Auditing of explorative processes

References

• Andersson, R., Eriksson, H., & Torstensson, H. (2006). Similarities and differences between TQM, Six Sigma and lean. The TQM Magazine, 18(3), 282–296. doi: 10.1108/09544780610660004
   Google Scholar
• Antony, J., Setijono, D., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2016). Lean Six Sigma and innovation – an exploratory study among UK organisations. Total Quality Management & Business Exellence, 27(1–2), 124–140. doi: 10.1080/14783363.2014.959255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benner, M. J. (2009). Dynamic or static capabilities? Process Management Practises and Response to Technological Change. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(5), 473–486. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00675.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676–707. doi: 10.2307/3094913
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256. doi: 10.5465/amr.2003.9416096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birkinshaw, J., Zimmerman, A., & Raisch, S. (2016). How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? California Management Review, 58(4), 36–58. doi: 10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.36
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bot, S. D. (2012). Process ambidexterity for entrepreneurial firms. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(4), 21. doi: 10.22215/timreview/547
   Google Scholar
• Dean, J. W., & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management theory and total quality: Improving research and practice through theory development. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 392–418. doi: 10.5465/amr.1994.9412271803
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deming, E. W. (1988). Out of the crisis: Quality, productivity and competitive position. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, R. D. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organization, 1, 167–188.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research (5th ed.). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706. doi: 10.5465/amj.2006.22083026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 309–342. doi: 10.2307/2393640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An emperical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. (2008). Quality management systems – Requirements (ISO 9001:2008). SS-EN ISO 9001:2008. SIS..
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. (2011). Guidelines for auditing management ISO 19011:2011. (2).
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. (2015a). ISO Survey 2015. Author.
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. (2015b). Quality management systems – Requirements (ISO 9001:2015). SS-EN ISO 9001:2015. SIS.
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. (2015c). Quality management principles. [PDF file] Geneva. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/publication/PUB100080.html
   Google Scholar
• Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–213. doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juran, J., & Godfrey, A. B. (1999). Juran's quality handbook (5 ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Lenning, J., & Gremyr, I. (2017). Making internal audits business-relevant. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28(9–10), 1106–1121. doi: 10.1080/14783363.2017.1303891
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews, R. L., Tan, K. H., & Marzec, P. E. (2015). Organisational ambidexterity within process improvement: An exploratory study of four project-oriented firms. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 26(4), 458–476. doi: 10.1108/JMTM-12-2013-0184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meredith, J. (1998). Building operations management theory through case and field research. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 441–454. doi: 10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00023-0
   Google Scholar
• Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2009). Encyclopedia of case study research. ‌Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, S. D., Ulrich, F., & Nielsen, P. A. (2014). When process is getting in the Way of creativity and innovation. System sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on (pp. 221–229). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Ng, S. C., Rungtusanatham, J. M., Zhao, X., & Lee, T. S. (2015). Examining process management via the lens of exploitation and exploration: Reconceptualization and scale development. International Journal of Production Economics, 163, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palm, K., & Lilja, J. (2017). Key enabling factors for organizational ambidexterity in the public sector. International Journal of Quality and Service Science, 9(1), 2–20. doi: 10.1108/IJQSS-04-2016-0038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poksinska, B., Pettersen, J., Elg, M., Eklund, J., & Witell, L. (2010). Quality improvement activities in swedish industry: Drivers, approaches and outcomes. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2(2), 206–216. doi: 10.1108/17566691011057366
   Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raisinghani, M. S., Ette, H., Pierce, R., Cannon, G., & Daripaly, P. (2005). Six Sigma: Concepts, tools, and applications. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(4), 491–505. doi: 10.1108/02635570510592389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders Jones, J. L., & Linderman, K. (2014). Process management, innovation and efficiency performance: The moderating effect of competitive intensity. Business Process Management Journal, 20(2), 335–358. doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-03-2013-0026
   Google Scholar
• Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutcliffe, K. M., Sitkin, S. B., & Browning, L. D. (2000). Tailoring process management to situational requirements – beyond the control and exploration dichtomy. In R. E. Cole & W. R. Scott (Eds.), The quality movement and organization theory (Chapter 13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Terziovski, M., & Guerrero, J. L. (2014). ISO 9000 quality system certification and its impact on products and process innovation performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 158, 197–207. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.08.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317–332. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00343.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L. (1997). Winning through innovation. Strategy and Leadership, 25(4), 14–19. doi: 10.1108/eb054591
   Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). The ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30. doi: 10.2307/41165852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2002). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• vom Brocke, J., Zelt, S., & Schmiedel, T. (2016). On the role of context in business process management. International Journal of Information Management, 36(3), 486–495. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frölich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22(2), 195–219. doi: 10.1108/01443570210414329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking – banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. London: Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, D., Linderman, K., & Schroeder, R. G. (2014). Customizing quality management practises: A conceptual and measurement framework. Decision Science, 45(1), 81–114. doi: 10.1111/deci.12059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar