Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

ISSN: 1478-3363 (Print) 1478-3371 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

What motivates employees to participate in

continuous improvement activities?

D. Jurburg, E. Viles, M. Tanco & R. Mateo

To cite this article: D. Jurburg, E. Viles, M. Tanco & R. Mateo (2017) What motivates employees
to participate in continuous improvement activities?, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 28:13-14, 1469-1488, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2016.1150170

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1150170

Published online: 29 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 847

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20
Total Quality Management, 2017
Vol. 28, No. 13, 1469–1488, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1150170

What motivates employees to participate in continuous

improvement activities?
∗
D. Jurburga,b , E. Vilesa, M. Tancob and R. Mateoc
a
Industrial Management Department, Tecnun University of Navarra, Paseo Manuel Lardizabal
13, San Sebastian 20018, Spain; bCITEM, Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay;
c
School of Economics & Business Administration, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

Continuous improvement (CI) is still one of the strongest ways for companies to
achieve process excellence in order to survive in nowadays’ competitive
environments. Yet, it is still very difficult to implement and sustain CI systems,
mainly because of the difficulty in engaging people in these activities. Based on an
exhaustive literature review, followed by a three-round Delphi study with Spanish
experts, this paper helps to assess what the main elements are with respect to the CI
system that could motivate employees’ intention to participate in CI activities. Main
results show 44 elements grouped into 10 factors that could affect employees’
intention to participate. These factors were structured into a more comprehensive
model following an interpretive structural modelling approach.
Keywords: continuous improvement; employee participation; motivation; Delphi;
interpretive structural model

1. Introduction
Nowadays, any organisation wishing to achieve outstanding levels of profitability, quality
and productivity needs the support of its most precious asset: the people inside the organ-
isation. However, one of the bigger problems nowadays that keeps becoming more and
more difficult to tackle according to many researchers and practitioners is how to encou-
rage employees to participate in continuous improvement (CI) systems and attain much
higher levels of participation in organisations (Dawkins & Frass, 2005; Kim, Hornung,
& Rousseau, 2011; Tang, Chen, & Wu, 2010). This problem is well covered in the CI lit-
erature, in which achieving high levels of employee participation is considered a key
enabler of a CI system’s success and sustainability (Daily, & Huang, 2001; Jaca, Viles,
Mateo, & Santos, 2012; Prajogo & Sohal, 2004; Sanchez & Blanco, 2014).
CI systems are very complex, making it impossible to isolate the techniques and tools
used to achieve productivity or quality objectives from the people participating in the
system and using these tools. In particular, there have been many cases in which compa-
nies have tried to imitate or transfer certain techniques which have proven successful else-
where but failed because there was a failure to engage people inside the organisation (Jaca,
Viles, Paipa-Galeano, Santos, & Mateo, 2014; O’hEocha, 2000). Therefore, in an effort to
address the issue of employee participation more deeply, practitioners and academics
involved in the research and implementation of these kind of systems need to review
and reach a consensus about what the main elements that trigger employees’ intention
to participate in CI activities are.

∗
Corresponding author. Email: djurburg1@um.edu.uy

# 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

1470 D. Jurburg et al.

Based on a literature review and a three-round Delphi panel study with 21 CI experts
from Spain, this study aims to identify a set of critical elements that are relevant for pro-
moting employees’ intention to participate in the CI activities set by their company. The
interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach was then used to map the structural
relationship among the different elements.
This paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents a literature review of CI and its
relationship with employee participation. Section 3 describes the research methodology.
Section 4 presents the analysis of the Delphi results, Section 5 presents the ISM results
and Section 6 presents a discussion of the main results, limitations and directions for
future research, and the possible implications for academics and practitioners. Section 7
concludes the paper.

2. Literature review
2.1. Continuous improvement
Since the second half of the twentieth century, companies around the world have started to
adopt CI systems, with many benefits being reported in the literature (Cooney & Sohal,
2004; Irani, Beskese, & Love, 2004).
For the purpose of this paper, a CI system is defined as: the inter-related group of
planned, organised and systematic processes of constant change across the whole organ-
isation, focused on engaging everyone inside the organisation into achieving greater
business productivity, quality, safety, ergonomics and competitiveness (Jurburg, Viles,
Jaca, & Tanco, 2015).
Although they are not a new subject of study, CI systems still have room for improve-
ment due to the difficulty in sustaining the system and in attaining a high level of employee
participation (Bateman, 2005; Idris & Zairi, 2006; Rapp & Eklund, 2002).
Several authors have worked on understanding the CI process and how it can be suc-
cessfully managed through a set of enabling factors (Bessant, Caffyn, & Gallagher, 2001;
Corso, Giacobbe, Martini, & Pellegrini, 2007; Dahlgaard-Park, Chen, Jang, & Dahlgaard,
2013; Geralis & Terziovski, 2003; Prajogo & Sohal, 2004; Readman & Bessant, 2007; Sila
& Ebrahimpour, 2002). Although these enablers appear with different names and
approaches throughout the CI literature, some of the most relevant are: top management
support and commitment, strategic focus on CI through the definition of an appropriate
set of goals and objectives, using the right methodology to implement CI throughout
the whole organisation, creating and sustaining a CI culture, employee support and com-
mitment, good information, communication and knowledge-transfer systems, and having a
CI management and follow-up system to track the CI efforts and progresses made. Accord-
ing to these authors, such enablers should be incorporated into the company’s culture in
order to have successful and sustainable CI systems.

2.2. Employee participation

One key characteristic of CI is that it should be a people-focused system, with the main
objective being to engage everyone into continuously participating in relatively small
improvement projects (Yan & Makinde, 2011). In order for this to happen, it is necessary
to understand the reasons why people decide to participate, especially in activities related
to organisational change projects. Interestingly, little research is found in this particular
area.
 Total Quality Management 1471

For instance, Al-Eisa, Furayyan, and Alhemoud (2009) and Bingham, Mitchell,
Bishop, and Allen (2013), whose studies are partially based on the theory of planned be-
haviour (TPB), aimed to explain which factors affected employees’ intention to participate
in certain activities related to the company, such as employees’ intention to transfer work-
related knowledge and employees’ intention to participate in organisation-sponsored
causes. In the case of organisational change, Jimmieson, Peach, and White (2008)
studied the effect that communication and collaborative decision-making had on employ-
ees’ intention to participate in change-related projects, such as a building relocation.
Meanwhile, Kim et al. (2011) studied the effect that the anticipated benefits of the
change, the quality of the employment relationship and the formal involvement in the
change had on employees’ intention to support and participate in the change-related
projects.
Finally, one paper that is of special interest because of its focus on CI activities is the
work of Tang et al. (2010). They used TPB, the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the
technology acceptance model (TAM) (proposed by Davis (1989) as an extension of TRA
to measure people’s intention to use certain software), to explain the effect that a series of
individual-level variables had on employees’ intention to participate in CI activities in a
company that had implemented Total Quality Management (TQM). As part of Tang
et al.’s conclusions, they identified some factors which are likely to encourage employees
to be involved in TQM activities, but they also state that there is still a need to add other
constructs in order to generate a more comprehensive model. In particular, their model
only used individual-level factors, somewhat neglecting other organisational-level
factors related with the design and management of improvement systems that could be sig-
nificant in explaining employees’ intention to participate in CI activities.
A common conclusion among all the above studies is that more research is needed in
this area, since understanding the reasons why people decide to participate in the different
organisational activities is essential for the well-being of both employees and the organ-
isations themselves.

3. Methodology
The main objective of this study is to identify a set of critical elements that are relevant for
boosting employees’ intention to participate in the CI activities set by their company. It
also seeks a theoretical structural model that shows a possible relationship between
these elements. To address these objectives, a three-phase research methodology was
developed based on a literature review, a Delphi study and an ISM approach.

3.1. Phase I: literature review

First, a general review was made with the main objectives of identifying major issues and
concerns regarding the success of CI systems, as well as identifying a series of relevant
elements related to employee intention to participate in CI. This information was used
to construct the initial documents for the Delphi Study. To conduct the literature review
it is important to obtain the primary information from reliable resources. Following the
recommendations of Sanchez and Blanco (2014), the review was made using Thomson
Reuters Web of ScienceTM database, one of the most prestigious and internationally
well-known research platforms available. The search criteria used were the following:
Only scientific articles from 1980 to 2015 were included. In terms of the topic, the
search was limited to the following key words in the theme: ‘continuous improvement’,
1472 D. Jurburg et al.

‘employee involvement’, ‘employee participation’, ‘success factors’ and ‘enablers’. A

more detailed explanation of the search process is shown in Figure 1.
A second review was conducted to construct the list of experts to contact to participate
in the Delphi Study. Once again, Thomson Reuters Web of ScienceTM was used. First,
only scientific articles covering the time period from 2000 to 2014 were included, to
ensure that the resultant experts had relevant and current contributions. Second, to
ensure a list of Spanish experts, the search was limited to the keywords ‘Spain’ or
‘España’ in the authors’ addresses. Finally, in order to obtain a list of possible CI
experts, the search was limited to the following keywords in the theme: ‘kaizen’ or ‘con-
tinuous improvement’ or ‘improvement methodology’ or ‘six sigma’ or ‘theory of con-
straints’ or ‘lean manufacturing’ or ‘lean thinking’ or ‘Toyota production system’ or
‘total quality management’ or ‘just in time’ or ‘organizational excellence’ or ‘business
excellence’ or ‘quality management systems’ and other variations of these terms. The
result from this search obtained 474 articles, from which 141 were finally included in
the list after all papers were manually revised to check that they were no duplicates and
that they were truly related with the topic. All these 141 articles were used to construct
a list with all Spanish authors. In addition, a thorough review of relevant material found
on the Internet was conducted to identify practitioners and consultants who were active
in the study and reporting of issues related to CI applications and to identify companies
considered to be at the leading edge of CI practice.

Figure 1. Literature review search process.

 Total Quality Management 1473

3.2. Phase II: Delphi study

A three-round Delphi Study was conducted with a group of experts in CI application in
Spain from October to December 2014, with the objective of constructing and agreeing
upon a list of all the relevant elements related to the CI systems that could motivate
employees to participate in CI activities. All discussions during the Delphi study were
in Spanish. However, for the purpose of this article and to ensure validity for English-
speaking countries, all relevant results were translated into English by a professional
translator.
The Delphi technique is a survey method used with the intention of arriving at a
reliable group opinion about a complex problem through a series of questionnaires com-
bined with controlled feedback (Linstone & Turrof, 1975; Landeta, 2006). This technique,
designed to handle opinions rather than objective facts, is very appropriate for exploratory
theory building on interdisciplinary or complex issues (Akkermans, Bogerd, Yücesan, &
van Wassenhove, 2003). It has been proven as a valid technique to aid decision-making
based on the opinions of experts, with successful applications to problems in similar
fields to the one studied here (Akkermans et al., 2003; Landeta, 2006; Melnyk,
Lummus, Vokurka, Burns, & Sandor, 2009).
In every Delphi study, four distinct characteristics usually remain the same: anonym-
ity, iteration, controlled feedback, statistical group response (Von der Gracht, 2012). For
the case of this study, anonymity was ensured by assigning numerical codes to each expert,
iteration was covered by a series of three rounds, controlled feedback was done by the
moderator and statistical group response was shown in the form of graphs, measures of
central tendency and frequency distributions.
Okoli and Pawlowski (2004) state that a Delphi study is a group decision mechanism
that requires qualified experts with a deep understanding of the issues being analysed
recommending between 10 and 18 experts per panel, while Akkermans et al. (2003) rec-
ommend at least 20 respondents to overcome risks of individual biases contaminating the
aggregate responses.
Following a multi-step procedure based on Okoli and Pawlowski (2004), the list of
experts was constructed. In the case of academic experts, a criterion of at least two articles
about topics related to the CI body of knowledge in peer-reviewed journals found in the
Web of Science database in the last 15 years was used as a minimum standard of expertise.
In the case of consultants and practitioners, the criterion was based on the relevant infor-
mation found in the Internet combined with the expertise of the research team. After the
invitation process was completed, 21 experts agreed to participate in the Delphi study (11
academics, 4 consultants and 6 practitioners). The resultant 11 academics (from 10 differ-
ent Universities throughout Spain) had between 2 and 10 relevant articles each, all in the
Web of Science and in the last 15 years. The 4 consultants are all senior consultants with
recognised experience in CI in the Spanish industrial sector. The 6 practitioners are one
General Manager, three Industrial Managers, one CI Manager and one Lean Manager;
also four of the companies are multinational companies (with more than 4000 employees
each) and two are national-based companies with international projection.
Although some researchers tend to assign different panels for academics and prac-
titioners, in this case, and based on the objectives of the project, the research team
agreed that it was best to have academics and practitioners all together in one Panel.
The main reason was that the intention of the research was to get a consensus on a list
that reflected some of the main challenges faced by practitioners, but also reflected
some of the main challenges considered by academics. The best way to reflect both of
1474 D. Jurburg et al.

these visions within one single list was to allow both groups to discuss all together within
one single Panel. This mix allowed confronting all the ideas from both academics and
practitioners, helping to create a more solid single list of elements affecting employee par-
ticipation in CI.
After receiving all 21 experts’ written consent to participate in the Delphi study, an
initial questionnaire was sent out for evaluation. To accelerate the consensus process
and ensure better quality in the final list obtained from the process, an initial set of
elements was developed by the research team based on the literature review explained
in Phase I. Some of the elements correspond to the literature on CI enablers, while
others correspond, following Tang et al. (2010) work, to factors associated with behaviour-
al theories such as TRA, TPB and TAM. The idea was to provide an initial set of individ-
ual- and organisational-level elements that may provide a means of identifying the forces
that drive employees’ intention to participate.
In total, 45 different elements were included, grouped into 10 different factors: CI
alignment (Bessant et al., 2001), Rewards and recognitions (Macey & Schneider, 2008),
Internal communication (Lloria & Moreno-Luzon, 2014), Organisational Support
(Bessant et al., 2001), Training (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004), Improvement Meth-
odology (Corso et al., 2007), Job Satisfaction (Dahlgaard-Park, 2012), Social influence
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Tang et al., 2010), Self-efficacy (Tang et al., 2010; Venkatesh,
2000), Empowerment (Tang et al., 2010).
For each of the 10 factors, participants were instructed to do four things: (i) suggest
elements to eliminate; (ii) suggest new elements to add; (iii) evaluate whether all relevant
elements within the factors were adequately covered, using a 7 point Likert-scale, where 1
is totally disagree and 7 is totally agree; (iv) give arguments, if necessary, for all their
answers in (i), (ii) and (iii). Moreover, the experts were asked to suggest the addition of
new factors and elements, and they had the space to make other comments regarding
the study.
Then, for Round 2, a new questionnaire was created based on all the experts’ elimin-
ations, additions, scores and comments from Round 1. This new questionnaire, together
with a feedback document containing all participant scores for task (iii) and the most rel-
evant arguments in favour of or against proposed changes, was returned to all participants
for a second evaluation. Once again, all participants were asked to review the new list of
factors and elements, and were instructed to do activities (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv).
After looking at results from Round 2 and after comparing them with the ones obtained
in the previous round using paired t-tests, it was concluded that there was already enough
consensus. So in Round 3, experts were given back the improved list of elements based on
the comments from Round 2, and they were asked to make some final comments about the
elements, factors and their definitions.

3.3. Phase III: ISM approach

ISM is a process that enables groups of people to organise and make their collective
knowledge explicit in a structured way (Attri, Dev, & Sharma, 2013).
ISM is a well-established methodology for identifying relationships among the specific
elements which define a certain problem (Jharkharia & Shankar, 2004). The application of
the ISM approach to analysing systems and problems in various fields (such as TQM,
supply chain management, knowledge management, logistics, productivity improvement)
is well documented in the existing literature (Attri et al., 2013).
 Total Quality Management 1475

The various steps involved in the development of the ISM technique for this article
were based on Singh, Garg, and Deshmukh (2007) and are shown in Figure 2.
The ISM technique was used to develop a model that structures the relationships of all
the factors encountered during the Delphi and three factors called ‘Employees’ intention to
participate’, ‘Usefulness of participating in the CI system’ and ‘Ease of participating in the
CI system’. These last two factors were adapted from the TAM model and were introduced
following the reasoning of Tang et al.’s work (2010), in which the nature of employee par-
ticipation in CI activities (requiring the mastering and use of many CI tools) could be seen
as similar to the nature of employees using computer programs to improve their daily
work. Therefore, factors similar to the ones used in the TAM model to relate a set of
system design characteristics with behavioural intention to use the system could be
applied to the CI case.

4. Delphi study results

As mentioned before, the Delphi study was conducted for three rounds. In the first round,
participants scored all initial 10 factors, and decided upon possible eliminations,
inclusions and comments. After analysing the results, the research team found that no
extra factor was needed to take into account all participants’ comments and recommended
inclusions, but there were some factors that needed to be re-named to better reflect some of

Figure 2. ISM steps. Adapted from Singh et al. (2007).

1476 D. Jurburg et al.

the relevant elements of the CI systems. Therefore, the second version of the list, used for
Round 2, had the same amount of factors and only differed in the amount and type of
elements and in the names of some of the factors.
The overall scores for each of the factors are shown in Table 1. In order to verify that
the results from Round 2 were better than the results from Round 1 (meaning a higher
degree of agreement among participants), paired t-tests were used. The discussion about
the factors and elements was closed after Round 2 (although a third round was allowed
for final comments and closure), since no extra factor was suggested by participants,
the paired t-test showed significant improvement between Rounds 1 and 2, and all mean
scores were above 6 out of 7. In addition, Table 1 also shows the evolution in the
amount of elements constituting each factor from Round 1 to Round 2.
After all three rounds, 44 elements grouped into 10 factors were identified by the
experts as being important for promoting employee intention to participate in CI activities
(see Appendix). During the course of the three rounds, experts helped simplify and clarify
many of the concepts included in the initial list, helped eliminate redundancies among
factors, and offered some new and interesting insights about missing elements based on
their academic and professional experience.
In this sense, some of the most relevant comments given by experts were: ‘employees
should not feel like CI is an extra burden demanding mental strain, but rather it should be
seen as a daily activity that helps them achieve their personal and organizational goals’;
‘with time, European employees will start to understand the benefits and pride of being pub-
licly acknowledged for being change agents, whatever the method used’; ‘it is important
that employees receive the information they feel is needed, and not only the information
that top management feels is needed’; ‘the best way of training to participate in the CI
system is learning by doing, and therefore, everybody should be involved in the learning
process’; ‘employees need to feel they have real opportunities to participate in decision-
making and not only opportunities to participate in the implementation of the CI activities’.
Table 2 shows the list of final factors (with their definitions) and elements agreed on by the
experts as being important for promoting employee intention to participate in CI activities.

Table 1. Delphi results: score to assess the completeness of all included relevant factors.
Round 1 Round 2
# # 95% upper bound
Relevant factors Elements Mean Stdev Elements Mean stdev for mean D
CI alignment 4 5.31 1.2 5 6.05 0.78 20.26∗∗
Incentives 4 5.21 1.44 4 6.05 0.97 20.34∗∗
Internal 4 5.63 1.21 4 6.42 0.61 20.38∗∗
communication
Organisational 5 5.05 1.31 4 6.21 0.63 20.61∗∗
support
Training 4 5.58 1.39 4 6.47 0.51 20.44∗∗
CI methodology 4 5.05 1.31 4 6.32 0.58 20.75∗∗
Job satisfaction 7 5.95 1.12 7 6.42 0.69 20.17∗∗
Social influence 5 5.28 1.23 4 6.39 0.61 20.72∗∗
Self-efficacy 4 5.74 1.05 4 6.42 0.69 20.29∗∗
Empowerment 4 5.95 1.18 4 6.26 0.73 0.04∗
∗
p , 0.1.
∗∗
p , 0.05.
 Total Quality Management 1477

Table 2. Final list of factors and elements.

Factor Definition Elements
(1) CI alignment This factor deals with the definition, dissemination Objectives
and understanding of group- and individual-level Shared vision
goals, objectives and tasks assigned by the Coherence
organisation in terms of CI-related activities Responsibility
Participation
(2) Rewards This factor addresses the expectations that people Attractiveness
have about the results achieved within the CI Effort efficacy
system, and how they consider, in the case they Fair rewards
exist, that the different reward systems set by the Motivation
organisation (economic and non-economic) could
motivate employees’ intention to participate in
future CI activities
(3) Internal This factor searches for the existence of good vertical Involvement
communication (top-down, bottom-up) and lateral (employee- Information
employee) communication of CI-related Knowledge sharing
information, and not so much about what specific Channels
tools are used for that
(4) Organisational This factor talks about CI leadership inside the Resources
support organisation, and about the organisational support Management
given by top management to develop all involvement
improvement activities Leadership
Support network
(5) Training This factor includes all training activities that help to Knowledge
teach employees notions, tools and techniques that Awareness
are useful for participating in the different CI Capabilities
activities promoted by the company Usefulness
(6) CI methodology This factor refers to the extent to which the different Tools
practices, techniques and tools (included within the Dynamic
company’s CI system) allow for the achievement of Sustainability
good results Routines
(7) Self-efficacy This factor reflects each worker’s self-confidence Autonomy
level in terms of participating in CI activities, based Assistance
on a self-assessment of his/her own capabilities Documentation
Time availability
(8) Empowerment This factor refers to the amount of actual opportunities Participation
that top management gives workers to actively Leading
participate in the CI system opportunities
Decision-making
Opinions seeking
(9) Social influence This factor reflects the potential positive or negative Supervisor
social influences that workers receive from closely Co-worker
related people (family, friends, co-workers, bosses, Coaches
etc.) Environment
(10) Job satisfaction This factor includes the most important aspects that Climate
affect each worker’s personal satisfaction level at Trust
his/her workplace Work organisation
Process owner
Workplace
Contract terms
Personal growth
1478 D. Jurburg et al.

5. ISM results
5.1. Define elements
Following the explanations given in Section 3.3, a total of 13 factors were taken into con-
sideration to form the relationship model:

. Factors 1 – 10 discussed during the course of the Delphi study (Table 2);
. Factor 11 (Ease of participating in the CI system), Factor 12 (Usefulness of partici-
pating in the CI system) and Factor 13 (Employees’ intention to participate), adapted
from the TAM model.
5.2. Structural self-interaction matrix and reachability matrix
All 21 experts from the Delphi study were consulted in identifying the contextual relation-
ship among the 13 factors. Based on the literature review and all the experts’ scores and
comments, the structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) was developed. Once the SSIM
was developed, it was transformed into a reachability matrix (RM) format by transforming
each SSIM entry into 1s and 0s. Both the SSIM and the RM were constructed following the
rules presented in Singh et al. (2007).
Once the initial RM was constructed, the matrix was checked for transitivity (meaning
1s were added to fill the gap in the opinion collected during the SSIM). The final RM is
shown in Table 3.

5.3. Partitioning the RM

The RM is partitioned based on the reachability and antecedent sets for each factor. A
reachability set consists of the factor itself and the other factors that it may help
achieve. The antecedent set consists of the factor itself and the other factors that may
help it be achieved. The intersection of these two sets is calculated for all factors. Then,
the top element in the ISM hierarchy (the one that does not help achieve any other
element above its own level) is found based on which factor has the same set of factors
for the intersection set and the reachability set. Once this factor is found, it is removed
from the list of factors. Then, the same process is repeated to find the elements in the
next level. This is done until all factors are assigned to a level. For this case, the 13
factors, their reachability set, antecedent set and intersection set are shown in Table 4

Table 3. Final RM.

Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
4 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
5 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
6 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
7 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
8 1 0 0 0 0 1
9 1 0 0 1 1
10 1 0 0 1
11 1 1 1
12 1 1
13 1
 Total Quality Management 1479

Table 4. Partitioning – Iteration 1.

Factor Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
1 1, 12, 13 1 1
2 2, 10, 13 2 2
3 3, 10, 12, 13 3 3
4 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 4 4
5 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 5 5
6 6, 11, 12, 13 6 6
7 7, 11, 12, 13 4, 5, 7 7
8 8, 13 4, 5, 8 8
9 9, 12, 13 9 9
10 10, 13 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 10
11 11, 12, 13 5, 6, 7, 11 11
12 12, 13 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12 12
13 13 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 13 1

Table 5. Partitioning – Iteration 2.

Factor Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
1 1, 12 1 1
2 2, 10 2 2
3 3, 12 3 3
4 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 4 4
5 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 5 5
6 6, 11, 12 6 6
7 7, 11, 12 4, 5, 7 7
8 8 4, 5, 8 8 2
9 9, 12 9 9
10 10 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 10 2
11 11, 12 5, 6, 7, 11 11
12 12 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12 12 2

(iteration 1). Iteration 2 is shown in Table 5. The resulting levels can be derived from these
tables following the aforementioned instructions. Table 6 shows the final level for each of
the factors as well as their driving power (the sum of the rows in the final RM) and depen-
dence (the sum of the columns in the final RM).
Table 6. Factors, levels, driving power and dependence.
Factor Level Driving power Dependence
13 1 1 13
8 2 2 3
10 2 2 5
12 2 2 9
1 3 3 1
2 3 3 1
3 3 4 1
9 3 3 1
11 3 3 5
6 4 4 1
7 4 4 3
4 5 7 1
5 5 7 1
1480 D. Jurburg et al.

Figure 3. ISM model for employees’ intention to participate.

5.4. Digraph and ISM model

On the basis of the RM and the partitioning into levels, an initial digraph was obtained
(through nodes and lines of edges). After removing the indirect links and replacing
nodes with factor names, the digraph is converted into the final ISM model (shown in
Figure 3). The top-level factor is positioned at the top of the model, the second-level
factors are in the second position and so on. In this case, there were five different
levels, with Employees’ intention to participate being the most dependent factor, and
Training and Organisational Support being the factors with greatest driving power.

6. Discussion
Having people willing to participate in the CI system should be an objective sought by
managers in itself. To aid in this quest, this study aimed to reach a consensus about the
most relevant elements that should be taken into consideration when trying to improve
employees’ intention to participate in CI activities. By means of a three-round Delphi
study conducted with 21 experts ranging from academics to practitioners, this study
was able to assess a relationship model with 44 elements clustered into 10 factors,
which according to these experts could help to explain what individual and organis-
ational-level elements trigger employees’ intention to participate in CI activities.
This exercise of joining academics, consultants and practitioners is interesting because
it creates spaces for discussion between the academic and practical world, especially in a
time where many professionals complain that more industry-university collaboration
should be carried out in order to really advance along the path to excellence.
In terms of the results obtained during the three rounds of the Delphi study, experts
agreed on a list of 44 critical elements, clustered into 10 factors that motivate employees
to participate in the CI system. The fact that the academics and practitioners participating
in the study agreed on a series of relevant elements encourages the academics to continue
deepening the knowledge of these enablers, knowing that a solution to these obstacles will
 Total Quality Management 1481

be welcomed by managers as the obstacles are nowadays regarded as real problems faced
by real companies.

6.1. Relationship model

Experts were asked to discuss and propose possible relationships between the obtained list
of factors and employee intention to participate. This discussion included the 10 factors
agreed upon during the Delphi process, two factors adapted from the TAM model and
employees’ intention to participate. This 13-factor model was developed using the ISM
approach, a well-established methodology for identifying relationships among specific
items used to analyse problems and systems in various fields, as documented by Attri
et al. (2013). Given the similarity of the final ISM model and the TAM model, the
model presented in this article could be a first approach towards a CI acceptance model
(CIAM). This model presents itself as the first attempt to integrate all organisational
factors affecting peoples’ intention to participate in CI activities inside a company.
In particular, it shows that Training and Organisational support appear to be the
factors with greater driving power, meaning that these should be some of the most impor-
tant factors to look at when designing the CI systems. By working on strategies to improve
training effectiveness and to show organisational support, employees will start to feel
more capable to participate in CI activities, will feel more empowered to improve their
workplace and will increase their job satisfaction. This sense of workplace well-being
(self-efficacy, empowerment, job satisfaction together with good communication) contrib-
ute to have more committed and prepared employees willing to participate in CI activities.
Similar findings have been shown in the work of Lam, O’Donnell, and Robertson (2015),
in which the authors found that improving the workplace relationships (for example the
quality of supervisor-subordinate relationships) was correlated with employees’ effective-
ness when implementing CI activities.
Another interesting aspect of the model presented is the concept of usefulness of par-
ticipating in the CI system and ease of participating in the CI system, and its direct
relationship with employees’ intention to participate. As with the TAM model, if employ-
ees feel that participation in the different CI activities is easy (meaning no extra effort) and
is useful to improve the effectiveness of their daily work, they will be more supportive of
these kinds of activities. Evidence supporting these relationships can also be found in the
work of Tang et al. (2010). Finally, the model also shows the influence and importance of
other variables such as CI alignment, Social influence, Rewards and CI methodology. Evi-
dence for the impact of social influence on employee involvement in quality improvement
activities can be found in Tang et al. (2010). The model also supports the findings of Lok,
Hung, Walsh, Wang, and Crawford (2005) that show that strategic objectives’ alignment
with your process improvement efforts, top management commitment and employee
empowerment amplifies the chances of achieving successful process change. Finally,
the model also supports the arguments presented in Jaca et al. (2012) about the impact
of rewards and the use of an appropriate methodology to develop CI activities and motiv-
ate people to commit to CI.
This relationship model represents a very important tool for managers, as it gives
insights into where the limited resources that a company allocates to its CI system
should go in order to have more engaged employees. In particular, the fact that this
model contains many organisational-level variables (related to the CI system’s character-
istics and design) presents an advantage over other models depending exclusively on
1482 D. Jurburg et al.

individual-level variables (such as Tang et al.’s model, 2010), since these variables are
more easily managed by the company, allowing for better improvement opportunities.

6.2. Limitations and directions for future research

This study has some limitations. For instance, the Delphi Panel was conducted only
between experts from Spain. This decision was made taking into consideration that
employee participation could be influenced by some contextual cultural variables, as
already noted by Robert, Probst, Martocchio, Drasgow, and Lawler (2000) for the case
of empowerment and CI. Therefore, to ensure content validity within a more or less homo-
geneous cultural context, only Spanish experts were invited to participate in the discus-
sion. Managers and academics working in countries with cultures very different from
the one found in Spain should be careful when trying to generalise these findings. Yet,
since many of the results obtained from the Delphi are also backed up by the CI literature,
it is expected that the results and model presented here would be valid for most western
countries. More similar work is required in the future to further generalise the results
obtained, as well to identify differences based on different cultural contexts.
Another limitation is concerned with the fact that the work presented here, although
derived from the agreement between academic sand practitioners, is mainly theoretical
and limited to the opinions of the expert panel. Therefore, future empirical work should
be conducted to further confirm or contrast the findings presented in this paper. In particu-
lar, the model is intended to be empirically validated in a manufacturing environment with
long-term experience in quality and process improvement. Also, some experimental work
could be conducted to test some of the causal effect implied by the model presented here.
Finally, since many of the elements included in the model are related to the relationship
between the supervisor and their subordinate, another future step in the research will be
to further explore the impact of the supervisor-subordinate relationship on the employee
participation and commitment with CI activities.

6.3. Practical implications

In terms of implications, this common ground between academics, consultants and prac-
titioners could serve as a basis for future theoretical and empirical work on the main
elements that managers should take into consideration when trying to improve employees’
intention to participate in the CI system. This study not only provides an important con-
tribution to the operations management and CI literature, but there are also some clear
practical implications as well. First, this article shows a list of specific behaviours and
elements that can help to improve employees’ participation in CI tasks. Increasing man-
agers’ awareness and usage of these elements may increase the success rate of CI
systems while improving employees’ working relationships. Furthermore, the list of rel-
evant elements agreed on can serve to construct a questionnaire to assess the current situ-
ation of this issue in companies already implementing CI systems, serving also as a
management tool to aid in the decision-making process of continuously improving the
CI system and the employee participation in it.
While this study focussed on identifying a list of specific elements and factors to help
managers improve employee participation in CI, our findings invite a broader discussion
regarding how managers should approach CI systems’ management and design. While
much has been written about looking at the technical details of a CI system, it is important
that managers remember to maintain a broader perspective by offering attention not only
 Total Quality Management 1483

to the technical aspects of a CI system but also to the behavioural component of CI. This is
why the agreed list of relevant elements could be also turned into a tool to manage
employee intention to participate, something that is regarded as essential for the success
of any CI system. Furthermore, the model presented here (which has the theoretical vali-
dation of expert opinion) could also help managers to make decisions about which strat-
egies to follow when trying to sustain and improve their CI systems (understanding that
one of the main determinants of CI success is achieving long-term employee partici-
pation). In addition, this model represents a very good starting point for further theoretical
and empirical research about the topic.

7. Conclusions
CI is still a very difficult process to handle inside organisations, especially when it comes
to getting employees engaged in participating in the CI system. Therefore, employees’
intention to participate should be treated as an objective itself and managed accordingly.
To achieve this, the main elements motivating employees to participate in the CI system
should be discovered. Through a three-round Delphi study with 21 Spanish experts (aca-
demics, consultants and practitioners), a list of 44 relevant elements clustered into 10
factors was agreed on. The discovery of these elements could help both the academic
and practical world. On the one hand, it could encourage researchers to continue studying
these elements in order to arrive at a solution to the problem of employee participation,
knowing that practitioners consider these elements to be important roadblocks to the
success of CI systems. On the other hand, managers could use the list of elements to
create a questionnaire to assess and manage all relevant aspects of the CI system that
could motivate employees’ to participate in the improvement activities. Furthermore,
experts managed to relate this list of factors and elements into a comprehensive model
using the ISM approach. Although not yet empirically tested, this model has already suffi-
cient theoretical validation to be the starting point towards the construction of a CI accep-
tance model to assess the determinants of employees’ participation in CI activities. When
looking at the specifics of our findings, the main practical implication is that managers now
have information on specific elements and actions they can implement to increase the like-
lihood of success for a CI initiative through increasing employee participation in CI.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Akkermans, H. A., Bogerd, P., Yücesan, E., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (2003). The impact of ERP on
supply chain management: Exploratory findings from a European Delphi study. European
Journal of Operational Research, 146, 284 –301.
Al-Eisa, A. S., Furayyan, M. A., & Alhemoud, A. M. (2009). An empirical examination of the effects
of self-efficacy, supervisor support and motivation to learn on transfer intention. Management
Decision, 47(8), 1221–1244.
Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Salam, A. F. (2004). An extension of the technology acceptance model in
an ERP implementation environment. Information & Management, 41, 731– 745.
Attri, R., Dev, N., & Sharma, V. (2013). Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: An over-
view. Research Journal of Management Sciences, 2(2), 3 –8.
Bateman, N. (2005). Sustainability: The elusive element of process improvement. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25, 261–276.
1484 D. Jurburg et al.

Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., & Gallagher, M. (2001). An evolutionary model of continuous improvement
behaviour. Technovation, 21, 67–77.
Bingham, J. B., Mitchell, B. W., Bishop, D. G., & Allen, N. J. (2013). Working for a higher purpose:
A theoretical framework for commitment to organization-sponsored causes. Human Resource
Management Review, 23, 174– 189.
Cooney, R., & Sohal, A. (2004). Teamwork and Total quality management: A durable partnership.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 15(8), 1131– 1141.
Corso, M., Giacobbe, A., Martini, A., & Pellegrini, L. (2007). Tools and abilities for continuous
improvement: What are the drivers of performance. International Journal Technology
Management, 37, 348 –365.
Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2012). Core values – the entrance to human satisfaction and commitment.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(2), 125–140.
Dahlgaard-Park, S., Chen, C., Jang, J., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2013). Diagnosing and prognosticating the
quality movement – a review on the 25 years quality literature. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 24, 1–18.
Daily, B., & Huang, S. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors
in environmental management. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 21(12), 1539– 1552.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceive ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319 –339.
Dawkins, C. E., & Frass, J. W. (2005). Decision of union workers to participate in employee invol-
vement: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Employee Relations, 27(5), 511–
531.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach.
New York: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis.
Geralis, M., & Terziovski, M. (2003). A quantitative analysis of the relationship between empower-
ment practices and service quality outcomes. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 14, 45– 62.
Idris, M. A., & Zairi, M. (2006). Sustaining TQM: A synthesis of literature and proposed research
framework. Total Quality Management, 17(9), 1245–1260.
Irani, Z., Beskese, A., & Love, P. (2004). Total quality management and corporate culture constructs
of organizational excellence. Technovation, 24(8), 643–650.
Jaca, C., Viles, E., Mateo, R., & Santos, J. (2012). Components of sustainable improvement systems:
Theory and practice. The TQM Journal, 24, 142– 154.
Jaca, C., Viles, E., Paipa-Galeano, L., Santos, J., & Mateo, R. (2014). Learning 5S principles from
Japanese best practitioners: Case studies of five manufacturing companies. International
Journal of Production Research, 52(15), 4574–4586.
Jharkharia S., & Shankar, R. (2004). IT-enablement of supply chains: Modelling the enablers.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(8), 700–712.
Jimmieson, N. L., Peach, M., & White, K. M. (2008). Utilizing the theory of planned behavior to
inform change management. An investigation of employee intentions to support organiz-
ational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(2), 237–262.
Jurburg, D., Viles, E., Jaca C., & Tanco, M. (2015). Why are companies still struggling to reach
higher continuous improvement maturity levels? Empirical evidence from high performance
companies. TQM Journal, 27(3), 316 –327.
Kim, T. G., Hornung, S., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Change-supportive employee behavior:
Antecedents and the moderating role of time. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1664–1693.
Lam, M., O’Donnell, M., & Robertson, D. (2015). Achieving employee commitment for continuous
improvement initiatives. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
35(2), 201 –215.
Landeta, J. (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological
Forecasting & Social Change, 73, 476 –482.
Linstone, H., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method. Techniques and applications. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Lloria, M. B., & Moreno-Luzon, M. D. (2014). Organizational learning: Proposal of an integrative
scale and research instrument. Journal of Business Research, 67, 692–697.
 Total Quality Management 1485

Lok, P., Hung, R. Y., Walsh, P., Wang, P., & Crawford, J. (2005). An integrative framework for
measuring the extent to which organizational variables influence the success of process
improvement programmes. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 1357–1381.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organization Psychology, 1, 3 –30.
Melnyk, S. A., Lummus, R. R., Vokurka, R. J., Burns, L. J., & Sandor, J. (2009). Mapping the future
of supply chain management: A Delphi study. International Journal of Production Research,
47(16), 4629–4653.
O’hEocha, M. (2000). A study of the influence of company culture, communications and employee
attitudes on the use of 5Ss for environmental management at Cooke Brothers Ltd. The TQM
Magazine, 12(5), 321 –330.
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design
considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42, 15 –29.
Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2004). The sustainability and evolution of quality improvement pro-
grammes – an Australian case study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
15(2), 205 –220.
Rapp, C., & Eklund, J. (2002). Sustainable development of improvement activities – the long-term
operations of a suggestion scheme in Swedish company. Total Quality Management, 13(7),
945 –969.
Readman, J., & Bessant, J. (2007). What challenges lie ahead for improvement programmes in the
UK? Lessons from the CINet Continuous Improvement Survey 2003. International Journal
Technology Management, 37, 290 –305.
Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Empowerment and
continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting fit on the
basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal Applied Psychology,
85(5), 643 –58.
Sanchez, L., & Blanco, B. (2014). Three decades of continuous improvement. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 25(9–10), 986–1001.
Sila, I., & Ebrahimpour, M. (2002). An investigation of the total quality management survey based
research published between 1989 and 2000: A literature review. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 19, 902 –970.
Singh, R. K., Garg, S. K., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2007). Interpretive structural modelling of factors for
improving competitiveness of SMEs. International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management, 2(4), 423 –440.
Tang, Z, Chen, X., & Wu, Z. (2010). Using behavior theory to investigate individual-level determi-
nants of employee involvement in TQM. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
21(11– 12), 1231– 1260.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motiv-
ation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research,
11(4), 342 –365.
Von der Gracht, H. A. (2012). Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: Review and implications
for future quality assurance. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 79, 1525–1536.
Yan, B., & Makinde, O. D. (2011). Impact of continuous improvement on new product development
within SMEs in the Western Cape, South Africa. African Journal of Business Management, 5,
2220 –2229.

Appendix. List of factors and elements

CI alignment
This factor measures the existence, definition and understanding of the various CI goals, objectives
and tasks set by the company.

(1) Individual and collective CI objectives and goals are clearly established for all areas of the
company.
(2) All CI objectives and goals are shared and understood by all employees.
1486 D. Jurburg et al.

(3) Employees believe that the objectives and metrics set are attainable and coherent with the
company’s current reality.
(4) All employees are assigned certain specific tasks and/or responsibilities within the CI
system, based on their individual skills.
(5) All employees are involved in the definition and revision of the objectives and metrics in an
open and collaborative way, and they are able to take corrective measures.

Rewards
This factor measures the expectations of employees in connection with the relationship between their
own effort inside the CI system and possible rewards given by the company

(1) Employees recognise the existence of a reward system that it is both attractive and aligned
with the rest of the compensations and rewards given by the company.
(2) Employees believe that their own effort (energy, time, resources) in participating in the CI
system will determine some improvements regarding the company’s working processes.
(3) Employees believe that they will receive a fair and visible reward in return for their partici-
pation in the CI system.
(4) Employees believe that the current reward system is attractive and motivates them to par-
ticipate in the CI activities.

Communication
This factor deals with the existence of good communication channels.

(1) Employees believe that the company uses the different communication channels available
to involve all employees in the evolution and progress of the various CI activities of the
company.
(2) Employees receive all the information they need (in terms of quantity and quality) in order
to improve their daily work.
(3) Employees are encouraged to communicate and exchange what they learn during the
various CI activities with the rest of their colleagues.
(4) Employees have the necessary channels to express, in an open and effective way, their
improvement ideas.

Organisational support
This factor measures the existence of CI leadership and internal support by top management

(1) Top management allocates the necessary amount of resources (energy, time, people,
money) in order to enable and promote the continuous development of the CI system.
(2) Top management shows real involvement in the CI system by showing active leadership and
participation in the different activities.
(3) All area/middle managers show visible involvement in the CI system by actively leading,
guiding and giving formal follow-up to all CI activities in their area.
(4) The people leading all CI activities show a clear understanding of the CI system, and help
the rest of employees to better understand how and why it is important to participate.

Training
This factor involves any training activity that gives the employee the skills that are necessary or
knowledge that is useful for participating in CI activities.

(1) Employees perceive that the training received allows them to get sufficient knowledge and
trust to participate in the CI system.
(2) Employees perceive that the training received allows them to better understand the rationale
behind each of the CI activities and objectives sought by the company.
(3) Employees believe that the company encourages them to develop a set of capabilities in
order for them to be able to continuously improve their daily work.
(4) Employees believe that the CI training received is useful for applying it to their own daily
work in order to get real improvements.
 Total Quality Management 1487

CI Methodology
This factor refers to the set of practices, techniques and tools used within the CI system to achieve the
established objectives.

(1) Employees are fully aware of all the practices, techniques and tools used to conduct all CI
activities within their workplaces.
(2) Employees believe that the set of CI practices, techniques and tools used are agile, dynamic
and effective.
(3) Employees believe that the problem-solving techniques used within the CI system are useful
for achieving long-term sustainable improvements in their workplaces.
(4) Employees believe that the set of CI practices, techniques and tools used for daily manage-
ment of CI activities are useful for identifying routines that allow for better working habits.

Self-efficacy
This factor deals with the employees’ confidence in their ability to participate in the various CI
activities intheir workplace

(1) Employees feel capable of completing the different CI activities in their workplace in an
autonomous way.
(2) Employees are confident that they can ask another colleague or their own supervisors for
help whenever they get stuck in the middle of a CI implementation.
(3) Employees are confident that they have the necessary written and visual aids to help them
complete the different CI activities done in their workplace.
(4) Employees feel confident that they have enough time during working hours to complete the
various CI activities proposed for their workplace.

Empowerment
This factor refers to all the participation possibilities employees feel they really have within the CI
system

(1) Employees believe that the company promotes real opportunities for employees to partici-
pate in the CI system by giving employees all necessary resources (materials, tools, infor-
mation, time).
(2) Employees believe they are encouraged by the company to lead CI activities within their
workplace.
(3) Employees believe they are encouraged by the company to participate in making decisions
about the CI activities taking place within their workplace.
(4) Employees believe that management carries out sufficient activities within the CI system to
gather employees’ opinions and feelings about possible improvement opportunities.

Social Influence
This factor reflects all possible social influences the employee may receive from closely related
people ( family, friends, colleagues, supervisors)

(1) Employees believe that their supervisors think positively about them participating in the
various CI activities in their workplace.
(2) Employees believe that their work colleagues think positively about them participating in
the various CI activities in their workplace.
(3) Employees believe that their support network (people who support and give counselling
during hard times) thinks positively about them participating in the various CI activities
in their workplace.
(4) Employees believe that their supervisors and other work colleagues motivate them to par-
ticipate in the various CI activities through their own efforts and behaviours.

Job Satisfaction
This factor involves all main elements affecting employees’ own job satisfaction.
1488 D. Jurburg et al.

(1) Employees believe they have a good working atmosphere in their working unit.
(2) Employees believe that their supervisors show them respect and trust and value their
opinions and work.
(3) Employees feel satisfied with how the workload and responsibilities in their working units
are organised.
(4) Employees feel a sense of belonging to the company they work for and feel responsible for
their own processes.
(5) Employees feel satisfied with the general working conditions (health and safety, ergonomic,
physical comfort, cleanliness and neatness).
(6) Employees feel satisfied with their contract terms (payment, working schedule flexibility,
job stability).
(7) Employees feel their daily work helps them achieve personal and professional growth.

Usefulness of participating in the CI system

This factor measures the usefulness to the company and to the employee himself or herself of parti-
cipating in the different improvement activities set by the company, as seen by the employee.

(1) Participating in the CI system increases productivity in the workplace.

(2) Participating in the CI system improves the quality of the work done in the workplace.
(3) Participating in the CI system improves workplace conditions (ergonomics, health and
safety, etc.).
(4) Participating in the CI system contributes to personal growth and professional development.

Ease of participating in the CI system

This factor measures whether employees believe that participating in the different CI activities is a
simple task, which requires no extra effort (mental and/or physical) when compared to other regular
daily activities done in the company.

(1) Employees believe that the methods, techniques and tools used to develop the different CI
activities are clear and easy to understand.
(2) Employees believe that the methods, techniques and tools used to develop the CI activities
are easy to learn.
(3) Employees believe that participating in the different CI activities set by the company do not
require an extra effort (mental and/or physical) from them as compared with other regular
daily activities.
(4) Employees believe that the current CI system deployed in the company allows them to
easily achieve the objectives/results expected by the company.

Behavioural Intention to participate in the CI system

‘Behavioural intention to participate’ is understood as the voluntary predisposition that each
employee has about participating in any of the different CI activities that the company promotes.
The employees express their subjective opinion of whether they are willing to participate in the
different CI activities encouraged by the company.

(1) Given that the company expects and encourages all employees to participate in the different
CI activities, I (employee) am willing to participate in the improvement of my workplace.
(2) If I (employee) have the option to participate in any CI activities (although I do not feel any
pressure from the company or from others), I would like to participate in the improvement
of my workplace.