that can clearly and conclusively link the suggestions of improvements in business performance. The matter is not assisted by the intangible nature of IIP and the asserted surrounding benefits (e.g. Smith, 2000; Smith et al., 2002; Higgins and Cohen, 2006). This issue does not solely lie within the limited numbers of qualitative studies; indeed, Berry and Grieves (2003) suggest a paucity of studies on IIP in general. These knowledge gaps begin to show the potential contribution the qualitative nature of this research has to offer, but it can be taken even further.

While in terms of success, IIP does have its supporters (e.g. Hillage and Moralee, 1996; Taylor and Thackwray, 2001a, 2001b; Lentell and Morris, 2001; Lloyd and Payne, 2002; Malleson, 2007), some of these studies and opinions may be considered somewhat dated experiences. To build upon this issue even further, Hoque (2008) suggests that previous studies concerning IIP may be outdated due to the evolution of the standard, for example, the significant policy changes in 2000 (see Collins and Smith, 2004) and the further changes in 2004 (see Reade, 2004). In addition, they do not deliberate the standard within a relevance and sustainability context. Ultimately, this highlights an important gap in knowledge concerning the timeliness of this research project.

Essentially, there are the advocates that claim IIP is a ‗huge success story‘ and of major benefit to employers, but Berry and Grieves (2003) highlight that producing an objective judgement is difficult with there being a paucity of academic research on the standard. Instead, the literature assumes a link with business performance, rather than demonstrating the existence of benefits through empirical study. These knowledge gaps have led to a call for the assessment of the actual impact of the initiative at various stages (Collins and Smith, 2004), and this includes the actual sustainability of IIP. In addition, Svensson (2006) suggests that further study into the complex area of sustainability and the management of quality improvement is required in general to examine the extent of these practices. Thus, IIP is a quality improvement tool that would fit the profile for extended research regarding this context.

Importantly, it has been shown there are significant knowledge gaps in the literature and these have been significantly developed through the insights of key authors in the field of IIP. The consequence of identifying such gaps is to develop a strong underpinning and justification for the approach of this study. These gaps are introduced here to provide a holistic indication of how the original ideas for this research were created and formed. In effect, these identified gaps provide a clearly marked foundation that can be continuously used to maintain direction throughout the research project. In addition, this ensures the data gathering retains significant meaning and originality. The seemingly untapped potential concerning the relevance and sustainability of IIP helps to justify the existence of this research. Other studies have a tendency to only indirectly impact on this research focus, leading to limited applications. Hence, this study has the ability to

address the above knowledge gaps through the pragmatic generation of insights, whilst sustaining a unique and original perspective throughout.

Literature relating to research question 1:

How do experiences surrounding IIP accreditation processes mediate impressions of business performance?