08832323.2010.520758
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Developing a Forensic Approach to Process
Improvement: The Relationship Between
Curriculum and Impact in Frontline Operator
Education
Simon Croom & Alan Betts
To cite this article: Simon Croom & Alan Betts (2011) Developing a Forensic Approach
to Process Improvement: The Relationship Between Curriculum and Impact in
Frontline Operator Education, Journal of Education for Business, 86:6, 311-316, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2010.520758
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.520758
Published online: 29 Aug 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 481
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:20
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 86: 311–316, 2011
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.520758
Developing a Forensic Approach to Process
Improvement: The Relationship Between Curriculum
and Impact in Frontline Operator Education
Simon Croom
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:20 11 January 2016
University of San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
Alan Betts
HT2 Ltd., Oxford, UK
The authors present a comparative study of 2 in-company educational programs aimed at
developing frontline operator capabilities in forensic methods. They discuss the relationship
between the application of various forensic tools and conceptual techniques, the process (i.e.,
curriculum) for developing employee knowledge and capability, and the impact on process
improvement. The authors conclude that the use of e-learning via online learning management
support and associated media has a positive impact on learner retention and application of
concepts and techniques.
Keywords: curriculum design, e-learning, education, financial service operations, process
improvement
In this article we examine the impact of online mediated
learning. Specifically, the study focuses on curriculum effectiveness in a postexperience learner environment and involves a study of company sponsored development programs.
Such programs have cohorts of learners with a wider variety
of learner capability, prior knowledge, and learning experiences than most university courses. Consequently, a major
challenge in curriculum design is to accommodate this variety in the caliber of learners while ensuring a minimum level
of educational and learning outcomes.
A core consideration in adult learning is to embrace
learner experiences within the curriculum design. Illeris
(2003) contended that all learning implies an integration of
external interaction processes (e.g., the social and workplace
environmental conditions faced by the learner) and internal psychological processes (i.e., an individual’s behavioral
and cognitive processes) and further stated that many learning theories only deal with one of these processes. Others
(e.g., Stevenson, 2002) have noted that the separation of
the external and internal is problematic. The relationship
Correspondence should be addressed to Simon Croom, University of San
Diego, Supply Chain Management Institute, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego,
CA 92110, USA. E-mail: scroom@sandiego.edu
between the external and internal reflects the action research
approach to learning (Rowley, 2003), which is best explained
by Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle and reinforced in Nonaka and
Takeuchi’s (1995) seminal work.
Knowles (1984a, 1984b) developed a theory of andragogy, specifically to address postexperience adult learning,
emphasizing that adults are self-directed and expect to take
responsibility for decisions. He made the following assumptions about the design of learning: adults a) need to know
why they need to learn something, b) need to learn experientially, c) approach learning as problem solving, and d) learn
best when the topic is of immediate value. In practical terms,
andragogy means that instruction for adults needs to focus
more on the process and less on the content being taught
(Eskerod 2010).
The literature thus emphasizes the importance for learning
outcomes of the balance between theoretical learning and reflection. This is a critical element in ensuring that the learner
is able to continue to apply what was learned (Buckley &
Caple, 1995) and avoid postclass dismay (Rossett, 1997) due
to the fear of being unable to use the knowledge acquired.
With the advent of e-learning and learning management
systems (LMS), new opportunities have been presented to
educators. Crocetti (2002) discussed some of the benefits
of integrating learning processes with corporate processes in
312
S. CROOM AND A. BETTS
order to deliver valuable individual learning outcomes and direct corporate benefits, drawing a strong relationship between
effective learning management systems and sustainable organizational learning. There has, however, been relatively little
research measuring the impact of computer-assisted learning systems (or e-learning) on learning outcomes (Ćukušić,
Alfirević, Granić, & Garača, 2010; Lim, Lee, & Nam, 2007;
McGorry, 2003 Meyer, 2003).
In this article we undertake an analysis of adult learning
and offer some redress to this lack of empirical validation of
e-learning and LMS.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:20 11 January 2016
Process Improvement
Our curricula focused on development programs concerned
with process improvements for frontline operators (operatives) and their management. The development and application of skills in a range of analytical tools, techniques,
and methods by operatives has been found to have a significant impact on process performance (Imai, 1986; Johnson,
2000; LoBue, 2002; Olve, Roy, & Wetter, 1999).1 Learning curve effects have been well researched since Wright’s
1936 publication, although much of the subsequent literature in this area has focused on autonomous learning (i.e.,
improvement through repetition; Cabral & Riordan, 1994;
Spence, 1981; Womer, 1979). Deming (1982) emphasized
process knowledge, Fine (1986) modeled the impact of investments in quality learning, and, germane to this article,
Grant and Gnyawali (1996) provided a brief discussion of
the contribution of forensic methods to effective organizational learning in delivering process improvement. Bohn
(1994) further expanded on this with an evolutionary stage
model of process knowledge. The importance of learning
to strategic and operational improvement has further been
examined through discussion of the development of learning networks (incorporating a culture of training, application
and improvement; Figueiredo, 2002; Ramcharamdas, 1994:
Upton & Kim, 1998). Forensic tools based on industrial engineering, operational research, and work-study methods have
been widely applied to manufacturing operations improvement (Bal, 1998; Grünberg 2003).
METHOD
The programs studied adopted a strong action learning approach, benefits of which have been identified by Hale,
Wade, and Collier (2003). We also addressed the impact
of online mediated learning. Alavi, Wheeler, and Valacich
(1995) compared desktop video conferencing in a number of
teaching contexts, Moore and Thompson (1997) studied distributed technology mediated learning, Van Solingen, Berghout, Kusters, and Trienekens (2000) developed a conceptual
model of the enabling factors for learning, and Alavi and
Gallupe (2003) summarized their view of the literature on
e-learning. Comparative studies of the impact of computerassisted learning had not produced any conclusive evidence
of significant differences between learning media.
Our objectives in this paper were the following: to a)
identify the impact of a range of forensic tools and methods in terms of learner application, and b) compare alternative curricula in the development of forensic capability as
demonstrated through action learning projects, specifically
examining the impact of e-learning.
To evaluate the impact of curriculum on outcomes, we
needed to ensure we had adequate control of other variables
that may impact on learning outcomes, such as prior learning, learning technology, assessment, delivery mechanisms,
and performance measurement (Baker & O’Neil, 1987; Entwistle, 1988; Gagné, 1971; Kelly, 1989; Neagley, Ross, &
Evans, 1967). The target programs were thus selected because a) both had similar subject content; b) the participating
organizations were of a similar size and scope of operation,
from the same industrial sector and included participants of
similar managerial level; and c) both groups had comparable
levels of prior knowledge on entering the programs.
By constraining certain variables (subject content, industry and operational context, level and prior capability of learners) and by measuring the performance of participants, we
were able to establish the validity of comparative case analyses as the method for an analysis of the impact of curriculum
on performance. Using Firestone’s (1993) view of case-tocase transfer as one of three forms of generalization and
Stake’s (1988) distinction between deductive and inductive
generalization in support of the use of case study methods
of analyses (in educational research), we also feel that case
studies provide a valuable method for conducting comparative analysis and positing generalizable propositions as a
result of such an analytical approach.
The unit of analysis for this study was a cohort (i.e., a
single group of learners following the same course of study).
Typically, a cohort would consist of 15–20 participants. In
this study we had a total of 38 cohorts, 22 from Organization
A and 16 from Organization B.
Data gathering involved a review of each cohort’s project
activities and their written submissions at three key stages
of the project: problem identification, data collection and
analysis, and final interpretation and recommendations. All
cohorts used an online discussion forum, which was a primary link between the tutors and the participants. All communications were included in the analysis. Written reports,
Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, spreadsheets, and occasionally other digital media were submitted and assessed.
Only Organization B had full online learning support, including multimedia and interactive online tutorials.
First, analysis of the data involved recording exactly
which forensic methods were applied and assessing the accuracy and extent of their use through tutor evaluation. A
list of the tools used by each cohort was tabulated in the
first instance and then summarized by organization. Second,
DEVELOPING A FORENSIC APPROACH TO PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
TABLE 1
Content of Program Curriculum:
Tools and Methods Included
Organization A
TABLE 2
Learning Experiences Within the Two Curricula
Organization A
Organization B
One three-day workshop
Three one-day workshops, six weeks
apart Online support materials
Action learning group project
Online mentoring
Organization B
Layout diagrams
Process flow charts
Workflow analysis
Volume-variety matrix
SPC control charts
Experimental design
Capacity utilization
Throughput efficiency
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:20 11 January 2016
313
Layout diagrams
Process flow charts
Workflow analysis
Volume-variety matrix
SPC control charts
Experimental design
Capacity utilization
Throughput efficiency, supply chain
mapping, ServQual (adapted) gap model
Process capability
Process capability
Causal maps
Causal maps, service blueprinting
Polar/radar representation of Polar/radar representation of strategic
strategic imperatives
imperatives
Importance-performance
Importance-performance matrix
matrix
all project submissions were assessed for level of accuracy,
appropriateness of application, and consistency of interpretation by two experienced teachers of operations management. One of the assessors had involvement in the delivery
of the programs, and the other assessor was not involved
in delivery. All assessments were marked by both teachers,
using their agreed rating system. Last, the use of individual
forensic methods was assessed to identify any difference in
capabilities between cohorts from the two organizations.
Action learning group project
Online mentoring
active online-learning support materials, online mentoring,
and a terminal group action learning project. Thus, the two
programs differed in terms of the scheduling of the workshops and the provision of online learning support materials
for Organization B (see Table 2).
Our methodology for evaluating which elements of the
content were most effective was to apply Componation and
Farrington’s (2000) method of observing and monitoring
which tools and methods were applied by participants in
their action learning project. Extensive reporting and feedback was central to the method used to conduct these projects,
thus providing us with data relating to what had been done
(Moen & Norman, 2006). We evaluated the impact in terms
of scale of improvement (cost, time, utilization, speed, and
quality) and online mentoring enabled a two-way dialogue
for guidance to participants in the use of relevant methods.
Each cohort submitted a final written report. Both organizations were given the same report brief and assessment
criteria.
Analysis: Forensic Tools
We found participants’ prior knowledge of many basic methods in the curriculum was cursory or nonexistent. Componation and Farrington (2000) found that the more commonly
used tools were those that were easy to understand and apply.
Their article outlined a range of methods, including typical
layout and flow methods, problem-solving techniques, and
quality impact tools. These tools are similar to those included
in the present study (see Table 1).
The difference in the range of tools included in the programs for each organization was a result of differences in the
curriculum design employed.
RESULTS
We used the terminal group project submissions as the basis
for our data analysis. The remit for both groups of participants was similar: to undertake an analysis of a process and
propose improvements as a direct result of their investigation. We were able to identify both the methods employed
and the consequent improvements for each of the projects
undertaken.
In Table 3 we summarize the frequency distribution of the
forensic tools used.
Elements of Curriculum Design
The term curriculum is defined here as all the planned experiences provided by the institution to assist the learners in
attaining the designated learning outcomes to the best of their
abilities (Neagley et al., 1967). Thus, curriculum embodies
the total experience, process, and application of learning.
Curriculum design also incorporated e-learning options
(Kellner et al., 2008). Organization A’s program included a
three-day workshop, online mentoring, and a terminal group
action learning project. Organization B followed a mixed
mode of three one-day workshops (six weeks apart), inter-
DISCUSSION
Evaluation
For many participants the use of quantitative approaches was
particularly challenging. In evaluating participants’ ability in
forensic techniques, we assessed three stages of each group’s
investigation project. We found a significant difference between the groups—the average score for Organization A was
7% (or one grade level) lower than that of Organization B.
The standard deviation of grades for both groups was similar
314
S. CROOM AND A. BETTS
TABLE 3
Forensic Methods: Frequency of Use, by Cohort
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:20 11 January 2016
Method
Volume-variety matrix
Polar/radar representation of
strategic imperatives
Importance-performance matrix
Process flow charts
Process capability
Workflow analysis
Capacity utilization
Throughput efficiency
Experimental design
ServQual (adapted) gap model
Supply chain mapping
Layout diagrams
Service blueprinting
Organization A
Organization B
90%
75%
97%
87%
53%
48%
18%
8%
4%
2%
1%
82%
67%
17%
8%
13%
3%
15%
38%
21%
27%
2%
(A = 2.78, B = 2.66). Thus, our assessment was that Organization B participants demonstrated greater technical ability
in the use of a range of forensic methods.
We found three significant differences between the two
organizations when we evaluated the recommendations and
outcome of each group’s project:
1. All of Organization B’s projects had clear evaluation of
the financial impact of recommendations, and linked
improvements to customer service. For Organization
A, only 25% of the projects had clear financial data
associated with improvements.
2. The link between existing performance metrics, process changes, and performance improvements on nonfinancial criteria was significantly different between
the two organizations. Again, all of Organization B’s
projects provided clear associations between improvements and performance, whereas only 72% of Organization A’s proposal contained such information.
3. The clarity of argument applied to the proposed improvements was significantly different between the two
organizations, partly reflected by the grades awarded
and further reinforced by the extent each project’s recommendations had been implemented. Management
receptivity to improvement projects in the two organizations could be different (Hung, Yang, Lien, McLean,
& Kuo, 2009) and thus account for this, so all group
projects were supported by a sponsoring manager and
the majority of projects were initiated by management.
We thus contended that the differences in progress
could be a reflection of the degree of clarity in the technical arguments. To test this proposition, we spoke to
a small sample of sponsoring managers in both organizations in order to identify other factors preventing
implementation. Although this was an opportunistic
process and thus lacks some statistical significance
in our findings, we concluded that both organizations
faced similar levels of exogenous inhibitors (lack of
funding, impending technological changes, and constraints through work practice and existing systems).
To quantify levels of competence in the execution of forensic methods we assessed two key facets of evaluation. First,
was the method used correctly? Second, did the application of the method provide benefit? We developed a 4-point
Likert-type semantic scale ranging from 1 (inadequate use of
the method) to 4 (advanced application of the method). The
mean score for each method employed was then calculated.
Table 4 provides a contingency table containing the mean
scores achieved by participants in relationship to the common forensic methodologies adopted by each case organization and calculated the Spearman Rank coefficient, which is
shown in column 4.
We can reject the null hypothesis that the performance of
the two organizations’ participants are mutually independent
when the computed test statistic rs ≥ critical value of the
TABLE 4
Spearman Rank Coefficient Analysis of the Two Case Organizations’ Performance
Forensic methodology
Volume-variety matrix
Polar/radar representation
of strategic imperatives
Importance performance
matrix
Process flow charts
Process capability
Layout diagrams
Work flow analysis
Capacity utilization
Throughput efficiency
Average score
Organization A
Organization B
Mean group score
(Assessor’s evaluation)
Mean group score
(Assessors evaluation)
Spearman rank coefficient (rc at α = 0.05)
3.6
3.4
3.6
3.6
0.7357 (n = 15; rc ≥ 3788)
0.5587 (n = 11; rc ≥ 5273)
3.4
3.8
0.42451 (n = 13; rc ≥ 4780)
3.0
3.1
2.6
3.0
3.1
2.8
3.1
3.3
3.6
3.2
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.5
0.5677∗ (n = 9; rc ≥ 5S33)
0.5244∗ (n = 6; rc ≥ 77t4)
C .4676∗ (n = 10, rc ≥ 5515)
0.5893∗ (n = 7; rc ≥ 6786)
0.6552 (n = 10; rc ≥ 5515)
0.5166∗ (n = 6; rc ≥ 5833)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:20 11 January 2016
DEVELOPING A FORENSIC APPROACH TO PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
Spearman test statistic for an alpha level of .05. The critical
value is shown in parentheses for each forensic methodology according to sample size (n). We found that the null
hypothesis could not be rejected for six of the forensic methods (importance-performance analysis, process flow charting, process capability analysis, layout diagrams, workflow
analysis, and throughput efficiency analysis). In other words,
there is some statistically significant difference between the
performance of Organizations A and B in their demonstration
and application of these methods.
Of the range of tools and methods we included in the programs, the six methods in which independence was identified
were also considered to be of a more technically demanding nature than others. Given Componation and Farrington’s
(2000) finding that the simpler techniques seem to be more
frequently adopted, we feel there are strong indications in
support of our conclusion that the significant differences
between the two organizations’ participant performances in
these six techniques may be assignable to differences in curriculum (e.g., Kyndt, Dochy, & Nijs, 2009).
Our research design did face some limitations. First, as
we were undertaking analysis with corporate clients, the
scheduling of the courses in terms of duration of the face-toface program for Organization A and the interval between the
one-day workshops for Organization B were prescribed by
the client. Second, we were unable to set up control groups in
either organization to allow us to control for individual factors, such as the online elements of Organization B’s curriculum. A major concern is the potential difference in the times
allowed for workers to assimilate the course content, tools,
and techniques between the two organizations. Spacing Organization B’s workshops six weeks apart would have had an
impact on learning, but because this was an integral element
of the blended design it was difficult to control for the impact
of the time between workshops rather than the e-learning
support between the workshops. By using postcourse action
learning group projects, we have provided similar periods of
assimilation, reflection, and application, although we accept
that there may be some influence on the outcomes of the
duration of each organization’s program. Third, although we
ensured interrater agreement for project assessment, we may
have found it valuable to employ multiple-choice question
tests of participants to evaluate individual technical capability relating to the forensic techniques employed.
CONCLUSION
The literature has shown that many front line operatives are
resistant to the use of forensic methods (Bal, 1998; Componation & Farrington, 2000) and do not demonstrate an
aptitude to utilize such tools unless given technical instruction (Corner, 2002). The collection of learning experiences
for developing such technical competence is critical to the
315
effectiveness of educational and training programs (Neagley
et al., 1967), even though some authors have claimed that
there is no one right way to develop process improvement
competencies (Upton & Kim, 1998).
From our study of two development programs containing
ostensibly similar technical content we found a significant
difference in learning outcomes, which we ascribed to the
curriculum differences between the programs. We controlled
for other potentially influencing variables, including industry
sector, prior knowledge of learners, and organizational context (size, structure, culture). We examined contrasts between
Organization A, where cohorts of learners were exposed to
a three-day offsite workshop followed by an action learning
project, and Organization B, where learners were exposed to
three one-day offsite workshops, six weeks apart, supported
by online learning support and followed by an action learning
project. The method of evaluating the learning outcomes in
both cases was identical.
It is our conclusion that the level of technical competence
demonstrated by participants was greater where the curriculum included online learning support and workshops that are
scheduled over a longer timescale (see also Alonso, López,
Manrique, & Viñes, 2005; Ruiz, Mintzer, & Leipzig, 2006).
We also concluded that the effectiveness of the application of
learned skills in action learning situations was greater under
such circumstances.
The three significant elements of the curriculum that contributed to these benefits were the provision of intensive structured support in the form of online tutorials supporting core
techniques, incorporation of project-based coaching, and the
involvement of an action-oriented approach to learning.
NOTE
1. In this article we use the term forensic to describe the
particularly logical and robust approach that is required
for the application of process improvement tools and
methods.
REFERENCES
Alavi, M., & Gallupe, R. B. (2003). Using information technology in
learning: Case studies in business and management education programs.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 139–153.
Alavi, M., Wheeler, B., & Valacich, J. (1995). Using IT to reengineer business education: An exploratory investigation of collaborative telelearning.
MIS Quarterly, 19, 293–311.
Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. (2005). An instructional
model for web-based e-learning education with a blended process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 217–235.
Baker, E. L., & O’Neil, H. F. (1987). Assessing instructional outcomes. In
R. M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 343–377).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:20 11 January 2016
316
S. CROOM AND A. BETTS
Bal, J. (1998). Process analysis tools for process improvement. The TQM
Magazine, 110, 342–354.
Bohn, R. E. (1994). Measuring and managing technical knowledge. Sloan
Management Review, 61–73.
Buckley, R., & Caple, C. (1995). The theory and practice of training (3rd
ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page.
Cabral, L. M. B., & Riordan, M. H. (1994). The learning curve, market
dominance and predatory pricing. Econometrica, 62, 1115–1135.
Componation, P. J., & Farrington, P. A. (2000). Identification of effective
problem-solving tools to support continuous process improvement teams.
Engineering Management Journal, 12(1), 23–30.
Corner, P. D. (2002). An integrative model for teaching quantitative research
design. Journal of Management Education, 26, 671–692.
Crocetti, C. (2002). Corporate learning. A knowledge management perspective. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 271–285.
Ćukušić, M., Alfirević, A., Granić, A., & Garača, Z. (2010). E-Learning process management and the e-learning performance: Results of a European
empirical study. Computers and Education, 55, 554–565.
Deming, W. E. (1982). Quality, productivity and competitive position. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering.
Entwistle, N. (1988). Styles of learning and teaching: An integrated outline
of educational psychology. London, UK: David Fulton.
Eskerod, P. (2010). Action learning for further developing project management competencies: A case study from an engineering consultancy
company. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 352–360.
Figueiredo, P. N. (2002). Learning processes features and technological
capability accumulation: Explaining inter-firm differences. Technovation,
22, 685–698.
Fine, C. H. (1986). Quality improvement and learning in productive systems.
Management Science, 10, 1302–1315.
Firestone W. A. (1993). Alterative arguments for generalising from data as
applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22, 16–23.
Gagné, R. M. (1971). Learning research and its implications for independent learning. In R. A. Weisgerber (Ed.), Perspectives in individualized
learning. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Grant, J. H., & Gnyawali, D. R. (1996). Strategic process improvement
through organizational learning. Strategy & Leadership, 24, 28–32.
Grünberg, T. (2003). A review of improvement methods in manufacturing
operations. Work Study, 52(2), 89–93.
Hale, R., Wade, R., & Collier, D. (2003). Matching business education to
the change agenda. Training Journal, Supp. 1(April), 4–7.
Hung, R. Y. Y., Yang, B., Lien, B. Y.-H., McLean, G., & Kuo, Y.-M.
(2009). Dynamic capability: Impact of process alignment and organizational learning culture on performance. Journal of World Business, 45,
285–294.
Illeris, K. (2003). Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of
learning. International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 22, 396–406.
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The key to Japan’s competitive success. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Johnson, M. D. (2000). Linking operational and environmental improvement
through employee involvement. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 20, 148–165.
Kellner, A., Teichert, V., Hagemann, M., Ćukušić, M., Granić, A., & Pagden,
A. (2008). Deliverable D7.2: Report of validation results. UNITE report.
Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Kelly, A. V. (1989). The curriculum: Theory & practice (3rd ed.). London,
UK: Paul Chapman.
Knowles, M. (1984a). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.).
Houston, TX: Gulf.
Knowles, M. (1984b). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., & Nijs, H. (2009). Learning conditions for non-formal
and informal workplace learning. Journal for Workplace Learning, 21,
S369–S383.
Lim, H., Lee, S.-G., & Nam, K. (2007). Validating e-learning factors affecting training effectiveness. International Journal of Information Management, 27, 22–35.
LoBue, R. (2002). Team self-assessment: Problem solving for small groups.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 14, 286–297.
McGorry, S. Y. (2003). Measuring quality in online programs. The Internet
and Higher Education, 6, 159–177.
Meyer, K. (2003). The web’s impact on student learning. In J. Hirschbuhl
& J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (166–169). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Moen, R., & Norman, C. (2006). Evolution of the PDSA cycle. Retrieved
from http://deming.ces.clemson.edu/pub/den/deming pdsa.htm
Moore, M., & Thompson, M. (1997). The effects of distance learning
(ACSDE Research Monograph Series, Vol. 15). State College, PA: American Center for the Study of Distance Education.
Neagley, R., Ross, L., & Evans, N. (1967). Handbook for effective curriculum development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Olve, N., Roy, J., & Wetter, M. (1999). Performance drivers: A practical
guide to using the balanced scorecard. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Ramcharamdas, E. (1994). Xerox creates a continuous learning environment
for business transformation. Planning Review, 22, 34–38.
Rossett, A. (1997). That was a great class, but. . . . Training and Development, 51, 18–25.
Rowley, J. (2003). Action research: An approach to student work based
learning. Education & Training, 45, 131–138.
Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006). The impact of e-learning
in medical education. Academic Medicine, 81, 207–212.
Spence, A. M. (1981). The learning curve and competition. Bell Journal of
Economics, 13(1), 20–35.
Stake, R. E. (1988). Case study methods in educational research: Seeking
sweet water. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research
in education (pp. 253–300). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Stevenson, J. (2002). Concepts of workplace knowledge. International Journal of Education Research, 37, 1–15.
Upton, D. M., & Kim, B. (1998). Alternative methods of learning and process improvement in manufacturing. Journal of Operations Management,
16(1), 1–20.
Van Solingen, R., Berghout, E., Kusters, R., & Trienekens, J. (2000).
From process improvement to people improvement: Enabling learning in
software development. Information and Software Technology, 42, 965–
971.
Womer, K. W. (1979). Learning curves, production rates and program costs.
Management Science, 25, 312–319.
Wright, T. P. (1936). Factors affecting the costs of airplanes. Journal of the
Aeronautical Society, 3, 122–128.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Developing a Forensic Approach to Process
Improvement: The Relationship Between
Curriculum and Impact in Frontline Operator
Education
Simon Croom & Alan Betts
To cite this article: Simon Croom & Alan Betts (2011) Developing a Forensic Approach
to Process Improvement: The Relationship Between Curriculum and Impact in
Frontline Operator Education, Journal of Education for Business, 86:6, 311-316, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2010.520758
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.520758
Published online: 29 Aug 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 481
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:20
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 86: 311–316, 2011
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.520758
Developing a Forensic Approach to Process
Improvement: The Relationship Between Curriculum
and Impact in Frontline Operator Education
Simon Croom
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:20 11 January 2016
University of San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
Alan Betts
HT2 Ltd., Oxford, UK
The authors present a comparative study of 2 in-company educational programs aimed at
developing frontline operator capabilities in forensic methods. They discuss the relationship
between the application of various forensic tools and conceptual techniques, the process (i.e.,
curriculum) for developing employee knowledge and capability, and the impact on process
improvement. The authors conclude that the use of e-learning via online learning management
support and associated media has a positive impact on learner retention and application of
concepts and techniques.
Keywords: curriculum design, e-learning, education, financial service operations, process
improvement
In this article we examine the impact of online mediated
learning. Specifically, the study focuses on curriculum effectiveness in a postexperience learner environment and involves a study of company sponsored development programs.
Such programs have cohorts of learners with a wider variety
of learner capability, prior knowledge, and learning experiences than most university courses. Consequently, a major
challenge in curriculum design is to accommodate this variety in the caliber of learners while ensuring a minimum level
of educational and learning outcomes.
A core consideration in adult learning is to embrace
learner experiences within the curriculum design. Illeris
(2003) contended that all learning implies an integration of
external interaction processes (e.g., the social and workplace
environmental conditions faced by the learner) and internal psychological processes (i.e., an individual’s behavioral
and cognitive processes) and further stated that many learning theories only deal with one of these processes. Others
(e.g., Stevenson, 2002) have noted that the separation of
the external and internal is problematic. The relationship
Correspondence should be addressed to Simon Croom, University of San
Diego, Supply Chain Management Institute, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego,
CA 92110, USA. E-mail: scroom@sandiego.edu
between the external and internal reflects the action research
approach to learning (Rowley, 2003), which is best explained
by Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle and reinforced in Nonaka and
Takeuchi’s (1995) seminal work.
Knowles (1984a, 1984b) developed a theory of andragogy, specifically to address postexperience adult learning,
emphasizing that adults are self-directed and expect to take
responsibility for decisions. He made the following assumptions about the design of learning: adults a) need to know
why they need to learn something, b) need to learn experientially, c) approach learning as problem solving, and d) learn
best when the topic is of immediate value. In practical terms,
andragogy means that instruction for adults needs to focus
more on the process and less on the content being taught
(Eskerod 2010).
The literature thus emphasizes the importance for learning
outcomes of the balance between theoretical learning and reflection. This is a critical element in ensuring that the learner
is able to continue to apply what was learned (Buckley &
Caple, 1995) and avoid postclass dismay (Rossett, 1997) due
to the fear of being unable to use the knowledge acquired.
With the advent of e-learning and learning management
systems (LMS), new opportunities have been presented to
educators. Crocetti (2002) discussed some of the benefits
of integrating learning processes with corporate processes in
312
S. CROOM AND A. BETTS
order to deliver valuable individual learning outcomes and direct corporate benefits, drawing a strong relationship between
effective learning management systems and sustainable organizational learning. There has, however, been relatively little
research measuring the impact of computer-assisted learning systems (or e-learning) on learning outcomes (Ćukušić,
Alfirević, Granić, & Garača, 2010; Lim, Lee, & Nam, 2007;
McGorry, 2003 Meyer, 2003).
In this article we undertake an analysis of adult learning
and offer some redress to this lack of empirical validation of
e-learning and LMS.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:20 11 January 2016
Process Improvement
Our curricula focused on development programs concerned
with process improvements for frontline operators (operatives) and their management. The development and application of skills in a range of analytical tools, techniques,
and methods by operatives has been found to have a significant impact on process performance (Imai, 1986; Johnson,
2000; LoBue, 2002; Olve, Roy, & Wetter, 1999).1 Learning curve effects have been well researched since Wright’s
1936 publication, although much of the subsequent literature in this area has focused on autonomous learning (i.e.,
improvement through repetition; Cabral & Riordan, 1994;
Spence, 1981; Womer, 1979). Deming (1982) emphasized
process knowledge, Fine (1986) modeled the impact of investments in quality learning, and, germane to this article,
Grant and Gnyawali (1996) provided a brief discussion of
the contribution of forensic methods to effective organizational learning in delivering process improvement. Bohn
(1994) further expanded on this with an evolutionary stage
model of process knowledge. The importance of learning
to strategic and operational improvement has further been
examined through discussion of the development of learning networks (incorporating a culture of training, application
and improvement; Figueiredo, 2002; Ramcharamdas, 1994:
Upton & Kim, 1998). Forensic tools based on industrial engineering, operational research, and work-study methods have
been widely applied to manufacturing operations improvement (Bal, 1998; Grünberg 2003).
METHOD
The programs studied adopted a strong action learning approach, benefits of which have been identified by Hale,
Wade, and Collier (2003). We also addressed the impact
of online mediated learning. Alavi, Wheeler, and Valacich
(1995) compared desktop video conferencing in a number of
teaching contexts, Moore and Thompson (1997) studied distributed technology mediated learning, Van Solingen, Berghout, Kusters, and Trienekens (2000) developed a conceptual
model of the enabling factors for learning, and Alavi and
Gallupe (2003) summarized their view of the literature on
e-learning. Comparative studies of the impact of computerassisted learning had not produced any conclusive evidence
of significant differences between learning media.
Our objectives in this paper were the following: to a)
identify the impact of a range of forensic tools and methods in terms of learner application, and b) compare alternative curricula in the development of forensic capability as
demonstrated through action learning projects, specifically
examining the impact of e-learning.
To evaluate the impact of curriculum on outcomes, we
needed to ensure we had adequate control of other variables
that may impact on learning outcomes, such as prior learning, learning technology, assessment, delivery mechanisms,
and performance measurement (Baker & O’Neil, 1987; Entwistle, 1988; Gagné, 1971; Kelly, 1989; Neagley, Ross, &
Evans, 1967). The target programs were thus selected because a) both had similar subject content; b) the participating
organizations were of a similar size and scope of operation,
from the same industrial sector and included participants of
similar managerial level; and c) both groups had comparable
levels of prior knowledge on entering the programs.
By constraining certain variables (subject content, industry and operational context, level and prior capability of learners) and by measuring the performance of participants, we
were able to establish the validity of comparative case analyses as the method for an analysis of the impact of curriculum
on performance. Using Firestone’s (1993) view of case-tocase transfer as one of three forms of generalization and
Stake’s (1988) distinction between deductive and inductive
generalization in support of the use of case study methods
of analyses (in educational research), we also feel that case
studies provide a valuable method for conducting comparative analysis and positing generalizable propositions as a
result of such an analytical approach.
The unit of analysis for this study was a cohort (i.e., a
single group of learners following the same course of study).
Typically, a cohort would consist of 15–20 participants. In
this study we had a total of 38 cohorts, 22 from Organization
A and 16 from Organization B.
Data gathering involved a review of each cohort’s project
activities and their written submissions at three key stages
of the project: problem identification, data collection and
analysis, and final interpretation and recommendations. All
cohorts used an online discussion forum, which was a primary link between the tutors and the participants. All communications were included in the analysis. Written reports,
Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, spreadsheets, and occasionally other digital media were submitted and assessed.
Only Organization B had full online learning support, including multimedia and interactive online tutorials.
First, analysis of the data involved recording exactly
which forensic methods were applied and assessing the accuracy and extent of their use through tutor evaluation. A
list of the tools used by each cohort was tabulated in the
first instance and then summarized by organization. Second,
DEVELOPING A FORENSIC APPROACH TO PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
TABLE 1
Content of Program Curriculum:
Tools and Methods Included
Organization A
TABLE 2
Learning Experiences Within the Two Curricula
Organization A
Organization B
One three-day workshop
Three one-day workshops, six weeks
apart Online support materials
Action learning group project
Online mentoring
Organization B
Layout diagrams
Process flow charts
Workflow analysis
Volume-variety matrix
SPC control charts
Experimental design
Capacity utilization
Throughput efficiency
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:20 11 January 2016
313
Layout diagrams
Process flow charts
Workflow analysis
Volume-variety matrix
SPC control charts
Experimental design
Capacity utilization
Throughput efficiency, supply chain
mapping, ServQual (adapted) gap model
Process capability
Process capability
Causal maps
Causal maps, service blueprinting
Polar/radar representation of Polar/radar representation of strategic
strategic imperatives
imperatives
Importance-performance
Importance-performance matrix
matrix
all project submissions were assessed for level of accuracy,
appropriateness of application, and consistency of interpretation by two experienced teachers of operations management. One of the assessors had involvement in the delivery
of the programs, and the other assessor was not involved
in delivery. All assessments were marked by both teachers,
using their agreed rating system. Last, the use of individual
forensic methods was assessed to identify any difference in
capabilities between cohorts from the two organizations.
Action learning group project
Online mentoring
active online-learning support materials, online mentoring,
and a terminal group action learning project. Thus, the two
programs differed in terms of the scheduling of the workshops and the provision of online learning support materials
for Organization B (see Table 2).
Our methodology for evaluating which elements of the
content were most effective was to apply Componation and
Farrington’s (2000) method of observing and monitoring
which tools and methods were applied by participants in
their action learning project. Extensive reporting and feedback was central to the method used to conduct these projects,
thus providing us with data relating to what had been done
(Moen & Norman, 2006). We evaluated the impact in terms
of scale of improvement (cost, time, utilization, speed, and
quality) and online mentoring enabled a two-way dialogue
for guidance to participants in the use of relevant methods.
Each cohort submitted a final written report. Both organizations were given the same report brief and assessment
criteria.
Analysis: Forensic Tools
We found participants’ prior knowledge of many basic methods in the curriculum was cursory or nonexistent. Componation and Farrington (2000) found that the more commonly
used tools were those that were easy to understand and apply.
Their article outlined a range of methods, including typical
layout and flow methods, problem-solving techniques, and
quality impact tools. These tools are similar to those included
in the present study (see Table 1).
The difference in the range of tools included in the programs for each organization was a result of differences in the
curriculum design employed.
RESULTS
We used the terminal group project submissions as the basis
for our data analysis. The remit for both groups of participants was similar: to undertake an analysis of a process and
propose improvements as a direct result of their investigation. We were able to identify both the methods employed
and the consequent improvements for each of the projects
undertaken.
In Table 3 we summarize the frequency distribution of the
forensic tools used.
Elements of Curriculum Design
The term curriculum is defined here as all the planned experiences provided by the institution to assist the learners in
attaining the designated learning outcomes to the best of their
abilities (Neagley et al., 1967). Thus, curriculum embodies
the total experience, process, and application of learning.
Curriculum design also incorporated e-learning options
(Kellner et al., 2008). Organization A’s program included a
three-day workshop, online mentoring, and a terminal group
action learning project. Organization B followed a mixed
mode of three one-day workshops (six weeks apart), inter-
DISCUSSION
Evaluation
For many participants the use of quantitative approaches was
particularly challenging. In evaluating participants’ ability in
forensic techniques, we assessed three stages of each group’s
investigation project. We found a significant difference between the groups—the average score for Organization A was
7% (or one grade level) lower than that of Organization B.
The standard deviation of grades for both groups was similar
314
S. CROOM AND A. BETTS
TABLE 3
Forensic Methods: Frequency of Use, by Cohort
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:20 11 January 2016
Method
Volume-variety matrix
Polar/radar representation of
strategic imperatives
Importance-performance matrix
Process flow charts
Process capability
Workflow analysis
Capacity utilization
Throughput efficiency
Experimental design
ServQual (adapted) gap model
Supply chain mapping
Layout diagrams
Service blueprinting
Organization A
Organization B
90%
75%
97%
87%
53%
48%
18%
8%
4%
2%
1%
82%
67%
17%
8%
13%
3%
15%
38%
21%
27%
2%
(A = 2.78, B = 2.66). Thus, our assessment was that Organization B participants demonstrated greater technical ability
in the use of a range of forensic methods.
We found three significant differences between the two
organizations when we evaluated the recommendations and
outcome of each group’s project:
1. All of Organization B’s projects had clear evaluation of
the financial impact of recommendations, and linked
improvements to customer service. For Organization
A, only 25% of the projects had clear financial data
associated with improvements.
2. The link between existing performance metrics, process changes, and performance improvements on nonfinancial criteria was significantly different between
the two organizations. Again, all of Organization B’s
projects provided clear associations between improvements and performance, whereas only 72% of Organization A’s proposal contained such information.
3. The clarity of argument applied to the proposed improvements was significantly different between the two
organizations, partly reflected by the grades awarded
and further reinforced by the extent each project’s recommendations had been implemented. Management
receptivity to improvement projects in the two organizations could be different (Hung, Yang, Lien, McLean,
& Kuo, 2009) and thus account for this, so all group
projects were supported by a sponsoring manager and
the majority of projects were initiated by management.
We thus contended that the differences in progress
could be a reflection of the degree of clarity in the technical arguments. To test this proposition, we spoke to
a small sample of sponsoring managers in both organizations in order to identify other factors preventing
implementation. Although this was an opportunistic
process and thus lacks some statistical significance
in our findings, we concluded that both organizations
faced similar levels of exogenous inhibitors (lack of
funding, impending technological changes, and constraints through work practice and existing systems).
To quantify levels of competence in the execution of forensic methods we assessed two key facets of evaluation. First,
was the method used correctly? Second, did the application of the method provide benefit? We developed a 4-point
Likert-type semantic scale ranging from 1 (inadequate use of
the method) to 4 (advanced application of the method). The
mean score for each method employed was then calculated.
Table 4 provides a contingency table containing the mean
scores achieved by participants in relationship to the common forensic methodologies adopted by each case organization and calculated the Spearman Rank coefficient, which is
shown in column 4.
We can reject the null hypothesis that the performance of
the two organizations’ participants are mutually independent
when the computed test statistic rs ≥ critical value of the
TABLE 4
Spearman Rank Coefficient Analysis of the Two Case Organizations’ Performance
Forensic methodology
Volume-variety matrix
Polar/radar representation
of strategic imperatives
Importance performance
matrix
Process flow charts
Process capability
Layout diagrams
Work flow analysis
Capacity utilization
Throughput efficiency
Average score
Organization A
Organization B
Mean group score
(Assessor’s evaluation)
Mean group score
(Assessors evaluation)
Spearman rank coefficient (rc at α = 0.05)
3.6
3.4
3.6
3.6
0.7357 (n = 15; rc ≥ 3788)
0.5587 (n = 11; rc ≥ 5273)
3.4
3.8
0.42451 (n = 13; rc ≥ 4780)
3.0
3.1
2.6
3.0
3.1
2.8
3.1
3.3
3.6
3.2
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.5
0.5677∗ (n = 9; rc ≥ 5S33)
0.5244∗ (n = 6; rc ≥ 77t4)
C .4676∗ (n = 10, rc ≥ 5515)
0.5893∗ (n = 7; rc ≥ 6786)
0.6552 (n = 10; rc ≥ 5515)
0.5166∗ (n = 6; rc ≥ 5833)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:20 11 January 2016
DEVELOPING A FORENSIC APPROACH TO PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
Spearman test statistic for an alpha level of .05. The critical
value is shown in parentheses for each forensic methodology according to sample size (n). We found that the null
hypothesis could not be rejected for six of the forensic methods (importance-performance analysis, process flow charting, process capability analysis, layout diagrams, workflow
analysis, and throughput efficiency analysis). In other words,
there is some statistically significant difference between the
performance of Organizations A and B in their demonstration
and application of these methods.
Of the range of tools and methods we included in the programs, the six methods in which independence was identified
were also considered to be of a more technically demanding nature than others. Given Componation and Farrington’s
(2000) finding that the simpler techniques seem to be more
frequently adopted, we feel there are strong indications in
support of our conclusion that the significant differences
between the two organizations’ participant performances in
these six techniques may be assignable to differences in curriculum (e.g., Kyndt, Dochy, & Nijs, 2009).
Our research design did face some limitations. First, as
we were undertaking analysis with corporate clients, the
scheduling of the courses in terms of duration of the face-toface program for Organization A and the interval between the
one-day workshops for Organization B were prescribed by
the client. Second, we were unable to set up control groups in
either organization to allow us to control for individual factors, such as the online elements of Organization B’s curriculum. A major concern is the potential difference in the times
allowed for workers to assimilate the course content, tools,
and techniques between the two organizations. Spacing Organization B’s workshops six weeks apart would have had an
impact on learning, but because this was an integral element
of the blended design it was difficult to control for the impact
of the time between workshops rather than the e-learning
support between the workshops. By using postcourse action
learning group projects, we have provided similar periods of
assimilation, reflection, and application, although we accept
that there may be some influence on the outcomes of the
duration of each organization’s program. Third, although we
ensured interrater agreement for project assessment, we may
have found it valuable to employ multiple-choice question
tests of participants to evaluate individual technical capability relating to the forensic techniques employed.
CONCLUSION
The literature has shown that many front line operatives are
resistant to the use of forensic methods (Bal, 1998; Componation & Farrington, 2000) and do not demonstrate an
aptitude to utilize such tools unless given technical instruction (Corner, 2002). The collection of learning experiences
for developing such technical competence is critical to the
315
effectiveness of educational and training programs (Neagley
et al., 1967), even though some authors have claimed that
there is no one right way to develop process improvement
competencies (Upton & Kim, 1998).
From our study of two development programs containing
ostensibly similar technical content we found a significant
difference in learning outcomes, which we ascribed to the
curriculum differences between the programs. We controlled
for other potentially influencing variables, including industry
sector, prior knowledge of learners, and organizational context (size, structure, culture). We examined contrasts between
Organization A, where cohorts of learners were exposed to
a three-day offsite workshop followed by an action learning
project, and Organization B, where learners were exposed to
three one-day offsite workshops, six weeks apart, supported
by online learning support and followed by an action learning
project. The method of evaluating the learning outcomes in
both cases was identical.
It is our conclusion that the level of technical competence
demonstrated by participants was greater where the curriculum included online learning support and workshops that are
scheduled over a longer timescale (see also Alonso, López,
Manrique, & Viñes, 2005; Ruiz, Mintzer, & Leipzig, 2006).
We also concluded that the effectiveness of the application of
learned skills in action learning situations was greater under
such circumstances.
The three significant elements of the curriculum that contributed to these benefits were the provision of intensive structured support in the form of online tutorials supporting core
techniques, incorporation of project-based coaching, and the
involvement of an action-oriented approach to learning.
NOTE
1. In this article we use the term forensic to describe the
particularly logical and robust approach that is required
for the application of process improvement tools and
methods.
REFERENCES
Alavi, M., & Gallupe, R. B. (2003). Using information technology in
learning: Case studies in business and management education programs.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 139–153.
Alavi, M., Wheeler, B., & Valacich, J. (1995). Using IT to reengineer business education: An exploratory investigation of collaborative telelearning.
MIS Quarterly, 19, 293–311.
Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. (2005). An instructional
model for web-based e-learning education with a blended process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 217–235.
Baker, E. L., & O’Neil, H. F. (1987). Assessing instructional outcomes. In
R. M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 343–377).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:20 11 January 2016
316
S. CROOM AND A. BETTS
Bal, J. (1998). Process analysis tools for process improvement. The TQM
Magazine, 110, 342–354.
Bohn, R. E. (1994). Measuring and managing technical knowledge. Sloan
Management Review, 61–73.
Buckley, R., & Caple, C. (1995). The theory and practice of training (3rd
ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page.
Cabral, L. M. B., & Riordan, M. H. (1994). The learning curve, market
dominance and predatory pricing. Econometrica, 62, 1115–1135.
Componation, P. J., & Farrington, P. A. (2000). Identification of effective
problem-solving tools to support continuous process improvement teams.
Engineering Management Journal, 12(1), 23–30.
Corner, P. D. (2002). An integrative model for teaching quantitative research
design. Journal of Management Education, 26, 671–692.
Crocetti, C. (2002). Corporate learning. A knowledge management perspective. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 271–285.
Ćukušić, M., Alfirević, A., Granić, A., & Garača, Z. (2010). E-Learning process management and the e-learning performance: Results of a European
empirical study. Computers and Education, 55, 554–565.
Deming, W. E. (1982). Quality, productivity and competitive position. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering.
Entwistle, N. (1988). Styles of learning and teaching: An integrated outline
of educational psychology. London, UK: David Fulton.
Eskerod, P. (2010). Action learning for further developing project management competencies: A case study from an engineering consultancy
company. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 352–360.
Figueiredo, P. N. (2002). Learning processes features and technological
capability accumulation: Explaining inter-firm differences. Technovation,
22, 685–698.
Fine, C. H. (1986). Quality improvement and learning in productive systems.
Management Science, 10, 1302–1315.
Firestone W. A. (1993). Alterative arguments for generalising from data as
applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22, 16–23.
Gagné, R. M. (1971). Learning research and its implications for independent learning. In R. A. Weisgerber (Ed.), Perspectives in individualized
learning. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Grant, J. H., & Gnyawali, D. R. (1996). Strategic process improvement
through organizational learning. Strategy & Leadership, 24, 28–32.
Grünberg, T. (2003). A review of improvement methods in manufacturing
operations. Work Study, 52(2), 89–93.
Hale, R., Wade, R., & Collier, D. (2003). Matching business education to
the change agenda. Training Journal, Supp. 1(April), 4–7.
Hung, R. Y. Y., Yang, B., Lien, B. Y.-H., McLean, G., & Kuo, Y.-M.
(2009). Dynamic capability: Impact of process alignment and organizational learning culture on performance. Journal of World Business, 45,
285–294.
Illeris, K. (2003). Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of
learning. International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 22, 396–406.
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The key to Japan’s competitive success. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Johnson, M. D. (2000). Linking operational and environmental improvement
through employee involvement. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 20, 148–165.
Kellner, A., Teichert, V., Hagemann, M., Ćukušić, M., Granić, A., & Pagden,
A. (2008). Deliverable D7.2: Report of validation results. UNITE report.
Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Kelly, A. V. (1989). The curriculum: Theory & practice (3rd ed.). London,
UK: Paul Chapman.
Knowles, M. (1984a). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.).
Houston, TX: Gulf.
Knowles, M. (1984b). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., & Nijs, H. (2009). Learning conditions for non-formal
and informal workplace learning. Journal for Workplace Learning, 21,
S369–S383.
Lim, H., Lee, S.-G., & Nam, K. (2007). Validating e-learning factors affecting training effectiveness. International Journal of Information Management, 27, 22–35.
LoBue, R. (2002). Team self-assessment: Problem solving for small groups.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 14, 286–297.
McGorry, S. Y. (2003). Measuring quality in online programs. The Internet
and Higher Education, 6, 159–177.
Meyer, K. (2003). The web’s impact on student learning. In J. Hirschbuhl
& J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (166–169). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Moen, R., & Norman, C. (2006). Evolution of the PDSA cycle. Retrieved
from http://deming.ces.clemson.edu/pub/den/deming pdsa.htm
Moore, M., & Thompson, M. (1997). The effects of distance learning
(ACSDE Research Monograph Series, Vol. 15). State College, PA: American Center for the Study of Distance Education.
Neagley, R., Ross, L., & Evans, N. (1967). Handbook for effective curriculum development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Olve, N., Roy, J., & Wetter, M. (1999). Performance drivers: A practical
guide to using the balanced scorecard. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Ramcharamdas, E. (1994). Xerox creates a continuous learning environment
for business transformation. Planning Review, 22, 34–38.
Rossett, A. (1997). That was a great class, but. . . . Training and Development, 51, 18–25.
Rowley, J. (2003). Action research: An approach to student work based
learning. Education & Training, 45, 131–138.
Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006). The impact of e-learning
in medical education. Academic Medicine, 81, 207–212.
Spence, A. M. (1981). The learning curve and competition. Bell Journal of
Economics, 13(1), 20–35.
Stake, R. E. (1988). Case study methods in educational research: Seeking
sweet water. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research
in education (pp. 253–300). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Stevenson, J. (2002). Concepts of workplace knowledge. International Journal of Education Research, 37, 1–15.
Upton, D. M., & Kim, B. (1998). Alternative methods of learning and process improvement in manufacturing. Journal of Operations Management,
16(1), 1–20.
Van Solingen, R., Berghout, E., Kusters, R., & Trienekens, J. (2000).
From process improvement to people improvement: Enabling learning in
software development. Information and Software Technology, 42, 965–
971.
Womer, K. W. (1979). Learning curves, production rates and program costs.
Management Science, 25, 312–319.
Wright, T. P. (1936). Factors affecting the costs of airplanes. Journal of the
Aeronautical Society, 3, 122–128.