Integrating continuous improvement and innovation thinking in the banking sector: a case study from South Africa Open Access

In today’s global economy, organizations face mounting pressure to remain competitive amidst rapid technological change, shifting regulatory environments, and evolving customer expectations. To respond effectively, firms must not only improve operational efficiency but also pursue innovation as a driver of long-term sustainability and growth. Scholars emphasize that the interplay between continuous improvement (CI) and innovation is particularly crucial in achieving both efficiency and adaptability (Jantz, 2016; Ahinful et al., 2024). CI contributes by refining processes, reducing waste, and enhancing service quality, while innovation introduces transformative ideas that reshape business models and customer experiences.

Against this backdrop, the South African banking sector is undergoing accelerated transformation. Factors such as digitalization, new regulatory requirements, and rising competition have compelled banks to identify innovative ways of creating value for stakeholders and customers (Ahinful et al., 2024). From a national perspective, Wild (2015) emphasizes that innovation is crucial for driving broader economic growth, making the banking industry a strategic focal point for such efforts. Yet, the sector also faces pressing challenges, including customer retention, integrating customer intelligence, and adapting to disruptive business models (Hitachi Solutions, 2022). Research consistently shows that customer satisfaction and retention are pivotal performance metrics (Zhuo, 2019) and that frameworks such as Lean Six Sigma have proven effective in supporting these outcomes. Worley and Doolen (2006) similarly advocate for a stronger focus on customer intelligence in South African financial institutions, given its potential to both enhance satisfaction and reduce operational costs.

Recent scholarships move beyond conceptual debates to emphasize the need for practical strategies that integrate CI and innovation at the methodological level. Richards and Coetzee (2025) argued, for instance, that methodological integration, rather than treating CI and innovation as isolated paradigms, can offer banks actionable pathways to improve performance and resilience. This study builds on such insights by examining how CI and innovation thinking intersect in the South African banking sector, thereby addressing both an empirical gap and a pressing managerial challenge.

Existing studies have predominantly examined CI approaches, such as Lean and Six Sigma, or innovation frameworks (e.g. design thinking or creativity) in isolation, with minimal attention to their methodological overlap or combined application (Mendoza-Arvizo and Thelma Solís-Rodríguez, 2022; Velu et al., 2021).

Moreover, most existing studies are situated in the manufacturing or healthcare sectors of developed economies, leaving a significant research gap in service industries, such as banking in South Africa (Richards and Coetzee, 2025). There has been a lack of research on the root cause of the insufficient integration between CI and innovation thinking, as well as proposed strategies for integration (Richards and Coetzee, 2025). This study addresses this gap by examining how CI and innovation thinking can be integrated into the banking context, using a South African bank as a case study.

Therefore, in response to this gap, this study aims to address the following objectives:

• Identify CI and innovation thinking methodologies and tools applied in this organization.

• Explore the root causes of the lack of integration and the proposed practical strategies for integrating CI and innovation thinking.

While CI and innovation are well-established contributors to organizational success, their integration remains under-researched, particularly in service industries such as banking. Addressing these research and practical limitations in the banking industry through integrated strategies may enhance competitiveness, resilience and long-term growth.

Companies must continually improve their competitiveness to succeed and remain in the market in this challenging global economy by applying CI methodologies. Additionally, companies must also pursue radical and incremental innovation to thrive in an increasingly competitive environment. While these two approaches are often treated as distinct, they are inherently complementary to each other. CI emphasizes systematic, small‐scale enhancements (incremental innovation), whereas innovation thinking encourages more considerable, riskier changes that require creative disruption (Penker et al., 2018; Tohidi and Jabbari, 2012).

CI provides a structured approach to refining existing processes, enhancing operational efficiency, and minimizing waste (Lizarelli et al., 2023). The most frequent CI methodologies are Lean, Six Sigma, and the combined Lean Six Sigma methodology (Richards and Coetzee, 2025). In this context, methodology refers to the approach and framework used. Each methodology consists of a set of tools. For example, Six Sigma is a methodology that utilizes tools such as failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), the Fishbone diagram and the Five Whys within its framework.

In contrast, innovation thinking, particularly radical innovation, focuses on transformative ideas that redefine business models, create new products, or dramatically improve customer experiences (Tohidi and Jabbari, 2012). The most frequent innovation thinking methodologies are design thinking, ARIZ/TRIZ and creativity. Examples of innovation tools would be persona development, empathy, and stakeholder mapping (Buhl et al., 2019; Lazo-Amado and Andrade-Arenas, 2023).

However, Penker et al. (2018) explained that the biggest failure is that companies are stuck in the CI space (H1) and not enough focus is given to the innovative projects space (H2 and H3). Notably, there is less focus on radical innovation, as it is seen as riskier and does not yield rapid, substantial profits in the short term. Only a tiny percentage of these innovative ideas succeed. Therefore, companies tend to focus more on CI, typically incremental innovation thinking, as it is easier and quicker to realize the benefits.

Bridging the gap between CI and innovation requires an understanding of how organizations can effectively balance both approaches. The concept of organizational ambidexterity offers a relevant theoretical framework for achieving this balance. The foundational work of Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) further strengthens this theoretical framing by defining ambidexterity as an organization’s ability to exploit established capabilities while exploring novel opportunities simultaneously. In the context of this study, CI reflects exploitation-oriented behaviors focused on refinement and efficiency, whereas innovation thinking aligns with exploration-oriented behaviors aimed at ideation and transformation. Integrating these approaches thus demonstrates a form of contextual ambidexterity, enabling individuals and teams to shift between improvement and innovation as situational demands change.

Structural ambidexterity involves deliberately separating units or teams, with one focusing on CI and the other on innovation. In contrast, contextual ambidexterity enables individuals to switch between these approaches in response to situational demands. Bessant et al. (2001) support this dual approach in their evolutionary model of CI behavior, which highlights how leadership, shared learning, and enabling routines embed both incremental and innovative practices. Recent studies further emphasize that aligning innovation with CI relies on shared vision, cross-functional collaboration, and a psychologically safe environment (Martínez-Román et al., 2021; Ibidunni et al., 2022).

In banking, CI has demonstrated tangible benefits in streamlining operations and improving customer satisfaction. For example, Otieno (2016) and Ahinful et al. (2024) describe how Lean Six Sigma has been effectively deployed to reduce waste and increase efficiency. Zhuo (2019) similarly highlights Six Sigma’s impact on customer retention, a crucial factor in the success of financial services.

This study followed a qualitative approach and case study research design to investigate the integration of CI and innovation thinking at a specific bank (Yin, 2018). The case study methodology is widely used in CI research (Khan et al., 2019). The study was conducted within a South African bank, which was selected based on its active engagement with CI and innovation initiatives. The bank operates in a highly competitive financial services sector, making it a relevant setting for investigating the barriers and enablers of integrating CI and innovation thinking.

The broader study employed various data generation methods, following a case study research design. Ethical clearance was obtained from the North-West University (NWU-00531–24-A3), and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews on MS Teams, which allowed for flexibility while ensuring consistency in addressing the key themes. Thirteen staff members of the case study organization were purposefully selected to participate in this research phase. All participants were innovations champions and had practical exposure to innovation training. They were all at least Green Belt certified in the Lean Six Sigma CI methodology. Before the interviews were conducted, participants were assured of confidentiality and privacy considerations. Each interview lasted between 45 and 60 min.

The participants who volunteered for this study discussed the root causes of the lack of CI and innovation thinking in the banking industry, as well as in their specific institution, and explored the integration, overlap, and differences between CI and innovation thinking.

An independent staff member invited participants who worked in the case study organization and had experience and/or training in CI and innovation thinking methods to participate in this study. The interview guide ( Appendix) is included for transparency.

Table 1 is a breakdown of the demographics for each participant regarding job title, CI and the innovations experience.

The interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis, following the steps described by Braun et al. (2022). To enhance credibility, dependability, and confirmability, the study employed the following techniques:

• Triangulation: insights were compared across participants to identify consistent themes. Participant insights were triangulated with existing literature.

• Member checking: Allowing participants to review key findings to ensure accuracy.

• Reflexivity: Maintaining a researcher journal documenting biases and reflections throughout the research process.

• Independent co-coding processes: An independent researcher who participated in the data collection process also coded the data separately to limit bias in the findings.

Thematic analysis was selected for its theoretical flexibility and suitability for exploring subjective experiences and complex organizational processes. As outlined by Braun et al. (2022), thematic analysis enables the creation of a rich, detailed and nuanced account of qualitative data without being tied to a specific theoretical framework. This made it particularly relevant for the current study, which aimed to understand how CI and innovation thinking can be integrated in a specific institutional context. The method allowed for inductive exploration while maintaining a structured and rigorous analytical process (Terry et al., 2017). It facilitated deep engagement with participants’ perspectives, enabling the researcher to identify patterns of meaning while acknowledging the interpretive nature of qualitative inquiry. Moreover, thematic analysis supported a reflective approach that was essential for capturing the tensions, overlaps, and perceived synergies between CI and innovation practices within the organization.

Data saturation was considered reached when no new themes or insights emerged during the coding and analysis process, indicating that sufficient depth and breadth of participant perspectives had been captured (Guest et al., 2006).

The findings were divided into methodologies and tools for CI and innovation thinking, as well as the root causes of the lack of integration and proposed practical strategies for integrating CI and innovation thinking.

Most participants explicitly indicated that CI and innovation thinking are necessary for the company’s competitive advantage and must be implemented. Participants agreed that CI and innovation aim to enhance efficiency, customer satisfaction, and competitive advantage. CI focuses on optimizing existing processes, while innovation seeks to create new solutions or significantly improve existing ones. When integrated, they can drive substantial organizational growth.

Figure 1 summarizes the theme logic of the themes presented in this paper.

First, the methodologies and tools identified are discussed, and second, the root causes for the lack of integration of these methods and tools are presented.

The participants were asked to indicate which CI and innovation methodologies they were familiar with in their workspace. Figure 2 indicates the CI and innovation methodologies identified and the percentage of participants who mentioned the different methodologies:

The CI methodology used most often was the combined Lean Six Sigma methodology, followed by the use of Lean and Six Sigma methodologies separately. Twenty-three percent of participants were unable to identify a methodology, but most could recall the tools used.

Furthermore, creativity was the most frequently applied innovation methodology in projects, followed by design thinking. Participants indicated that they encourage creative and out-of-the-box thinking when involved in innovative projects. However, 62% of participants could not mention any specific innovation methodology. This could be because the participants are unfamiliar with innovation methodologies.

The participants were asked to indicate which CI and innovation tools are most used in their workspace. They mentioned the tools they had used most and that were most applicable to the specific projects they were involved in. Because the banking industry has projects in each department, participants could identify the methodologies and tools they were introduced to in their past projects. This is not surprising, as not all projects require the tools of a specific method to be applied simultaneously. This indicates a lack of correct terminology used in the bank. For example, employees would follow the Lean Six Sigma methodology but also refer to other banking-specific terminology, such as process optimization.

Although all participants are innovation champions and have practical exposure to innovation thinking, they have not necessarily received formal theoretical training on innovation methodologies and tools. There remains considerable uncertainty and a lack of knowledge regarding the preferred innovation methodologies and tools (Richards and Coetzee, 2025). This highlights a gap in awareness of innovation methodologies and tools.

Figure 3 is a breakdown of the CI tools mentioned by each participant.

The tools used for Six Sigma and Lean are seldom used separately; they are usually combined, depending on the specific project. Therefore, developing the combined Lean Six Sigma methodology was also necessary. Initially, the main tools used for the Six Sigma methodology were Customer and need identification, Project charter, SIPOC, Process mapping, Root cause analysis, Standard operating procedure, FMEA and Data analytics. The primary Lean tools employed were Customer and need identification through value mapping, value stream mapping, Brown paper and Kaizen.

Participant 2 explained some of the tools used for CI thinking, explicitly referring to the DMAIC (Six Sigma) methodology:

Additionally, Participant 9 explained some of the CI tools used in their area:

Figure 4 is a breakdown of the innovation tools referred to by each participant.

The participants were able to recall several CI tools but struggled to remember the innovation tools they use. This highlights a significant gap in their knowledge regarding these tools and suggests a need for further education on innovation tools specifically. Additionally, several participants expressed unfamiliarity with innovations, leading them to rely on CI tools for support. This underscores the importance of CI tools in their work. Some even suggested that innovations are more of a mindset or a structured approach, rather than tools that can be used. Many participants indicated that they were unfamiliar with innovations and used CI tools to assist them. Some participants mentioned that innovations are a way of thinking or a structured approach, and tools are not used.

To address the decision-making process surrounding methodologies and tools implemented, 7 out of 13 (54%) participants discussed the differences between the timeframe and project size for CI and innovation projects. CI projects are seen as quicker because they focus on improving an existing process. CI was mentioned as more incremental innovation projects; therefore, the quick wins. The strategy of driving simplicity, which drives CI projects, was also mentioned as a strategic drive in the workplace. Participant 6 explains how simplicity has served them in the past:

Innovation projects were seen as more time-consuming and radical projects that require out-of-the-box solutions. Participants indicated that insufficient time is allocated for specific innovation projects; therefore, more dedicated time is needed. Participants mentioned that the company tends to focus more on CI projects due to the short timeframe and the additional dedicated time required for innovation projects.

Participants indicated that they envision processes encouraging more minor innovations in their projects. For example, Participant 2 explains how this specific bank encourages innovation in her department:

Participant 3 supported this notion of mini-ideas by explaining the concept of mini-innovations in their department:

Therefore, the project scope and timeframes influence how CI and innovative thinking can be implemented in projects. To this end, participants suggested ways in which CI-trained staff members could become involved in integrated innovation projects. Participant 3 suggested, for example, that staff members with Black and Green Belt Lean Six Sigma training should be linked to larger innovation projects. In contrast, staff members with Yellow Belt Lean Six Sigma training should work on smaller, incremental innovation projects.

The disproportionate familiarity with CI over innovation tools reveals a training and exposure gap that hinders integration. Participants rely heavily on structured CI methods, while innovation thinking remains underdeveloped and informally applied, limiting the organization’s capacity for holistic problem-solving.

Thematic analysis revealed seven key root causes contributing to the limited integration of CI and innovation thinking within the case study bank. These root causes span structural, cultural, and capability-related barriers. Each is presented below with supporting participant insights and proposed strategies for overcoming the challenge. Figure 5 below summarizes the root cause categories.

Table 2 summarizes the root causes and proposed strategies for integrating CI and innovation thinking. A detailed description of each root cause is presented below (see subsections 5.2.1–5.2.3).

Participants indicated that resistance to change, insufficient post-implementation benefit feedback, and lack of awareness prevent the integration of CI and innovation thinking. They added that the lack of dedicated time and correct resource allocation further contributes to the lack of integration.

Participants stressed three root causes related to institutional culture and change management: organizational resistance to change; performance measurements and feedback loops; and resource allocation. These root causes are discussed in Sections 4.2.1.1–4.2.1.3.

Eight out of 13 participants (62%) indicated that resistance to change and a lack of effective change management prevented the integration of CI and innovations. Participants indicated that the employees would resist new process designs due to a lack of change management. For example, Participant 2 elaborates: “Employees can resist change. I have seen that in some of the branches we currently have, they do not want to use some of the new projects that are coming about”.

Participant 10 captured this sentiment by saying: “If you leave everyone to do their own thing, they will do their own thing”.

To address this resistance, participants suggested that the case study bank should develop a clear culture for integrating CI and innovative thinking methodologies as part of a comprehensive cultural integration strategy. Participant 1 supports the statement: “We must create this culture of continuous improvement and innovation integration. A strong change management strategy needs to be developed”.

To this end, participants believe that buy-in management is required, and they must drive the change while providing clear direction and guidance. A transparent culture is necessary for both methodologies. It was concluded that improved change management is essential to successfully integrate the methods.

Another aspect of institutional culture and change management that contributes to the lack of integration is the absence of performance measurements, effective communication, and regular feedback. For example, Participant 13 explains, “I feel like the communication of benefits is one of the key things that they [Management] do not incorporate”.

The participants suggested that benefits must be tracked and communicated after implementation. Four of the 13 participants (31%) mentioned the importance of precise measurements and benefit calculations for integration. Participants also emphasized the importance of tracking benefits post-implementation, which was necessary for ensuring integration buy-in, support, and business benefits.

Participant 1 suggested ways to measure and evaluate business outcomes: To measure throughout this process, I must be able to track it post-implementation. That is where the business benefit will be derived.

A recurring theme across participant responses was the issue of limited time and resources, particularly for innovation initiatives. While CI activities are often integrated into daily operations, innovation thinking was perceived as requiring additional effort, dedicated time, and space for creativity, resources that are frequently unavailable in fast-paced banking environments.

Participants consistently highlighted that although innovation is encouraged in principle, the organizational environment prioritizes operational delivery and short-term targets, leaving little room for exploratory work, which was further underlined by Ngo et al. (2021). Participant 6 captured this challenge succinctly:

This quote underscores how reactive problem-solving is normalized, while proactive innovation is deprioritized due to time constraints. Similarly, Participant 4 observed how competing tasks limit capacity for structured innovation thinking: The big one is time. I know many people are busy with numerous other things.

This reflects the broader issue of cognitive and operational overload, where staff are stretched across multiple priorities, making it difficult to engage meaningfully with innovation-related processes that require reflection, ideation, and collaboration.

Moreover, while CI projects are often time-boxed and aligned with quarterly performance expectations, innovation initiatives tend to have longer, more uncertain timelines. Innovation projects are often perceived as risky or unmanageable within regular workloads, particularly when there is no transparent time allocation or buffer capacity. This was echoed by Participant 2: “It becomes a challenge when it takes more time than it should […] because I’m supposed to be doing other work, but now I have to do this innovation thing”.

Several participants noted that although the bank encourages innovation in principle, this encouragement is rarely aligned with enablers such as protected time, workload adjustments, or innovation initiatives. The resulting tension between delivery and discovery discourages deeper experimentation, particularly for frontline employees.

To overcome this barrier, participants suggested implementing more realistic planning cycles, allocating structured time for innovation (such as innovation hours or project-specific buffers), and securing senior management commitment to balancing short-term delivery with longer-term innovation goals. Allocating dedicated resources for innovation was seen as essential to signal its value and reduce the perception that it is “extra work”.

Participants identified that CI and innovation teams operate in isolation, which causes duplication of project efforts. Additionally, there is a lack of engagement between customers and external companies throughout the project lifecycle regarding project solutions.

Participants stressed two root causes of insufficient communication and collaboration: internal communication and collaboration, and external communication and collaboration.

Six of the 13 (46%) participants indicated that the lack of communication and collaboration between the CI and innovations teams is a root cause of the insufficient integration of these methodologies.

The teams responsible for driving CI or innovation thinking projects often work in silos, and currently, there are limited opportunities for collaboration.

For example, Participant 4 reflects: “If you are sitting in different meetings and you are like, why aren’t we working together instead of each person in silos working on their own?”.

In line with this, Participant 11 emphasized that different areas are doing valuable work, but there is a need to work together to solve business needs: I think that what I’m trying to fill in are the gaps between the dots that we sometimes miss. No one methodology’s going to fix everything.

This lack of communication between departments and teams often leads to duplication of effort. Visibility between different capabilities needs to be improved. Various teams and departments are working on the same projects, but they are unaware of each other due to a lack of visibility.

Participants made concrete suggestions to address these root causes. Some participants suggested a centralized function as a possible solution to integrate CI and innovation thinking to improve collaboration and communication.

Suggestions were made for the centralized function to include CI and innovation representatives who are highly skilled in both methodologies to assist from the beginning throughout the project’s lifecycle. This is highlighted in conversation with Participant 2: The right experts, who are familiar with both methodologies, need to be involved to ensure that an efficient or optimized framework is also put together.

Participants (Participants 2, 4 and 7) indicated that the CI and innovations teams need regular check-in sessions with specific milestones to assist employees. This team should also assist with networking, which would help with quick project assessments to remove possible project duplication and speed up project implementation.

Participant 10 advocates for a central CI function. They explained how this function has internal and external stakeholder benefits:

Participant 7 highlights the value of collaboration by stating how they have seen organizational and industry projects and how these stakeholders can learn from each other:

Participants mentioned developing a library of work-in-progress and completing projects internally to help employees avoid duplicating projects and assist with project solutions. After employees complete their projects, the library must be updated with the finalized work. This process would also promote standardization, a key strategic goal for the company.

Ten out of 13 (77%) participants cited insufficient collaboration and engagement with customers and external companies regarding project ideas and solutions. Participant 13 explains, “We already have many solutions from other external companies, but many people are unaware of them, which may result in duplicate efforts”.

Nine of the 13 (70%) participants emphasized the importance of examining internal business units or external companies for potential solutions. This included looking externally for trends beyond the banking sector.

Participant 1 emphasizes the need for more customer engagement during the early stages of the project life cycle and throughout project implementation:

Additionally, participants emphasized the importance of gathering customer feedback after project implementation.

Participants indicated that they are not familiar enough with the different methodologies to integrate CI and innovation thinking. They also showed that no clear framework exists to guide the integration.

Participants stressed two root causes related to the integration of the knowledge gap: lack of methodology knowledge, and lack of an integration framework.

Ten out of 13 (77%) participants indicated that insufficient knowledge of both methodologies prevented integration for CI and innovations.

Most participants were familiar with CI methodologies and tools but had limited knowledge about innovation methodologies and tools. When the participants were familiar with both methods and tools, they still struggled to indicate how they could be integrated.

Participant 4 explained the importance of training for both methodologies: People have ideas, but they do not know where to start. This might be solved by implementing training that combines these methodologies for employees.

Speaking on how the training and awareness will make it easier for employees to buy in, Participant 2 states:

The participants indicated that employees need to increase their knowledge regarding both methodologies.

Ten of the 13 (77%) participants indicated that all employees need training in both methodologies. Four of the 13 participants (30%) suggested that CI training should be compulsory and included in the company’s onboarding program. Three of the 13 participants (23%) indicated that CI training should be for all. Still, innovation is a specialized skill that only needs to be applied to select employees with an innovative mindset.

Participant 3 suggested that everyone needs to receive CI training:

Participant 12 indicated that there are specialized roles, referring to innovations, but they require a collaborative approach:

Seven of the 13 (54%) participants indicated that a clear integrated methodology framework prevented integration between CI and innovation thinking in the workplace.

For example, Participants 1 and 12 both believe this integrated framework is needed. As Participant 1 explains, “I think what happens is some people do not have a framework, or there is no framework created to facilitate that”.

Additionally, most participants suggested that CI should be the foundation for innovations and should be built upon it. Participant 7 explained the importance of first using the CI methodology and thereafter adding more radical technology to the solution:

Participant 5 supports this approach to integration and highlighted the importance of first focusing on the smaller CI methodologies and, thereafter, more innovative solutions:

Additionally, Participant 8 reiterated that CI is the foundation of innovations. They stated that “the key, I think, is if you are going to truly innovate, you need the right mindset to start with, and then you provide that mindset with the tools, the thinking, right? So, your continuous improvement provides the thinking and the tools, and then the innovation almost comes out of that”.

The participants were more familiar with CI methodologies and tools but less familiar with innovation methodologies and tools, which was a significant factor in their struggle to integrate the methodologies. Innovations, methodologies and tools are often poorly defined and communicated to employees, particularly in the workplace and research settings. Therefore, it is not due to the lack of employees’ skill level and exposure but rather the lack of awareness of innovation methodologies and tools in industries and research. Suggestions were made to use empathy from the design thinking methodology, which is part of innovation, and integrate it into the Lean Six Sigma methodology. Through empathy mapping and personas, design thinking was found to be stronger in its customer focus. There were also suggestions to add more of the creativity methodology of innovations to Lean Six Sigma, which is part of the CI thinking. Participants indicated that incremental innovations were very similar to CI, which was an overlap in thinking.

Participant 9 indicated how they try to integrate CI with innovation thinking in their department, also starting with CI and then innovation:

Nine of the 13 (69%) participants indicated that more customer experience and management throughout the project lifecycle is needed to improve customer centricity.

Participants 1, 4 and 10 highlight this customer-centricity, which is best illustrated by Participant 10, who explains: But I think through people leadership and putting people in the right roles who can join the dots between CX and then take that CX and link it to the capability work that we do from a business architecture perspective and then also rope in, I guess process ongoing management and improvement.

Focusing on the customer will allow departments to integrate more innovative thinking in their CI projects. Participant 4 specifically suggested integrating CX with design thinking and Lean Six Sigma as a possible model to ensure the integration of CI and innovation thinking. Participant 4 explains:

A clear, integrated methodology framework will help participants integrate CI and innovation thinking into their daily activities.

The disconnect in methodological knowledge between CI and innovation practices highlights a significant training deficiency and an underlying organizational issue: the lack of a cohesive language and strategic framework for integrating these practices. While Lean Six Sigma is firmly established within operational processes, innovation frameworks are frequently underleveraged or misinterpreted, indicating that innovation has not yet achieved the same level of institutional embedding. This disparity aligns with Penker et al.’s (2018) assertion that organizations often become entrenched in Horizon 1 activities, prioritizing incremental enhancements over transformative change. Mottaghi et al. (2022) also noted that companies tend to focus on improving existing opportunities and then fail to adapt to fundamental innovations in their environment. Companies fail to operate in a balanced manner. This was further highlighted by Ngo et al. (2021), who observed that innovation requires a combination of other assets, including process innovation, which is typically the CI thinking, to succeed in banking ultimately.

The varied perceptions of who should be trained in innovation (everyone versus select individuals) further highlight the cultural ambiguity surrounding innovation ownership within this institution. This ambiguity, which can be seen as a lack of clarity or consensus on who is responsible for driving and implementing innovation, can lead to inefficiencies and missed opportunities. Similar tensions have been observed in previous studies where innovation is siloed in specialist teams, limiting its integration into core operations (de Amaral et al., 2020; Beyhan Yasar et al., 2019).

Several participants advanced the argument that CI should serve as the methodological foundation for innovation. This CI methodological foundation resonates with hybrid process design models in the literature, where operational excellence and creativity are sequenced rather than merged prematurely (Antony et al., 2019).

However, it is essential to note that integration is not solely a training function. Strategic leadership must model and reinforce the value of both approaches, as well as cultural alignment across departments, and establish structural mechanisms that encourage cross-functional collaboration. Without these enablers, even the best-trained teams may revert to siloed implementation. This study underscores the crucial role of strategic leadership in the integration process, supporting Henrique and Godinho’s (2020) assertion that integration is as much a governance challenge as a methodological one.

Further, this study makes a unique contribution by providing insight into the fact that integration readiness in service sectors, such as banking, is contingent upon balancing formal capability-building (e.g. tiered training) with informal cultural shifts (e.g. reframing innovation as everyone’s responsibility). These findings suggest that integration is not a one-time intervention but an ongoing change process that requires continuous commitment to aligning strategy, skills and structure.

The findings of this study underscore the urgent need for integrated frameworks that can guide the practical alignment of CI and innovation thinking in service-based organizations. Unlike manufacturing settings, where process improvement tools and quality standards are often embedded in operational systems, service industries face greater variability, more complex human interactions, and less tangible outputs. These conditions demand flexible but structured approaches to improvement and innovation. However, existing models primarily originate from product-centric or industrial contexts and often fail to accommodate the iterative, relational, and co-creative nature of service delivery (Antony et al., 2019; Velu et al., 2021). Participants in this study repeatedly called for clarity around when, how and by whom innovation thinking should be applied to CI efforts. Without an integration model, teams often rely on informal sequencing or personal judgment, leading to inconsistency and missed opportunities for synergy. This finding echoes Jantz (2016), who argued that the absence of formal frameworks leads organizations to treat CI and innovation as competing rather than complementary logics. It also builds on Richards and Coetzee’s (2025) call for a structured approach to methodological integration, particularly in complex service environments such as banking. What distinguishes service sector needs is the high degree of customer-facing processes, emotional labor and adaptability required. As such, integration frameworks in these contexts must go beyond toolkits and process charts – they must incorporate cultural, strategic and human-centered dimensions. The current study lays the empirical groundwork for such a framework by identifying the root causes, enablers, and staff-level expectations of integration. Future research could develop and test a maturity-based CI–innovation integration model tailored to the service context, supporting structured and scalable implementation.

Figure 6 summarizes the root causes and proposed solutions.

This study examined how CI and innovation thinking can be integrated within a South African banking context, offering empirical insight into how organizations balance efficiency and adaptability.

The findings demonstrate how CI aligns with exploitation-oriented activities focused on refining existing processes, while innovation thinking supports exploration-oriented activities aimed at generating new customer-centered solutions. This strategic balance reflects organizational ambidexterity, defined as the capability to simultaneously exploit established routines while exploring new opportunities (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). In this study, ambidexterity was operationalized through the sequencing and layering of CI and innovation thinking methods in different phases of service design, process optimization, and project execution. The study thereby contributes to the literature by showing how ambidexterity can be enacted in service-based environments where customer experience, regulatory complexity, and people-centered interaction play central roles.

Additionally, the study highlights the importance of developing customer-centered frameworks that integrate CI and innovation thinking. Combining Lean Six Sigma with design thinking elements allows organizations to build solutions that are efficient, feasible, and grounded in real customer needs. This integration reflects the role of empathy and customer intelligence in shaping service improvements and innovation outcomes.

The findings have several practical implications for the banking sector. First, establishing CI as a foundational capability across the organization is essential. The study highlights that CI awareness and basic problem-solving training should be integrated into the onboarding process for all employees to ensure a shared understanding of improvement language, logic, and expected behaviors. CI provides the thinking and tools that can form the basis from which innovation thinking can evolve. Second, innovation thinking training should be made available to selected teams and individuals who will drive or support innovation projects. While CI may be broadly diffused across the workforce, innovation thinking benefits from focused depth and should be intentionally positioned with those individuals who have both the interest and capability to facilitate creative problem-solving at scale. Third, the study recommends forming a centralized CI–Innovation support unit to ensure visibility, alignment, and collaboration across teams. Such a function can help avoid duplication, accelerate solution development and support business units through mentoring, knowledge sharing and strategic coordination. Fourth, the study emphasizes that employees require dedicated time and capacity to engage meaningfully in innovation thinking. Innovation projects are perceived as longer term and exploratory, and without protected time or structured buffers, they risk being overshadowed by short-term operational priorities. Allocating dedicated time signals organizational commitment to innovation, supports cognitive engagement and strengthens the sustainability of outcomes.

Beyond organizational performance, the integration of CI and innovation thinking has broader societal and policy relevance in the South African banking sector. Stronger integration can support financial inclusion by enabling the design of accessible, transparent and user-centered banking solutions. It may also strengthen public trust in financial institutions by improving responsiveness, accountability, and communication. In an environment where digital banking access, institutional credibility, and service quality shape broader economic participation, integrated CI–innovation capability can contribute to enhanced customer well-being and long-term financial system resilience.

This study was limited to a single South African bank, and its qualitative design does not allow for statistical generalization. While the case-study approach provided in-depth understanding, the findings may vary across organizational contexts, service sectors and geographical regions. Future research should therefore examine CI–innovation integration across additional industries and countries and assess long-term outcomes using longitudinal or mixed-method approaches. A valuable next step is the development and testing of a maturity-based integration model that supports staged capability development and readiness assessment. Once such a model is refined, it should be piloted in additional organizational settings, expanded to related service sectors, and adapted for broader institutional application. This study provides the empirical foundation for such a framework and offers a starting point for advancing both theory and practice on the integration of CI and innovation thinking in complex service environments.

“Good morning/afternoon/evening…”

“Thank you for being prepared to do this interview with me/us today.”

“I am Yolandie Richards, a researcher at the NWU. I am part of a team of researchers who want to understand how to integrate continuous improvement and innovations in the banking industry. From our experience and from what we know, we understand that financial institutions use continuous improvement and Innovation Thinking but seldom integrate the two. However, we know that both are needed to maintain a competitive advantage.”

“The purpose of our interview today is to find out how financial institutions can integrate continuous improvement and innovations thinking in their processes.”

“I will be conducting several interviews with other Lean Six Sigma green belts to understand your experiences with and suggestions for integrating continuous improvement and innovations thinking in your teams.”

“We will probably take about 90 min to complete our interview.”

“Everything that you say is confidential, and we will not tell anyone your name, surname or any identifiable information.”

“This interview will be audio recorded and transcribed. We record this interview to make sure that we capture everything that you share with us. We will remove your name and identifiable information to protect you. It might be that I will take a few notes during our interview to follow what we talk about.”

“You have given me written permission to do this interview with you and I just need to confirm that this is OK…”

“You can withdraw at any time if you would like to stop or no longer wish to do the interview.”

“If what we talk about makes you feel uncomfortable or you feel you need to talk to someone about it afterwards, I can arrange for you to meet with a counsellor who can assist you.”

“Do you have any questions that you would like to ask me? …”

You are a Lean Six Sigma certified greenbelt, and I would like you to tell me more about your experiences with continuous improvement and innovations thinking in your team (Interview follows)

• Tell me about your experience with continuous improvement and innovative thinking in your institution.

• What innovations or continuous improvement methodologies do you apply in your team?

• What innovations or continuous improvement tools do you apply in your team?

• How could continuous improvement and innovative thinking and methodologies be integrated into your team?

• What do you think are the root causes of not integrating continuous improvement and innovative thinking currently?

• What challenges do you envision in integrating innovative thinking and continuous improvement in your team?

• How have you applied your continuous improvement training to improve innovation in your team?

Non-verbal: Sit comfortably, face adults openly, maintain good eye contact and lean slightly toward the person.

Verbal techniques: Minimal verbal responses: “Hmm.” “Yes…”

Paraphrasing: repeating a person’s words in your own words

Reflecting: “you feel… because you (content)”; “you thought… because of (content)” Listening Working silences

Encouraging: “You really tried hard to let me understand your experiences”; “you are really doing well in helping me understand your experiences”

Acknowledging: “thank you for sharing… with me”; “thank you for being prepared to share … with me”

Clarifying: “you said… what do you mean by that?”; “I’m not clear on what you mean by… could you please explain it to me?”; “I’m not sure I understand what you mean… could you give me an example of …”

Probing: “you mentioned …. Could you tell me more about …”

Summarizing: main points “you told me … (feelings and content)”

Wind down: give a summary of the major points and take care not to end the interview abruptly.

Conclude the interview/focus group: “Is there anything else important that you would like to add?”

“Are there any questions from your side?”

“If I need to ask you some questions about what we talked about today, would it be OK if I contact you again?”

“You can contact me at YRichards@fnb.co.za”

“Thank you for sharing your experiences with me today.”