{"id":1814,"date":"2018-03-28T00:29:25","date_gmt":"2018-03-28T00:29:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mitmgmtfaculty.mit.edu\/jsterman\/?page_id=1814"},"modified":"2018-04-05T14:30:13","modified_gmt":"2018-04-05T14:30:13","slug":"gettingquality","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/mitmgmtfaculty.mit.edu\/jsterman\/gettingquality\/","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Getting Quality the Old-Fashioned Way: Self-Confirming Attributions in the Dynamics of Process Improvement<\/h2>
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

N. P. Repenning and J. D. Sterman (1997) Getting Quality the Old-Fashioned Way: Self-Confirming Attributions in the Dynamics of Process Improvement. MIT Sloan School of Management.<\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Managers, consultants, and scholars have increasingly begun to recognize the value of considering an organizationUs activities in terms of processes rather than functions. Process oriented improvement techniques such as Total Quality Management and Business Process Reengineering have proven to be powerful tools for improving the effectiveness of many organizations. However, while suggesting new and valuable improvement opportunities, process-focused improvement techniques often fail, many times despite initial success. Existing theory does not explain many of these failures in part because process improvement involves interactions among physical structures and decision making processes in the firm while existing frameworks tend to address one at the expense of the other. Operations research and management science focus on the physical aspects of process improvement while organization theorists focus on the behavioral side. In this paper the beginnings of an integrated, interdisciplinary theory are developed. Drawing on the results of two in-depth case studies of process improvement efforts within a major US corporation, we develop a model that integrates the basic physical structure of process improvement with established theories on human cognition, learning, and organizational behavior to explain the dynamics of process improvement efforts. We show how these interactions can lead to self-confirming attributions which can thwart improvement efforts. We consider implications for practitioners and future research.<\/p>\n