In the three cases, the initiatives appeared to be driven in different ways. At DrinksCo, the team managing the initiative was well resourced, and the implementation was based on an advanced system of best operating practices. At CarCo, the initiative was driven by the overseas head office through a sophisticated global database of the improvements recorded by all their plants. Despite a company-wide policy to transform the work organization in the corporation, at BoxCo, only the gearbox division, led by a charismatic leader, made the transition. Of the three companies, BoxCo was the only one experiencing any serious financial difficulties. In keeping with Nutt’s four tactics for implementation used by managers, an analysis of the cases finds a combination of intervention and participation tactics used by DrinksCo, edict and intervention tactics used by CarCo, and intervention and participation tactics by BoxCo.

Comparing the three cases provides a basis for developing hypotheses associated with ongoing performance improvement teams. Differences among the cases include varying managerial tactics of implementation, implementation environments (e.g. the three cases were different types of manufacturing operations), and work team composition (e.g. technicians at BoxCo versus less educated employees at CarCo).

However, in all three cases, significant efforts had been made, in terms of financial investment and managerial time, to implement the respective initiatives. While all three performance improvement programs were permanent, in only two of the three cases (DrinksCo and BoxCo) were the teams themselves intended to be permanent. This provides an opportunity to compare the implementation characteristics of successful ongoing performance improvement teams with successful project-oriented teams that are part of a permanent performance improvement program. The