INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING DESIGN, ICED11

15 - 18 AUGUST 2011, TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK

AN EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICATION OF PLANDO-CHECK-ACT CYCLE IN PRODUCT

DEVELOPMENT
Eirin Lodgaard1, Knut Einar Aasland1
(1) Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
ABSTRACT
Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle is a high level method for achieving continuous improvement that
has been a basic element of the total quality management movement. It is a practical tool and is widely
adopted in the automotive sector as an improvement tool to managing improvement projects especially
within manufacturing. The aim of this paper is to evaluate how the continuous improvement processes
are conducted compared to the PDCA cycle and to better understand the improvement processes in a
PD environment. The results from the case study shows that the PDCA cycle is not always followed
precisely according to the formally described quality assurance system in the companies. Nevertheless,
the case companies emphasizes that they naturally, as engineers, do improvements every day. The
companies have according to our evaluations never given the PDCA method a proper chance to prove
its usefulness in PD. Consequently, the companies claim that the method will be most suitable when
the problem to be analyzed is sufficiently complex, when there are no time constraints and enough
resources to spend on the problem.
Keywords: PDCA cycle, continuous improvement, product development, automotive supplier industry
1

INTRODUCTION

The Norwegian first tiers suppliers to the automotive original equipment manufacturers, included in
this study, face contractual requirements of yearly price reductions over the life cycle of a model or a
platform. The speed at which firms develop and roll out new products has become an increasingly
critical competitive issue. The long term business sustainability therefore depends on the ability to
acquire knowledge throughout the organization to develop better products and processes.
Many companies have focused their time and effort on improving the manufacturing processes. JIT,
TPM, Six Sigma are well known tools that to a large extent are successfully implemented to improve
or redesign the value stream of physical products. There are still potentials for improvements by
making manufacturing processes more adaptable and flexible, however, it is equally important to
focus on the PD process to become competitive in the future[1]. Considering that at least 80% of the
life cycle costs of a product are determined in the early phase of PD, the rate of success is heavily
dependent on how this initial phase is performed[2]. Continuous improvement is found important as a
never ending process of performance improvements to gain efficient processes in PD environment [3].
The aim of this paper is to investigate how PDCA are conducted in PD in two automotive supplier
companies. This is again compared to the PDCA method described in their formal quality assurance
system. Do the case companies follow the PDCA method as described in their formal quality
assurance system? If not, which strengthens and weakness can be identified through the in-house
approach compared to the PDCA method?
In the following sections, we first outline the theoretical background of total quality management
(TQM), continuous improvement processes, and the specific approach used in this research study,
PDCA. Next, two case studies are presented to illustrate the continuous method used in the case
companies. The experiences from the case study will be presented and compared to the theoretical
background for the PDCA method. Finally, the main concluding remarks about strengthens and
weakness to show the usefulness of the PDCA method will be summarized.

2 TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

The TQM philosophy highlights systematic, integrated, consistent, organization-wide perspective that
involves everyone and everything. It focuses primarily on total satisfaction for both the internal and
external customers, and it seeks continuous improvement of all systems and processes in companies
[4], [5],. Thus, TQM could be said to mostly focus on the process when using the definition; a
collection of activities that takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output that is of value for
the customer [6].This is in line with one definition of a PD process; a sequence of steps or activities
which an enterprise employs to conceive, design and commercialize a product[7].
The beginning of TQM can be traced back to Shewhart who introduced the use of statistical quality
control in the 1920s [8]. His work was later broadened by other statisticians, and in 1949 the Union of
Japanese Scientists and Engineers, influenced by Deming and Juran, formed a committee devoted to
improve the Japanese productivity [9]. In Japan, TQM produced managerial innovations as quality
circles, supplier partnership, cellular manufacturing and just-in-time production among others.
Continuous improvement, a core principle in total quality management (TQM), is commonly
recognized and used in industrial companies all over the world [10]. There are many definitions of
continuous improvement, and two of them are: a continuous stream of high-involvement, incremental
changes in products and processes for enhanced business performance[10] and a conscious effort to
manage and accelerate the learning curve by involving a maximum number of people in improvement
[11].Both of these definitions emphasize involvement from the entire organization, consequently also
people working with research and PD. In complex and turbulent environments the need for continuous
improvement of products and in processes is widely recognized [12]. This statement is very adoptable
to the automotive industry and its suppliers to be able to develop better products and processes to
succeed in a demanding market.
3 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
Even though TQM and continuous improvement have been well known techniques for decades it is
still reported that little has been written about the application of TQM and continuous improvement to
PD [13], [14], [15]. The mechanisms whereby continuous improvement can be achieved are often less
clearly identified. Although many kaizen or continuous improvement projects based on employee
involvement are started, the failure rate is high [12]. Companies often achieve significant
improvements in the short run, but continuous improvement ultimately falls apart or does not
materialize. A study by Lillrank et al[16] shows that two out of every three continuous improvement
initiative fail to deliver desired performance. Powell [9] also reported a considerable variability in
TQM performance, ranging from success, abandonment of TQM to bankruptcy. The experience of
disappointment and failure with continuous improvement initiatives reported by many organizations
derives mainly from a lack of understanding of the behavioral dimension[12]. Too much focus on
continuous improvement tools and techniques, neglecting human factors and how continuous
improvement behavior patterns emerge in the workplace, is also reported as a pitfall in a study by
Ljungstrm and Klefsj[10]. Lack of focus on human resources is also reported as a weakness in the
ISO 9001 quality system [8].
The applications of TQM to PD are reported as everything from beneficial to fundamentally unsound
[13]. This lack of extensiveness to PD is somehow contradictory to the intension in the pioneering
work by Deming and Juran, who stated that the quality concept cannot be tested into a manufactured
product but must be designed into the product: quality at the source [17]. Sandstrm and
Toivanen[18] argued that management should realize that the key to strategic success lies not in
making manufacturing more efficient, but rather in making PD more effective and conscious about
quality. Ekvall[19] found a tendency that managers seek to control and manage the research and
development processes more than before. This may be performed by using the management
philosophies such as concurrent engineering and ISO 9001[20]. In addition one has to find a balance
between formal processes and freedom to succeed with continuous improvement and TQM work
among engineers. In the terms of Mintzberg [21] this can be classified within the professional
bureaucracy, where professionals expect freedom and decentralization to apply their special
competence in their work and thereby show resistance to rules and procedures. Professionals claim to
have different standards than the rest of the organization because of learned methodologies during
education and earlier work experiences[22]. It is therefore important to pay attention to this resistance

to rigid systems and procedures, and thereby try to agree upon a level of standardization which both
satisfies the quality standard and the professionals.
4 THE PLAN DO CHECK- ACT METHOD
The concept of the PDCA cycle was originally conceived by Walter Shewhart and W. Edwards
Deming was the one who first coined the term PDCA and he encouraged the Japanese in the 1950s to
adopt the PDCA method. The PDCA cycle, also called the Deming wheel [23], or by Deming himself
the Shewhart cycle [24], is a main tool in continuous improvement. The PDCA cycle describes a
systematic and continuous problem solving approach, which has been used since 1950 by the Japanese
to improve the quality in the entire organization. This tool is widely outspread in the industry today,
and the PDCA approach is also highly recommended by the quality assurance standard ISO/TS 16949
used by the Norwegian first tier suppliers in the automotive industry [25].
Coordinating continuous improvement plans with a PDCA cycle involves four steps: Plan, Do, Check
and Act, carried out in the cycle illustrated in figure 1. The PDCA cycle is designed to be used as a
dynamic model, and completion of one turn of the cycle flows into the beginning of a new cycle again.
Normally, it needs to go through multiple iterations of phases (PDC-PDC-PDCA) within the same
cycle, before the desired results can be accomplished.

Act:
Learning
Standardization

Check
Evaluation of results

Plan
Analyze current condition
Root cause analyzes
Define performance
measurement
Establish improvement
plan

Do:
Implement improvement
plan

Figure 1: The four phases of the PDCA cycle

The PDCA cycle is a valuable process that has a wide applicability[1]. Although it is frequently used
as a process improvement tool by teams, individuals will also find it useful. Toyota has for instance
found the PDCA method to be generic and applicable to the PD, additional to manufacturing. Using
the PDCA method lies in their culture and is daily used as a problem solving method to ensure fact
based solution and to avoid solutions which only remove symptoms [26]. Short-termism and suboptimization through partial fulfillment of the PDCA cycle can be seen as a contrast to the strength of
the Toyota product development system. Most of the organizations are not consistently effective in
addressing the day to day problems they face, but instead they have developed sophisticated in fire
fighting skills [3]. In the West many companies are adept to just do and neglect the P-C-A phases
[27].
Coordinating continuous improvement with a PDCA cycle involves four phases Plan, Do, Check and
Act, which can be explicitly stated as follows:
4.1 Plan Phase
This phase is not just about planning what to do, but also to identify and analyze the problem and
establish performance targets and methods to reach the targets. Normally a continuous improvement
team is established to solve a specific problem were the team involve the type of resources which have
the necessary competence and mandate to achieve desire improvement. The team is established,
recourses identified, responsibility assigned, before executing the improvement plan. Initially, one

must understand the process or system that gave rise to the problem, in the context where the problem
occurred, to clarify the problem further and find out why the problem is a problem. Typically,
continuous improvement teams spend the vast majority of their time and effort in this phase[24].
When the current condition is analyzed then performance measurements must be defined to know
what the targets for the improvement are. Performance targets to use in evaluating the results of the
problem-solving effort, is important to secure that an improvement is achieved. It is often difficult to
identify the specific metrics to achieve desired improvement[28].
Beneath every problem lies causes and it is easy to underestimate the effort it sometimes takes to find
the root causes of a problem. Causes can be classified as one of the following as described by
Andersen [29]:
Symptoms: These are not regarded as actual causes, but rather as signs of existing
problems.
First-level causes: Causes that directly lead to a problem.
High-level causes: Causes that lead to the first-level causes form links in the chain of
cause-and-effect relationships that ultimately create the problem
This demonstrates that a problem can be the results of multiple causes of different levels and some
causes affect other causes. One way of identifying causes is to perform Root Cause Analysis. It can be
described as [29]: Root cause analysis is a structured investigation that aims to identify the true cause
of a problem and the actions necessary to eliminate it. The challenges is to correctly identify the root
causes, as there may be multiple root causes, moreover the identification of one of a root cause is not
sufficient to bring about the desired results, action have to be implemented.
Hence in order to prevent recurrence of problem, causes have to be eliminated. Otherwise the problem
will occur again. Developing and evaluating a number of possible improvement alternatives and
creating an effective improvement plan are important in this context. Improvement plan describes who
will do what by when.
4.2 Do phase
The improvement plan is now formulated and it is time to execute it according to the schedule. It is
expected that the do phase is where all defined issues are implemented according to the
improvement plan defined in the plan phase. There may be several potential or competing causes to
the actual problem. Consequently the improvement plan contain items that attempted, but that in the
end, wind up not affecting the observed problem[3]. In the do phase it is just as important to
understand what did not work as it is to know what did work. In this phase the continuous
improvement teams will maximize its learning from the experience.
4.3 Check phase
This is a crucial step in the PDCA cycle, where the data gathered during the do phase is studied in
order to evaluate the effect of the implementations [24]. Performance targets are summarized and
evaluated and a review is made of actual and expected results. This phase emphasizes the success of
the planned actions in addressing the core problem and whether the root causes have been eliminated.
If the problem is completely solved you can move on to the next phase, if the action items was only
partially successful it is necessary to revisit previous phases.
4.4 Act phase
The effectiveness of the improvement issues implemented is confirmed in the previous phase and
further work is to use the valuable work in a proper way both, inside the continuous team, and other
relevant persons. The potential for standardization of improved processes and learning relies mainly
on the act phase to ensuring that the improved level of performance is maintained and to capture the
learning during the work performed in all of the phases in the PDCA cycle.
5 CASE STUDY METHOD
The following section outlines the method used to conduct the multiple case studies in the Norwegian
automotive supplier industry. Automotive supplier industry was chosen as a case as they already has a
formal requirement to define a continuous improvement method and to use it as a method to secure
continuous improvement for all processes at the companies. Both companies have decades of

experience with the continuous improvement methodologies primary in the manufacturing department
therefore it will be exciting to investigate the experience in PD.
Two specific cases were chosen to allow analyzing the continuous improvement method, compared to
PDCA, in Norwegian automotive first tier supplier industry. Multiple cases are chosen to ensure
higher external validity than use of a single case[30].
A research protocol including the main questions for the interviews was developed prior to conducting
the research. Semi-structured interviews were performed in both case companies. The interviews were
answered by the professions design and engineering, project managers and quality assurance, and were
directed at understanding the use of PDCA cycle in PD. Since both the companies participating in this
study are committed to PDCA cycle, the studies were concerned with implementation and
performance, issues related to the use of this method. To allow deeper examination and ensure the
reliability of the data from the interviews, one of the cases was analyzed more thoroughly through
direct observations, informal conversations, attendance at meetings and events, and review of archival
sources.
Central to effective case research is coding of the observations and data collecting in the field. It is
important to try to code data into categories[31]. Data from this study was first coded into categories
according to the different PDCA phases in question (see figure no. 1). Thereafter the data was
analyzed with respect to patterns, and finally cross cases analysis.
In the following section, we will present the results from the case studies and discuss them relative to
existing literature.
6 CASE STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Both industrial cases have described formally the use of PDCA cycle for the continuous improvement
in PD in their formal quality assurance system, to improve their business performance and customer
satisfaction. This section aims to present the qualitative data gathered trough the case study from each
of the four phases according to the PDCA cycle, which is also presented as a summary in table 1.
6.1 Plan phase
There is no clear answer to how the case companies perform the Plan phase. The daily observations
concerning what to choose for improvement and how problem solving is conducted are highly
dependent on the type of problem. Customers have much influence on what is chosen to improve
based on customer requirement and expectations. The focus on improving customer satisfaction is
highly influential for the case companies in identifying the main performance target for the
improvement tasks.
The normal procedure at the case companies is to gather a improvement team with the relevant
knowledge and experience, and start an informal process of brainstorming and discussions. Based on
the problem different procedure is used. In this, the involved people are informed about the problem,
so that they can begin to generate solutions individually before they meet and discuss. This process
seems to ensure that everybody is prepared before the formal PDCA process begins.
A problem with the way companies perform the plan phase, is that they very quickly go into the
root-cause discussion, and consequently quickly come up with solutions. Although speed is positive, it
often means that they do not analyze the problem properly and the solutions therefore may be
superficial quick fixes rather than more permanent good solutions. It has been observed that this has
lead to a new round of PDCA after the quick fix fails in the market. Too often, only one alternative is
really examined, and a real evaluation of alternatives does therefore not take place.
Although the employees are aware of the formal procedure of PDCA, they often lack the discipline to
go through all phases, do all necessary analysis and evaluation, and therefore end up not following it.
The procedure is seen as a formality, and the attitude is that they have done all those things, if not in
the same sequence and same way. Quite understandably, this reflects on the results of the process as
well as the continuous improvement learning taking part during it.
6.2 Do phase
In product development, a key issue is to implement improvements to enhance efficient processes with
the aim to meet the customers expectations. The case study companies demonstrate that decisions are
normally followed up by a to do list, project meetings, time schedules and so on, by the project
manager or by individuals. If the proposed change did not result in the desired improvements, then

they will start the planning phase again according to the PDCA cycle [3]. The main focus then is to
find better solution according to existing findings. Still the quick fixers approaches dominates in spite
of that they didnt succeed with the last used approach when deciding the solution.
6.3 Check phase
The way the improvement team verify their current decisions depend on the characteristics of the
problem and feedback from the customer. To decide when a performance goal is reached the case
companies normally discuss with the customer. Some things, which are quantifiable, are easy to
communicate, whereas other things have to be agreed upon with the customer. Customers prefer fast
response times, so they have to be fast to conclude on solution and they dont always manage to have
proper time to check the solution sufficiently. If the solution fails, they try a new solution- just an
elongation- or a new iteration, of the PD process. This is according to the iterative cycle, starting with
the first phase again [24]. Continuous improvement is done to satisfy a set of customer requirements
so when the customer is satisfied with their answers they stop investigation. According to the
interviewees they do not have time for more research or investigation into problems. This method has
evolved into an in-house method common to both case companies; based on a trial and error approach,
which underestimate the plan phase and mainly focusing on the do phase.
Table 1. Summary of the case studies

Phase

Plan

Do

Step

Action according to PDCA

Analyze current
condition

Gather people with relevant

knowledge and experience

Root cause
analyzes
Define
performance
measurement
Establish
improvement
plan
Implement
improvement
plan
Evaluation of
results

Check

Learning/
standardizing

Act

Next
improvement
issue

Use mainly customer

specifications
To do list

Action not according to

PDCA
Fast to next step
Missing fact based
solution
Fast to conclude without
analyzing the root causes
Insufficient
measurement when not a
customer requirement
Not always a formal plan

Reasons/Why

Stop further
investigation when
satisfied customer

Time pressure
Tight contact
with customer

Insufficient
documentation
Not systematically
standardize
Not systematically
according to findings

Time pressure
Dont see the
value of
documentation
Customer
oriented which
influence on
next
improvement
issues

Implement action according

to the plan
Using to do list
Formal meeting
Informal meeting
Start on Plan phase again
when necessary
Informal communication
Some documentation
especially when customer is
involved

Time pressure
Quick fixers
Time pressure
Quick fixers
Customeroriented
Satisfy
customer
Not found of
documentation
Doers

6.4 Act phase

The case studies show that documentation of knowledge is individual, both in transferring knowledge
between and inside projects. Hence, knowledge that occurred during the previous phase, is not always

written down, but shared in a small group via small talk, speakers corners, and lunch and so on. In
such, the case study project teams know what work challenges others are striving with. The problem is
that people solve their problems by informal talk, and then important pieces might be lost due to poor
documentation. The informal information exchange is very important in spreading knowledge and
coming up with new ideas according to the described PDCA cycle [3]. The interviewees explain that
their geographical closeness, (the resources are gathered together), gives a unique possibility,
compared to others, regarding learning. If we had not been so close to each other, we would have had
to work in a much more formal way. They also emphasize that they are too informal, and want more
formality regarding documentation. With very few resources available, they experience process
bottlenecks and fear that formal ways of working might take longer than informal ones. This may be
one explanation for the tendency to do quick fixers rather than complete PDCA cycle.
6.5 Application of the in-house method compared to the PDCA method
The results from the case study shows that the PDCA cycle is not always followed precisely according
to the formally described quality assurance system in the companies, which is the PDCA method.
They have made their own in-house method which they emphasize is less time consuming and is
satisfactory enough to achieve the desired improvements. This is the main reason why they do not use
the PDCA method today. The companies have less experience with us of the PDCA method and have
not given the PDCA method a real chance.
The most visible difference between the formal PDCA method and the case companies in-house
approach is in the plan phase. Quick fixers are prioritized in a demanding customer driven business,
where fast response time for the customer is highly appreciated. In the case companies they are
heavily focused on the customer satisfaction. Whenever the customer requests an engineering change
order, resources are allocated immediately to solve it. This is regarded as the main competitive edge
for Norwegian automotive suppliers and focusing on continuous improvement has to fit into this
picture [32]. High skilled professional often offer good solutions which further excite their customers,
in spite of that they not always analyze both the current situation and the root causes sufficiently
according to the PDCA method. The professionals appreciate the culture of pleasing the customer with
fast response on problem solving issues. If they have chosen to use the PDCA method, they may have
been forced to investigate for the root causes at first time to find solutions to eliminate the problem.
When they do not have the correct root causes it can cause insufficient learning effect in the project
team because of lack of analysis of the real problem. When they jump directly to conclusions about
what to do and they succeeded with the solution they emphasize that it will contribute to time
reduction compare to the rigorous PDCA method. It may be possible that use of the PDCA method
would have given them better quality on defined solutions for the customer in total and that they have
experienced that the investigation of the root causes are not so time consuming as they believe today.
In the third phase, check phase, where the countermeasure designed to achieve the performance
measurement defined in the plan phase, will be followed up with a process of studying and adjusting
for actual results, mainly the case companies use the customer to decide when the performance target
is met. They stop further investigation if the customer is satisfied. If not they start on a new solution
using the same approach with quick fixers who is fast to conclude next solution. This could be an
advantages approach because of a demanding customer who highly appreciates fast responding time,
which can force you to find a quick solution. The PDCA method is using the defined performance
measurement, defined in the plan phase, to study if the desired improvement is met. This approach
will enhance that you implement the issues to remove the root causes by study the results according to
the performance targets defined in the plan phase. When not achieving the performance targets then
you have to consider the root causes again to improve the correct causes. This will lead you to assure
solving the root causes and further improve the defined problem.
Finally, as the act phase, some formal documentation at the case companies are done to share and
store results and enables learning based on the implemented improvement actions. Mainly the informal
information exchange is done as small talk, speakers corners with well experience professionals and
the learning is based on the experimental iterative process and the modification of the product to
satisfy the customer through this approach. The PDCA method emphasizes to document and
standardize achieved improvement and secure learning to other teams or individuals. This will
enhance the learning process for the companies.

7 CONLUDING REMARKS
Continuous improvements are an opportunity which can contribute and strengthen the product
development phase. Utilization of the PDCA cycle, as a systematically continuous improvement
method, can be one possible valuable tool to achieve the desired improvements for companies [1, 3,
26].
This paper analyzes the systematic way of using of the PDCA cycle as a continuous improvement tool
according to two case companies in the Norwegian automotive supplier industry. The case companies
emphasize that the PDCA cycle is an impressively systematic approach for improvement, but is also
incredibly time consuming and that it is not always an approach that works well in their rapidly
changing environment. Consequently, the companies claim that the method will be most suitable when
the problem to be analyzed is sufficiently complex, when there are no time constraints and enough
resources to spend on the problem. Improvement issue needs both time and size of the problem before
this systematic and rigorous approach can be evaluated for cost versus benefit. The results shows that
both case companies have developed an in-house continuous improvement approach despite of they
have desired to use the PDCA method in their formal quality system. The companies have according
to our evaluations never given the PDCA method a proper chance to prove its usefulness in PD. It will
however, require that the company is interested to give the PDCA method a real chance and starting to
systematically implement defined improvement issue by using the PDCA cycle. Without
systematically integration of the PDCA method the usefulness of the improvement method is expected
to be limited.
Further interesting extension for this research might be to take a closer look at continuous
improvement projects using the described PDCA method and compared it with the existing in-house
method to evaluate when the methods are valuable. This might allow identifying which success factors
must be in place in the PD organization to succeed of using the PDCA cycle to increase efficiency as
necessary for a companys long term survival in a demanding market. When knowing the success
factors before implementing such systematic method you can implement those factors in combination
of the PDCA method to enhance successful implementation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The research was funded by the so-called Center for Research-based Innovation on the Norwegian
Manufacturing Future, financed by the Norwegian Research Council and the participating enterprises.
REFERENCES
[1] Morgan, J.M. and Liker, J.K., The Toyota Product Development System, Integrating People,
Processes and Technology. (Productivity Press, New York, 2006).
[2] Ragatz, G.L., Handfield, R.B. and Scannell, T.V., Success factors for integrating suppliers into
new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1997, 14(3), pp190202.
[3] Sobek, D.K. and Smalley, A., A3, Understanding A3 thinking a Critical Component of Toyota's
PDCA Management System. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008).
[4] Kartha, C.P., A comparison of ISO 9000:2000 quality system standards, QS9000, ISO/TS 16949
and Baldrige criteria. TQM Magazine, 2004, 16(Compendex), pp331-340.
[5] Ho, S.K.M., Is the ISO 9000 Series for Total Quality Management. International Journal of
Phisical Distribution & Logistics Management, 1995, 25, pp51-66.
[6] Hammer, M. and Champy, J., Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business
revolution. Business Horizons, 1993, 36(5), pp90-91.
[7] Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D., Product Design and Development. (McGraw Hill, New York,
2008).
[8] Yong, J. and Wilkinson, A., Rethinking total quality management. Total Quality Management,
2001, 12, pp247-258.
[9] Powell, T.C., Total Quality Management as Competitive Advantage: A Review and Empirical
Study. Strategy Management Journal, 1995, 15, pp15-37.
[10] Ljungstrm, M. and Klefsj, B., Implementation obstacles for a workdevelopment-oriented TQM
strategy. Total Quality Management, 2002, 13(5), pp621 - 634.
[11] Imai, M., Kaizen. (Random House, New York, 1986).
[12] Bessant, J., Caffyn, S. and Gallagher, M., An evolutionary model of continuous improvement

behaviour. Technovation, 2001, 21(2), pp67-77.

[13] Brennan, L., Total quality management in a research and development environment. Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, 2001, 12(Compendex), pp94-102.
[14] Caffyn, S., Extending continuous improvement to the new product development process. R & D
Management, 1997, 27(Compendex), pp253-253.
[15] Nilsson-Witell, L., Antoni, M. and Dahlgaard, J.J., Continuous improvement in product
development: Improvement programs and quality principles. International Journal of Quality
Reliability Management, 2005, 22(Copyright 2005, IEE), pp753-768.
[16] Lillrank, P., Shani, A.B.R. and Lindberg, P., Continuous Improvement: Exploring Alternative
Organizational Designs. Total Quality Management, 2001, 12, pp41-55.
[17] Kiella, M.L. and Golhar, D.Y., Total quality management in an R&D environment. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 1997, 17(Compendex), pp184-184.
[18] Sandstrm, J. and Toivanen, J., The problem of managing product development engineers: Can
the balanced scorecard be an answer? International Journal of Production Economics, 2002,
78(1), pp79-90.
[19] Ekvall, G., Management and Organizational Philosophies and Practices as Stimulants or Blocks
to Creative. Creativity and Innovations Management, 2000, 9, pp94-99.
[20] Olin, T. and Wickenberg, J., Rule Breaking in New Product Development - Crime or Necessity?
Creativity and Innovation Management, 2001, 10, pp15-25.
[21] Mintzberg, H., The Structuring of Organizations: A Syntehesis of the Research. (Prentice-Hall,
Englewoods Cliffs, 1979).
[22] Jacobsen, D.I. and Thorsvik, J., Hvordan Organisasjonen Fungerer. (Fagbokforlaget, Bergen,
2007).
[23] Andersen, B., Business Process Improvement Toolbox. (ASQ Quality Press, Milwakuee, 2007).
[24] Reid, R.R. and Koljonen, E.L., The Deming Cycle Provides a Framework for Managing
Environmentally Responsible Process Improvements. Quality Engineering, 1999, 12, pp199209.
[25] ISO. ISO/TS 16949:2009: Quality Management System: Particular Requirements for the
Application of ISO 9001:2000 for Automotive Production and Relevant Service Part
Organization. 2009).
[26] Shook, J., Managing to Learn. Using the A3 management process to solve problems, gain
agreement, mentor, and lead. (The Lean Enterprise Institute, Inc, Cambridge, 2008).
[27] Bicheno, J. and Catherwood, P., Siq Sigma and the Quality Toolbox. Buckingham, 2005).
[28] Green, F.B., Six Sigma and the Revival of TQM. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 2006, 17, pp1281-1286.
[29] Andersen, B. and Fagerhaug, T., Root Cause Analysis Simplified Tool and Thechniques. (ASQ
Quality Press, Milwakuee, 2006).
[30] Yin, R., Case Study Research. (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, 1994).
[31] Miles, H. and Hubermann, M., Quality Data Analysis: A sourcebook. (Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills, 1994).
[32] Ringen, G., Lodgaard, E. and Langeland, C., Continuous Improvement in a Product Development
Environment. In 2nd Nordic Conference on Product Lifecycle Management. Gteborg,
Sweeden. pp119-130 (Chalmers University of Technology)
Contact: Eirin Lodgaard
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Department of Engineering Design and Materials
7491Trondheim
Norway
Tel: +47 995 443 58
Email: eirin.lodgaard@sintef.no
Eirin Lodgaard is a PhD candidate in the Department of Engineering Design and Materials at the
Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The PhD project has the main focus about
continuous improvement processes in the product design process.