Creating a culture of continuous improvement in Software Development
Author: Paddy Corry
Abstract
In order to harness the power of a continuous improvement strategy, it is necessary to align
the goals of individual staff members with the goals of the organisation: this is a fundamental
tenet of strategy. To develop a culture of continuous improvement in software development,
intercultural communication techniques must be employed.
Introduction
This document will present a strategy currently being implemented in the IT department of
an Irish insurance company. This strategy incorporates the work of W. Edwards Deming with
research in the area of intercultural communication, so I believe it to be of interest to users
of this site.
First, I will present theory in relation to culture. Then I will look at theory in the area of
communication with a view to developing an understanding of what is meant by intercultural
communication. This will then be described in the subsequent section. Once intercultural
communication has been explained, I will present a view of software development as a
system of production, and present release management as an important function in relation
to the management of variation. Finally, I will develop what I understand by the development
of a culture of continuous improvement.
My Department
Our I.T. department is a diverse group. Each individual team is made up of many different
nationalities (Irish, English, Scottish, Canadian, Filipino, Indian, Ukrainian, and Australian) as
well as professionals of many different backgrounds. I would group the various different
backgrounds into two main categories, for ease of reference in this document. The people of
a technical background (techies) are, for example, AS400 software developers, AS400 system
administrators, client/server developers, network administrators and helpdesk analysts (this is
not an exhaustive list). On the non-technical side, there are many business analysts working
in the I.T. department, and these come from a variety of backgrounds including actuarial,
marketing, accounting and pensions. These two professional categories are required to
communicate with each other on a daily basis, and members of each category originate from
many different national backgrounds.
With this level of diversity borne in mind, the challenge facing the IT management (ITM) in
relation to strategic planning is evident. As the primary driver of any strategy should be to
align the goals of individuals with those of the organisation, how can the ITM communicate
their strategy in such a way as to achieve ‘buy-in’ from professionals of such diverse origins?
The answer lies in the techniques used to communicate this strategy. I believe that when an
organisational strategy is to be communicated to a group exhibiting such diversity, then
Intercultural Communication techniques should be employed.
The author is aware of the pitfalls involved in discussing an area such as Intercultural
Communication. Many of my academic and professional experiences have taught me that it is
very easy to talk about communication… However, I would ask for your patience with this
theory, as W. Edwards Deming himself said: “Knowledge is theory. We should be thankful if
action of management is based on theory.” (Joiner, 1994, foreword ix)
Culture
To present what is meant by intercultural communication, it is first necessary to take a step
back, and define what is meant by the word ‘culture’. However, as any academic researching
culture will attest, this is no easy task. For the purpose of this article, I will attempt to be
pragmatic, and define culture as a set of beliefs facilitating the development of a common
understanding among members of a group.
It is important to bear in mind that no definition of culture can realistically claim to be
properly definitive. However, in explaining the components of my definition, I hope to
develop a clearer understanding of the many factors that make up a cultural schema.
Fons Trompenaars represented culture graphically, and I believe his representation to be very
relevant. According to Trompenaars, “culture is composed of layers, like an onion. To
understand [culture], one must peel it, layer by layer.” (Translated from Trompenaars, 1993,
p.31)
Employing the metaphor of the onion is very helpful in visualising this conceptual framework.
Behaviours exhibited by members of a cultural group are the first point of reference for an
outsider. Technological advancement, language and dress are all behaviours exhibited by
members of a cultural group. When we visit foreign countries for example, these are the first
things we notice, and the first factors against which we benchmark ourselves in relation to
the ‘foreign’ culture.
Morals dictate what behaviours are right and wrong, while ethics tell us what is good and
bad. Moral and ethical decisions are an expression of values, and behaviours allow these
values to be expressed. In other words, “Values tend to be elicited when one asks about
observed behaviour […] that strikes one as puzzling, anomalous or inconsistent.” (Schein,
1992, p.42)
When these values are expressed, they can be questioned. Questioning these values will
allow the innermost layer of culture to be revealed: beliefs. When all of the external layers of
a cultural group are peeled away, what remains are the core beliefs, and these deeply held
beliefs are at the heart of every cultural group. Every accurate definition of culture should
incorporate beliefs. These beliefs are often so deep-seated that members of a cultural group
are unconscious of their existence.
Communication
To employ a textbook definition of communication, it may be defined as “the process by
which information is exchanged and understood by two or more people, usually with the
intent to motivate or influence people.” (Daft, 1997, p.560) The parts of this definition I
would draw your attention to are the actions: ‘exchange’ and ‘understand’. Exchanging
information is easy. However, as W. Edwards Deming stated “Information is not knowledge.
The world is drowning in information but is slow in acquisition of knowledge.” (Joiner, 1994,
ix)
If information is to become knowledge, then it needs to be understood. Communication is a
means of achieving this, but understanding is not always achieved, even if the information is
successfully transmitted. I would argue that, in an organisational context, creating this
understanding is vital. For example, if managers transmit the information in their strategy
without creating an understanding of the strategy, then the final part of the above definition
becomes extremely relevant: they will fail to influence the behaviour of their staff.
According to Gauthey and Xardel, “communication incorporates all behaviours a human being
perceives and interprets, verbal and non-verbal messages, conscious and unconscious.”
(Translated from Gauthey and Xardel, 1993, p.35) In addition, “between 50% and 90% of
information is transmitted by non-verbal means.” (Hall and Hall, 1987, p.32)
There are interactions to consider between the previous two statements and Trompenaars’
onion theory of culture. To summarise:
 Behaviours are the outermost layer of culture.
 Most communication is non-verbal e.g. ‘actions speak louder than words’
 Behaviour is communication.
The above points lead me to conclude that all communication occurs through cultural
filters. In an organisational context, a critical success factor of communication is not simply
a transmission of information, but a creation of understanding. Therefore, when information
is transmitted, an awareness of the influence of cultural filters at play is imperative if the
communication process is to succeed.
Strategy
The ultimate goal of any strategy is to align the goals of the individual with those of the
organisation. Communication is the primary means of disseminating strategy throughout an
organisation. Therefore the effect of culture on strategic development cannot be ignored.
Managers must employ intercultural communication methods when transmitting strategy. If
this cultural awareness is not present in their communication, then their strategy will not be
fully understood. This in turn means that the strategy will fail to influence the behaviour of
their employees in the desired manner.
To reiterate, culture is a set of beliefs shared by a group. However, it is important to bear in
mind that the group in question is not always a nationality. A cultural group can be just as
easily made up of professionals or experts in a given area, be it Software Development or
Actuarial Mathematics or even Golf or different types of musician. To develop this idea
further, a professional in the area of actuarial mathematics can also be interested in music.
This knowledge of both areas means that s/he can consider him/herself a member of two
cultural groups. This person’s nationality means that s/he is now a member of three cultural
groups.
If the cultural category of nationality is introduced at this stage, it will lead me into the final
theory in relation to communication, and that is a description of the potential pitfalls in
communication.
Nationality is a means of categorising members of a given cultural group, but in most cases it
is not the most efficient. Most characteristics attributed to nationality are inherently flawed,
as they are based on cultural stereotypes.
Stereotypes
Stereotypes are useful to some extent, in that they help us create mental categories of
people, based on characteristics that are easily identifiable. However, stereotypes “provoke a
simplification or a selective orientation of our perceptions and often lead to distortions of
subjective reality.” (Translated from Gruère et Morel, 1993, p.2) This implies that stereotypes
can be a dangerous influence, as they can lead to an over-simplification of expected
behaviours from a ‘foreign’ cultural group. When taken to extremes, this can lead to
behaviours based on irrational prejudice, or “fundamental errors maintained by biased or
brutal behaviours.” (Translated from Gruère et Morel, 1991, p.3)
Let us consider for a brief moment a very simple way in which stereotypes influence a
decision we all may face often in our lives: the purchase of a car. (Please bear in mind, the
next paragraph is meant to illustrate a point and does not necessarily represent the author’s
opinions!)
National Stereotypes of Car manufacturers
American cars are powerful. However, relative to European cars they are not as kind to the
environment. German cars are reliable, efficient and also powerful. Italian cars, by contrast,
are sexier; they look fantastic, but are more liable to break down, and difficult to get going
again. French cars are somewhere in between, sleek and innovative in their design, but not
quite at German standards of reliability. Japanese cars are well designed and good to the
environment, functional and durable. Scandinavian cars are expensive, but safe: ideal
executive family cars.
It is interesting to note that the characteristics we so readily ascribe to automobiles of
different nationalities could also quite readily be applied to people! It is clear however, that
stereotypes, particularly in relation to national culture, are present at a deep-seated level in
all of us. We are constantly evaluating these stereotypes against our own core cultural
beliefs, yet another interaction with Trompenaars’ onion theory of culture.
By stating these stereotypes we can gain a deeper understanding of our own cultural beliefs.
Moreover, in questioning the validity of stereotypes, we can benefit from a deeper
understanding of any culture, and nationality is no exception. Questioning the validity of
stereotypes applied to national cultures is a good way to begin development of a common
understanding between members of diverse cultural groups. (On a personal note, I’m an
Irishman named Paddy, so stereotypes are an issue close to my heart!).
Stereotypes can also be of use in influencing communication – and therefore behaviour – as
they facilitate quick decision-making. Decisions are often based on pre-conceived ideas of
how members of a certain culture are going to react. This point is reinforced by the example
of automobile nationality described above. When deciding what car to purchase, the decision
is based on criteria such as safety, efficiency, power and design. The countries of origin of
different car marques allow us to attribute pre-conceived ideas to how each vehicle will
perform against each of these criteria. The stereotypes mentioned above will therefore
influence the decision of which car to purchase.
As decision-making is at the heart of management, any tool which can be employed to
facilitate this should not be dismissed. However, if management decisions are based on
flawed stereotypes, then it follows that their decisions will be unreliable as a result.
To conclude this section, managers should be aware of the limited value offered them by the
use of stereotypes, and employ them not as an end in themselves, but rather as a means of
either facilitating decision-making, or as a way to develop an understanding of the cultural
backgrounds of their colleagues.
Developing the idea of Intercultural Communication
All communication is cultural, so managers need to have an awareness of the cultural makeup of their teams. The diverse cultural make-up of my department was presented in one of
the first paragraphs of this article. To reiterate, I work in a department where many
nationalities are present, but, as I described above, I believe nationality to be an inefficient
method of categorising people into cultural groups. All too often, national stereotypes can
influence decisions in an ineffective way. To develop this idea, I refer to the research of Geert
Hofstede. Hofstede, who identified four characteristics of culture thanks to research executed
“on 116,000 IBM employees in 40 different countries.” (Daft, 1997, p.120) has in my opinion
offered a schema of culture which is relevant here. In its interaction with Trompenaars’
schema described above, this theory will further clarify what is meant by ‘culture’.
Hofstede’s four principal characteristics of culture can each be represented as a scale. As a
person or group identifies where they are situated on each scale, then a clearer picture of the
their cultural make-up will develop. Hofstede’s four characteristics are briefly described here.
1. Orientation towards individual or group
2. Masculine or feminine
3. Hierarchical distance
4. Attitude to risk
In a culture of individualism, the interests of any group will be driven by vested interests of
the individuals leading the group. In a group-oriented culture, however, the needs of the
group in general are considered to be more important. Take the example of a performancebased remuneration system. This would need significant communication efforts to succeed in
a Japanese company, as it is more geared to a culture which values the individual over the
group. The U.S. could be considered a country more oriented toward the individual.
Examples of masculine characteristics are control and power, while examples of feminine
characteristics are interpersonal relations and care for the environment. Masculine cultures
are therefore more likely to be oriented towards individual success, while feminine cultures
look for success of the group, or a more harmonious environment.
Hierarchical distance translates the relationship individuals enjoy with the powers that be
in an organisation, whatever form this ‘power’ takes. In countries with defined distance
between ‘ground level’ and the uppermost layers of an organisation, subordinates accept the
authority of their manager: orders are not questioned. This orientation is characterised by the
classic ‘pyramid’ organisation structure. At the other end of the scale, however, more
emphasis is placed on consensus, with employees expecting a certain level of involvement in
decision-making.
Finally, the attitude displayed in relation to risk and aversion of risk will dictate “…structuring
of activities (formalisation, specialisation, standardisation) and indicates the lack of tolerance
in a society for uncertainty and ambiguity. This expresses itself in […] greater need for formal
rules and absolute truth.” (Tayeb, 1993, p.25) This can express itself in the level of litigation
in a culture, as some nations are more litigious than others.
These characteristics can help
whereabouts they situate on the
broad groups of national cultures,
refer to the section on stereotypes
point.
individuals, groups, teams, and organisations map
cultural landscape. Hofstede differentiates between two
and I think these categories are very useful – however I
above when I state that they are useful only as a starting
The first category is referred to as Anglo-Saxon. These cultures are oriented towards the
environment (feminine) and have an aversion to risk. The hierarchical distance is lower, and
the individual is valued. (Examples include England, the United States, Germany, and the
Netherlands).
The second cultural category is referred to as Mediterranean. These cultures are mainly
masculine, with a more fluid attitude to risk and risk-taking. The hierarchical distance is
higher, and in the main, the group is valued higher than the individual. (Examples include
Italy, France, and Greece)
I believe that if these cultural factors are borne in mind when communicating strategy, then
the understanding mentioned previously will be developed. Information must be transmitted
and understood if behaviour can be influenced as a result. Transmitting information is easy:
transmitting information in a manner that is understood by the recipient is a different
prospect. Hofstede’s factors above relate to the ‘bones’ of culture, and as I have stated
previously, all communication occurs through cultural filters. These cultural filters referred to
previously can now be understood as Hofstede’s four characteristics.
My argument is that if managers develop an understanding of both Hofstede’s cultural
characteristics and Trompenaars' view of the layers of culture, their communication skills will
improve. If managers are better communicators, then they will be better at developing and
implementing successful strategies. If strategy implementation is successful, then the entire
organisation benefits as a result.
Software Development viewed as a system of production
In this section I will describe how I have attempted to put the words of Deming into practice,
by basing my actions on theory. The theory described above has helped me get to a point
where I can now describe a primary objective of our IT strategy as developing a culture of
continuous improvement.
To further develop the theoretical framework presented above, it is necessary view the
software development process as a system of production with inputs, processes and outputs.
The main inputs to the process are ideas. These ideas are translated into code by the process
of software development, which also tests the code, from the point of view of programming
efficiency and business impact. The flow of work between developer, senior developer and
business tester is managed by a change control process.
The code is then handed over to release management, and the release process guarantees
that the code is successfully introduced into the live environment without any interruption to
business continuity.
Unfortunately, software development is a complex process. When the live environment is
updated by the release of software, there is an inherent risk of variation or bugs in the live
environment. In my department, the role of quality assurance is shared between software
development and release management and is called change control. The primary function of
release management is to enforce change control, and thus guarantee a minimum level of
variation in production.
‘Release Management’ (RM) is a function of an IT Service Delivery area, as defined by the IT
Infrastructure Library (ITIL) set of standards. The main function of Release Management is to
guarantee an acceptable level of quality in software released into the live environment.
The ‘Live Environment’ of a company is the term given to the suite of applications received by
business users when they log into the company’s IT network. It is the software used for
business purposes. In actual fact, this live environment is made up of many composite live
environments, one for each application. From the point of view of Change Control, a
developer is any person seeking to move a system change into any ‘live’ environment. This
person may or may not be a programmer, but the view of RM is that anyone changing the
live environment is considered a developer.
The change control process encourages testing and Quality Assurance (QA) activities. It can
be defined as any activity that provides a guarantee of the quality of the changes to be
released. It is hoped that the stability of the live environment will be protected by these
activities, and the only impact of the software release will be positive. Change Control should
also develop the maker/checker principle in the software development process. This principle
states that individuals are trusted, and their capacity to do their jobs is not in question:
however, nobody is infallible. Therefore, all work executed should be checked. This is a very
important principle of Change Control procedures.
Because of the technological architecture of the AS400 machines, change control is relatively
easy to manage in this development team. The virtual machine structure of AS400
environments facilitates the use of both Acceptance Test and Model Office environments. In
addition, ‘work units’ facilitate the movement of large amounts of code by theoretically
issuing a single command. However, by contrast, change control is more difficult to apply to
client server applications, in theory at least.
The mandate I was issued towards the end of last year was to enforce change control in the
client/server development teams. However, this requirement did not only involve the
development of processes specific to the client server development teams. In my view,
certain fundamental attitudes in relation to the role of release management need to change. I
have itemised the three main attitudes that I want to change, and have grouped these
attitudinal changes under the single umbrella of a culture change in my department.
My release management strategy was primarily focused on using intercultural communication
techniques to stimulate a culture change in relation to release management. When I
presented my release management strategy to the manager of my team, however, he asked
me to link the ideas presented in the document to the idea of continuous improvement.
Making this link between a culture change and continuous improvement has led to the
development of this article.
In order to understand the final element of this strategy, I will attempt to define continuous
improvement at this stage.
Continuous Improvement: A ‘strong work ethic’?
During my time at university, I spent a summer working in a car factory in Germany, and I
was hugely impressed with the level of efficiency in the factory itself. Not only was the
production line quite literally a well-oiled machine, my team met regularly to discuss the
possibility of improving things, and ideas for improvement were rewarded with bonuses. It
was made very clear to me that, even though I was a summer holiday relief worker, I should
not rule out the possibility of discovering an element of the production system which could be
improved, but that had been overlooked up until that moment. It was also made clear to me
that if I found such an improvement, I would be rewarded for the idea.
The ‘work ethic’ of the German car factory made a big impression on me, and influenced
many of my subsequent academic and professional decisions, even though I never did find
that elusive improvement idea. However, on my return to academia, when it came to
choosing an undergraduate thesis topic, I gravitated towards the area of Intercultural
Communication, and when selecting my undergraduate degree specialisation choices I went
for a module entitled ‘The New Industrial Logic’. This module proved to be my favourite final
year subject. Part of the reason for this was that the teacher, an enthusiastic Englishman, did
not start with a theoretical framework, as was the norm in all other modules taught at my
university. Rather, he used practical examples and case studies, presenting us with real
problems faced by genuine industrial producers for whom he had consulted. He challenged us
to resolve these problems, using the theory we had gleaned to date from our three and a half
years in university, and also drawing on our reserves of common sense. In presenting our
proposed solutions, and looking at the actual solutions implemented, we gained a real insight
into the nature of a production system. In my current position in an IT department of an Irish
insurance company, the work ethic is quite different. However, I would substitute the phrase
‘work ethic’ with the single word ‘culture’: the culture is quite different.
Why is the culture in my current place of employment different to that of the German
production line? Surely the behaviour of constantly looking for improvement can apply in any
country, any industry, indeed any activity! I believe that, where an organisation is concerned,
simple ideas like ‘constantly looking for improvement’ can quite easily become clouded in the
complexity of professional life, and professional relations. Offices are often described as
‘political’ and communication can be difficult as a result. Hierarchical structure, one of the
cultural variables described above, can have a big influence on communication in a ‘political’
organisation. Information circulates quite readily, but layers in a hierarchy often mean that,
by the time the information is transmitted from the top layer to ‘ground level’ or – if you like the production line, the meaning has been diluted. If I refer back to the definition of
communication above, then we can conclude that when the meaning of strategy is diluted by
ineffective communication, employee behaviour will not be influenced in the desired manner.
There is an existing strategy in place in my department in relation to continuous improvement
(CI). CI initiatives are valued by senior management, and seen as a source of competitive
advantage. However, I believe that, even if the senior management of my company
understand the merits of continuous improvements, cultural factors prevented an effective
understanding from being transmitted to the ground level of the organisation. I would argue
that if this understanding was generated, the foundations would be laid for the development
of a culture of continuous improvement.
Defining a culture of continuous improvement – Kaizen
I do not see an interest at this stage in retracing the development of continuous
improvement techniques. However, an important point is that these techniques, while
developed in the United States by management scientists such as W Edwards Deming, were
exported to Japan in the 1950’s and 1960’s. As such, many of the techniques now have
Japanese labels. In this article, I will substitute the term ‘Kaizen’ for continuous improvement
and vice versa. “Kaizen is a way of life, a philosophy that subsumes all business activities, […]
implemented with the Deming cycle.” (Evans, 1993, p.57) Evans describes the Deming
cycle of Kaizen as having four stages, but I would simplify this even further. Essentially, the
Deming cycle tells us that all business activities can be viewed from the point of view of a
system of production, with inputs, processes and outputs. As with all production systems,
some degree of quality control is required in order to manage variation. However, the
Deming cycle stipulates that as improvements are made in the processes of production, then
certain effects will be seen. Either the system of production will become more efficient, or the
quality of output of that system will be higher. Either outcome is positive enough to be
considered a source of competitive advantage. The next important point in understanding the
Deming Cycle is that, as the efficiency of the production system improves, more time and
effort can be put into further improvements. The power of this idea is that, as the cycles
repeat, the production system becomes more and more efficient, providing ever more
competitive advantage and ever increasing levels of quality.
Throughout the decades immediately following WWII, Kaizen as a management philosophy
“gained popularity in Japan as a low investment, proven method of raising quality and
productivity.” (Jha, Michela and Noori, 1996, pp. 19-47)
So, we have defined the philosophy, but in my limited research in the area of quality and
continuous improvement, I have found that the philosophy itself carries many different labels.
However, I have had a feeling since I started researching this area, that the labels applied
are all attempting to describe a culture of continuous improvement, and Joiner echoes this
sentiment, stating that “to achieve better results: achieving higher quality with lower waste.
[…] The ingredients carry many names: Total Quality, TQM, Continuous Improvement, a
passion for delighting customers, systems thinking, reengineering, business process redesign,
just-in-time production, continuous flow manufacturing, lean production, supply chain
management, employee empowerment, visionary leadership.” (Joiner, 1994, p.4) These are
all examples of valid ingredients in a recipe for ‘a culture of continuous improvement’.
To this point, I have clearly defined what is meant by culture. However, I feel some
development of the idea of kaizen is necessary before I can make my final points. I would
agree with a definition of Kaizen as “a collection of activities that constitute a process
intended to achieve improvement.” (Jha, Michela and Noori, 1996, pp. 19-47) As a culture of
continuous improvement develops, the Kaizen ‘mindset’ becomes “focused on small frequent,
gradual improvements over a long time. Financial investment is minimal. Everyone – not just
top management – is involved in the process, and many improvements result from the knowhow and experience of workers. People, not technology, are the primary focus.” (Evans,
1993, p.57)
I believe that if workers share the ideas in the above paragraph, then a further step is
required in order to develop a strategy that can harness their powerful implications. The
goals of workers need to be tied back to the idea of continuous improvements – in the same
manner as I described in the German car factory above. As the essence of strategy should be
to align the goals of the individual worker with those of the organisation, this is an imperative
component of any strategy attempting to harness the power of Kaizen.
I believe that strategists with the goal of generating a culture of continuous improvement
must use intercultural communication techniques. To improve the processes, and generate
ever higher levels of quality and ever more productivity, continuous improvement ideas
should be linked to personal rewards and ultimately: to develop a culture of continuous
improvement. The methods of achieving this will vary depending on the culture of application
however. A deep understanding of Hofstede’s dimension of culture describing the relationship
between the individual and the collective should be borne in mind when considering
implementing a change of this type.
Conclusion
I refer to Jha, Michela and Noori’s article, entitled “The Dynamics of Continuous
Improvement: Aligning Organisational Attributes and Activities for Quality and Productivity” in
which the authors state that, after much research in the area, they “acquired scepticism
about the empirical basis for the many prescriptions to be found in the literature, because
there is so little rigorous empirical research in this field.” (Jha, Michela and Noori, 1996, pp.
19-47) The strategic goal I describe in this article is already being implemented at a
departmental level in my organisation, and through a simple process of continuous
improvement idea logging, we can monitor how many ideas are logged, and the effects these
ideas have when they are implemented.
As Brian Joiner says in the first line of the first page of the introduction to his enlightening
book “Fourth Generation Management – the new business consciousness”, “ever since I was
a little kid, I’ve loved finding better ways to do things – and hated waste and inefficiency.”
(Joiner, 1994, p ix) I can relate to this. I also believe, at a more general level, that this is a
mindset which all professionals must develop if they are motivated for their organisation to
be competitive. It should be an objective of every organisation to develop a culture of
continuous improvement, and while most organisations espouse the belief that this is one of
their objectives, they may lack an effective means of putting this objective into practice.
Put in slightly different terms, at the ground level of an organisation, behaviours are not
always effectively influenced to believe that continuous improvements are important, and I
believe this to be the case historically in many organisations.
I have recently been given the opportunity to manage the continuous improvement logging
process in the I.T. department of my organisation. I hope to use the lessons provided by
research in the area of culture to reinforce the link between the actions of individuals and
benefit to the organisation. The simple process of logging ideas in a central location, and
having a continuous improvement representative coaching the implementation of these ideas
is an effective means of continuous process improvement.
As part of this function, my role is to facilitate the implementation of these ideas by providing
resources to the staff member logging the idea, either by pointing them in the direction of
another staff member who could help, or simply gaining agreement from management that
time can be spent implementing the idea, without fear of recrimination for losing focus on
normal priorities such as project work.
An awareness of the ambient cultural factors at play in communication is a useful mental
framework to apply when dealing with the multicultural area such as an IT department. Ideas
can come from the many different types of people working in the IT department, such as
software developers, business analysts, project managers, infrastructure engineers, helpdesk
analysts and IT managers. In addition, the multinational make-up of our team makes the job
ever more interesting from a cultural point of view.
I hope to use this valuable experience to develop my research in the area of culture, process
improvement and IT strategy. As such, this article is a preliminary exercise. I would hope to
follow this initial exploration of the theory with some case-study based research, with a view
to evaluating the impact of culture on IT strategy in general, and continuous improvement
initiatives in particular.
To conclude, I believe that cultural awareness in an IT department is essential if strategic
goals are to be effectively communicated. For continuous improvement to become part of the
culture of any organisation however, individual behaviour which supports the continuous
improvement goal of the organisation should be rewarded. How the organisation chooses to
do this will also require an awareness of cultural factors.
The role of continuous improvement representative in an IT department is one that requires
intercultural awareness. I am optimistic that an effective analysis of this role will provide
insights into how the theory of culture and intercultural communication can be applied in ever
more relevant areas of business practice. I hope to incorporate this analysis into future
research.
References:
BOLLINGER, Daniel et HOFSTEDE, Geert, (1986), “Les Différences Culturelles dans le
Management – comment chaque pays gère-t-il ses hommes?”, Editions d’Organisation: Paris
DAFT, Richard L., (1997), “Management (4th ed.)”, Dryden Press: Orlando
EVANS, James R., (1993), “Applied Production and Operations Management (4th ed.)”, West
Publishing Company: Minneapolis/St. Paul
GAUTHEY, Franck et XARDEL, Dominique, (1993), “Que Sais-je? Le Management
Interculturel (2ème édition)”, Presses Universitaires de France: Paris
GRUERE, Jean-Pierre, et MOREL, Pierre, (1991), “Cadres Français et Communications
Interculturelles”, Eyrolles: Paris
HALL, Edward T. et HALL, Mildred Reed, (1987), “Guide du Comportement dans les affaires
internationales”, Editions de Seuil: Paris
JHA, Shailendra, MICHELA, John L., NOORI, Hamid, (1996), “The Dynamics of Continuous
Improvement: Aligning Organisational Attributes and Activities for Quality and Productivity”,
Article from International Journal of Quality Science, Vol 1 (1), pp. 19 – 47.
JOINER, Brian L., (1994), “Fourth
Consciousness”, McGraw Hill: New York
Generation
Management:
The
New
Business
SCHEIN, Edgar H., (1992), “Organisational Culture and Leadership (2nd Edition)”, Josey-Bass
Publishers: San Francisco
TAYEB, Monir H., (1988), “Organisations and National Culture (A Comparative Analysis)”,
Sage Publications: London
TROMPENAARS, Fons, (1993), “L’Entreprise Mulriculturelle”, translated from “Riding the
Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business.” Presses Unitversitaires de
France: Paris