We take a different approach in this issue of Quality
Management Journal, beginning with a debate based on a
provocative article about the relationship between continuous
improvement and continuous innovation by Robert E. Cole
of University of California–Berkeley. Professor Cole
bases his remarks on a keynote speech he presented to the
Third International (Euro) CI Net Conference in Ålborg,
Denmark. He discusses whether the relationship between continuous
improvement and continuous innovation is fundamentally a trade-off
or whether the two approaches can work synergistically. He
presents new ways of looking at both continuous improvement
and continuous innovation, describing the probe-and-learn
strategy for intentionally probing markets and opportunities
for their potential learning value, and providing practical
suggestions for implementing a probe-and-learn strategy.
We asked several experts to provide their commentary
on Cole’s article. Mark Finster, of the University
of Wisconsin–Madison, broadens Cole’s concept of
continuous improvement by linking it with creativity, sociotechnical
system design, design of experiments, and offensive quality.
He uses this analysis to develop a set of research opportunities
related to continuous improvement and continuous innovation.
Kim Melton, of North Georgia State College & University,
draws links between Cole’s work
and research in other areas, including survivability,
first- and second-order change, single- and double-loop learning,
Deming’s plan-do-check-act cycle, and the distinction
between customer-driven and customer-focused organizations.
She views the change to a probe-and-learn strategy as a positive
choice, requiring large organizational changes. F. C. ‘Ted’
Weston Jr., of Colorado State University, cites further
examples of continuous improvement as an incremental improvement
tactic and continuous innovation as a more radical strategy,
extending Cole’s work to examples from industry leaders,
breakthrough ideas, and business process reengineering. Weston
notes that rapid and abrupt change for the sake of change
can be a problem and questions whether the opposite of probe
and learn could also be effective in some scenarios. We close
the debate with a rejoinder from
Professor Cole.
We then move from continuous improvement and continuous innovation
to the topic of organizational self-assessment.
C. H. R. Siow, J. B. Yang, and Barrie Dale, of the Manchester
School of Management in England, present an approach for organizational
self-assessment based on the multiple-attribute decision-making
(MADM) technique and the criteria of the European Foundation
for Quality Management (EFQM) Model for Excellence. They show
how the model can be applied using data from two award application
documents from an electricity distribution utility.
We hope this issue engages and challenges you!
Barbara B. Flynn
Editor
Quality Management Journal
EDITORIAL
EDITOR
Barbara B. Flynn
Wake Forest UniversityPAST EDITOR
George S. Easton
Emory UniversityFOUNDING EDITOR
William A. Golomski
University of ChicagoBOOK REVIEW EDITOR
James B. Kohnen
St. Mary’s College of CaliforniaDISSERTATIONS EDITOR
William O. Winchell
Lawrence Technological UniversityADMINISTRATION/PRODUCTION
PUBLISHER
William Tony
MANUSCRIPT COORDINATOR
Dave Nelsen
COPY EDITORS
Jane Crouse
Kris McEachern
PRODUCTION
Cathy Schnackenberg
DIGITAL PRODUCTION SPECIALISTS
Jen Czajka
Jill ZimmermanHTML CODING
Jill ZimmermanEDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
John Anderson
University of Minnesota
Selwyn Becker
University of Chicago
Robert E. Cole
University of California
James W. Dean, Jr.
University of North Carolina
James R. Evans
University of Cincinnati
John P. Evans
University of North Carolina
Frank M. Gryna
University of Tampa
John Hamburg
APEX, Inc.
David Luther
Luther Quality Associates
Ram Narasimhan
Michigan State University
Roger G. Schroeder
University of Minnesota
Kalyan Singhal
University of Baltimore
Michael J. Stahl
University of TennesseeEditorial Review Board
Sanjay Ahire
University of Dayton
Susan D. Amundson
Arizona State University
Kimberly A. Bates*
University of Toronto
Paul M. Bobrowski
Syracuse University
Kenneth Boyer
Michigan State University
Kenneth E. Case
Oklahoma State University
Injazz Chen
Cleveland State University
Barrie Dale*
University of Manchester
Richard Deane
Georgia State University
John Delery
University of Arkansas
Kevin Dooley
Arizona State University
Edward Duplaga
Bowling Green State University
Susan West Engelkemeyer
Babson College
Byron Finch
Miami University
Mark P. Finster
University of Wisconsin
Laura Forker
University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth
Soumen Ghosh
Georgia Institute of Technology
Glenn H. Gilbreath
Virginia Commonwealth University
John M. Groocock*
TRW (Retired)
Robert Handfield
North Carolina State University
Sandra J. Hartman
University of New Orleans
Marilyn Helms
Dalton State College
Mary Collins Holcomb
University of Tennessee
Ann Jordan
University of North Texas
Gary Kern
Indiana University South Bend
Jill Phelps Kern
Digital Semiconductor
David Kerridge*
Aberdeen University
Ray A. Klotz
Qualcomm Inc.
Frank Knight
FISI Madison Financial
Ronald D. Kurtzmann
Diamond Management Systems
Keong Leong
Ohio State University
A. Magid Mazen
Suffolk University
Satish Mehra
University of Memphis
Kim I. Melton
North Georgia College and State University
Henry R. Neave*
British Deming Association
Yoram Neumann
California State University
William Newman
Miami University
Gary Ragatz
Michigan State University
Gipsie B. Ranney
Belmont University
Richard N. Rosett
Rochester Institute of Technology
Brooke Saladin
Wake Forest University
Helmut Schneider
Louisiana State University
Nirmal Sethia
California State Polytechnic University
John G. Surak
Clemson University
William Tallon
Northern Illinois University
Michael D. Tveite
The Tetrad Group
Peter Ward
Ohio State University
L. David Weller
University of Georgia
Ted Weston
Colorado State University
*International reviewer
