Continuous Improvement and Collaborative Improvement: Similarities and Differences
Open accessAbstract
A substantial body of theoretical and practical knowledge has been developed on continuous improvement. However, there is still a considerable lack of empirically grounded contributions and theories on collaborative improvement, that is, continuous improvement in an inter‐organizational setting. The CO‐IMPROVE project investigated whether and how the concept of continuous improvement can be extended and transferred to such settings. The objective of this article is to evaluate the CO‐IMPROVE research findings in view of existing theories on continuous innovation. The article investigates the similarities and differences between key components of continuous and collaborative improvement by assessing what is specific for continuous improvement, what for collaborative improvement, and where the two areas of application meet and overlap. The main conclusions are that there are many more similarities between continuous and collaborative improvement. The main differences relate to the role of hierarchy/market, trust, power and commitment to collaboration, all of which are related to differences between the settings in which continuous and collaborative improvement unfold.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Trust acts as a facilitator and promotes interpersonal relationships prompting people to seek and give help leading to a more collaborative culture.
“Trust acts as a facilitator and promotes interpersonal relationships prompting people to seek and give help leading to a more collaborative culture (Russ et al., 1998;Abrams et al., 2003;Middel, Boer & Fisscher, 2006).”
From Antecedents of Team Creativity: An Examination of Team Emotional Intelligence, Team Trust and Collaborative Culture (2010) · cites this paper as Middel, Boer & Fisscher, 2006
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x · Cited by 479 · see citing works
- Authors
- Middel, R., Boer, H., & Fisscher, O.
- Affiliations
- University of Twente (NL)
- University of Stavanger (NO)
- ORCID
- Boer, Harry
- Venue
- Creativity and Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-09-29
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 338-347
- ISSN
- 0963-1690 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8691
- OpenAlex
- W2149106049
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 5.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Creativity and Innovation Management (publishedVersion)
- University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion)
- VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion)
- University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Quality and Supply Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
- Keywords
- continuous improvement, collaborative improvement, inter-organizational collaboration, continuous innovation, trust, power, market versus hierarchy, organizational learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review