Una adecuada relación entre los elementos estables en la Iglesia y los elementos carismáticos

It was clear that Company O was struggling to continue the initial momentum and drive the consultant provided. Both informants mentioned that the lean initiative had stalled once the consultant departed and things were quickly sliding back to the old ways. The shop floor employees started to resort back to their previous work habits and the OM reverted back to his old ways of implementing one off lean tools. Production deadlines had taken precedence over quality improvements and lean is only ‘done’ when they have downtime. This was evident from inspecting the factory as none of the improvement boards had been updated for some months. The PS stated that - ‘we will work on 5S next year when we are less busy’.

The informants blamed the loss of lean momentum on factors such as production and financial pressures, and losing the consultant. The OM remarked that their greatest inhibitor to continuing on the lean journey was the lack of finance and production pressures. He believed that it was crucial to continue receiving support from a NZTE funded consultant to drive the lean project forward. The PS believed the lean initiative stagnated because the SMT did not allocate ample time and financial resources for the employees to carry out lean activities. The informants were correct in saying that lean changes were costly but in reality changes cannot be made without financial investments. Company O not only needs to view lean manufacturing as a long-term investment and not a short-term cost but they also need to address several key issues if they want to embed a true culture of continuous improvement. These key issues are discussed next.

Compartmentalisation of lean

Company O did take a synergistic approach to implementing the four pillars. There was no continuity from one pillar to the next with each being treated as a separate self-defined entity requiring a different set of resources over a fixed timeframe. They

had compartmentalised their implementation of each pillar by shifting from one pillar to the next every 12 months. There was very little evidence of any alignment or continuity between the pillars or NZTE initiatives. They had undertaken three different initiatives over three years with the previous. The annual movement from one pillar to the next required the organisation to pull all resources away from the preceding initiatives to the subsequent ones. The progress of the preceding initiatives was restricted once this resource was relocated.

The NZTE lean programme was treated as a separate entity specific to one particular pillar only. Lean manufacturing was seen as a tool to realise their ‘World Class

Manufacturing’ pillar and their approach towards implementing lean had followed

their misconception. They have not changed what they were previously doing and have only managed to introduce a few new tools into their existing system. The improvement initiatives are back to what it used to be with the OM doing what he can and when he can with his limited knowledge. Future improvement plans primarily revolve around implementing Kanban tools through the factory. Both informants were shown and explained the Lean Iceberg Model and both believed that they had only attempted the tools aspect of lean and were very much ‘above the waterline’.

A compartmentalised understanding of lean has also meant that the organisation failed to shift from the traditional profit-driven ethos to a customer-value oriented philosophy. Company O was not engaged with their customer values, which meant that they were not aware of which activities added real value to the end product. Customer satisfaction takes the shape of quality inspection and defect prevention instead of adding value to the product through continuous improvement processes.

Lack of change strategy

Company O did not develop a strategy to operationalise their vision. They were not engaged with what they needed to do, what the end point was and what actions needed to be taken if they were to go off track. They did not have a rigorous process to establish if they had improved and they relied on anecdotal evidence to measure change. Company O did not have an entry or exit plan for the consultant. They had an existing way of making improvements which they put aside during the NZTE phase, and now they have turned back to the previous improvement systems.

Lack of SMT commitment to change

The SMT failed to demonstrate any significant commitment towards the improvement initiative. The PS mentioned that they only saw the managers on the shop floor when there was a problem. It was left to the consultant to provide the impetus to improve. The SMT passed the responsibility for generating the lean drive onto the employees after the consultant left. The employees were expected to come up with improvement suggestions to keep driving the initiative forward however this concept never eventuated into a formal system.

Not developing lean champion’s capabilities

The SMT did appoint a champion to oversee the initiative but they did not develop a strategy to give him the capabilities to lead the change into the future. The OM was the lean champion but he failed to develop the necessary skills to lead the lean initiative forward. He decided to undertake a participatory role during the NZTE programme and relied on the consultant to provide the necessary leadership.

Subsidised funding ‘pushing’ change

They were financially constrained and were not prepared to fully commit to lean until funding was made available. Company O relied heavily on the NZTE subsidy to ease the financial pressures of making changes. They had some capabilities with lean but it was working in a fragmented way. The lean initiative stalled once the funding dried up. It is likely that they would not have undertaken lean if it was not funded.

Company O did not have the resource capabilities to make the radical changes they had planned. They were financially constrained and were not prepared to fully commit to lean until funding was made available. They had some capabilities with lean but it was working in a fragmented way. When funding came along they made a ‘push’ for full lean implementation. They failed to identify any strong external or internal factors to ‘pull’ the change initiative. The consultant used a standard ‘recipe’ to ‘push’ lean with a focus on one commonly used lean tool. This resulted in the mere attachment of a popular tool onto the existing organisational procedures and culture. This ‘recipe’ served to oversimplify the complexity and scope of such a change process and the effort required to successfully implement it. The lean initiative stalled once the

funding dried up. It is likely that they would not have undertaken lean if it was not funded.