Continuous Improvement Partners

(1)

Continuous Improvement

Partners

Action Research: The role of “Lean champions” in enhancing the

Lean approach to process improvement at a Scottish University

Purpose:

This paper explores the concept of “Lean Champions” in order to enhance a centrally administered lean-type continuous improvement deployment model at a Scottish University. Implications:

The Continuous Improvement Partners (CIP) model is currently being trialled in Sustainable Futures in Edinburgh Napier University.

The principle role of the CIP is to encourage colleagues to embrace a culture of continuous improvement by delivering operational improvements in their local areas, as well as to the University as a whole.

A number of areas emerge as having a significant impact on the overall effectiveness of a CIP model, namely:

 “Champion” - members of staff who want to engage with the programme should exhibit a “Can Do” attitude to change, considered to be the key individual characteristic sought in CIPs.

 “Model Design” - CIP model can provide a valuable training opportunity in Continuous Improvement methodology, promoting a greater understanding and increasing buy-in to the concept.

 “Leadership” – a lack of visible senior leadership support was identified as the single biggest threat to successful implementation of the model.

The study suggests a strong need to evidence benefits of the CIP model to the institution in order to secure senior leadership support for long-term implementation. Offering a career development path, accredited by the University and the Scottish Qualification Authority (SQA), is considered a strength, but not a critical success factor.

The leadership element is considered to be linked with staff resistance to engage with the CIP model. This is thought to be a result of the fear that the CIP responsibilities will become an add-on activity if leadership fails to provide adequate working arrangements, allowing staff to commit some part of their workload to improvement activities.

Finally, the issue of negative connotations associated with the term “Lean” emerged as an important risk in gaining staff buy-in, which was addressed by replacing the phrase “Lean champions” with the term “Continuous Improvement Partners”, thus promoting inclusiveness of the model.

Key Words:

Lean, Lean Thinking, Lean Tools and Techniques, Continuous Improvement, Lean Champions, Process Improvement, Higher Education, Action Research

Michal Niezgoda ([email protected]) Stephen Yorkstone ([email protected])

(2)

The role of “Lean champions” in enhancing the Lean approach to process improvement at a Scottish University

Purpose

The purpose of this Action Research is to explore the concept of Lean champions in order to enhance a centrally administered Lean deployment model at a Scottish University.

Research Objectives

The research objectives, being the required outcomes of the study are:

1. To conduct a critical review of the existing literature on Lean and its application within the global HE sector.

2. To establish the key building blocks to implementation of a Lean champions model in an HE establishment.

3. To analyse the main barriers to successful development of a Lean champions approach in the HE context.

4. To develop, on the basis of findings, a Lean champions model for implementation in the studied University as a part of the centrally managed Lean change programme.

Justification of Study

This Action Research (AR) aims to enhance the current understanding of the implications of Lean champions deployment in the HE sector through addressing the research aim and objectives. The concept of Lean champions is traditionally viewed from the senior leadership perspective, while this study aims to expand that limited view by seeking to design a Lean deployment model which consider staff at all organisational levels as potential champions of change. It is important to note that the subject of this study, apart from addressing an evident research loophole, was influenced by the members of the studied organisation, being the result of the collaborative character of the Action Research strategy (Jupp, 2006). Contributions the study makes are both empirical and practical. The analysis to establish the key building blocks, as well as the main barriers, to effective implementation of the Lean champions model represent the empirical component. Conversely, the practical component, in line with the pragmatic nature of Action Research, is achieved through development of the Continuous Improvement Partners (CIP) programme, being an enhancement of the centrally administered Lean initiative. The CIP model, albeit being contextualised to fit the researched university’s requirements, could also be used as a framework for the wider HE sector.

(4)

What is “Lean”

Looking Beyond Manufacturing

It is argued that lack of a generally accepted definition of Lean has led to misperception and unclear boundaries with other management concepts (Hines et al., 2004). Emiliani and Stec (2005: 370) list various “labels” associated with the concept, i.e. “Toyota Production System (TPS), Toyota Management System, Lean Manufacturing, Lean Production or Lean Management System”, which highlights the difficulty in promoting the concept. However, the TPS is broadly recognised by academia and practitioners as the foundation of the contemporary Lean methodology (Corbett, 2007; Grove et al., 2010).

The actual term “Lean production” was first devised by Krafcik, a member of the ground-breaking International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP) research team in MIT, as a “label” to describe Toyota’s manufacturing methodology (Krafcik, 1988; Modig and Ahlstrom, 2012). The rationale for using the term “Lean” was linked with a claim that applying Lean methodology results in using less input, (e.g. time and labour) in comparison with traditional mass production techniques (Radnor and Bucci, 2011). Yet, most researchers refer to publications by Krafcik’s fellow MIT researchers, that is, Womack, Jones and Roos, who published “The Machine that Changed the World” in 1990, and “Lean thinking” by Womack and Jones in 1996, as a defining moment in developing and spreading the Lean concept across different sectors and industries around the world (Radnor and Boaden, 2008; Burgess and Radnor, 2012).

The Five Principles of Lean

The ground breaking findings in “The Machine that Changed the World” were then further

explored by Womack and Jones (1996), who pioneered the term “Lean Thinking”, thus pointing to an evolution in understanding of Lean. Holweg (2007) states that Womack’s et al. (1990)

argument of universal applicability of the Lean methodology puts an end to thinking that

Japanese superior performance is intrinsically linked to its culture (Burgess and Radnor, 2012). Womack and Jones argued that Lean is not just a cost-cutting toolkit, but a holistic management philosophy embracing the whole system design based upon new “Lean Principles”, that can be adapted far beyond its original manufacturing context (Womack and Jones, 1996; Hines et al., 2004). These principles were formed into a five-step process aspiring to foster a culture of continuous improvement towards perfection (see Figure 1 below).

Specify Value This initial step,

which some experts argue to be the most important one , relates to identifying the value of a process from the customer’s perspective, and not focusing on the provider's interest.

Map Value Stream The second step

requires identificaion of a value stream, that

is, the activities that add value to the final product or

service, while contesting those

that do not.

Create Flow The third step involves creating continuous process flow by standardising around best practice, as well as releasing staff time for creative and innovative thinking.

Introduce Pull This step entails introducing “pull” between activities where continuous flow is unachievable, that is, an approach where the next activity in a process is triggered only by customer demand. Manage towards Perfection Finally, seeking perfection can be understood as continuously applying the five “Lean Principles”, in order to embed “Lean thinking” in organisational

(5)

Figure 1 – The Five Principles of Lean

Source: Based on Womack and Jones (1996), Radnor and Bucci (2011) & Radnor and Osborne (2013b)

Therefore, it can be argued that most scholars agree with the Radnor et al. (2011: 2) definition of Lean who describe it: “(…)as a management practice based on the philosophy of continuously improving processes by either increasing customer value or reducing non-value adding activities (muda), process variation (mura), and poor work conditions (muri)” (Womack and Jones, 1996; Hines and Lethbridge, 2008). Hines et al. (2008) claim that the reason for failure in implementing Lean is linked with the fact that organisations concentrate only on the “muda” component, and often ignore the other two elements of waste, i.e. “mura” and “muri”.

“Real Lean” vs “Fake Lean”

As a result, Emiliani (2014) argues that “Real Lean” incorporates two key fundamentals derived from Toyota’s corporate philosophy, the so-called “Toyota Way”, namely, Continuous

Improvement and Respect for People (Toyota Motor Corporation, 2001). It is important to note that the need for a balance between “Continuous Improvement” and “Respect for People” was already highlighted by the originators of the Toyota Production System (Ohno, 1988).

Consequently, Emiliani and Emiliani (2013) maintain that Lean methodology which focuses solely on the Continuous Improvement aspect of Lean and ignores the second key fundamental, i.e. Respect for People, creates “Fake Lean” that is not sustainable as a result of unbalanced outcomes where staff feel harmed by change.

(6)

Lean and Public Services

Benefits

It is argued that in contrast with the manufacturing environment, where the outcomes from implementing Lean are relatively easy to measure, the evidence of tangible gains from Lean in the public sector is not as strong, and very often focuses on improved service quality and dependability, as well as cost, time and space efficiencies (Radnor and Boaden, 2008; Yorkstone, 2014). The authors also claim that key intangible benefits reported in the public sector involve a rise in employee motivation, better understanding of customers and

collaboration across team boundaries (ibid.). The current research on Lean supports the claim that the methodology can improve the quality, while lowering the cost and throughput time, and increasingly lead to better staff morale and customer satisfaction (Radnor and Osborne, 2013a). Swank (2003) states that Lean can benefit organisations regardless of size or sector because it has to do with improving processes (IHI, 2005), thus once again highlighting its universal applicability (Womack and Jones, 1996; 2003).

Key Barriers & Challenges

Conversely, lack of system-wide approach, public sector culture with its functional silos, lack of customer focus, and leadership issues are among the key barriers to successful Lean

implementation (Radnor and Boaden, 2008). Furthermore, Radnor et al. (2006) highlight that Lean is most suited for organisations with high volume repeatable tasks, and those with flatter management structures allowing for staff empowerment and engagement, which could question its effectiveness in highly bureaucratised management structures characterising healthcare, education and other state-provided services.

Following an extensive literature review, Radnor and Osborne (2013a) still list the same set of key challenges to Lean implementation in public services as Radnor and Boaden (2008), only expanding the argument by including overreliance on Lean workshops (Rapid Improvement Events) among the key issues, being closely linked with an academic debate over the tool-based approach to Lean implementation already discussed in this paper. The authors state that although RIEs are favoured by staff as tools that seemingly provide a quick return on time and effort investment (Radnor and Walley, 2008), they have a tendency to ignore the long-term problems by focusing on short-term gains (Radnor and Osborne, 2013a).

Language

The already mentioned difficulty in defining Lean, and the wide range of different “labels” used to define the concept (Emiliani and Stec, 2005), are linked with the issue of terminology and undesirable language connotations, particularly in terms of the term “being lean” itself criticised for not clearly illustrating the true nature of the Lean methodology within the organisational context (Stone, 2012). It is argued that when the statement “being lean” is communicated within organisations, the initial reaction of the staff is often negative, as a result linking the Lean methodology with the definition of “doing more with less” (Hampson, 1999; Radnor and Boaden, 2004; IHI, 2005) or “Lean is mean” (Womack, 2003; Radnor, 2011), and not looking at the concept through the holistic perspective of Lean principles (Womack and Jones, 1996). This position can have significant implications in promoting the concept externally, as well as in negotiating staff buy-in and leadership support.

(7)

Lean in Higher Education:

“Real Lean”

Lean implementation initiatives in the Higher Education context are in a relatively early stage compared to manufacturing, or indeed, other public sector areas, for example, the NHS (Antony, 2012; University of Strathclyde, 2013; Emerald Publishing Group, 2014; Yorkstone, 2014). Although in recent years a number of articles have been published on the topic of Lean and in the HE context (Antony et al., 2012), it is argued that the understanding of the concept by universities across the UK is very limited (Thirkell, 2011).Therefore, it is not surprising that institutions adopting a holistic approach to Lean, with change programmes administered centrally by a dedicated team, are much less common than those applying it at a local level to solve immediate problems, or as one-off initiatives in a project-based approach (Radnor and Bucci, 2011). Moreover, the growing political and economic pressure on the public sector as a whole, including HEIs, to significantly lower the cost of their operations and therefore ease the burden on public finances, resulted in a fundamental misunderstanding of basic Lean Principles (Radnor and Osborne, 2013a). It is disputed that the Lean concept which focuses on cost-cutting and job cuts, cannot be considered as the “Real Lean” (Radnor, 2011; Emiliani, 2014). Consequently, it is argued that Lean, when applied properly, focuses on delivering the right value for the customers (Womack and Jones, 1996), and enables public sector organisations to “manage with less” (Radnor, 2011).

Lack of Clear Understanding of “Lean”

Moore and Nash (2004) report on a pioneering application of Lean at one of the US HE providers, which was influenced largely by serious financial problems facing the institution, which is also thought to be a main driver for the UK public sector institutions as a result of significant government cuts (Radnor and Bucci, 2011). Similarly, Radnor (2010) maintains that based on extensive review of business process improvement methodologies within UK public services, the key drivers for using such approaches are cost reduction, need for efficient processes and policy compliance. However, Comm and Mathaisel (2005) argue that HEIs find it difficult to fully understand the concept of Lean and its key principles, as they have not yet established who their key customers are. Similarly, (Yorkstone, 2013) emphasises the fact of conflict within the HE sector about the concept of the customer, and concluding that it is impossible to identify one simple customer group for the sector.

Lean in the UK

Radnor and Bucci (2011) state that, based on the study of Lean application in UK Higher Education, the exact number of HE providers involved in Lean is still unknown, although, Cardiff University, the University of St Andrews, Warwick Business School, Nottingham Business School and Portsmouth Business School are listed as the early adopters. Conversely, a Lean deployment map published recently by the Lean University at the University of St Andrews, one of the pioneers of Lean in HE (ibid.), attempts to illustrate all HEIs across the globe using Lean methodologies within dedicated improvement teams (The University of St Andrews, 2014b). The Lean University claims that currently 22 out of 167 HE institutions in the UK match that criteria (The University of St Andrews, 2014b; HESA, 2014). Furthermore, Radnor and Bucci (2011) argue, in line with Moore and Nash (2004), that there is a greater emphasis on tools and techniques among HEIs using Lean, which results with the lack of focus on developing Lean culture (ibid.). This confirms the difficulty in adopting a truly holistic approach to Lean thinking in the HE context, an argument very well summarised by Hines and Lethbridge (2008: 56) who state that: “[the] academic environment is harder to change than many conventional Lean environments”.

(8)

Lean Champions

Teach Lean Thinking To Everyone

The academic literature traditionally used the term “Lean champion” / “change agent” when referring to a senior manager, often an outsider to an organisation (Womack and Jones, 1996), who is personally responsible for leading a Lean change programme (IHI, 2005; Radnor et al., 2006; Grove et al., 2010; Bhasin, 2012). Consequently, the typical manner of Lean deployment in higher education focuses around a central team, the source of Lean knowledge (Womack and Jones, 2003), consisting of internal staff tasked with driving and managing Lean initiatives (Radnor and Bucci, 2011). This focus on champions as senior leaders, constitutes a research loophole, requiring further examination in terms of extending the “championship” concept to a wider group of staff within an organisation, which this study aims to explore.

Burgess and Radnor (2012) report that senior management commitment and dedicated champions to lead process improvements are among the key factors contributing to successful implementation of Lean projects. Based on extensive literature review, Radnor (2010) argues that having internal champions, and being able to develop internal support structures, is crucial for achieving sustainability of Lean based improvements. Smith (2003) claims that champion training is an essential part of culture change. Radnor (2010) uses the Six Sigma’s “Belt” system example to argue that a similar approach to champions’ development could be used within Lean methodology. However, Radnor argues that there needs to be a strong commitment to these champions reflected in relevant resource commitment that will enable them to lead process improvement initiatives as a dedicated responsibility, and not as an add-on activity (ibid.). This is in line with Comm and Mathaisel’s (2005) argument which implies that any HEI embarking on the Lean journey ought to consider a number of key actions, with the first being to train employees in Lean concept.

Integrated Lean Champions Training

Consequently, McKinsey & Company, the leading management consultancy firm, in its recent report state that the most innovative and forward-looking organisations introduce Lean management values at the recruiting stage by incorporating Lean behaviours and qualities in job descriptions and related documents (McKinsey & Company, 2014). The authors of the report also state that, generally, the most important skills in Lean management relate to the people aspect, namely, “coaching, facilitating meetings, recognizing and solving problems, discussing performance trends in the open, and eliminating single points of dependency” (McKinsey & Company, 2014: 85).

Moreover, Allan and Sinha (2013) maintain, based on Radnor and Bucci (2011), that UK universities which have some form of internal training in Lean methodology, do not adhere to a common set of training standards, such as NVQ or ILM, when designing their training

programmes, and do not share their experiences with other HEIs. Therefore the authors maintain that a more integrated approach to involving staff in continuous improvement in HE through a core training in Lean, would enhance their motivation to go through such a training, develop organisational capabilities to deliver services, promote safety and a reduction of non-value adding activities (ibid.). Lucey et al. (2005) claim that failure to mobilise “change champions” and to engage employees is one of the top ten reasons for failure of major Lean transition, which again points to the importance of leadership engagement in order to sustain Lean transformations.

(9)

The People Aspect

“Respect for People”

Lean is often identified by the two key principles i.e. “Continuous Improvement” and “Respect for People”, which are key parts of Toyota’s corporate philosophy (Modig and Ahlstrom, 2012; Toyota, 2001). Hines et al. (2004), similarly to Emiliani (2013), also list respect for employees as an integral part of the Toyota management philosophy. However, the authors state that western manufacturers in the period up to 1990, prior to publication of the famous MIT research findings in “The Machine that Changed the World”, followed an entirely tool-focused Lean implementation model, neglecting to address the people issues (ibid.). Emiliani (2012) argues that it is always the latter principle that enables the former, thus highlighting the importance of effective management of the people aspects as a crucial element of successful improvement initiatives.

Therefore, developing and supporting champions of Lean at all organisational levels who spread continuous improvement culture within their own teams, and so enabling them to become more capable of empathising with the fears and needs of Lean, could contribute towards linking the two fundamental principles of Lean, as endorsed by Emiliani (2012). In the HE context, there is limited empirical evidence of the Resect for People principle playing an important part in Lean implementations (Radnor and Bucci, 2011). Although, a number of HEIs communicate its existence as a fundamental principle of Lean (The University of St Andrews, 2014a; Edinburgh Napier University, 2014e, The University of Aberdeen, 2014).

Lean Leadership

Sustaining Lean Transformations

Mann (2009) argues that even excellent use of Lean tools will not result in sustainable change or improvement, unless it brings about a change in organisational culture. Consequently, Emiliani and Emiliani (2013: 409) define Lean leadership as: “Beliefs, behaviours, and competencies that demonstrate respect for people, motivate people, improve business

conditions, minimize or eliminate organisational politics, ensure effective utilisation of resources, and eliminate confusion and rework.” The authors state that leadership in the Lean

management context concerns an ability of a leader to support the flow of information between people and processes, as well as taking a servant leadership approach in line with the two principles of Lean, which are, “Continuous Improvement” and “Respect for People” (ibid.). Balzer (2010) discusses Lean leadership specifically from the HE perspective, by arguing that the ability of leaders to support a Lean initiative is derived from their personal influence, which might be associated with their exceptional skills or experience, and formal organisational authority. Furthermore, Balzer emphasises the importance of the personal commitment of the leader to leading and sustaining Lean transitions (ibid.). Similarly, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) claims that Lean requires a lot of attention from managers, as without good leadership reinforcing a new set of values and behaviours, people will revert to their old habits (IHI, 2005). This stance seems to favour the so called top-down approach to change, by highlighting the importance of leadership in sustaining Lean transformations (Dennis, 2006). Top-Down vs Bottom-Up

However, Hines and Lethbridge (2008) contest this view by arguing that a mixture of both approaches, that is, top-down and bottom-up, is needed in the HE setting to ensure staff buy-in and long-term sustainability. The argument for a balance between top-down and bottom-up approaches can be likened to Ovretveit’s (2005) view that leadership’s influence over change is often limited, and thus the power to impact change initiatives by other key stakeholders, such as clinical consultants within the healthcare environment, should be taken into account. Therefore, similarly to healthcare, where clinicians with influence are developed as champions (Caldwell et al., 2005: Guthrie, 2006), in HE it is crucial to engage with academics to overcome barriers to implementation described in the previous sections (Hines and Lethbridge, 2008).

(10)

Findings/ Practical implications

The research resulted in development of the Continuous Improvement Partners (CIP) model and its integration into the activities on the central Lean team, i.e. Sustainable Futures, for an initial trial period. The principal role of a CIP is to inspire other colleagues in embracing the culture of continuous improvement by delivering practical benefits to their local units, as well as the University as a whole. A high level illustration of the CIP model is presented in the Figure 2 below, emphasising its three main phases, namely, Preparation, Participation and Post-evaluation (3Ps).

Figure 2 – CIP Model (3Ps) Source: Created by the author

Following an analysis of the key elements of the Lean methodology in the context of this study, a number of areas emerged as having a significant impact on the overall effectiveness of the CIP model, namely:

 “Champion” - the research confirms that members of staff who want to engage with the programme should exhibit a “Can Do” attitude to change, which is considered to be the key individual characteristic sought in CIPs.

“I would say, if you've got someone who might not have experienced Lean, but they may have open, creative attitude, be willing to get their hands dirty, be able to learn from experience,

demonstrated reflective practice” (L1, p.3)

“The basic idea is, somebody that is improvement-minded. And somebody who is enthusiastic about applying Lean principles and practices, and enthusiastic about teaching others and” (E1,

p.3)

 “Model Design” - this study argues that the CIP model can provide a valuable training opportunity in Lean methodology, thus promoting a greater understanding and increasing buy-in to the concept.

“I start thinking about goals and purpose, I think about spreading skills, spreading knowledge, I think about developing positive behaviours and having an impact on cultural change through a

network of people that are trained and supported to start doing good stuff” (LP1, p.7) “It would be very dangerous just to say to that individual, who might have had a week’s training:

‘On you go’. (…) So there could be a kind of supervisor's model, where they [CIPs] have to report to Sustainable Futures, tell them what they're doing.” (SH, p.7)

(11)

 “Leadership” – the lack of visible senior leadership support towards the general Lean methodology was identified as the single biggest threat to successful implementation of the model.

“If leaders are engaged, you could move 4 times faster, when the leaders are disengaged, you go at 1/4 speed, 1/10 speed.” (BE, p.6)

“We're not going to get more resource, but probably we're going to get more work, (…), so we can't keep on doing what we're doing. We need to do things differently. And, as an institution, we're very good at adding things, but not dropping things and just saying, we're not doing that

anymore” (SB, p.6)

Consequently, the study clearly suggests that there is a strong need to demonstrate potential benefits of the CIP model to the institution as a whole to secure senior leadership support for its long-term implementation. The fact that staff can be offered a clear career development path, accredited by the University and the Scottish Qualification Authority (SQA), is considered to be one of its most important potential strengths.

“You need to connect quite readily the outcomes of something, and they need to have visible results quickly. So, I think when starting it out in an organisation, you'd want to get some quick

wins.” (SP, p.4)

“You're not gonna convert everyone (…) But the thing that will help them change is when they can see an area that has gone through a Lean process, and come out with a set of recommendations or conclusions that are actually implemented and working really well” (SH,

p.4)

Furthermore, the leadership element is considered to be linked with staff resistance to engage with the CIP model. This is thought to be a result of the fear that the CIP responsibilities will become an add-on activity if leadership fails to provide adequate working arrangements, allowing staff to commit some part of their workload to improvement activities.

“There is an issue that probably comes up with everyone, but about capacity, I think staff feel they work to their full capacity as it is, so taking on another job… And there's always a promise

that you'll suddenly loose something in order to do this, but doesn't usually transpire. It's been my experience.” (L1, p.5).

Finally, the issue of negative connotations associated with the term “Lean” emerged as an important risk in gaining staff buy-in, which was addressed by replacing the phrase “Lean champions” with the term “Continuous Improvement Partners”, thus promoting inclusiveness of the model.

“I think both words [Lean champions] are not particularly helpful to be honest. I think that Lean is an all-embracing term, which usually has connotations of efficiency and cost-cutting. And actually, people don't go about saying, let’s be Lean. They actually will say, is there a better way of doing things to make it easier for us, and also better for the departments that we're

(12)

Recommendations: Ensuring CIP Model Sustainability

The unique nature of the Action Research process is evident in this study through its focus on creating new futures, rather than a traditional research approach to reporting on what happened in the past (Coghlan and Brannick, 2010). Consequently, this recommendation section forms a part of the cyclical process of constant planning, and evaluation in search of realistic and sustainable improvements to the CIP model.

Firstly, the SF team were actively involved in the research process by collaborating with the researcher in order to design an optimum solution for the team and the University.

Consequently, it can be argued that it is more likely that changes introduced to the SF operation through the implementation of the CIP model will be sustained in the long-term, given that the senior leadership remains supportive of the concept. The CIP training is scheduled to

commence in the first week of May 2014, with a first face-to-face session trial, i.e. “Continuous Improvement: Tools & Thinking” delivered by an external Lean practitioner from another Scottish university. It is crucial that, following the initial training trial, SF demonstrate the clear benefits of this approach, i.e. event feedback forms, qualitative interviews with the CIP candidates / area managers, to the senior leadership team in order to secure long-term approval and necessary resources.

Secondly, it has to be noted that unless the staff are allowed and supported to decide independently about getting involved as a CIP, they are more likely to remain sceptical about participating in such initiative. Consequently, the CIP programme should remain open to all staff at the University to avoid a risk of being perceived as an exclusive event open only to certain individuals, which could reduce the general interest in the concept.

Thirdly, staff recognition was identified as an important element in ensuring high levels of energumen. However, the CIP programme, as it currently stands, does not include an

opportunity for a “celebrated and shared” public / organisation-wide recognition of achievement. The SF team could use such occasions to boost the reputation of the programme, as well as to demonstrate senior leadership approval of the model to the wider university community. Lastly, in line with the true spirit of Lean, if robust evidence emerges suggesting the CIP model does not match the high expectations in embedding the culture of continuous improvement, the SF team should feel empowered to take strong action, including closure of the programme. The research highlighted the difficulty in eliminating non-value-adding activities at the studied organisation (see section 4.4.3.). Therefore, being able to take a radical decision, based on compelling evidence, would in fact be proof of a cultural shift towards an organisation that designs and monitors its services in line with the Lean principles (Womack and Jones, 1996).

(13)

Bibliography

Allan, R.R. & Sinha, T. (2013) “Core training and staff motivation: an assessment of improvement initiatives in HE; and lean NVQ’s”, First International Conference on Lean Six Sigma for Higher Education, Glasgow.

Antony, J. (2012) “Lean Six Sigma for higher education institutions (HEIs): Challenges, barriers, success factors, tools/techniques”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61, No.8, pp.940-948.

Balzer, W.K. (2010) Lean Higher Education: Increasing the Value and Performance of University Processes, New York: CRC Press.

Bhasin, S. (2012) “Prominent obstacles to lean”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 403-425.

Bhatia, N. & Drew, J. (2007) “Applying lean production to the public sector”, The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 3, pp. 97-98.

BIS (2013) Efficiency in the higher education sector: technical exploration, [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/efficiency-in-the-higher-education-sector-technical-exploration Accessed: 14 August 2013.

Brannick, T. & Coghlan, D. (2007) “In Defense of Being ''Native: The Case for Insider Academic Research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 59-74.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2007) Business Research Methods, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2011) Business Research Methods, 3rd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, 4th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burgess, N. & Radnor, Z.J. (2012) “Service improvement in the English National health service: Complexities and tensions”, Journal of Management & Organization, Vol. 18, No. 5, p. 594-607. Carter, R., Danford, A., Howcroft, D., Richardson, H., Smith, A. & Taylor, P. (2011) “’All they lack is a chain’: lean and the new performance management in the British civil service”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 83-97.

Carter, R., Danford, A., Howcroft, D., Richardson, H., Smith, A. & Taylor, P. (2013) “‘Stressed out of my box’: employee experience of lean working and occupational ill-health in clerical work in the UK public sector”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 747-767.

Cassell, C. & Johnson, P. (2006) Action Research: Explaining the diversity, Human Relations, Vol. 59, No. 6, pp. 783–814.

CIPD (2013) Lean working generates risk of egg-shell organisations [Online] Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/publicsites/cScape.CIPD.PressOffice/Templates/PressRelease.aspx?NR

MODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={A93519A3-7C7A-46CC-A24B-318C8374883F}&NRORIGINALURL=%2Fpressoffice%2F_articles%2F22081998000000.htm& NRCACHEHINT=Guest Accessed: 22 August 2013.

Coghlan, D. & Brannick, T. (2010) Doing Action Research in your own organization, 3rd ed., London: Sage Publications.

Coghlan, D. & Shani, A.B. (2005) “Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design”, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 533-546.

Coghlan, D. & Shani, A.B. (2008) Insider Action Research: The Dynamics of Developing New Capabilities, in Reason and Bradbury (2008) Handbook of Action Research: Participative inquiry and practice, 2nd ed., London: Sage Publications.

Comm, C. L. & Mathaisal, D. F. X. (2005) “A Case Study in Applying Lean Sustainability

(14)

The role of “Lean champions” in enhancing the Lean approach to process improvement at a Scottish University Corbett, S. (2007) “Beyond manufacturing: The evolution of lean production”, The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 3, pp. 95-96.

Cousin, G. (2009) Researching Learning in Higher Education: An introduction to contemporary methods and approaches, New York: Routledge.

Dehler, G.E & Edmonds, R.K. (2006) Using Action Research to Connect Practice to Learning: A Course Project for Working Management Students, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 636-669.

Dennis, P. (2006) Getting the Right Things Done, Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute. Edinburgh Napier University (2013) Principal’s Office – University Strategies [Online] Available at:

http://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/principal/Documents/Strategy%2009%20-%2015%20Documen ts/StrategicPlanfinalintranet%20(2).pdf Accessed: 15 August 2013.

Edinburgh Napier University (2014a) Pay and Grading Structures [Online] Available at: http://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/hr/workingattheUniversity/pay/Pages/SalaryScales.aspx Accessed: 21 March 2014.

Edinburgh Napier University (2014b) SVQ Flyer [Online] Available at:

http://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/hr/Documents/CLandD documents/Administrators Development/SVQFlyer.doc Accessed: 21 March 2014.

Edinburgh Napier University (2014c) Facts & Figures 2012/2013 [Online] Available at: http://www.napier.ac.uk/about/DownloadLinks/Facts-figures.pdf Accessed: 21 March 2014. Edinburgh Napier University (2014d) Planning & Intelligence [Online] Available at:

https://staffworkplace.napier.ac.uk/Services/FPCS/pi/mi/SitePages/Home.aspx Accessed: 21 March 2014.

Edinburgh Napier University (2014e) An Introduction to Sustainable Futures [Online] Available at: http://www.napier.ac.uk/about/management/sustainable-futures/DownloadLinks/Sustainable-Futures.pdf Accessed: 21 March 2014.

Edinburgh Napier University (2014f) Sustainable Futures [Online] Available at:

http://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/PI/sustainable-futures/Pages/home.aspx Accessed: 21 March 2014.

Edinburgh Napier University (2014g) Professional Development Review (PDR) [Online]

Available at: http://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/hr/workingattheUniversity/LandD/Pages/PDR.aspx Accessed: 21 March 2014.

Edinburgh Napier University (2014h) Sustainable Futures: Case Studies [Online] Available at: http://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/PI/sustainable-futures/Pages/CaseStudies.aspx Accessed: 21 March 2014.

Edinburgh Napier University (2014i) University Management Structure [Online] Available at: http://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/secretary/governance/govman/structure/Documents/Managem ent%20Structure%20July%202013.pdf Accessed: 21 March 2014.

Emiliani, M.L & Emiliani, M. (2013) “Music as a framework to better understand Lean leadership”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 407-426. Emiliani, M.L. & Stec, D. J. (2005) “Leaders lost in transformation”, Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp.370-387.

Emiliani, M.L. (2012) We Can Do It, 3rd ed., The CLBM, LLC. Emiliani, M.L. (2013) Lean Must Do No Harm [Online] Available at:

http://leanprofessor.com/blog/2013/12/19/lean-must-do-no-harm/ Accessed: 20 February 2014. Emiliani, M.L. (2014) McKinsey Finally On Board! [Online] Available at:

http://www.bobemiliani.com/mckinsey-finally-on-board/ Accessed: 20 February 2014. Finlay, L. (2002) “Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.209-230.

(15)

Fisher, C.M. (2010) Researching and writing a dissertation: an essential guide for business students, 3rd ed., Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Fleetwood, S. (2005) Ontology in Organization and Management Studies : A Critical Realist Perspective, Organization, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 197–222.

Flinchbaugh, J. & Carlino, A. (2006) The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Lean: Lessons from the Road, Dearborn: Society of Manufacturing Engineers.

Flinchbaugh, J. & Tracey, M.W. (2006) “HR’s Role in the Lean Organisational Journey”, WorldatWork Journal, Fourth Quarter, pp. 49-58.

Gill, J. & Johnson, P. (2010) Research Methods for Managers, 4th ed., London: Sage Publications.

Greenwood, D. J. & Levin, M. (1998) Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grove, A.L., Meredith, J.O., MacIntyre, M., Angelis, J. & Neailey, K. (2010) “UK health visiting: challenges faced during lean implementation”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.204-218.

Guardian (2013) David Cameron makes leaner state a permanent goal [Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/11/david-cameron-policy-shift-leaner-efficient-state?CMP=fb_gu Accessed: 26 February 2014.

Guardian (2014) Edinburgh Napier University [Online] Available at:

http://www.theguardian.com/education/napieruniversity Accessed: 21 March 2014.

Gummesson, E. (2000) Qualitative Methods in Management Research, 2nd ed., London, Sage Publications.

HESA (2014) Headline statistics: Napier 2012/13 [Online] Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/ Accessed: 21 March 2014.

Hines, P. & Lethbridge, S. (2008) “New development: Creating a lean university”, Public Money & Management, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 53-56.

Hines, P., Found, P. & Harrison, R. (2008) Staying Lean: Thriving, Not Just Surviving. Cardiff: Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Cardiff University.

Hines, P., Holweg, M. & Rich, N. (2004) “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary Lean thinking”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol.24, No.10, pp. 994–1011.

Holweg, M, (2007) “The genealogy of Lean production”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, No.2, pp. 420–437.

Institute for Healthcare Improvement (2005) Going Lean in Healthcare [Online] Available at: http://www.entnet.org/Practice/upload/GoingLeaninHealthCareWhitePaper.pdf Accessed: 14 August 2013.

Jupp, V. (2006) The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods, London: Sage Publications. Kemp, N. & Lawton, W. (2013) A strategic analysis of the Scottish higher education sector's distinctive assets [Online] Available at: http://www.britishcouncil.org/scotland-report-a-strategic-analysis-of-the-scottish-higher-education-sectors-distinctive-assets.pdf Accessed: 14 August 2013.

Levin, M. (2012) “Academic integrity in Action Research”, Action Research, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 133-149.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba. E. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lucey, J., Bateman, N. & Hines, P. (2005) “Why major lean transitions have not been sustained”, Management Services, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 9-13.

(16)

The role of “Lean champions” in enhancing the Lean approach to process improvement at a Scottish University Mann, D. (2009) “The Missing Link: Lean Leadership”, Frontiers of Health Service

Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 15-26.

Mann, D. (2010) Creating a Lean Culture: Tools to Sustain Lean Conversions, 2nd ed., New York: Taylor and Francis.

McKinsey & Company (2014) Next frontiers for lean [Online] Available at:

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/manufacturing/next_frontiers_for_lean Accessed: 21 March 2014.

McNabb, D. E. (2008) Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management, 2nd ed., New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Modig, N. and Ahlstrom, P. (2012) This is Lean: Resolving the Efficiency Paradox, Rheologica Publishing.

Moore, M. & Nash, M. (2004) Becoming a Lean University™ [Online] Available at: http://www.sacubo.org/docs/bestpractices/2007/UnivofCentralOkla-LeanUniversity.pdf Accessed: 14 August 2013.

Morgan, D.L. (1997) Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

Morse, J.M. (1998) Designing funded qualitative research, In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 56-85), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ohno, T. (1988) Toyota Production System, Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Osborne, S.P. (2010) "Delivering Public Services: Time for a new theory?" Public Management Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-10.

Ovretveit, J. (2005) “Leading improvement”, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 19, pp. 413-430.

Peter, J.P., & Olsen, J.C. (1983) Is marketing science? Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, pp. 111-125.

Pine, G.J. (2009) Teacher Action Research. Building Knowledge Democracies, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Proudlove, N., Moxham, C. & Boaden, R. (2008) “Lessons for Lean in Healthcare from Using Six Sigma in the NHS”, Public Money & Management, Vol. 28, No.1, pp. 27-34.

Radnor, Z.J. (2010) Review of business process improvement methodologies in public services [Online] Available at:

http://www.aimresearch.org/uploads/File/Publications/Academic%20Publications%202/Review_ of_business_process_improvement.pdf Accessed: 14 August 2013.

Radnor, Z.J. (2011) Debate: How mean is Lean really?, Public Money & Management, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 89-90.

Radnor, Z.J. and Boaden, R. (2008) “Lean in public services e Panacea or Paradox?”, Public Money & Management, Vol.28, No. 1, pp. 3-7.

Radnor, Z.J. and Bucci, G. (2011) Analysis of Lean Implementation in UK Business Schools and Universities, [Online] Available at:

http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/po/processreview/ABS%20Final%20Report%20final.pdf Accessed: 8 June 2013.

Radnor, Z.J. and Osborne, S. (2013a) “Lean: A failed theory for public services?, Public Management Review, Vol. 15, No.2, pp. 265-287.

Radnor, Z.J. and Osborne, S. (2013b) “Operationalizing Lean in Services: Rediscovering Service Blueprinting”, EurOMA 2013 Conference.

Radnor, Z.J. and Procter, S. (2012) “The Limits to Lean in Public Services”, BAM Conference Paper.

Radnor, Z.J., Holweg, M. & Waring, J. (2011) “Lean in healthcare: The unfilled promise?”, Social Science & Medicine, pp. 1-8.

(17)

Radnor, Z.J., Holweg, M. and Waring, J. (2012) "Lean in healthcare: The unfilled promise?”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 364-371.

Radnor, Z.J., Walley, P., Stephens, A., and Bucci, G. (2006) Evaluation of the Lean Approach to Business Management and Its Use in the Public Sector [Online] Available at:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/129627/0030899.pdf Accessed: 10 August 2013. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008) Handbook of Action Research: Participative inquiry and practice 2nd ed., London: Sage.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012) Research Methods for Business Students, 6th ed., Harlow: Pearson Education.

Scorsone (2008) “New Development: What are the Challenges in Transferring Lean Thinking to Government?”, Public Money & Management, Vol.28, No. 1, pp 61-64.

Seidel, J. & Kelle, U. (1995) “Different Functions of Coding in the Analysis of Textual Data”, in Kelle, U. (eds) Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods and Practice, London, Sage Publications.

Shani, A.B. & Pasmore, W.A. (1985) “Organisation Inquiry: towards a new model of the action research process”, in D.D. Warrick (ed.), Contemporary Organization Development: Current Thinking and Applications. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, pp. 438-48.

Smith, B. (2003) Lean and Six Sigma – A One-Two Punch, Quality Progress, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 37-41.

Spear, S. J. (2005) “Fixing healthcare from the inside, today”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83, No. 9, pp. 78-91.

SQA (2014) S323: Contribute to innovation in a business environment [Online]

http://www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/S323Contributetoinnovationinabusinessenvironment.pdf Accessed: 21 March 2014.

Swank, C.K. (2003) “The Lean service machine”, Harvard Business Review (October). The University of Aberdeen (2014) Process Improvement using "Lean" [Online] Available at: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffnet/governance/lean-1555.php Accessed: 21 March 2014. The University of St Andrews (2014a) Lean University: Doing Things Differently [Online] Available at: https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/lean/ Accessed: 21 March 2014.

The University of St Andrews (2014b) The Universities using Lean [Online] Available at: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/lean/resources/universitiesusinglean-worldmap Accessed 21 April 2014.

Thirkell, E. (2011) “Transferring Lean production: Training in Higher Education”, BAM Conference Paper, pp. 1-13.

Toyota Motor Corporation (2001) The Toyota Way 2001 [Online] Available at: http://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/data/conditions/philosophy/toyotaway2001.html Accessed: 22 February 2014.

Universities UK (2011) Efficiency and effectiveness in higher education: A report by the Universities UK Efficiency and Modernisation Task Group [Online] Available at:

http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/EfficiencyinHigherEducation.aspx#.U1d ZZ1fHFrM Accessed: 14 August 2013.

Universities UK (2012) Patterns and trends in UK higher education 2012: higher education: analysing a decade of change [Online] Available at:

http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2012/PatternsAndTrendsinUKHigh erEducation2012.pdf Accessed: 14 August 2013.

Universities UK (2013) The funding environment for universities: An assessment [Online] Available at:

http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2013/FundingEnvironmentForUniv ersities.pdf Accessed: 15 August 2013.

(18)

The role of “Lean champions” in enhancing the Lean approach to process improvement at a Scottish University Waring, J.J. & Bishop, S. (2010) “Lean healthcare: Rhetoric, ritual and resistance”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 71, No.7, pp. 1332-1340.

Waterbury, T. (2011) Educational Lean for Higher Education: Theory and Practice, Winona State University.

Womack, J.P. & Jones, D.T. (1996) Lean Thinking, London: Simon & Shuster UK Ltd. Womack, J.P. & Jones, D.T. (2003) Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation, London: Simon & Shuster UK Ltd.

Womack, J.P. (2003) Is Lean mean? [Online] Available at:

http://www.lean.org/womack/DisplayObject.cfm?o=715 Accessed: 14 August 2013 Yin, R. K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed., London: Sage Publications.

Yorkstone, S. (2013) “Lean goes back to school”, Lean Management Journal, October 2013, p. 24-28.

Yorkstone, S. (2014) “A lean course for higher education”, Lean Management Journal, February 2014, p. 32-34.

(19)

Appendix 1 - Design/methodology/approach

This study adopts an Action Research strategy, based on a premise that members of an organisation that is being researched are actively involved in the research process. This research utilises a broad range of qualitative data collection techniques, allowing for a method and data triangulation, which supports the researcher in providing more reliable research outcomes.

The data for this study were gathered via a number of primary and secondary sources, namely: documentary evidence, elite interviews, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, diary

accounts and observation. Thematic analysis is used to conduct a detailed examination of collected data by deconstructing it and matching against the themes discerned from it.

Research Sample

A total of 18 individuals were interviewed in the period between November 2013 and March 2014. The length of interviews was approximately 35 minutes for semi-structured interviews, and 60 minutes for focus groups. The high proportion of external participants is a result of the Lean concept being relatively novel in HE, thus requiring inclusion of a professional external perspective in order to develop a robust argument on the issue (see Graph 1 below)

Graph 1 – Research Respondents by Type and Number Source: Created by the author

The Sustainable Futures team (two respondents), operate as internal but independent consultants in application of Lean methodology in the studied organisation. External Lean Practitioners (six respondents), are the members of a UK-wide steering group, acting as a reference point to other HEIs on applying Lean in the HE sector. The interviewed practitioners represented four main UK universities, two of which are considered the pioneers of Lean HE roll-out in the UK. The examples of trailblazers in Lean HE in the UK, i.e. Cardiff University, the University of St Andrews, Warwick Business School, Nottingham Business School and

Portsmouth Business School, were previously discussed in section 2.4. Lean Experts (two respondents), include a leading US-based Lean leadership thinker and a prominent British researcher in the field. A Professional Support Staff (one respondent), is a member of the university’s student support team dealing with a large volume of students on a daily basis. The

2 1 2 5 6 2

Sustainable Futures Team (internal) Professional Support Staff (internal) Academics (internal)

University Management (internal)

Lean Practitioners (external) Lean Experts (external)

(20)

The role of “Lean champions” in enhancing the Lean approach to process improvement at a Scottish University include a member of middle management, and four staff in senior leadership roles, one of whom has a central management role, and the remaining three lead two different faculties. Furthermore, the sample illustrates a balanced proportion between the University management roles (five respondents) and the front line staff, i.e. Sustainable Futures, Professional Support and Academics (five respondents), in order to maintain a balanced view on using Lean “champions” to drive continuous improvement in the University. The table 1 below associates respondents and their relevant “codes” with the interview method.

Sustainable Futures Team External Lean Practitioners Lean Experts Professional

Support Staff Academics

University Management Focus Groups LP1; LP2 LP3; LP4; LP5; LP6; LP7; LP8 A1 L1 MP Elite Interviews E1, E2 Semi– Structured Interviews L2 SB, SN, SH, SP Total Data Points 2 6 2 1 2 5

Notes: LP: Lean practitioners; E: Lean experts; L: academic staff; A: admin staff; MP: middle management; S(X): senior management

Table 1 – Respondents and Respective Codes / Interview Method Source: Created by the author

Research limitations

While the researcher followed the usual Action Research methodology resulting in the creation of a robust Continuous Improvement Partners (CIP) model, its final implementation, due to the short timescale of the research, lies with the key participants (Sustainable Futures team). Furthermore, as a result of contextual nature of Action Research, which is usually used to study a single organisation, the issue of findings transferability might be contested.

Most importantly, it is crucial to realise that the CIP model does not address every issue and barrier which could have an impact on the overall success of such Lean deployment model. Therefore, the key recommendation from the research is to continuously challenge the status quo, in line with true spirit of Lean, by reflecting on the effectiveness of the model, and taking appropriate action immediately to ensure its relevancy to the University’s current requirements.

Further Research

This Action Research focus provides an early insight into the key issues associated with deployment of the CIP model as a part of the centrally administered Lean team. Consequently, its findings could form a foundation for further investigation through a longitudinal study

assessing the sustainability of the model over time. An alternative could be to apply a

comparative case study strategy to examine the effectiveness of the CIP model in comparison to an institution where Lean champions is the only mode of Lean deployment. Moreover, further research could consider the overall impact of the CIP model on staff engagement levels across large number of HEIs.

(21)

Originality

The concept of Lean champions is traditionally viewed from the senior leadership perspective. This study expands that limited view by seeking to design a Lean deployment model which embraces staff at all organisational levels as potential champions of change. It is important to note that a subject of this study, apart from addressing an evident research loophole, was influenced by the members of the studied organisation, being the result of the collaborative character of the Action Research strategy

(22)

Appendix 2 - Interview Guide (Probing Questions)

Lean in HE

1. In your opinion, what is the one most important things in Lean in the Higher Education (HE) context?

Lean Ambassadors Training

2. Who would make a good Ambassador/Champion? 3. How to manage staff recruitment & training?

4. How to reward Lean Ambassadors/Champions – what is in it for them?

5. How would you seek to make the Lean Ambassadors/Champions concept sustainable in an HE institution?

Programme Implementation / Day-to-Day Operation 6. How to make it an operational reality?

Measures

7. How can Lean Ambassadors/Champions add value? 8. How would you know that they are being successful?

9. What are the measures of success institutions could use internally / externally? Risks / Barriers

10. What do you think could be the key barriers to implementing Lean Ambassador/Champion model?

11. How to overcome these barriers? Opportunities / Benefits

12. What benefits could a Lean Ambassadors/Champions model allow you to exploit? Leadership Styles

13. How does a Lean Ambassador/Champion model interact with senior management? Communication

14. How a central Lean team could communicate with Lean Ambassadors/Champions prior to / throughout / after completion of the project?

Any other comments

15. Where do you see the future of Lean in HE moving? Source: Created by the author

(23)

Appendix 3 - Research Data: Themes and Issues

Dimensions Themes and Issues

Model

 Outcome-driven

 Quick-Wins

 Clear expectations / Role description

 Regular networking activities “Champions”

 Recognition is prior to reward

 Trust & flexibility

 Coaching & mutual support

 Staff engagement

Leadership

 Leadership / Management buy-in

 Bottom-up vs top-down

 Leaders as role models

 Zero Blame Culture

 Silo culture

 Academics as autonomous practitioners Structure

 Hierarchical / Management structure

 Bureaucratic change processes

 Resource Pressures

Recruitment

 Critique of nominating staff

 Prior experience not essential

 Reflective and enthusiastic attitude

 Staff with managerial responsibility

Training

 Learn by doing approach

 Balance between hard (tools and techniques) and soft (facilitation, communication, problem solving) skills

 Certification / nationally recognised qualification

 Centrally managed

Measures

 Qualitative superior to quantitative

 Lead times, quality & staff time

 Mixed views on financial measures

 Customer feedback, e.g. NSS Survey, Staff Feedback, etc.

 PDR review to measure outcomes

Communication

 Communicate purpose of the programme across the organisation

 Promoting [“champions”] model as a saleable commodity

 Demonstrating practical benefits

 Define Lean as a Win-Win situation Risks /

Challenges

 Lack of leadership engagement

 “Champions” role seen as “add on”

 Language of Lean

 Difficulties with RIEs / workshops

Benefits / Opportunities

 CPD opportunity

 Culture of improvement & innovation

 “Champions” proving “sense of reality”

 Faster & more robust processes

 Increased staff engagement & student satisfaction

 Better strategic alignment Source: Created by the author

(24)

Appendix 4 – Online Module (Principal’s Statement)

(25)

Appendix 5 – Continuous Improvement: Tools & Thinking (Event

Announcement)

Description

This short course will introduce participants to the theory (thinking) and practice (tools &

techniques) of Continuous Improvement in Higher Education. The session will impart the

knowledge required to apply learning in the workplace.

___________________________________________________________

Continuous Improvement: Tools and Thinking

Facilitated by:

Fin Millar, the University of St Andrews, Lean team

Duration:

4 hours

Who should attend:

For this trial course, staff identified by Sustainable Futures or Learning and Development.

Subsequent courses will be open to all staff, on condition of them completing the

continuous improvement Moodle module. This course is especially relevant for staff in

admin essentials, or those interested in becoming a Continuous Improvement Partner.

Main description

This short course will introduce participants to the theory (thinking) and practice (tools &

techniques) of Continuous Improvement in Higher Education. It includes topics such as:



Continuous Improvement theory



Two Fundamentals



Five Principles



Eight Wastes



Tools & techniques



PDCA



St Andrews Model



Process Mapping / Value Stream Mapping



Affinity Mapping



Rapid Improvement Event / Kaizen / Kaizen Blitz



Leader Standard Work



5S

Participants will:

Be able to apply key Continuous Improvement tools & techniques to their work

independently, or with a minimal level of support from Sustainable Futures.

(26)

Continuous Improvement Partners