Enabling continuous

improvement of new
product development
processes
Sarah Caffyn and Andrew Grantham

This paper reports on the Žrst phase of ongoing research into ‘enablers’ of
continuous improvement (CI) within new product development (NPD)
processes. In order to increase the relevance of work carried out during
the second phase of the project, which involves implementing enablers in
two Žrms, a wider group of practitioners was consulted to discover which
aspects of CI within NPD were of most interest to their organizations and
to identify their weaknesses in this area. Data from seven companies
show that major deŽciencies in all the Žrms are the absence of a strategic
approach to the development of CI, and the failure to capture, share and
deploy learning that is taking place. These shortcomings are particularly
signiŽcant for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that can ill afford
to keep ‘reinventing the wheel’ or to risk wasting resources by failing to
create a CI system that is sustainable in the long term.

Sarah Caffyn is a Senior Research Fellow and Andrew Grantham is a Research OfŽcer
at the Centre for Research in Innovation Management, University of Brighton, Falmer,
Brighton, Sussex BN1 9PH, UK. Tel: +44 1273 642193. Fax: +44 1273 685896.
E-mail: a.grantham@ brighton.ac.uk

The aim of this paper is to present the results of the Ž rst
phase of research into the implementation of ‘enablers’
of continuous improvement (CI) within the process of
new product development (NPD). In doing so the trends
that emerge from the Ž ndings are discussed, and the
implications that these have for SMEs in particular are
highlighted.
Theoretical framework
CI has been deŽ ned as ‘an organization-wide process of
focused and sustained incremental innovation’.1 This
implies a systematic approach to improvement in which
staff throughout the organization are engaged in an
ongoing effort to implement changes that, though often
small-scale, cumulatively will impact on the goals and
objectives of the business. CI has been closely
associated with Total Quality Management (TQM)
philosophies. For some writers2 CI is one of the
fundamental principles underlying TQM, while others
argue that, despite the close relationship between CI and
TQM, the latter should be considered a perspective in
its own right ‘with or without the context of TQM’.3 In
fact, companies have arrived at CI through a variety of
entry points.4
Bessant and Caffyn5 propose a behavioural model in
which continuous improvement is described in terms of
a set of generic behaviours that appear to be essential
for long-term success with CI. The behaviours
encompass involvement, focusing CI activity on
relevant aims and objectives, cross-boundary working,
learning, leadership of CI, strategic management of the
‘CI system’, and abiding by appropriate cultural values.
These behaviours may be fostered by ‘CI enablers’. ‘CI
enablers’ are any mechanisms, procedures, structures,
etc, that serve to encourage or reinforce the CI

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2000 235

Enabling continuous improvement of new product development processes
behaviours. Examples include a policy which allows
‘time out’ for considering how to improve work
processes; vehicles that encourage involvement, such as
problem-solving teams or proposal schemes; fora at
which staff can share learning; and the use of suitable
measures to focus improvement effort on what matters
to the Ž rm. The appropriateness of any type of enabler,
and the precise form it takes, will vary between
organizations to take account of particular histories,
structures, prevailing cultures, commercial
environments, and so on.
Until recently much of the emphasis of CI, for
practitioners and researchers alike, has been on
operations, be it in industrial or commercial/service
organizations.6 This is hardly surprising given its origins
in manufacturing production.7 However, as competitive
pressures continue to intensify and organizations adopt
a more holistic approach, attention has turned to other
areas of the business. Many factors, including shorter
product life-cycles, time-based competition and
demands for increased product design quality, have
heightened the need for Ž rms to improve performance
of their NPD processes. Although some writers have
emphasized the importance of continually improving
development processes,8 many organizations have not
yet tried to apply CI to their NPD processes.9 Those
Ž rms that have implemented improvement
methodologies within a development context have
tended to be large organizations.10 However, several
studies of quality management practices within R&D
have supported the suitability of many of the techniques
and concepts of quality improvement for the NPD
environment,11 while stressing the need for
implementation strategies to take account of the
particular context.12
A recent investigation produced evidence to support
the conclusion that the application of CI to NPD is
appropriate in practice as well as in theory, though Ž rms
may experience difŽ culties turning theory into
practice.13 This work adapted the behavioural model
referred to above to the context of product development
processes and demonstrated its usefulness for describing
and explaining the practice of CI within NPD. The
present research uses the theoretical framework
provided by this model to structure the investigation.
Research approach
This paper reports key Ž ndings from the Ž rst phase of
an 18–month project known as EnCIND (Enabling
Continuous Improvement of New Product Development
Processes). The aim of this project is to develop the
present understanding of CI enablers within the context
of the new product development process of
236
manufacturing Ž rms. NPD represents a relatively new
context for continuous improvement, both in terms of
practice and research. The present investigation seeks to
get below the surface, beyond lists of mechanisms that
at Ž rst sight may appear to be appropriate enablers of
CI, to examine a selected number of enablers in detail.
The research is interested in the detailed design,
implementation and effectiveness of CI enablers, and
how dependent these factors are on contingent factors
(such as the size of the NPD operation and the nature of
the product being developed).
The project is divided into three phases: consultation,
action research, and dissemination. During the Ž rst
phase the literature was searched for examples of
(potential) CI enablers, and a number of Ž rms were
consulted to discover which of the CI behaviours were
of greatest interest to practitioners. The purpose of this
consultation was to guide the direction of the in-depth
work carried out during the second phase. During the
second phase selected enablers are being designed,
implemented and monitored in two collaborating Ž rms.
The third phase covers dissemination of the research
Ž ndings via conferences, workshops and publications.
Since this paper is concerned with the Ž ndings from the
consultation, the method adopted for this is described in
detail in the next section.
Methodology
The purpose of the consultation was to increase the
relevance of the work carried out during the ‘action
research’ phase of the project by Ž nding out from a
wider group of practitioners which aspects of CI within
NPD were of most interest to their organizations, and
identifying their perceived weaknesses in this area. In
order to ensure that those consulted provided informed
answers on the relative strengths and weaknesses of CI
behaviours within their Ž rm’s NPD process, and on the
potential CI enablers they considered most appropriate
for their organization, an interactive process was
designed.
The consultation process involved one or two
researchers running an in-company seminar with
between two and 11 people who had some involvement
in developing the Ž rm’s products. The researcher(s)
introduced the project and gave a brief overview of the
theoretical model being used. The bulk of the session
explored the extent to which each of the ten CI
behaviours was present within the development part of
the Ž rm (see Table 1). The meaning of the behaviour
was explained and its manifestations and relevance in
the Ž rm were discussed. Before moving on to the next
behaviour respondents were asked to estimate the extent
to which the behaviour currently existed, in terms of
INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2000
 Enabling continuous improvement of new product development processes

Table 1. NPD CI behaviours.

B1 NPD staff at all levels participate proactively in incremental and systematic improvement.

B2 Personnel demonstrate awareness and understanding of the NPD organization’s aims and objectives.
B3 Staff – individually and in groups – use the NPD organization’s strategic goals and objectives and focus and prioritize their
improvement activities.

B4 There is effective and natural working by NPD staff – both individuals and groups – across internal divisions (both vertical and
lateral) and external boundaries at all levels.

B5 NPD staff learn from their own and others’ experiences, both positive and negative, particularly by actively searching for
learning opportunities.
B6 The learning of NPD staff – individuals and groups – is captured, shared, and deployed within and between projects.

B7 Managers within NPD demonstrate active commitment to, and leadership of, CI.

B8 The CI systema operating within NPD is continually monitored, developed, and resourced.
B9 Ongoing assessment ensures that the organization’s NPD structures/infrastructure and the CI systema as operationalized
within NPD consistently support and reinforce each other.

B10 NPD personnel are guided by a shared set of cultural values underpinning CI as they go about their work.

a
The ‘CI system’comprises all the processes, procedures and enabling mechanisms put in place to encourage adoption of the CI
behaviours.

diffusion (how widespread it was) and frequency (how
often it was seen). Both dimensions were measured on a
Ž ve-point Likert scale, with deŽ nitions given for each
point on the scale. Having evaluated each of the
behaviours, there was a shorter discussion on the effects
and utility of CI enablers. Respondents were then asked
to identify the behaviours they believed needed
particular attention in the context of their Ž rm’s NPD
process, and to indicate on a supplied list speciŽ c
enablers in which they were particularly interested. The
researchers also gathered data of a Ž rm-speciŽ c nature
(see Table 2). The process was tested in a Ž rm of just
over 40 employees and several modiŽ cations were made
as a result. These included the addition of the Likert
scales, and the introduction of the question asking
respondents to prioritize the behaviours in terms of
those needing to be focused on by their Ž rm.
Each company involved in the consultation received
a report which included a description of the behavioural
framework, a summary of the main points raised during
the discussion of each behaviour, and a commentary by
the researchers on the latter. The report also recorded
the respondents’ assessment of behaviours,
prioritization of behaviours, and enablers of particular
interest.
Altogether over 70 Ž rms were contacted. Of these,
Ž ve agreed to participate; 20 felt unable to participate at
that time, but expressed interest in the concepts and
wanted to be kept informed about the project’s progress;
and 14 expressed no interest in CI at all. The rest were
either very small and/or had no discrete NPD on site, or
were implementing or evaluating recent company CI
schemes and felt unable to contribute to the research.
A proŽ le of the sample is given in Table 2. The table
also includes details of the two Ž rms (F and G) involved
in the ‘action research’ phase of the project, since
comparable data were gathered from these, though in a
more intense mode (in-depth, semi-structured
interviews with 10 and 8 NPD personnel respectively).
Despite the sector variation, the sample companies had
all adopted detailed written NPD procedures and
multidisciplinary team-working, some very recently. All
Ž rms were focused on reducing development lead times
in recognition of the growing value of new products to
the companies. In some cases the numbers of personnel
dedicated to product development, the NPD process and
team-working included non-engineering functions such
as marketing, purchasing, etc. The numbers given for
suppliers include both core and periphery players; all
the Ž rms were trying to reduce their supplier base.
The approach adopted for the consultation was
innovative and had both advantages and disadvantages
over more traditional approaches (such as interview by
questionnaire or mailed survey). The interactive nature
of the seminar process and involvement of staff from
different disciplines within NPD increased the validity
of the data gathered. The researcher was able to check
respondents’ understanding of the behaviours they were
commenting on, and to challenge statements or seek
clariŽ cation where necessary. It also provided an

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2000 237

Enabling continuous improvement of new product development processes

Table 2. ProŽ le of Ž rms involved in the consultation, including the two companies collaborating in the action research
phase, Firm F and Firm G.

Firm A Firm B Firm C Firm D Firm E Firm F Firm G

Sector Geometric Medical Telecoms Printing Hazard Lighting Water

equipment equipment equipment equipment protection Žttings

Site of NPD/ Same Same Different Same Same Same Mostly

operations same

Employed site 43 260 300 250 120 200 160

Global 46 – 5,000 260 160 n/a 250
Dedicated R&D 4 25 120 53 3 20 9

Turnover Not Not £30m £27m £7.5 £28m £28m

disclosed disclosed

Internal product Involved Complex Involved Complex Involved Involved Simple/

complexity involved

Product’s Few but Few but Few but Many but Few but Many Few but
technological different core different core different core related core different core dissimilar different
complexity technologies technologies technologies technologies technologies core core
technologies technologies

Product Infrequent Infrequent Frequent Infrequent Infrequent Infrequent Infrequent

customization

NPIs per year 10 5 60(including Details not 3–4 20 5–10

50 very small) supplied

Development Not known 1–2 yrs 2–18 mths Not supplied 3–18 mths 12–15mths 2–18 mths
lead times

Customers 50 8,000– 10 750 Not known Hundreds No Žgures

9,000 available

Suppliers 100+ 900 100 240 100 + 180 240

Market Discrete/ Highly Highly Highly Discrete/ Highly Discrete/

competition few players competitive competitive competitive few players competitive few players

Formal NPD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

procedure Stage gate Stage gate Stage gate Stage gate Stage gate Stage gate

Multidisciplinary
team-working Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

opportunity to disseminate information about the project
and about the CI model. For the Ž rms, the seminar
provided a useful forum for raising and discussing
issues which were often recognized by respondents but
which had until then remained unspoken. Respondents
were given a framework in which to consider their CI
activity, and were challenged to examine their Ž rm’s
situation from a new perspective. In the words of one
respondent, the process helped ‘us to know ourselves a
bit better’. However, the advantages gained by the
interactive nature of the process were offset to some
extent by its relatively resource-intensive nature (for
both researcher and company) which undoubtedly
contributed to the small sample size. Moreover, as with
any interview situation, the researcher was reliant on
respondents giving truthful and accurate replies; there
was no form of validation external to the seminar. The
signiŽ cance of the latter was reduced, however, since
the primary purpose of the consultation was to identify
patterns among the Ž rms, not to produce a deŽ nitive

238 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2000

 Enabling continuous improvement of new product development processes
‘score’ for a particular company. In short, the
consultation process generated much useful data and
met the purpose for which it was designed.
Results
The results reported here relate to seven companies,
including the Ž rm in which the consultation process was
tested (A), four companies that underwent the modiŽ ed
consultation process as described above (B-E), and the
two Ž rms collaborating in the action research phase, in
which comparable data were gathered during semi-
structured interviews (F and G).
First we will consider the current level of the CI
behaviours within the NPD areas of these companies.
During the consultation process, Firms B–E were asked
to estimate the diffusion and frequency of each
behaviour using a Ž ve-point scale. In C–E, consensus
scores were reached during the group session; in B, the
assessment was done by one person out of session due
to the large size of the group (11 people). The
behaviours for each Ž rm were plotted on a matrix,
giving an instant visual summary of the assessment
(Figure 1). For all the companies the researchers
analysed the data and made their own assessment.
Figure 1. Matrix used to illustrate the prevalence of the
CI behaviours.
DeŽnition of scale points for diffusion/frequency: 1 –
nowhere/never; 2 – one part, eg a single team, section,
function/rarely, sporadic; 3 – some parts, up to around half of
the NPD areas/frequently, at least half the time; 4 – most, a
majority of NPD areas/very frequently, behaviour is systematic;
5 – throughout, standard practice for all personnel/always,
behaviour is embedded.
INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2000
Recognizing the imprecise nature of this exercise, both
participant assessments and researcher assessments
were then considered in terms of the matrix segment in
which they were plotted (‘hardly in place’, ‘moderately
in place’, etc) rather than absolute scores (3–2, 3–3,
etc). The researchers’ assessments are shown in Table 3.
The table indicates those instances in which the
researchers’ assessment of a behaviour differs from that
of the consultation participants. For Company B, the
researcher assessments are slightly higher for three of
the behaviours. This is attributed to the modesty of the
individual who provided the participant assessment
who, for example, appeared to underestimate his own
ability to demonstrate leadership of CI as indicated by
the wider group consulted. For Company C the
researchers felt that insufŽ cient evidence was provided
during the consultation to justify the assessments of two
of the behaviours, which they rated slightly lower. In the
case of Company D the researcher considered Ž ve of the
behaviours to be slightly more prevalent than did the
participants. For company E the researcher reduced the
rating for Ž ve of the behaviours. On analysing the data
the researcher found the participants to be overly
in uenced by a one-off project being run very
differently to the majority of development projects. For
all the Ž rms, difŽ culties in understanding the concepts
may have led participants to over- or underestimate the
prevalence of a behaviour.
These results indicate a moderate level of
participation in improvement activities in Ž ve of the
companies, but in none of them is it either very frequent
or widespread. In one case (Firm A) the concept of
empowerment, and the expectation of improvement that
goes with it, has been assisted by the advent of team-
based working, but confusion was expressed about who
‘decides’ what is important, suggesting that there is still
considerable dependence on the judgement of
managers. A similar experience of the effects of
development teams was articulated by respondents in
Firm E which is also part of the way through an explicit
5–year ‘culture change’ programme (shifting the
emphasis away from production/engineering to market).
In another Ž rm (B), NPD staff look to others to
‘champion’ CI, whilst in Firm C proactive improvement
activity is inhibited by the fear of censure from senior
managers.
Although there appears to be a degree of
understanding of NPD aims and objectives in most of
the Ž rms, this knowledge is not being used to help focus
and prioritize improvement activities. In most cases this
link is totally absent. However, in Firm D, for example,
the respondents were themselves either directors, senior
managers or development team leaders who were able
only to speculate on the dissemination and
239
Enabling continuous improvement of new product development processes

Table 3. Prevalence of the CI behaviours within NPD in Firms A to G.

Firm behaviour A B C D E F G

B1 Participate proactively in CI H M H M M M M
B2 Understand NPD aims and objectives S H M F+ M M F
B3 Use objectives to focus improvement H H N H H N H
B4 Work effectively across boundaries M M M M M M F
B5 Learn from experience, and seek learning opportunities M M M F M S F
B6 Capture and deploy learning H H M H H N H
B7 Managers show commitment to, and leadership of, CI H M H M H M M
B8 Monitor, develop and resource the CI system N N N H H N N
B9 Ensure consistency between CI and other company systems N N N N H N N
B10 Be guided by shared cultural values underpinning CI M H N C M M M

Key: C – Consolidated; F – Frequent but conŽned; H – Hardly in place; M – Moderately in place; N – Not in place; S – Spread but not
frequent.
researcher assessment is in higher segment than participant assessment
researcher assessment is in lower segment than participant assessment

understanding of the aims and objectives to lower-level
staff; one respondent was not convinced that such
information was in itself helpful. In Firm A, however,
the aims and objectives formed a crucial plank in the CI
programme which had recently been launched. It
worked simply at the level of declaring an aspiration,
rather than as a tool of improvement in itself. Moreover,
we were presented with some quite negative attitudes
towards mission statements (B, E and F).
All Ž rms claimed to be reasonably effective when it
came to cross-boundary working and, as indicated in
Table 2, they all had in place a potential enabler of this
behaviour – multidisciplinary product development
teams. The transition to team-based work had not in
some cases been plain sailing, as it challenged authority
structures (B). Membership of teams was also an issue.
We were told of the effects of an engineering bias on
teams (D), insufŽ cient consideration given to
personality Ž t (E), or just a shortage of candidates (G).
However, the data suggest, but the table is unable to
show, that personnel are less successful at working
across external boundaries (for example, with suppliers
and customers who may be important sources of both
process and product improvement). Three Ž rms had
very close links with suppliers either through
partnership meetings and/or inclusive development
projects (D, F and G). Others saw the value but did not
widely incorporate external bodies into the development
process either because of issues of conŽ dentiality, sheer
number, or perceived practicability (A, B, E).
Undoubtedly, however, the trend amongst the sample
was further development of collaboration with
suppliers, customers and other bodies such as regulators
and contractors, if only to acquire the product data that
they possessed.
In all the Ž rms surveyed, the respondents were eager
to demonstrate both individual and group learning from
experience by giving examples. The primary vehicle for
active learning – learning from others – was face-to-face
communication (B, D, E), which was affected by the
physical geography of sites and the extent of co-location
of dependent departments (particularly acute in Ž rms B
and E which comprise upwards of Ž ve separate
buildings spread over an industrial estate). Where
geography was a problem, IT solutions (mainly e-mail)
had been embraced (B and E). E-mail was used as an
active communication tool also in Ž rms E, C and G.
The link between learning and (formal) training was
made in only one case without prompting (B). In this
Ž rm, along with Firm F, the opportunity to invite
(internal and external) speakers to address NPD staff on
an assortment of issues was appreciated. This was a
relatively new initiative at the time, however. Another
signiŽ cant indicator of learning is experimentation. In
only one Ž rm (D) was there evidence of resources being
made available for process or product innovation
(explicitly experimentation); however, in at least two
other Ž rms (C and F) we found examples of individuals
experimenting ‘unofŽ cially’. In Firm F one senior
manager played the role of ‘technological gatekeeper’ –
a key source of new organizational knowledge.
In all cases, however, the knowledge currently
generated largely remained tacit. The capture, sharing
and deployment of learning was weak across the Ž rms
with only one exception (C) where this behaviour
appeared to be moderately in place. At this Ž rm there

240 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2000

 Enabling continuous improvement of new product development processes
was an expectation that reports would be submitted at
the end of each project, and when NPD personnel
visited conferences, other companies, suppliers and
customers. There was no indication given, however, as
to the effectiveness of this policy with regard to re-use
of recorded information and/or knowledge. In one other
Ž rm (F), an IT-based tool had been devised, but not
implemented: this was intended to act as a process and
product fault avoidance system. Generally, however, we
did Ž nd evidence of an awareness of the importance of
learning to the organization, but a failure to do it and
hence to beneŽ t from it. Two Ž rms (B&D) admitted to
collecting and storing inadequate information about
product failures and post-design modiŽ cations.
Similarly the lack of strategic management of CI was
universal. In Ž ve of the companies there was no trace of
a ‘CI system’. Firm D had recognized the need for a CI
system and was starting to build one around the
Committee of Quality Management set up a year
previously. This multi-functional group included the
Manufacturing Engineering Manager responsible for
quality, the Production Director, the Engineering
Director, and product development team leaders. In
Firm E there was an embryonic CI system, to the extent
that certain initiatives and potential enablers had been
implemented, and there were resources to develop it
further. The company had recently recruited an
individual with speciŽ c responsibility to develop and
monitor the improvement system.
It is hard to estimate from the data generated by the
consultation process the true extent of cultural values
underpinning CI (for example, belief in the value of
small improvements, and in the ability of everyone to
make a contribution) and the extent to which people
were in uenced by them. The sample shows a wide
Table 4. Behaviours highlighted by participants as high priority.
Firm behaviour
B1 Participate proactively in CI
B2 Understand NPD aims and objectives
B3 Use objectives to focus improvement
B4 Work effectively across boundaries
B5 Learn from experience, and seek learning opportunities
B6 Capture and deploy learning
B7 Managers show commitment to, and leadership of, CI
B8 Monitor, develop and resource the CI system
B9 Ensure consistency between CI and other company systems
B10 Be guided by shared cultural values underpinning CI
a
Extrapolated from enablers selected
b
IdentiŽed by Marketing and Design Director on receipt of the detailed mapping report but prior to validation seminar
c
IdentiŽed by participants after detailed mapping exercise, exposure to mapping report and attendance at validation seminar
INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2000
diversity in this behaviour, ranging from ‘not in place’
(C) to ‘consolidated’ (D). It was evident from the
consultation in Firm D that the company had a positive
and aspirational culture, with ‘buy-in’ fostered in part
through proŽ t sharing and share ownership. People’s
efforts were recognized and there was a ‘no-blame’
attitude to mistakes. Although there was one area within
NPD where this culture had not been embraced, the
problem had been recognized and attempts were being
made to rectify it. By contrast, the distinct culture in
Firm B – an ‘easy life’ helped along by acceptable
returns/performance – is now being challenged by the
Director of Research and Development.
Towards the end of the consultation process
participants were asked to indicate which of the CI
behaviours they felt needed particular attention within
their company’s NPD areas – which behaviours they
should work on developing Ž rst. Company A was not
asked this question. Instead the researcher used the CI
enablers selected by participants as being of particular
interest to infer which behaviours were of most
immediate concern. For Company F the Marketing and
Design Director made the prioritization after having
received the researchers’ feedback report. In Company
G all interviewees received the detailed report and many
of them attended an interactive session at which the
researchers presented the Ž ndings and offered further
explanation and discussion of the behaviours.
Participants were then asked to indicate on a form
which two of the behaviours the company should work
on Ž rst. The results of this prioritization exercise are
shown in Table 4.
We can explain the patterns in this table with Ž ve
substantive qualiŽ cations. Although cross-boundary
working (B4) was a relative strength for most Ž rms
Aa B C D E Fb Gc
241
Enabling continuous improvement of new product development processes
(Table 3), it was identiŽ ed as a high priority area by
four of them. Two factors may contribute to this. First,
cross-boundary working is generally regarded as NPD
good practice and the Ž rms may consider it should be
further developed anyway, regardless of its role in
continuous improvement. Second, all of the sample
companies were weak or erratic in working across
external boundaries (with suppliers and customers). A
sense that the beneŽ ts of external cross-boundary
working were not being fully realized may have
in uenced the responses. This latter interpretation is, we
believe, supported by data gathered during the
practitioner workshop held in February 2000 at which
delegates evaluated both internal and external cross-
boundary working separately. In most cases scores,
using the same matrix tool as that used in the
consultation, were larger for internal cross-boundary
working than external.
The two learning behaviours (B5 and B6) illustrate
what we believe to be a trend among companies. Whilst
the importance of learning is recognized, few
companies have in place mechanisms for capturing new
knowledge. Where such mechanisms are absent, Ž rms
are forfeiting opportunities to re-use valuable learning,
and to leverage it by bringing together and
‘reconŽ guring’ learning from different sources. On the
whole the respondents believed themselves to be
working in a learning environment but had not
considered exactly what this meant, especially in the
context of capturing learning. Most respondents were
satisŽ ed that they did have passive learning experiences,
and in many cases, were actively seeking out
information. However, we found few effective examples
of mechanisms for capturing learning such as post-
project reviews, learning databases, mentoring, etc.
Where mechanisms did exist in the surveyed Ž rms, we
found that they were being misused.
Respondents found it hard to grasp the concepts
encapsulated in the two behaviours relating to the ‘CI
system’ (B8 and B9). One respondent (B) rejected
outright the notion of a CI system. Whilst two Ž rms did
have emerging mechanisms for trying to manage a CI
system (D and E), only the two companies more heavily
involved in the research (F and G) selected B8 as a
priority. This in itself is signiŽ cant. The researchers
spent more time discussing and explaining the
behaviours to these respondents. In both cases, initial
lack of comprehension and suspicion of the behaviours
was replaced with recognition of their importance to
long-term success with CI.
The Ž ndings from this phase of the research give rise
to a number of questions that would repay further
investigation. What might an effective ‘CI system’ look
like, in the context of NPD processes? How might Ž rms
242
put such a system in place? What might be appropriate
measures of the effectiveness of a ‘CI system’? There is
also a clear need to understand more about enablers
capable of fostering the capture, sharing and re-use of
learning. Can mechanisms be used to institutionalize
process learning throughout the development process,
rather than conŽ ne it to end-of-project reviews? Can
learning be captured electronically, and if so what
mechanisms might provide the necessary incentive for
NPD staff to retrieve and deposit learning in such a
repository? These are some of the issues that are being
investigated during the second phase of the research
project.
Conclusion
The results of the consultation exercise have several
implications for Ž rms and in particular SMEs. These
relate to missed opportunities, and to the failure to take
a strategic approach to the adoption and implementation
of continuous improvement.
First, Ž rms appear to be letting go many
opportunities to beneŽ t from the learning of individuals
and groups. There is great potential, at relatively low
cost, to capitalize on the learning already taking place
by making new knowledge and lessons learnt widely
available to others within the organization, and to
combine different facets of new knowledge to achieve
breakthroughs. A second area of missed opportunities is
the current low level of involvement of suppliers and
customers in companies’ NPD processes in general, let
alone in the Ž rms’ CI efforts. Appropriate involvement
of these external actors can be a good source of ideas
for improvements to both process and product, again at
relatively low cost.
Failure to adopt a strategic approach to CI will
severely limit successful outcomes. There are several
aspects to this. We argue that any company attempting
to implement CI must appreciate the importance of
understanding CI as a system that needs to be planned,
managed and monitored. This does not necessarily
imply bureaucracy and a hierarchy of parallel structures.
Rather, it recognizes that, as with any other company
system, we need to know how the CI system is
performing, its strengths and weaknesses, in order to
sustain it in the long term.
These implications are particularly signiŽ cant for
SMEs, which are likely to have only limited resources
(both time and money) to spend on fostering CI.
Although the concept of CI appears simple, in practice
achieving it presents many challenges. Firms risk
wasting time and other resources by failing to
understand fully at the outset what is required to achieve
successful outcomes from implementing CI. However,
INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2000
 Enabling continuous improvement of new product development processes
investing time up-front to develop this understanding
and to create a sustainable ‘CI system’ will bring long-
term beneŽ ts.
Notes and references
1
J. Bessant and S. Caffyn, ‘High involvement innovation through
continuous improvement’, International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol 14, No 1, 1997, pp 7–28.
2
S. Hill and A. Wilkinson, ‘In search of TQM’, Employee
Relations, Vol 17, No 3, 1995, pp 8–25.
3
A. Berger, Perspectives on Manufacturing Development –
Discontinuous Change and Continuous Improvement, PhD
thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, 1996, at
p 18.
4
M. Gallagher, S. Austin and S. Caffyn, Continuous
Improvement in Action: The Journey of Eight Companies,
Kogan Page, London, 1997.
5 Op cit
, Ref 1.
6
P.S. Adler, ‘Time-and-motion regained’, Harvard Business
Review, Vol 71, January–February 1993, pp 97–108; J.
Bessant, J. Burnell, R. Harding and S. Webb, ‘Continuous
improvement in UK manufacturing’, Technovation , Vol 13, No 4,
1993, pp 241–251; P. Lindberg and A. Berger, ‘Continuous
improvement – design, organization and management’,
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol 14, No 1,
1997, pp 86–101.
7
A. Robinson, ed, Continuous Improvement in Operations: A
Systematic Approach to Waste Reduction, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1991; D. M. Schroeder and A. G. Robinson,
‘America’s most successful export to Japan: continuous
improvement programs’, Sloan Management Review, Vol 32,
Spring 1991, pp 67–81.
8
P. S. Adler, H. E. Riggs and S. C. Wheelwright, ‘Product
development know-how: Trading tactics for strategy’, Sloan
Management Review, Vol 31, Fall 1989, pp 7–17; C. Karlsson
and P. Åhlström, ‘The difŽcult path to lean product
development’, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol 13, 1996, pp 283–295; S.C. Wheelwright and K.B. Clark,
INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2000
Revolutionizing Product Development, The Free Press, New
York, 1992.
9
I. Barclay, ‘The new product development process. Part 2:
Improving the process of new product development’, R&D
Management, Vol 22, No 4, 1992, pp 307–317; D. MafŽn, A.
Thwaites, N. Alderman, P. Braiden and B. Hills, ‘Managing the
product development process: combining best practice with
company and project contexts’, Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, Vol 9, No 1, 1997, pp 53–74.
10
S. Caffyn, ‘Continuous improvement beyond the factory oor:
report of the 12th CIRCA workshop’, Report, University of
Brighton, Brighton, 1995; S. Jahn, ‘Re-engineering the product
generation process’, Proceedings of the R&D Management
Conference on Quality and R&D, 6–8 March 1996, Enschede,
The Netherlands; G. Olthuis, ‘Product creation process at
Philips Electronics’ in Proceedings of the R&D Management
Conference on Quality and R&D, 6–8 March 1996, Enschede,
The Netherlands.
11
J. Fisher, C. Kirk and D Taylor, ‘The implications of TQM for
R&D strategy in New Zealand Žrms’, Technovation, Vol 15, No
1, 1995, pp 1–9; C. May and A. W. Pearson, ‘Total Quality in
R&D’, Journal of General Management, Vol 18, No 3, 1993, pp
1–22; R. Miller, ‘Applying quality practices to R&D’,
Research•Technology Management, Vol 38, No 2, 1995, pp
47–54.
12
K. Debackere, B. Van Looy and J. Vliegen, ‘A process view on
managing quality during the creation of technical innovations:
lessons from Želd research’, R&D Management, Vol 27, No 3,
1997, pp 197–211; R. Taylor and A. Pearson, ‘Total quality
management in research and development’, The TQM
Magazine, Vol 6, No 1, 1994, pp 26–34.
13
S. Caffyn, The Scope for the Application of Continuous
Improvement to the Process of New Product Development, PhD
Thesis, University of Brighton, Brighton, 1998.
The research on which this paper is based is supported by the
UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council,
GR/L91658.
243