IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijmtma/v5y2003i3p210-231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative analysis of trilateral and concurrent business improvement methodologies in the high technology sector

Author

Listed:
  • Rodney McAdam, Stephanie Donegan

Abstract

Many organisations in the high technology sector have suffered from a large fall in market confidence. This fall has resulted in postponed investment and large-scale unemployment. This slowdown in the hi-tech sector has led to a renewed examination of business improvement methodologies to improve organisational competitiveness. Typical questions are, "Which methodology is best" and "Can different methods be used effectively concurrently"? In this study, a longitudinal and explanatory case analysis is used to conduct a comparative analysis on the application of six sigma, self managed teams and lean manufacturing business improvement methodologies. These methodologies were running concurrently in the subject organisation. The main conclusions emanating from this study are: six sigma, lean manufacturing and self-managed teams are compatible; six sigma is highly measurable; the deployment of six sigma has made the largest contribution; it is difficult to assess the contribution made by self-managed teams; the rationale changes over time for the deployment of any initiative; there is no formula for success other than the level of leadership, which is critical to success.

Suggested Citation

  • Rodney McAdam, Stephanie Donegan, 2003. "A comparative analysis of trilateral and concurrent business improvement methodologies in the high technology sector," International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(3), pages 210-231.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijmtma:v:5:y:2003:i:3:p:210-231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=3413
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijmtma:v:5:y:2003:i:3:p:210-231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=21 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.