International Journal of Operations & Production ManagementTransferring Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants in ChinaKatsuki Aoki,

Article information:To cite this document:Katsuki Aoki, (2008) "Transferring Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants in China",International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28 Issue: 6, pp.518-539, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570810875340Permanent link to this document:https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570810875340

Downloaded on: 16 October 2017, At: 06:34 (PT)References: this document contains references to 64 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5174 times since 2008*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:(2003),"Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study", International Journal of Operations &amp; ProductionManagement, Vol. 23 Iss 12 pp. 1426-1446 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570310506704">https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570310506704</a>(1997),"Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizationaldesigns", Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 110-117 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09576069710165792">https://doi.org/10.1108/09576069710165792</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:616458 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Transferring Japanese kaizenactivities to overseas

plants in ChinaKatsuki Aoki

Faculty of Economics, Kanto Gakuin University, Japan andCardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine management practices in transferring Japanesekaizen activities to overseas plants. The aim is to provide a greater understanding of organisationalcapabilities that facilitate an incremental organisation-wide innovation.

Design/methodology/approach – Case studies of nine medium- and large-sized Japaneseauto-parts overseas plants in China were conducted. The data were analysed by comparing thesuccessful cases of management practices concerning the transfer of Japanese kaizen activities tooverseas plants with unsuccessful ones. Based on the assumption that learning is situated in thecontext, the concept of communities of practice promoted by Wenger is used as the analyticalframework of this study.

Findings – The results of the comparative analysis show some common characteristics ofmanagement practices in successful cases: they actively used team-based rather than individual-basedsuggestion schemes; they had human resource practices that emphasised the importance of havingworkers who could do more than one job and long-term employment; and the managers of successfulcases conducted shop floor visits to check the work processes every day.

Originality/value – This study suggests the necessity for the researchers and practitioners of kaizento consider a healthy balance between three types of organisational capabilities that encourageworkers’ self-initiative, facilitate cross-functional communication, and discipline workers.

Keywords Japan, China, Continuous improvement, Manufacturing systems,Automotive components industry

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe concept of kaizen (or continuous improvement) has received much attention as akey to Japan’s competitive success (Imai, 1986). Over the past few decades, aconsiderable number of studies, which have focused on Japanese manufacturingtechniques (Schonberger, 1982), the Toyota production system (TPS) (Liker, 2004;Ohno, 1988), or lean production (Womack et al., 1990; Womack and Jones, 1996), haveillustrated the importance of kaizen. Furthermore, studies of kaizen activities incountries outside Japan, such as Australia (Chapman et al., 1997), Sweden (Lindbergand Berger, 1997) and the UK (Oliver and Wilkinson, 1992), suggest that the concept ofkaizen have become routinely accepted throughout the world.

In contrast to the worldwide diffusion of the concept of kaizen, many researchershave illustrated the difficulties for many companies outside Japan to have kaizenactivities take root in organisations (Bateman and David, 2002; Bessant et al., 1994). Infact, as the comparison of key performance indicators between Japanese, UK and US

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

IJOPM28,6

518

Received 19 October 2006Revised 17 May 2007Accepted 21 October 2007

International Journal of Operations &Production ManagementVol. 28 No. 6, 2008pp. 518-539q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0144-3577DOI 10.1108/01443570810875340

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

auto-parts manufacturers by Oliver et al. (2002) shows, there is still a large gap in termsof the effects of kaizen activities between Japanese and western companies. Thishighlights the necessity to understand not only the details of the implementation ofkaizen activities in countries outside Japan, but also the nature of Japanese kaizenactivities itself in more depth.

Studies on transferring Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants would be helpfulfor this understanding, because these allow us to approach management practices byexamining the well-suited context of Japanese kaizen activities in countries outsideJapan. The transfer of Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants has been researchedas part of the studies on transferring Japanese management practices to overseas plantsin the USA (Abo, 1994; Kenney and Florida, 1993; Liker et al., 1999), the UK (Elger andSmith, 2005; Oliver and Wilkinson, 1992; Saka, 2004), and China (Hong et al., 2006a, b;Taylor, 1999). These studies suggest that the implementation of Japanese kaizenactivities in overseas plants is situated in the cultural and social contexts. For instance,Hong et al. (2006b) illustrate that it is difficult to get active participation from frontlineworkers in kaizen activities in China, and suggest that great management efforts areneeded to create well-suited contexts for Japanese kaizen activities, such as introducingan open plan plant and office layout, and importing daily communal rituals from Japan.

This study examines management practices in transferring Japanese kaizenactivities to overseas plants through the case studies of nine Japanese overseas plantsin China. Based on the assumption that learning is situated in the context (Lave andWenger, 1991; Nicolini et al., 2003; Suchman, 1987), the concept of community ofpractice (COP) promoted by Wenger (1998) is used as the analytical framework of thisstudy. The usefulness of this perspective in analyzing kaizen activities is highlightedby the studies that illustrate the divergence between kaizen methods and the actualpractice on the shop floor (Baxter and Hirschhauser, 2004; Jørgensen et al., 2003).

Japanese kaizen activitiesJapanese kaizen activities and continuous improvement studiesThis study begins by positioning the subject of this study, Japanese kaizen activities, inthe field of continuous improvement studies. Bateman and Rich (2003) classifycontinuous improvement into two approaches according to the length of time overwhich the improvement activity is focused; the longer one is continuous improvement;the shorter one is process improvement. In the case of process improvement, short-term(one or two week) programmes that consist of break-through kaizen events areimplemented in a focused area (Bateman and David, 2002). However, although manycompanies have achieved considerable improvement through the implementation ofprocess improvement programmes, the initial improvement is easily eroded back to thepre-improvement level (Bateman and David, 2002).

In terms of the time frame of activity, Japanese kaizen is longer than processimprovement. First of all, Ohno (1988, p. 42), the Founder of TPS, states, “improvementis both eternal and infinite.” This suggests that the concept of kaizen in Toyota is not aprogramme with a limited time frame, but a process of activities that are implementedcontinuously. In Japan, there is a trend that companies in various industries try toimplement kaizen activities in line with the Toyota way (Nikkei Sangyo Shimbun, 2007).Therefore, it is possible to consider kaizen activities in Toyota as representative ofJapanese kaizen activities.

TransferringJapanese kaizen

activities

519

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

“Continuous improvement” is one of the two pillars of Toyota’s basic philosophyand means not only creating a lean system that contributes to cost reduction, but alsolearning from mistakes and pursuing innovation (Kajiwara, 2002). In fact, Toyota hasmade a great profit in recent years (e.g. the net income was almost $14 billion in 2007).However, boosting the profit, or “exploitation of old certainties” (March, 1991), is notthe only aim of kaizen in Toyota. Learning from mistakes and pursuing innovationinclude the aspect of “exploration of new possibilities” (March, 1991). Therefore,creating a system of continuous organisational learning aiming towards innovation isalso the aim of kaizen in Toyota.

Liker (2004) notes that the concept of kaizen in Toyota is a kind of corporate culturethat supports continual organisational learning. This study shares a similarperspective and is also in line with studies that consider continuous improvement asorganisational capabilities (Grant, 1991, Nelson and Winter, 1982) or dynamiccapabilities (Teece et al., 1997) that facilitate incremental, organisation-wide innovation(Bessant and Caffyn, 1997; Bessant and Francis, 1999). The dynamic capabilities aredefined as “the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and externalcompetences to address rapidly changing environments” (Teece et al., 1997, p. 516). Inthis perspective, the aim of kaizen is to achieve sustainable competitive advantagethrough the creation of innovative organisational capabilities that are difficult to beimitated by others (Lewis, 2000). It is difficult for the TPS to be imitated by others,because it consists of a lot of interdependent systems, such as just-in-time and totalquality control (TQC), and involves all levels of the organisation (Teece et al., 1997).

Organisational capabilities in Japanese companiesBefore explaining the relationship between kaizen and organisational capabilities, thissection focuses on the three types of organisational capabilities that play certain rolesin Japanese kaizen activities. These are organisational capabilities that encourageworkers’ self-initiative (this study refers to them as type A capabilities), organisationalcapabilities that facilitate cross-functional communication (type B capabilities), andorganisational capabilities that discipline workers (type C capabilities).

Researchers who recognise the effectiveness of Japanese work practices state thatJapanese companies have developed capabilities that make their workers or work teamslearn and improve their work processes independently (Kenney and Florida, 1993; Koike,1994). Quality control (QC) circles or small group activities are considered to facilitate suchcapabilities through giving every employee an opportunity for learning (Cole, 1994). In thisperspective, to put it simply, organisational capabilities that encourage workers’self-initiative play an important role in Japanese kaizen activities (type A).

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) suggest that Japanese companies which emphasise theimportance of tacit knowledge have developed organisational capabilities thatfacilitate knowledge creation. In this perspective, the key agent of knowledge creationis a group of people who have various experiences and knowledge (Lam, 2000; Nonakaand Takeuchi, 1995). On-the-job training (OJT) plays a critical role in creating suchcapabilities. Employees in Japanese companies experience various kinds of jobsthrough the OJT, which helps to reduce social distance between different categories ofthe workforce (Lam, 2000). In this perspective, it is organizational capabilities whichfacilitate communication among diverse people that allow Japanese companies toimplement incremental organization-wide innovation (type B).

IJOPM28,6

520

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Ihara’s (2003) study, which is based on personal experience as a temporary worker in aToyota plant, suggests that Japanese kaizen activities are not always based on workers’self-initiative, and that the management practices of disciplining workers have asignificant effect on the improvement of work processes. Studies on total qualitymanagement in countries outside Japan also illustrate the positive effects of discipliningworkers on quality (Edwards et al., 1998; Sewell and Wilkinson, 1992). According toIhara’s (2003) observation, every worker in the plant is expected to contribute a suggestionconcerning the work processes once a month. However, most of the workers seem to forcethemselves to make a suggestion just before the deadline (Ihara, 2003, pp. 65-6).

In addition, Ihara (2003) describes shop floor conditions in Toyota as the following:the prefabricated building is enclosed by glass walls on all sides, the inside of thebuilding and toilets are always kept clean, and even the placement of boxes is donewith extreme care. He states that, in this situation, every worker always feels thathe/she is under someone’s supervision, and thus it is mentally easier for the worker towork as he/she is instructed (Ihara, 2003, p. 165). This situation is very similar toFoucault’s (1977) “Panopticon,” and makes it possible to discipline workers to conformto the company’s rules and ways (Ihara, 2003; Sewell and Wilkinson, 1992). Thissuggests that organisational capabilities that discipline workers to conform to thecompany’s ways also play a certain role in Japanese kaizen activities (type C).

The process of Japanese kaizen activitiesThis section examines the relationship between these three types of capabilities andkaizen activities based on the original idea of kaizen in Toyota. Muda or wasteelimination is the very basic idea of kaizen, because kaizen activities are implementedthrough the identification and elimination of muda (Imai, 1986, 1997; Ohno, 1988).According to Ohno (1988), muda elimination means enhancing the ratio of “value-addedwork” (changing the shape or character of a product or changing the assembly).Improving the operating efficiency through the elimination of the seven types of waste,namely waste of overproduction, waste of time on hand, waste in transportation, wasteof processing itself, waste of stock on hand, waste of movement and waste of makingdefective products, is the denominator of this ratio (Ohno, 1988). It is operators thatassume “value-added work.” As Shimokawa and Fujimoto (2001) suggest, Ohno had aphilosophy that kaizen ideas should be conceived from the operators’ standpoint, andtook a stance of placing importance on hearing the opinion of operators.

In terms of the identification of muda, there are two different processes, i.e. one isthe identification by operators; the other is the identification by others, such as teamleaders and supervisors. In the former process, how operators suggest problems ormuda concerning their work processes is of major significance. QC circles andsuggestion schemes are well known means to facilitate operators making a suggestion.According to Masao Nemoto, who was a key person for TQC in Toyota (Shimokawaand Fujimoto, 2001), it is how every participant says something in a positive manner,not how large improvements are achieved that has a great significance in QC circles(Nemoto, 1992, pp. 56-7). This suggests that the self-initiative of workers to participatein kaizen activities through voicing matters concerning their work processes plays animportant role in kaizen activities.

Nemoto (1992) also insists that it is supervisors (Shokucho) or group leaders(Kumicho) who are expected to achieve major improvements. Therefore, it is of major

TransferringJapanese kaizen

activities

521

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

significance how actually noticeable problems and muda are to them in the workprocess. For instance, work standards in Toyota are used as a means for making mudanoticeable by being posted at each work station so that supervisors can determinewhether the operator is following the standards (Liker, 2004). A 5S or goodhousekeeping (Imai, 1997) also creates the condition in which muda is easily noticeable.When machines and tools are clean, one can easily find problems and determinethe causes. Ihara’s (2003) description, which was mentioned earlier illustrateshow thoroughly 5S is being performed in Toyota. This suggests that discipliningworkers to conform to work standards or 5S practices plays a critical role in kaizenactivities.

Once muda is identified, it must be reported to the appropriate people to analyse theroot causes and to take countermeasures. As Ohno’s (1988) “five-why analysis”suggests, preventing a recurrence of muda through the thorough analysis of the rootcause is the basic idea of kaizen in Toyota. In this process, communication betweendifferent functions has a critical role. If the cause of muda has to do with machines andequipment, communication between the user of the machine, a maintenance person andan equipment (or production) engineer is essential to analyse the root causes. Once theresults of such an analysis are reflected in the revision of a work standard, an improvedstandard is established as the basis for the next round of kaizen. In this process,communication between the people who make work standards and the people who areinvolved with the analysis is indispensable.

Figure 1 shows this kaizen process and its relationship with the three types oforganisational capabilities. This figure illustrates that each of the three typesof capabilities plays a critical role in Japanese kaizen activities by supporting eachkaizen process. However, management tries to make a trade-off between type A and Ccapabilities. In the kaizen process on the right side of this figure (concerning type Ccapabilities), operators strictly follow the methods decided by management,

Figure 1.Relationship betweenkaizen process and threetypes of capabilities

Identification of muda byoperators

Identification of muda bypeople other than operators

Communication between various functions

Muda elimination

Type A: Organisationalcapabilities that encourageworkers' self-initiative

Type C: Organisationalcapabilities that disciplineworkers

Type B: Organisational capabilities that facilitate cross-functional communication

Kaizen process Organisational capabilities

Standardisation of the results of muda elimination

Providing basic standards to identify muda

IJOPM28,6

522

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

while operators actively make a suggestion to management in the process shown onthe left side (concerning type A capabilities). This study considers both kaizenprocesses to be critical factors in Japanese kaizen activities. It would be difficult tocreate an organisational climate in which every employee can learn from mistakes andpursue innovation exclusively through the right side kaizen process. It would also bedifficult to align the goals of workers who participate in kaizen activities with thecompany goals only through the left side kaizen process. Japanese kaizen activities arenot merely voluntary activities among workers, but organisation-wide activities inorder to ensure a continuous implementation of the plan do check action cycle(Imai, 1997).

Analytical frameworkCommunities of practice and the transfer of Japanese kaizen activitiesThe previous section illustrated that Japanese kaizen activities are supported by the threetypes of organisational capabilities. However, as many researchers suggest, the reasonwhy organisational capabilities can be a source of competitive advantage is that they aredifficult to imitate by others (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; Hamel and Prahalad, 1994). Theorganisational capabilities that have been developed through their own history andconsist of complex social relationships are difficult to transfer to other plants.

This study addresses the issue of the transfer of kaizen activities to overseas plantsthrough the concept of COP promoted by Wenger (1998). In this perspective, peoplelearn something through participating in a practice, and also develop their identitiesthrough the participation (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Orr, 1996; Wenger, 1998). Here, theconcept of practice means, “doing in a historical and social context that gives structureand meaning to what we do” (Wenger, 1998, p. 47). According to Wenger (1998),the COP involves a group of people who mutually engage in a practice throughnegotiating meaning, jointly pursue their own enterprise, and share resources fornegotiating meaning, such as routines, words, tools, ways of doing things and so on.

This perspective suggests that the transfer of Japanese kaizen activities cannot beachieved only by introducing formal procedures in the overseas plants. As Brown andDuguid’s (1991) argument of divergence between canonical and noncanonical practicessuggests, actual practice cannot be controlled completely through formal procedures.In the strict sense of this perspective, the knowledge concerning Japanese kaizenactivities is not transferable to overseas plants, because the meaning of an activity isalways situated in the local context (Brown and Duguid, 1991; Suchman, 1987).

Instead, people in overseas plants can produce their own meaning of Japanesekaizen activities by participating in these activities. Management practices are able toallow the people to create their meanings of Japanese kaizen activities by providingthem with a context to learn Japanese kaizen activities. It is such management practicesthat lay the ground for implementing Japanese kaizen activities in overseas plants.

Three types of capabilities in a COP perspectiveA COP is able to give people a context in which they learn something and also developtheir identities (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Brown and Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998).If it was possible to set up COPs for people in overseas plants, they would be able toengage in kaizen activities, negotiate the meanings of kaizen activities, consider kaizenactivities as their own enterprise, and share the meanings of concepts and tools used in

TransferringJapanese kaizen

activities

523

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

kaizen activities. In a COP, the participants are able to develop their self-initiative asparticipants in Japanese kaizen activities by having a meaningful experience of kaizen.

However, a COP is also a place that develops the participants’ own language andnorms that are difficult to share with outsiders, and enterprises that do not alwaysmatch a company’s mission (Wenger, 1998), or what van Maanen and Barley (1985) calla subculture. The engagement in a COP makes it possible both to produce a meaning ina local context and to constrain the original meaning from circulating beyond the localcontext (Bechky, 2003; Star, 1995; Wenger, 1998). As stated earlier, the three types oforganisational capabilities play a critical role in Japanese kaizen activities. Although,type A is matched with the management practices that provide a COP as a context forlearning, a COP is able to place limitations not only on the freedom of communicationacross various communities (type B), but also on disciplining people to conform to thecompany’s ways (type C).

In order to address the issues that go beyond the scope of engagement in a single COP,this study notes people’s modes of involvement in the three social systems identified byWenger (1998): COP, constellation of practices, and designed organisation. As statedearlier, we have a meaningful experience by engaging in a COP. This kind ofinvolvement corresponds to engagement as a mode of belonging to a social system(Wenger, 1998), or active involvement in mutual processes of negotiating meaning.

However, our scope of engagement is always limited to a COP, because a practice isalways situated in the local context. Therefore, we cannot engage in a whole companyor plant that consists of various COPs, but can imagine the whole picture of a companyas a constellation of interrelated practices (Gherardi and Nicolini, 2002; Wenger, 1998).As Wenger (1998, p. 246) states, “No one’s purview is the constellation itself, becauseno one has that scope of engagement.” This kind of involvement corresponds toimagination as a mode of belonging (Wenger, 1998), or creating images of the worldand seeing connections through time and space.

A company or plant also has an aspect of functional organisation that is designed toachieve certain goals and missions (Thompson, 1967; Galbraith, 1973), or designedorganisation. In a designed organisation, people’s efforts are aligned to achieve certaingoals according to formal procedures. This type of involvement corresponds to alignmentas a mode of belonging (Wenger, 1998), or coordinating people’s energy and activities inorder to fit within a broader structure and to contribute to broader enterprises.

This study examines management practices that support the three types oforganisational capabilities (A-C) through the perspective of COP by relating them tothese three modes of belonging (Wenger, 1998): engagement – type A capabilities,imagination – type B capabilities, and alignment – type C capabilities. At the levelof COP, workers in overseas plants can develop their self-initiative to participate inJapanese kaizen activities through engaging in actual practice. The main issue inmanagement practices at this level is how to give workers a practice in which theyparticipate and have a real say in improving their work processes, and throughwhich they have meaningful experiences, i.e. how to support type A capabilities. At thelevel of constellation of practices, people in overseas plants are able to have a broaderperspective through imagining connections between different functions orcommunities. The main issue in management practices at this level is how to givepeople an opportunity to access other kinds of communities, jobs, knowledge andperspectives, i.e. how to support type B capabilities. At the level of designed

IJOPM28,6

524

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

organisation, the activity of each worker is aligned in terms of a certain companypolicy or target. The main issue in management practices at this level is how to ensureworkers’ coordinated activities through disciplining them to conform to the company’srules and ways, i.e. how to support type C capabilities.

In sum, a COP has both positive and negative effects on the transfer of Japanesekaizen activities to overseas plant. To put it briefly, management practices that supporttype A capabilities encourage the positive effect of COP, while those that support typeB and C capabilities serve to overcome the negative effect of COP.

MethodologyA case study methodology (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003) was used to examinemanagement practices concerning the transfer of Japanese kaizen activities in ninemedium- and large-sized Japanese auto-parts overseas plants in China (Table I). Thisaimed to look at generic processes concerning how management practices that supportthe three types of organisational capabilities work in transferring Japanese kaizenactivities to overseas plants in China. Multiple-case sampling was employed tostrengthen the confidence of findings (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The main intentwas not to conduct random sampling, but to follow replication logic (Yin, 2003).A cross-case comparative analysis was conducted in order to look for within-groupsimilarities as well as inter-group differences (Eisenhardt, 1989).

Sample plants were selected with the aim of investigating the intensified managementefforts to transfer Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants. Automotive-related andChina were two key factors in the case selection. First, the parent companies of all theseplants were Japanese auto-parts manufacturers that have made an intensified effort toimplement kaizen activities with the help of the customers or Japanese automotivemanufacturers (MacDuffie and Helper, 1999; Womack et al., 1990). Second, as the growthof automotive production in China, that is estimated to produce more than 10 million carsby 2010 (Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 2007), suggests, automotive-related companies have

Establishment Employment Time of research Interviewees

Case A 1995 300 September 2004 MD (Japanese), deputy MD (two Japanese)Case B 2002 300 November 2005 MD (Japanese), production manager

(Japanese)Case C 1992 400 September 2004 Deputy MD (Japanese)Case D 2003 600 November 2005 MD (Japanese)Case E 2003 800 October 2005 MD (Japanese), plant director (Japanese),

sales manager (Japanese and Chinese)Case F 1995 900 September 2004 MD (Japanese)Case G 2003 1,200 November 2005 MD (Japanese), production manager

(Japanese), director in Japanese head office(Japanese)

Case H 1988 1,500 August 2004 MD (Japanese), production director(Chinese), production manager (Japanese),operations manager (Japanese)

Case J 2001 3,300 September 2004 President (Japanese), MD (Japanese), plantdirector (Japanese), production manager(two Japanese), operations manager(Japanese)

Table I.List of surveyed plants

and interviewees inresearch visits in China

TransferringJapanese kaizen

activities

525

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

recently put a lot of effort into China. All sample plants had Japanese-related automotivemanufacturers as customers, and were mainly managed by Japanese managers who camefrom Japanese parent companies.

In order to collect data, the author conducted field research in China from August toSeptember in 2004 and from October to November in 2005. In the field research,semi-structured and unstructured interviews with managers were conducted in thesample plants in China (the details of interviewees are shown in Table I). In each plant,at least two interviews were conducted; one was in a conference room in asemi-structured manner and usually lasted about one to three hours; and the other wason the shop floor in an unstructured manner and usually lasted about one to two hours.All the interviews conducted in a conference room were taped and transcribed, whilethe interviews on the shop floor were written down in field notes. Follow-up interviewswere also conducted in China for case A-D, F and J, and also in Japan for case C, D andF. Most of these interviews were also taped and transcribed. A total of 36 interviewswere carried out. Data were also collected through on-site plant observations, andinternal company documents, such as standard work sheets and work flow charts.

In every case, the interviewees included a Japanese managing director (MD) or theirdeputy who was in a position to lead the transfer of Japanese kaizen activities to theoverseas plant. This was based on the following intents:

. it is possible to hear about the situation of a whole plant because an MD anddeputy MD have a responsibility to manage everything in the plant;

. it is possible to hear about the experiences of kaizen activities in overseas plantsfrom the standpoint of Japanese managers who might have a detailed knowledgeof Japanese methods; and

. it is possible to compare the experiences of kaizen activities in overseas plantswith Japanese experiences.

The semi-structured interviews focused on the following three topics:

(1) general business conditions;

(2) the implementation of kaizen activities; and

(3) management practices related to the implementation of kaizen activities (thedetails are shown in the Appendix).

The aim was to investigate not only the implementation of Japanese kaizen activities inChina (topic 2), but also the environment surrounding this implementation (topic 1),and management efforts in creating well-suited contexts for Japanese kaizen activities(topic 3). In the framework of COP, it is actual practice that gives workers meaningfulexperiences, not formal methods. Therefore, the interviewees were asked about detailson how kaizen activities and related management practices were implemented, inparticular about the opportunities for participation by workers.

In the analysis, the data concerning management practices that support type A, B and Ccapabilities were selected and classified according to their type. Concerning type A,management practices that offer workers opportunities for participating in kaizenactivities through voicing matters concerning their work processes were selected.Concerning type B, management practices that enable plant members to get in touch withpeople from different functions and communities, and also HRM practices that support

IJOPM28,6

526

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

cross-functional communication were selected. Concerning type C, management practicesthat aim to make workers adhere to company rules and work standards were selected.However, difficulties arose because management practices, such as suggestion schemesand QC circles, are implemented in different ways depending on the company, and cannotbe classified into only one category. For example, a QC circle can be a place where workersactively participate in kaizen, and can thus be classified as type A. However, in one of theinvestigated companies, QC circles were conducted among people higher than teamleaders. Therefore, when classifying the data, the author paid close attention to the waycertain management practices were implemented. When describing the results of theanalysis (“basic findings” in this paper), the author always tried to bear in mind the variousways certain management practices were implemented.

Data analysis included multiple readings of the data collected through variouschannels, such as interview transcripts, field notes, and documents given to the authorby the investigated companies. In order to minimize interviewee’s bias, data collectedfrom the semi-structured interviews were carefully compared with the data fromunstructured interviews on the shop floors and plant observations. In the unstructuredinterviews, interviewees were asked to explain tangible examples in detail in order toimprove the reliability of the data. In the case of tools and equipment, intervieweeswere asked questions such as which exact part was improved through which kaizenactivities, and who was involved in the improvement.

Categorization of sample casesIn order to conduct comparative analysis, the successful cases were identified accordingto the following two measures. First, the scale of kaizen activities implemented in eachplant is used as a measure of success. This means that successful plants should be able toimplement kaizen activities on a large-scale. Second, the degree of self-initiative ofworkers is employed as another measure of success. Here, the self-initiative of workerswas based on the perception of Japanese managers. This study considers the perceptionof Japanese managers as a critical factor for measuring the self-initiative of workers,because they would know if the degree of the self-initiative of workers is enough to meetthe requirement of Japanese automotive manufacturers.

Therefore, the interviewed Japanese managers were not only questioned about theattitudes and capabilities of workers, but also about their involvement in fulfillingcustomer requests (Japanese-related automotive manufacturers). For example, it wasasked if the company received effective suggestions from the workers in addressingthe customer requests. The investigated companies were being pressurised by thecustomers to produce auto-parts at the same level of quality as in Japan, but at cheapercost than in Japan. In the successful cases, the tangible results of kaizen activities withthe self-initiated involvement of workers were checked through the unstructuredinterviews and the shop floor observations.

Each of the nine sample cases was categorized into one of four groups based on thecombination of these two measures (Figure 2). In the upper two groups of Figure 2(group 1 and 2), the scope of kaizen activities covered the whole plant including theshop floor level. All of these cases had a place in which operators participate in kaizenactivities as a team and suggest some improvement concerning their work processes.In the lower two groups (group 3 and 4), however, kaizen activities were implementedonly on a small scale. The Japanese managers in these cases noted that they were not in

TransferringJapanese kaizen

activities

527

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

a position to implement kaizen activities on a full scale, or that kaizen activities wereonly implemented among the people higher than supervisor level.

Concerning the self-initiative of workers, Japanese managers in group 1 suggestedthat they had already achieved proactive participation in kaizen activities by theworkers. In terms of case E in group 3, although they had not implemented kaizenactivities on a full scale, Japanese managers noted that the workers showedself-initiative to do their own jobs, and that they had a plan to implement kaizen on afull scale in the near future. In the two groups in the left column of Figure 2 (group 2and 4), however, the Japanese managers found it difficult to encourage workers to showself-initiative. Finally, only case D and H in group 1 were considered to be successful.This suggests how difficult it is to transfer Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plantsin China.

Basic findingsManagement practices in supporting type A capabilitiesConcerning type A capabilities, case D and H in group 1 and case J in group 2 had aplace in which shop floor workers participated in kaizen activities, considered kaizenideas, and suggested the ideas as a team. This management practice is considered togive workers a place in which workers have a meaningful experience of kaizen throughnegotiating meanings with each other, i.e. a COP. These three plants also actively usedideas from operators to improve their work processes and equipment. However,although operators in each case made suggestions, it was people higher than teamleader level that played a major role in actually improving work processes, tools andequipment.

Case D held small group activities on a regular basis (QC circles and suggestioncommittees every Wednesday), in which workers considered and suggested kaizenideas. This plant had a policy to revise work standards in response to the results of QCcircles and suggestions from operators as quickly as possible. It was team leaders thatplayed a major role in improving work standards in this plant. Although, the engineersprepared the documents that were used to make work standards, the team leadersjudged the appropriateness of the procedures described in the documents, and askedengineers to revise the documents;, i.e. they had a real say in improving work standards.

Case H had a team-based piecework system. In an ordinary piecework system, astandardised way of working determines the upper limit of a piecework rate. In thisplant, however, it is possible to achieve a higher piecework rate by improving the toolsthat the workers use by themselves. The MD of this plant noted that although theJapanese staff initially provided most of the ideas for improving tools, most of therecent ideas were suggested from the workers as a team. In addition, this plant has apolicy to share a good idea from operators with the whole plant.

Figure 2.Four groups of samplecases

Group 4

Case A, B, C, F,G

The degree of self-initiativeScale ofactivities

Large

Small

LargeSmall

Group 2

Case J

Group 1

Case D, H

Group 3

Case E

IJOPM28,6

528

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Case J also had QC circles and a suggestion scheme as in case D, and thus gave workers aplace to have a meaningful experience. However, this plant had a more individual-orientedsuggestion scheme than in case D. In case J, a suggestion was written down by anindividual worker on a preset form, and was evaluated in terms of the estimated effects ofits implementation. This plant had a monthly board of review in which the managementevaluates the suggestions. The worker could get a monetary reward for the suggestionthrough this evaluation process. In contrast, the suggestion scheme in case D wasconducted as a part of small group activities and did not provide a monetary reward to theindividual worker who made a suggestion. In this scheme, a leader who was selected fromamong group members played a coordinating role in a group.

Both case D and J had a management practice that gave workers a challenge or hintto conceive kaizen ideas. As an example of case D, the author saw a noticeboard thathad 15 sheets of hints about kaizen written by the MD. One kaizen hint included chartson how to identify the difference between repaired products and defective products. Hementioned his aim of this practice as giving workers clear goals in order to increasetheir self-initiative to create better things.

Most of the cases in group 3 and 4 did not have a place in which workers consideredand suggested kaizen ideas as a team, such as QC circles. Therefore, it was onlypossible to observe very few management practices concerning type A capabilitiesfrom these cases. Case G had a QC circle whose participants were only the peoplehigher than team leader level. In fact, the MD of this plant said that Japanese staff werethe main people who conceived kaizen ideas. Case E also implemented kaizen onlyamong people higher than assistant managers.

Although most of the cases in group 4 gave workers an opportunity to make asuggestion, managers in these plants noted that the plants were not in a position to linksuch a scheme to kaizen implementation. As an example of this position, a productionmanager of case B reported that, although defective products were rare in Japan, nearlyhalf of the products were sent for repair in this plant. He explained that the operatorswere of the opinion that, “When defective products arise, one only has to send them infor repair.” Concerning the reason why it is difficult to implement kaizen with theinvolvement of operators, the deputy MD in case C put forward three reasons:

(1) there is a large difference of salaries between management and workers;

(2) it is easy to implement kaizen according to the ways decided by management; and

(3) operators frequently move to other companies.

Management practices in supporting type B capabilitiesConcerning type B capabilities, both case D and H in group 1 gave workers anopportunity to participate in the improvement of tools in collaboration with people whohad different functions, such as tool engineers, production engineers and managers.This was a place in which participants were able to access other kinds of communities,jobs, knowledge and perspectives.

Case D encouraged active communication between production and tool functions byhaving team leaders engage in tool design. During the tool design stage, members fromvarious communities, including tool engineers, team leaders, assistant managers, andmanagers discussed the tool for about 30 minutes. Case H had a room that wasspecially designed to improve tools. In the room, the operator as the proponent of

TransferringJapanese kaizen

activities

529

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

improving a tool, a team leader and an engineer created a new tool in cooperation witheach other under the lead of the team leader. These two practices are considered to bewhat Wenger (1998) calls “boundary practice,” in which members from variouscommunities negotiate meanings with each other. Such a practice allows theparticipants to better understand other functions in the plant.

Case D and H also had OJT systems in which workers experience different jobsaccording to a personnel development plan. As an example of case D, although eachworker was able to conduct only one work process at the beginning, half of all theworkers were able to conduct all six work processes within the year; the other half wereable to conduct about three work processes. In this plant, all Chinese managers hadbeen promoted from within this plant. Case H also had a policy to promote long-termemployment. These human resource strategies are able to give employeesopportunities to understand the connection between different jobs in the plant.

In contrast, case J in group 2 had a system in order to narrowly limit the scope ofeach worker’s job. This is based on the perception of Japanese managers that it isdifficult for the workers in the plant to have a number of jobs. A number of plants ingroup 4 had a similar strategy. Case G had a policy that each worker basically has onlyone job, though they developed multi-skilled workers in Japanese plants. This policyaimed to prevent producing defective products by reducing the complexity of eachworker’s job. In this plant, it was production engineers in the Japanese head office thatprepared tools for the Chinese plant.

In terms of the comparison between Chinese and Japanese plants, an operator incase C handled six machines in his/her daily operation in a Japanese plant.However, one operator handled only one machine in the Chinese plant. In case F,although one operator was in charge of two production lines in a Japanese plant, four tofive operators were in charge of one production line in the Chinese plant.

Management practices in supporting type C capabilitiesJapanese managers in most cases across all groups highlighted the importance ofdisciplining workers to conform to the company rules, especially work standards. Ingroup 3 and 4, every plant was trying to create well-defined rules, and easy-to-followwork standards in particular. In most of the cases, inspections were strengthened toprevent defects in production. According to the MD in case F, “We are trying to createworkplace conditions in which our operators steadily follow work standards. Thisallows us to prevent producing defective products.” The work standards of case Gincluded a sophisticated means to discipline workers. There was a signature space onthe back of a work standard sheet in case G. Every worker had to sign the sheet everyday to show that he/she understood the standardised procedure. As another example ofstrategies to discipline workers, case F had a practice to post the names of workers whoproduced defects (and also those who discovered defects).

Case J in group 2 had a strategy that prescribed clear rules and standards todiscipline workers. This plant had a policy to document all the things that must not bedone, such as not to throw away rubbish on the shop floor, and also had four timesmore company rules than in Japan. This plant also had a practice that all managers goaround the shop floor to check the work processes under the lead of the MD three timesa month. After checking the work processes, they had a meeting to report the problemsin each area and to take countermeasures.

IJOPM28,6

530

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Case D and H in group 1 also conducted the practice of shop floor visits by managersunder the lead of the MD. However, there are differences in terms of the ways ofdisciplining workers through this practice between group 1 and 2. First, in both cases ingroup 1, a shop floor visit was conducted every day. Second, the MDs of both cases ingroup 1 noted that Chinese managers began to go round the shop floor on theirown initiative after Japanese managers had conducted a shop floor visit for a certainperiod. The MD of case H said, “Our followers see our everyday practices as of topexecutives. Our everyday shop floor visit induced them to emulate the same practice.”

As stated earlier, 5S practice is used to make muda or problems easily noticeable bydisciplining workers. Managers in case D, E, G, F and J made an intensified effort toimplement 5S. Concerning this practice, interesting similarities were discoveredbetween case D and E, both of which belong to the right column of Figure 2. First, theMDs of both cases noted that their workers practice 5S on their own initiative. Second,when asked how such a situation had been created, they emphasised the significance ofthe MD himself to pick up rubbish. Third, both cases had an assessment system and anopportunity to announce the results of 5S. In case D, Japanese managers, including theMD, had checked every workplace once every month to decide the best 5S achievements.According to the MD, Chinese managers asked him to leave the check of 5Sachievements to them eight months after the assessment by Japanese managers started.

DiscussionThis section begins by examining the similarities across the cases. All the investigatedcompanies were under pressure from the Japanese-related customers to meet difficultrequests, such as ensuring high quality at low cost. In addition, most interviewedmanagers across the cases shared the opinion that the initial standards of workperformance and employee commitment in China were much worse than in Japan.Therefore, great management efforts were needed not only to implement Japanesekaizen activities, but also to meet the customer requests. In fact, all of these companieswere vigorously trying to implement Japanese quality and cost management methods.These companies also roughly shared a “quality first” policy.

However, such management efforts did not necessarily lead to the implementationof Japanese kaizen activities that involved workers’ active participation. Of all threetypes of capabilities, only management practices connected to type C capabilities wereactively being applied by all the companies. In particular, most companies clarifiedtheir company rules. This suggests that in Japanese overseas plants in China, there is ahigher priority on ensuring high quality by the use of management practices thatdiscipline workers than on the implementation of Japanese kaizen activities throughmanagement practices that support type A and B capabilities.

As the previous section showed, various ways of implementing managementpractices that support the different types of organisational capabilities were identifiedamong the nine cases. However, it was possible to sum up the common characteristicsbetween the successful cases as shown in Table II. The following section examines thetheoretical and practical implications of the findings by focusing on the characteristicsof the successful cases.

General implications for the studies on kaizenFirst, this analysis raises some doubt about the effectiveness of individual-basedsuggestion schemes as a part of kaizen activities. Although most of the cases

TransferringJapanese kaizen

activities

531

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

implemented suggestion schemes, few positive results of individual-based suggestionschemes were encountered. In contrast, successful cases actively used team-basedsuggestion schemes, and gave a team a certain degree of autonomy. This resultmatches the perspective of COP that emphasises the role of other participants in a COP.

However, this analysis illustrates that it was the team leader level that played a majorrole in actually improving work processes and equipment even in the successful cases.The main roles of operators in case D were to follow standards, to identify problems, andto report them to their team leaders. Most of the interviewed Japanese managers had theopinion that in order to enhance quality it is necessary for everyone to follow the rules.This suggests the necessity to further note the roles of disciplining workers in Japanesekaizen activities. In fact, discipline on the job is considered to be a virtue in Japan.In general, Japanese consider disciplining employees, or shituke in Japanese, as a part ofcorporate education. Shituke, whose meaning is to teach employees good manners, issometimes considered to be a part of corporate responsibility.

The successful cases used methods which emphasise the effects of COP and werealso connected with disciplining workers. As Wenger (1998) illustrates, a COP plays acritical role in disciplining the participants to conform to the ways that the participantsin a COP have developed through negotiating meaning. However, as stated earlier, aCOP is likely to develop its own perspectives that do not always match company goals.Therefore, management practices that bridge type A and C capabilities are needed toalign the perspectives of a COP to the goals for the whole organisation. In the case ofsmall group activities in case D, they had a group leader meeting every week, in whichgroup leaders who were selected from among group members, a Japanese director incharge, and Chinese managers participated. This meeting was a place in whichmanagement gave the participants advice, and through which activities from eachgroup could be aligned.

It is important that this meeting should not be the place where the managementrequires the workers to unilaterally conform to the management policy. In that case, thismeeting would cause detrimental effects on type B as well as type A capabilities byimpeding workers from talking openly to the management. In order to avoid such asituation, the MD of case D always let Chinese managers accompany him on shop floorvisits, and tried to teach them how to coach the workers so that they could gain a deeper

Type A capabilities Team-based, rather than individual-based suggestion schemes wereactively usedThey had a policy and steadfast system to address kaizen ideas fromworkers to improve work processes and equipmentTeam leader level played a major role in improving work processes andequipment

Type B capabilities They provided a place in which workers participated in the improvementof tools in collaboration with people who had different functionsThey had an OJT system in which workers experienced different jobsaccording to a human development planThey had a policy to promote long-term employment

Type C capabilities A shop floor visit by management to check the work processes wasconducted every day under the lead of the MDChinese managers implemented a shop floor visit by emulating theattitude of Japanese top executives

Table II.Characteristics ofmanagement practices insuccessful cases

IJOPM28,6

532

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

understanding of the workers. Thus, it can be stated that QC circles and suggestioncommittees in case D, which are used in combination with group leader meetings, areable to support not only type A capabilities, but also type B and C capabilities, or eachmode of belonging by Wenger (1998): engagement, imagination, and alignment.

Disciplining workers based on concrete situationsIn terms of disciplining workers, this analysis discovered interesting similarities insuccessful cases. To summarise, successful cases had a tendency to employ more shopfloor-based methods to discipline workers. Such methods were carried out through ashop floor visit by managers under the lead of the MD. This suggests that a lot oftop-level management effort and their direct involvement are needed to achievesuccessful kaizen implementation. This assumption is supported by many studies oncontinuous improvement that emphasise the importance of active commitment by seniormanagement (Bateman, 2005; Bateman and Rich, 2003; Kaye and Anderson, 1999).

In case D, the MD visited the shop floor for two to three hours every morning based onhis philosophy of the “three gen” principle. In Japanese manufacturing plants, this principlenormally refers to the three “gens”: genba (actual place), genbutu (actual things), and genjitu(reality). However, at this plant, he used the concept of genkohan, a word indicating that oneis caught “red-handed” at the scene, instead of genjitu. According to him:

It is important to stop someone who is not doing things as established, at the scene. Such asituation constitutes an opportunity to convey our true purpose to the employees. If weexplained things to them elsewhere, they might wonder why we were talking of an incidentthat took place in the past [. . .] In order to establish a trust relationship with local people, wemust explain things to them in a concrete situation.

This practice not only disciplines workers to conform to the company’s rules, but alsoprovides an opportunity to learn the ways of Japanese kaizen activities based on aresponse to a problem at the actual scene. This learning style has a significant meaningin the perspective of COP. As stated earlier, a meaning is always situated in the localcontext and is difficult to be applied beyond the local situation. Therefore,communication that is not based on a concrete situation is likely to lead tomisunderstanding. However, this practice allows management and workers to use theconcrete situation as a context for learning, and thus to share understanding.

The practice of shop floor visits by managers is not only used for the unilateralcommunication channel from management to workers. It is possible for workers todiscuss some problems concerning their work processes with managers. In case D,managers were given authority to call suitable people to solve such problems, and tohave a meeting at the scene. This means that this practice also provides an opportunityfor cross-functional communication based on a concrete situation. Regarding this, theMD of case D noted that if a problem was not resolved at the meeting, the sameproblem or “red-handed” situation would always be caught as long as the everydayshop floor visit continued to be conducted. Therefore, this practice is able to giveworkers the legitimacy to suggest something concerning their work processes byletting them know that management addresses the problems suggested by workers.

This suggests that disciplining workers is not achieved by the application ofunilateral power over the workers by management. A shop floor visit by managers isable to give workers an opportunity to have an image of the plant as “the plant thatmakes serious efforts for kaizen or not.” In the example of 5S in case D and E, if the

TransferringJapanese kaizen

activities

533

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

managers pass through an area without stopping to pick up rubbish that is visible toworkers, a plant image as “the plant that makes serious efforts for 5S” could be unsettledimmediately. This means that actions by managers on the shop floor are alwayswatched by workers, and that these actions are able to give workers the legitimacy toengage in kaizen activities. Managers as well as workers should follow 5S practices onthe shop floor. Managers must show a lot of self-discipline if they want the workers toshow the same self-discipline.

Kaizen and the evolution of equipmentConcerning type B capabilities, both successful cases provided a place in whichworkers participated in the improvement of tools in collaboration with people who haddifferent functions. These cases also had a scheme that trained workers to do differentwork processes, though unsuccessful cases were likely to narrowly limit the scope ofeach worker’s job. As the comparison of multi-skilled operators between Chinese andJapanese plants in case C and F illustrates, Japanese overseas plants in China are likelyto use simpler equipment than that in Japan. The reasons given were that in the case ofcomplex equipment, it was difficult to do maintenance and to fix problems with just thepeople in overseas plants. This suggests the ineffectiveness of the methods that try tointroduce or transfer advanced equipment to overseas plants without support systemsfor their introduction.

The improvement of tools in case H was a continuing process of trial and error bythe people from different functions. According to the MD of case H:

The integration of different tools allowed one worker to do two different processes. However,this also broke the line balancing, and brought the increase of intermediate stock [. . .] In thecourse of fixing line balancing, someone suggested the improvement of other tools [. . .] Wehave done things like that using ideas from various people.

This illustrates that case H was able to develop support systems to maintain theequipment in the course of the kaizen implementation. The workers are able to gainknowledge about tools; the engineers are also able to gain knowledge about theconditions of equipment on the shop floor through the experiences of trial and errorand communication between different functions. According to the MD of case H, thisChinese plant had developed a better production line than the Japanese main plant. Inthe assembly shop, the author saw a unique production line that used a circular rail tohook the products. The circular rail turned over at a constant rate (63 seconds), whichdecided the takt time of each work process in the production line. Moreover, theexternal defect rate of this plant had decreased from 100 to 10 ppm in the past year.

Case D also had improved their tools through the active communication between teamleaders, tool engineers, and Chinese and Japanese managers. Finally, this plant hadproduced equipment that eliminated the intermediate stock between six assemblingprocesses, i.e. they had achieved a single piece flow production system. According to theMD of case D, this Chinese plant was better than the Japanese main plant in everything atthat time. The external defect rate in case D had decreased from 300-400 to 15-20 ppmin the past year. When the author visited the company’s Japanese main plant inMarch of 2007, the plant was trying to implement a similar single piece flow productionsystem under the lead of the same production director who was the MD of case D in 2005.Thus, case D had become a model plant for the Japanese main plant.

IJOPM28,6

534

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

The kaizen activities in these cases make it possible both to continuously improvetheir equipment, and to create the support systems to maintain the equipment throughthe communication between different functions. These two successful casessuggest that the transfers of Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants in Chinawere not achieved by imposing Japanese methods on Chinese people unilaterally.These plants were able to outperform the main Japanese plants by continuouslyimplementing the kaizen cycle (shown in Figure 1) based on the communication amongvarious people including both Japanese and Chinese people.

ConclusionIn conclusion, the implications for the studies on management practices in transferringJapanese kaizen activities, or organisational capabilities that facilitate an incrementalorganisation-wide innovation, to overseas plant are summed up in the following threepoints:

(1) Management practices that try to support one of the three types of capabilities thatencourage workers’ self-initiative, facilitate cross-functional communication, anddiscipline workers are able to achieve significant effects in combination with thesupport of the other two types of capabilities. It is necessary to create a healthybalance between the three types of organisational capabilities.

(2) Shop floor-based disciplinary methods play a major role in transferring Japanesekaizen activities to overseas plants. These methods are able to give people inoverseas plants not only an opportunity to learn kaizen activities, but also a sourceof understanding that provides the legitimacy to engage in kaizen activities.

(3) Communication between different functions makes it possible not only toimprove their equipment, but also to create the support systems to maintain theequipment with just the people in the overseas plant.

As stated earlier, in Japanese kaizen activities, management had to make a trade-offbetween type A and C capabilities. In order to address this issue, this study concludes itis necessary to further examine shop floor-based disciplinary methods. The successfulcases made good use of such methods. As the “red-handed” practice in case D illustrates,managers are better able to make the linkage between company goals and workers’operations comprehensible, when it is based not only on canonical descriptions (Brownand Duguid, 1991), such as work standards and company rules, but also on a concretesituation or actual practice. This suggests that such shop floor-based methods may leadto the sharing of company goals between workers and management, and may alsoproduce a trust relationship between them.

In order to further examine this hypothesis, it will be necessary to develop a frameworkthat is useful to investigate the relationship between management practices and trustrelationships between different actors. Using Wenger’s (1998) concept of COP, it ispossible to address this issue by focusing on the three modes of belonging (engagement,imagination, alignment). As Wenger (1998) suggests, an essential duality is inherent inCOPs that not only create meaningful experiences for the participants, but also hold themhostage to such experiences. COPs create discontinuities between those who have beenparticipating and those who have not (Wenger, 1998, p. 103). However, few studies haveaddressed this issue in the context of the implementation of actual management practices,such as kaizen. Further research should be focused on issues such as how individual actors

TransferringJapanese kaizen

activities

535

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

achieve a healthy balance among the three modes, and how the combination of the threemodes leads to trust relationships within and between COPs.

Concerning the research methodology, some future tasks exist. This study has notfully examined social and historical aspects of management practices, such as conflictsand power relations among various plant members. To address such issues, it isnecessary to conduct diachronic studies on single cases that cover interviews withvarious members, such as workers, supervisors, engineers and managers. Moreover, inorder to approach the complexity of individual management practices in depth, moreparticipative methods, such as participant observation, are needed.

Some future tasks also remain concerning the generalisability of the results. Thisstudy has not fully examined the influence of cultural factors in China on theadequateness of management practices. For example, it can be questioned if Japanesemethods that emphasise discipline work better in countries, such as Europe andthe USA with a longer history of implementing Japanese kaizen activities than China.Thus, there is a need for cross-national case comparisons in order to examine thecultural differences of the implementation of Japanese kaizen activities.

References

Abo, T. (Ed.) (1994), Hybrid Factory: The Japanese Production System in the United States,Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.

Bateman, N. (2005), “Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 261-76.

Bateman, N. and David, A. (2002), “Process improvement programmes: a model for assessingsustainability”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22No. 5, pp. 515-26.

Bateman, N. and Rich, N. (2003), “Companies’ perceptions of inhibitors and enablers for processimprovement activities”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 185-99.

Baxter, L.F. and Hirschhauser, C. (2004), “Reification and representation in the implementation ofquality improvement programmes”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 207-24.

Bechky, B. (2003), “Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation ofunderstanding on a production floor”, Organization Science, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 312-30.

Bessant, J. and Caffyn, S. (1997), “High-involvement innovation through continuousimprovement”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-28.

Bessant, J. and Francis, D. (1999), “Developing strategic continuous improvement capability”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 1106-19.

Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., Gilbert, J., Harding, R. and Webb, S. (1994), “Rediscovering continuousimprovement”, Technovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-29.

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1991), “Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward aunified view of working, learning and innovation”,Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 40-57.

Chapman, R.L., Hyland, P.W., Jenkins, R.J. and Sloan, T.R. (1997), “Continuous improvement inAustralian manufacturing firms: findings of a survey in New South Wales”, InternationalJournal of Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 102-15.

IJOPM28,6

536

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Cole, R.E. (1994), “Different quality paradigms and their implications for organizationallearning”, in Aoki, M. and Dore, R. (Eds), The Japanese Firm: Sources of CompetitiveStrength, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 66-83.

Edwards, P., Collinson, M. and Rees, C. (1998), “The determinants of employee responses to totalquality management: six case studies”, Organization Studies, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 449-75.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.

Elger, T. and Smith, C. (2005), Assembling Work: Remaking Factory Regimes in JapaneseMultinationals in Britain, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Allen Lane, London.

Galbraith, J.R. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2002), “Learning in a constellation of interconnected practices:canon or dissonance?”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 419-36.

Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications forstrategy formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-35.

Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press,Boston, MA.

Hong, J.F.L., Easterby-Smith, M. and Snell, R.S. (2006a), “Transferring organizational learningsystems to Japanese subsidiaries in China”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 5,pp. 1027-58.

Hong, J.F.L., Snell, R.S. and Easterby-Smith, M. (2006b), “Cross-cultural influences onorganizational learning in MNCS: the case of Japanese companies in China”, Journal ofInternational Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 408-29.

Ihara, R. (2003), Toyota No Rodogenba, Sakurai Shoten, Tokyo (in Japanese).

Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Imai, M. (1997), Gemba Kaizen: A Commonsense, Low-cost Approach to Management,McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Jørgensen, F., Boer, H. and Gertsen, F. (2003), “Jump-starting continuous improvement throughself-assessment”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23No. 10, pp. 1260-78.

Kajiwara, K. (2002), Toyota Way: Shinka Su Ru Saikyo No Keieijutu, Business Sha, Tokyo(in Japanese).

Kaye, M. and Anderson, R. (1999), “Continuous improvement: the ten essential criteria”,International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 485-506.

Kenney, M. and Florida, R. (1993), Beyond Mass Production: The Japanese System and ItsTransfer to the U.S., Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Koike, K. (1994), “Learning and incentive systems in Japanese industry”, in Aoki, M. and Dore, R.(Eds), The Japanese Firm: Sources of Competitive Strength, Oxford University Press,New York, NY, pp. 41-65.

Lam, A. (2000), “Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: an integratedframework”, Organization Studies, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 487-513.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Lewis, M. (2000), “Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 959-78.

TransferringJapanese kaizen

activities

537

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Liker, J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s GreatestManufacturer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Liker, J.K., Fruin, W.M. and Adler, P.S. (Eds) (1999), Remade in America: Transplanting andTransforming Japanese Management Systems, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Lindberg, P. and Berger, A. (1997), “Continuous improvement: design, organization andmanagement”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 86-101.

MacDuffie, J.P. and Helper, S. (1999), “Creating lean suppliers: diffusing lean production throughthe supply chain”, in Liker, J.K., Fruin, W.M. and Adler, P.S. (Eds), Remade in America:Transplanting and Transforming Japanese Management Systems, Oxford UniversityPress, New York, NY, pp. 154-200.

March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, OrganizationScience, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Sage, London.

Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, BelknapPress of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Nemoto, M. (1992), TQC Seiko No Hiketu 30 Kajo, Nikagiren, Tokyo (in Japanese).

Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S. and Yanow, D. (2003), “Introduction: toward a practice-based view ofknowing and learning in organizations”, in Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S. and Yanow, D. (Eds),Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach, M.E. Sharp, Armonk, NY, pp. 3-31.

Nihon Keizai Shimbun (2007), Nihon Keizai Shimbun, July (in Japanese).

Nikkei Sangyo Shimbun (2007), Nikkei Sangyo Shimbun, September.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese CompaniesCreate the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, Productivity Press,New York, NY.

Oliver, N. and Wilkinson, B. (1992), The Japanization of British Industry: New Developments inthe 1990s, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.

Oliver, N., Delbridge, R. and Barton, H. (2002), “Lean production and manufacturing performanceimprovement in Japan, the UK and US 1994-2001”, ESRC Centre for Business Research,University of Cambridge, Working Paper, No. 232.

Orr, J.E. (1996), Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of aModern Job, ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.

Saka, A. (2004), “The cross-national diffusion of work systems: translation of Japaneseoperations in the UK”, Organization Studies, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 209-28.

Schonberger, R.J. (1982), Japanese Manufacturing Techniques: Nine Hidden Lessons in Simplicity,Free Press, New York, NY.

Sewell, G. and Wilkinson, B. (1992), “Someone to watch over me: surveillance, discipline and thejust-in-time labour process”, Sociology, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 271-89.

Shimokawa, K. and Fujimoto, T. (2001), Toyota System No Genten, Bunshindo, Tokyo(in Japanese).

Star, S.L. (1995), “The politics of formal representations: wizards, gurus, and organizationalcomplexity”, in Star, S.L. (Ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science andTechnology, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 88-118.

Suchman, L.A. (1987),Plans andSituatedActions:TheProblemofHuman-Machine Communication,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

IJOPM28,6

538

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Taylor, B. (1999), “Japanese management style in China? Production practices in Japanesemanufacturing plants”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 129-42.

Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.

Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory,McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

van Maanen, J. and Barley, S.R. (1985), “Cultural organization: fragments of theory”, in Frost, P.J.,Moore, L.F., Louis, M.R., Lundberg, C.C. and Martin, J. (Eds), Organizational Culture, Sage,Newbury Park, CA.

Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in YourCorporation, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed theWorld: Based on theMassachusetts Institute of Technology 5-million Dollar 5-year Study on the Future of theAutomobile, Rawson Associates, New York, NY.

Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Appendix. Interview protocol

(1) General business conditions:. company profiles (firm sizes, products, customers, equipment, employees) and brief

company histories;. characteristics of management methods in China (compared with those in Japan);. characteristics of production methods in China (compared with those in Japan); and. relationships with customers and suppliers in China.

(2) The implementation of kaizen activities:. type of kaizen activities implemented (QC circles, suggestion schemes, other activities);. way of implementation of kaizen activities;. results of kaizen (concrete examples); and. employees’ attitudes and capabilities concerning the implementation of kaizen

activities (workers’ self-initiative, capabilities of workers, engineers and managers).

(3) Management practices related to the implementation of kaizen activities:. HRM practices (employee training, employment system, wage system);. management practices concerning day-to-day operations (work standards, 5S, the

maintenance of machine and equipment);. management efforts to match the requirement of the customer (quality, cost,

delivery); and. management efforts to create a supportive organizational climate.

Corresponding authorKatsuki Aoki can be contacted at: kaoki@kanto-gakuin.ac.jp

TransferringJapanese kaizen

activities

539

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. SahooSaumyaranjan, Saumyaranjan Sahoo, YadavSudhir, Sudhir Yadav. 2017. Entrepreneurial orientationof SMEs, total quality management and firm performance. Journal of Manufacturing TechnologyManagement 28:7, 892-912. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. DanesePamela, Pamela Danese, RomanoPietro, Pietro Romano, BoscariStefania, Stefania Boscari. 2017.The transfer process of lean practices in multi-plant companies. International Journal of Operations &Production Management 37:4, 468-488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. MaJie, Jie Ma, LinZhibin, Zhibin Lin, LauChi Keung, Chi Keung Lau. 2017. Prioritising the enablersfor the successful implementation of Kaizen in China. International Journal of Quality & ReliabilityManagement 34:4, 549-568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. LasradoFlevy, Flevy Lasrado, GomiseckBostjan, Bostjan Gomiseck, UzbeckChristopher, ChristopherUzbeck. 2017. Effectiveness of employee suggestion schemes – from critical success factors to outcomes.International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 9:1, 120-136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

5. Kiyohiro Oki. Subsidiary Autonomy and Factory Performance in Japanese Manufacturing Subsidiaries inThailand 215-243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]

6. Midiala Oropesa Vento, Jorge Luis García Alcaraz, Aidé Aracely Maldonado Macías, Valeria MartínezLoya. 2016. The impact of managerial commitment and Kaizen benefits on companies. Journal ofManufacturing Technology Management 27:5, 692-712. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

7. André Luiz Vivan, Felipe Alfonso Huertas Ortiz, José Carlos Paliari. 2016. Modelo para o desenvolvimentode projetos kaizen para a indústria da construção civil. Gestão & Produção 23:2, 333-349. [Crossref]

8. LasradoFlevy, Flevy Lasrado, ArifMohammed, Mohammed Arif, RizviAftab, Aftab Rizvi, UrdzikChris,Chris Urdzik. 2016. Critical success factors for employee suggestion schemes: a literature review.International Journal of Organizational Analysis 24:2, 315-339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

9. Flevy Lasrado. 2015. Assessing sustainability of employee suggestion schemes: a framework. InternationalJournal of Quality and Service Sciences 7:4, 350-372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

10. Amit Kumar Arya, Suraj Choudhary. 2015. Assessing the application of Kaizen principles in Indian small-scale industry. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 6:4, 369-396. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

11. Flevy Lasrado, M. Arif, Aftab Rizvi. 2015. Employee suggestion scheme sustainability excellence modeland linking organizational learning. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 23:3, 425-455.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

12. Wagner Cezar Lucato, Milton Vieira Júnior, José Carlos da Silva Santos. 2015. Eco-Six Sigma: integrationof environmental variables into the Six Sigma technique. Production Planning & Control 26:8, 605-616.[Crossref]

13. Flevy Lasrado, Mohammed Arif, Aftab Rizvi. 2015. The determinants for sustainability of an employeesuggestion system. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 32:2, 182-210. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

14. Angelika Zimmermann, Marc Fabian Bollbach. 2015. Institutional and cultural barriers to transferringLean production to China: Evidence from a German automotive components manufacturer. Asian Business& Management 14:1, 53-85. [Crossref]

15. Simon Collinson. Kaizen 1-1. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

16. Jorge Iván Pérez Rave, Daniel Andrés La Rotta Forero, Carlos Andrés Vera Garcés. 2014. Superando elsíndrome del "enemigo externo" en una firma autopartista a través del kaizen. Production 24:4, 957-968.[Crossref]

17. Maneesh Kumar, Khawaja Khurram Khurshid, Dianne Waddell. 2014. Status of Quality Managementpractices in manufacturing SMEs: a comparative study between Australia and the UK. InternationalJournal of Production Research 52:21, 6482-6495. [Crossref]

18. Pornthipa Ongkunaruk, Wimonrat Wongsatit. 2014. An ECRS-based line balancing concept: a case studyof a frozen chicken producer. Business Process Management Journal 20:5, 678-692. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

19. Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza, Tricia Smith. 2014. The Kaizen approach within process innovation: findingsfrom a multiple case study in Ibero-American countries. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence25:9-10, 1002-1025. [Crossref]

20. Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza, José Á. Miguel-Dávila. 2014. Assessing the design, management andimprovement of Kaizen projects in local governments. Business Process Management Journal 20:3, 392-411.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

21. Hyun Woong Jin, Toni L. Doolen. 2014. A comparison of Korean and US continuous improvementprojects. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 63:4, 384-405. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

22. Amit Kumar Arya, Sanjiv Kumar Jain. 2014. Impacts of Kaizen in a small-scale industry of India: a casestudy. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 5:1, 22-44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

23. Torbjørn H. Netland, Arild Aspelund. 2014. Multi-plant improvement programmes: a literature reviewand research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 34:3, 390-418.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

24. Jorge L. García, Aidé A. Maldonado, Alejandro Alvarado, Denisse G. Rivera. 2014. Human criticalsuccess factors for kaizen and its impacts in industrial performance. The International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology 70:9-12, 2187-2198. [Crossref]

25. Andrew Taylor, Margaret Taylor, Andrew McSweeney. 2013. Towards greater understanding of successand survival of lean systems. International Journal of Production Research 51:22, 6607-6630. [Crossref]

26. Kodo Yokozawa, Harm-Jan Steenhuis. 2013. The influence of national level factors on international kaizentransfer. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 24:7, 1051-1075. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

27. Jorge L. García, Denisse G. Rivera, Alejandro Alvarado Iniesta. 2013. Critical success factors forKaizen implementation in manufacturing industries in Mexico. The International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology 68:1-4, 537-545. [Crossref]

28. . Bibliography 117-126. [Crossref]29. Gao Shang, Low Sui Pheng. 2013. Understanding the application of Kaizen methods in construction

firms in China. Journal of Technology Management in China 8:1, 18-33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]30. Jonatas Ost Scherer Ost Scherer, José Luis Duarte Ribeiro. 2013. Proposição de um modelo para análise

dos fatores de risco em projetos de implantação da metodologia lean. Gestão & Produção 20:3, 537-553.[Crossref]

31. Manuel F. Suárez‐Barraza, Juan Ramis‐Pujol. 2012. An exploratory study of 5S: a multiple case study ofmultinational organizations in Mexico. Asian Journal on Quality 13:1, 77-99. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

32. Jagdeep Singh, Harwinder Singh. 2012. Continuous improvement approach: state‐of‐art review and futureimplications. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 3:2, 88-111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

33. Mikael Brännmark, Suzanne Benn. 2012. A Proposed Model for Evaluating the Sustainability ofContinuous Change Programmes. Journal of Change Management 12:2, 231-245. [Crossref]

34. Manuel F. Suárez‐Barraza, Juan Ramis‐Pujol, Mariana Estrada‐Robles. 2012. Applying Gemba‐Kaizenin a multinational food company: a process innovation framework. International Journal of Quality andService Sciences 4:1, 27-50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

35. Carmen Jaca, Elisabeth Viles, Ricardo Mateo, Javier Santos. 2012. Components of sustainableimprovement systems: theory and practice. The TQM Journal 24:2, 142-154. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

36. Kiyohiro OKI. 2012. A Japanese Factory in Thailand. Annals of Business Administrative Science 11:0, 55-63.[Crossref]

37. Manuel F. Suárez‐Barraza, Juan Ramis‐Pujol, Laoucine Kerbache. 2011. Thoughts on kaizen and itsevolution. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 2:4, 288-308. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

38. Manuel F. Suárez‐Barraza, Juan Ramis‐Pujol, Fernando Sándoval‐Arzaga. 2011. Finding kaizen approachin small Mexican family businesses: an exploratory study. Journal of Family Business Management 1:2,107-129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

39. Jayanth Jayaram, Ajay Das, Mariana Nicolae. 2010. Looking beyond the obvious: Unraveling the Toyotaproduction system. International Journal of Production Economics 128:1, 280-291. [Crossref]

40. P. Punnakitikashem, N. Somsuk, M.W. McLean, T. Laosirihongthong. Linkage between continualimprovement and Knowledge-Based View Theory 1689-1694. [Crossref]

41. Vathsala Wickramasinghe, Saman Garusinghe. 2010. An exploratory study of human resource aspects ofinternational technology transfers to Sri Lankan private sector manufacturing firms. International Journalof Operations & Production Management 30:6, 584-611. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

42. Manuel F. Suárez‐Barraza, Juan Ramis‐Pujol. 2010. Implementation of Lean‐Kaizen in the humanresource service process. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 21:3, 388-410. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

43. Alberto Bayo‐Moriones, Alejandro Bello‐Pintado, Javier Merino‐Díaz de Cerio. 2010. 5S use inmanufacturing plants: contextual factors and impact on operating performance. International Journal ofQuality & Reliability Management 27:2, 217-230. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

44. Manuel F. Suarez Barraza, Tricia Smith, Su Mi Dahlgaard‐Park. 2009. Lean‐kaizen public service: anempirical approach in Spanish local governments. The TQM Journal 21:2, 143-167. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

45. Midiala Oropesa, Ricardo Del Risco, Roberto Pérez, Jesús M. Lara. The Management Commitmentand Its Impact on Economic and Competitive Benefits Gained by the Implementation of Kaizen in theIndustry: 428-442. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

6:34

16

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)