muhammad asif and kodo yokozawa school of management ... · 2/5/2011 · companies are designed to...

Abstract Number: 020-0692

Kaizen Implementation – Stages and Determinants

Muhammad Asif and Kodo Yokozawa

School of Management & Governance, University of Twente

P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede

The Netherlands

E: [email protected]; T: +31 (0)53 489 45 26

POMS 22nd

Annual Conference

Reno, Nevada, U.S.A.

April 29 to May 2, 2011

mailto:[email protected]

of 36

Kaizen Implementation – Stages and Determinants

Abstract

Kaizen, or continuous improvement, is an essential component of the Japanese management

system for quality and productivity improvement. Despite the several benefits from kaizen,

literature shows difficulties, in particular, in its implementation in companies outside Japan. This

research investigates the factors that are critical to kaizen success and how they influence kaizen

implementation. This research employs case research based on 15 Japanese manufacturers

operating in the Netherlands. Findings show that kaizen implementation is a simultaneous

function of both the „management commitment‟ and „kaizen approach‟. The combinations of

these two factors can be represented by a 2 x 2 matrix – four quadrants showing distinct stages of

kaizen implementation. The paper develops testable propositions that highlight the main

determinants of kaizen success and the need of different strategies during transition from one

kaizen stage to another.

1. Introduction

Kaizen, the synonym for continuous improvement, is an essential component of Japanese

management system. Kaizen programs have long been employed with great success in Japanese

companies. Imai (1986a) called Kaizen the key to Japanese competitive success. The benefits

from kaizen implementation are numerous and are reported along both social and technical

dimensions of organisation and include cost reduction, productivity improvement, reduction in

defects, and improvement in employees‟ morale and motivation (Bessant, 2003).

Despite the several benefits obtainable from kaizen, difficulties in the implementation of

kaizen are also widely reported in literature. See, for example, Bessant (2003), Brunet (2003),

and Imai (1986a). Further, due to their origin in Japanese organisations, and their embeddedness

in Japanese context, applicability of kaizen to countries with different cultures and different

management styles still remains to be understood. This problem is further highlighted in the

of 36

context of internationalisation of Japanese companies and the increasing popularity of kaizen. As

more and more companies implement kaizen, need arises for better understanding of kaizen

process and the factors that are critical to kaizen implementation. A better understanding of

kaizen implementation and the factors that influence its implementation could help to better

manage the kaizen implementation and reduce the likelihood of kaizen implementation failures.

Accordingly the aim of this research is „to investigate the factors that are critical to kaizen

success and how they influence kaizen implementation‟.

This research was carried out in the companies of Japanese origin located in the

Netherlands. They are headquartered in Japan and employ kaizen either on their own or upon

directions of their headquarters. Kaizen concepts are, thus, well understood in these companies.

This paper contributes to theory and practice in following ways: it explores the factors which are

critical to the kaizen implementation and, thus, must be considered during kaizen

implementation. And, in so doing, the dynamic process of how these factors influence kaizen

implementation is discussed and the various stages of kaizen implementation which companies

may go through, during kaizen implementation, are also discussed. The process of moving

among various stages of kaizen is discussed through examples. Testable propositions are

developed. The rest of the paper is structured as follows: The next section provides an overview

of literature on the factors influencing kaizen implementation. Research design including

sampling, research methodology, and the data collection are discussed followed by the data

analysis. Research findings are then presented leading to propositions development.

2. Literature review

A number of authors have discussed kaizen from the perspective of kaizen methods and tools.

Imai (1986a), for example, discussed about methods and tools – such as suggestion systems, total

of 36

quality control, QC circles, autonomation, total productive maintenance, kanban, suggestion

systems, JIT, and Robotics – noting that kaizen is a philosophy that encompasses those methods.

Fujimoto (1999) indicated that kaizen activities in Toyota production system emphasise

revealing production problems on the spot, quick problem solving at all levels of the company,

standardisation of problem-solving tools, quick experimentation and implementation, and a

knowledge base constituted of both tacit and explicit knowledge.

Liker (2004) emphasized on individual skills development as an essential element of kaizen

stating that kaizen is a process of enhancing the individual skills such as working effectively

with teams, solving problems, documenting and improving processes, collecting and analysing

data, and self managing with in a peer group. Boer et al. (2000) defined kaizen as “planned,

organized, and systematic process of ongoing, incremental and company-wide change of existing

work practices aimed at improving company performance” (p. 1). This conceptualisation

characterises kaizen as planned and systematic initiatives and thus distinguishes kaizen form ad

hoc performance improvement methods. Brunet and New (2003) noted that kaizen is: 1)

continuous, 2) incremental, and 3) participative in nature.

The common elements in various definitions of kaizen are improvement methods and tools

and skilled employees who regularly use these methods for continuous improvement in a

systematic manner. To summarise, the literature defines kaizen in terms of skills development of

employees‟ who use kaizen methods and tools on a continual basis in a systematic manner (cf. ad

hoc use of kaizen).

2.1 Factors influencing kaizen implementation

The success of Toyota is often attributed to its unique Toyota production system (TPS). TPS

accords a great emphasis to kaizen as the central element of this production system (Fujimoto,

of 36

1999; Womack et al., 1990). Despite several benefits from kaizen implementation, failures in the

implementation of kaizen are also reported in non-Japanese companies. Putti and Chong (1985),

for example, noted that Japanese companies in Singapore were least successful in the practices

which are implemented in their mother companies in Japan. Fukuda et al. (1989) also mentioned

of failures in the implementation of Japanese management systems (that encompasses kaizen) in

non-Japanese companies. Some authors have attributed these difficulties to the context

specificity of kaizen which means that due to its origin in Japanese organisations kaizen is

difficult to replicate elsewhere (Recht and Wilderom, 1998; Smeds et al., 2001). Kono (1982),

however, noted that Japanese management system has its roots in Japanese culture but many of

its elements are the result of rational judgement and were transferred to Japan from U.S and

other countries. It is, therefore, not correct that these practices are too indigenous to Japan and it

is possible to transfer these practices to other countries.

Many authors indicate that managerial commitment is one of the key factors that influence

the successful kaizen implementation (Bessant, 2003; Boer et al., 2000; Imai, 1986a). This is

because management commitment determines the allocation of resources – in particular,

considerable investment in human and financial, informational, and technological resources – for

kaizen activities. Top management acts as a driver of kaizen implementation, creating values,

goals and systems to develop kaizen culture.

Use of methods and tools is also discussed in the literature to enhance the diffusion of kaizen

more widely across the organisation (Bessant, 2003; Bessant et al., 1994; Boer et al., 2000; Imai,

1986b). Common tools that are used in kaizen programs are Pareto analysis, check sheets, and

cause-and-effect diagrams, while brainstorming remains a robust and extensively used problem

of 36

solving aid (Bessant et al., 1994). The use of methods and tools is, thus, reported as a facilitator

of kaizen implementation.

The role of culture in kaizen implementation is discussed by a number of authors. Recht and

Wilderom (1998), for instance, emphasised the role of culture and found that successful transfer

of kaizen oriented suggestion system is possible in non-Japanese companies through a number of

changes that impact organisational culture. Flynn and Saladin (2006) and Power et al. (2010)

mentioned of general cultural dimensions that may influence a process management program.

The underlying message of the research of Flynn and Saladin (2006), Power et al. (2010), and

Recht and Wilderom (1998), is that cultural differences play an important role in the success or

failure of overseas kaizen implementation. Marksberry et al. (2010) found that most imitate

Toyota Production Systems fail because they are implemented as piecemeal with little

understanding of organisational culture that is required to keep them alive.

The role of organisational structures is noted by a number of authors as critical to kaizen

implementation. Parry and Song (1993) highlighted the unique nature of centralisation and

formalisation in Japanese organisations. They noted that decision making authority in Japanese

organisations is widely diffused rather than mere top-bottom or bottom-up. Regarding job

description Japanese companies have ambiguous jobs which are roughly defined and employees

are expected to present ideas for improvement (Kono, 1982). This is in sharp contrast to the job

description patterns in many western companies where job descriptions are defined and are more

structured. Group decisions and teamwork combined with the ambiguous job descriptions allows

employees socialisation. The overall structure of Japanese companies is a mix of organic and

mechanistic structure (Adler, 1999; Liker and Morgan, 2006). Mechanistic structured

organisations have high level of standardisation, formalisation, specialisation, and hierarchical

of 36

authority. Organic structured organisations, on the other hand, have low levels of standardisation,

formalisation, specialisation, and hierarchical authority (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Courtright et

al., 1989). Adler (1999) introduced the concept of enabling-bureaucracy to discuss how Japanese

companies leverage this mixture of organic and mechanistic structure for competitive advantage.

This means that Japanese organisations develop mechanistic structures, such as standardisation,

to reduce variation in processes; but they are based on the organic structures such as teamwork

and employee participation. At the core of the enabling-bureaucracy lies employees‟

involvement and empowerment, using rules and procedures as enabling tools, and hierarchical

structures to support the work of the doer rather than to bolster the authority of the higher ups.

This is explained by Adler and Borys (1996) as:

“The standardised work process brings workers and supervisors together to define cooperatively and to

document in great detail the most effective work methods and task allocations… Strong formal and

informal incentives encourage workers to identify and propose improvements in methods. Deviations from

the detailed, prescribed methods signal either the need for further worker training or the need to revise

the inadequate standardised work methods. In this context, the TQM dictum “you can't improve a process

that hasn't been standardised" becomes a philosophy of collaborative learning…” (p. 72)

The role of communication and mode of knowledge sharing is discussed by Nonaka (1994)

and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) who noted that socialisation is the dominant mode of

knowledge transfer in Japanese companies. „Socialisation‟ is the process of sharing experiences

and thereby conveying tacit knowledge from one person to another. Thus a more experienced

person shares the mental models and technical skills with others. „Socialisation‟ counts more on

the tacit knowledge of employees rather than explicit knowledge. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)

further noted that Western managers are more likely to underutilize the value of tacit knowledge

as compared to their Japanese counterparts. The communication structures in Japanese

of 36

companies are designed to provide both horizontal and vertical communication (Kono, 1982).

The problems and suggestions for improvements arise from the shop floor level and then are

directed to top-management for organisation-wide improvements.

A number of authors have highlighted the social factors that contribute to the success of

kaizen. These factors include life time employment in Japanese organisations, teamwork, trust

based business management, strong networking, and supplier development, low labour turnover

rate (Beechler and Yang, 1994; Choy and Jain, 1987; Kenney and Florida, 1993), experience and

awareness about kaizen (Bessant, 2003), consistency in the use of kaizen methods (Bessant,

2003) and strategic kaizen framework (Bessant et al., 1994; Boer et al., 2000).

The above mentioned literature helps to understand the factors that can influence kaizen

implementation. However, further research is warranted due to two primary reasons: First –

keeping in mind the Imai‟s (1986a) definition of kaizen as a set of practices – previous research

does not elaborate on the process of kaizen implementation from the perspective of „the extent of

kaizen-methods application‟. Second, research needs to elaborate on kaizen implementation in

companies outside Japan, working in a different culture. This is because kaizen practices

originated in Japan and is embedded in Japanese people‟s habits – “(kaizen is) so deeply

ingrained in the minds of both managers and workers that they often do not even realise that

they are thinking kaizen” (Imai, 1986a, p. xxix). Accordingly, the aim of this research is to

explore the factors that are critical to kaizen success, and how such factors unfold in practice

during kaizen implementation. The main research question posed in this research is „what are the

main determinants of kaizen implementation; and how these determinants influence kaizen

implementation.

3. Research design

of 36

3.1 Sampling

The purpose of this research was to understand the main determinants of kaizen success. Since

kaizen has its root in Japanese companies, it is well understood in many Japanese companies and

is implemented on a high priority basis. We selected Japanese companies operating in the

Netherlands. The latter is the biggest recipient of Japanese foreign direct investment (JETRO,

2006) and is a home to a large number of Japanese companies which are either working actively

or have worked with kaizen implementation. This research is a part of a larger research on the

transfer of kaizen to Japanese subsidiaries in the Netherlands. Data regarding Japanese

companies working in the Netherlands was obtained from the websites of Netherlands Foreign

Investment Agency (NFIA) and Japanese External Trade Organisation (JETRO). The two lists

were combined and this gave rise to total 52 Japanese companies working in the Netherlands. All

the companies were contacted for participation in research. This research is based on the data

collected from 15 companies who agreed to participate in research.

3.2 Data collection

This is an exploratory research meant for exploring the process of kaizen implementation. We

used case research because case research provides deeper insights into research subjects. Further

it provides data through multiple sources of evidence so that findings can be drawn after

triangulation, thus, giving confidence in the findings. The main source of data was in-depth

interviews of managers and operators (mainly at the shop floor). Other sources of evidence

included consulting companies‟ internal documents, onsite observations, group discussion with

managers and operators. Extensive post-data-collection group discussions with managers were

also held in workshops conducted within companies. Throughout this research the mode of

communication, including interviews, was English. According to European Commission (2006)

of 36

Dutch have highest proficiency in English in the European Union countries and 87% of Dutch

people can speak English well enough to have conversation with a native speaker.

3.3 Kaizen-implementation measurement operationalisation

The main source of data was semi-structured interviews of managers and operators. We took a

number of measures to determine the extent of kaizen implementation. For example, first,

interviewees were asked about basics of kaizen (such as what they know about kaizen; and how

they define kaizen). Second, they were provided with written kaizen definition to read. Based on

this definition, a number of structured questions on the extent of kaizen implementation were

asked and respondents were asked to express in percentage how much that situation applied to

their company. The examples of such questions included: … Third, we asked questions

regarding scenario development – what employees would do in a particular scenario. The

scenario building focused particularly on determining employees‟ pro-activeness. One example

of such scenario building is … This is in accordance with the (Brunet and New, 2003) who found

employees‟ pro-activeness and self-initiative as the proxy of kaizen. Finally, we counted on our

observations for the extent of kaizen implementation within organisational setting. These

observations were made during formal factory tour and brief conversation with operators. In so

doing, we were able to observe the application of a range of kaizen methods – such as kaizen

posters, visual management, team work and small group activities, 5S, 5 why, Ishikawa diagram,

etc. During data analysis we focused on whether our observations are aligned or not with the

responses of interviewees.

4. Data analysis

4.1 Data analysis approach

of 36

The first step was within-case analysis. For each case, data from interviews and other supporting

materials was analysed after triangulation. The purpose of triangulation was to analyse evidences

for a given point of inquiry. The triangulation of different types of evidences for a single point of

inquiry provided confidence in the findings. Further, we conducted cross-case analysis – the

analysis of all the cases and then comparison of emerging findings across cases. Based on the

cross-case analysis, important insights were obtained regarding kaizen implementation in the

various companies. Two factors which emerged as most critical to kaizen implementation are

„management commitment‟ and „kaizen approach‟. Data analysis revealed that interplay of

various levels of these two factors gave rise to different stages of kaizen-implementation.

The first construct, i.e., management commitment, turned out as an important determinant of

kaizen implementation because it was needed to allocate organisational resources and channelize

organisational efforts to systematically implement kaizen. Since this research was carried out in

Japanese subsidiaries in the Netherlands, many companies employed a mix of management team

from Japan and the Netherlands. In our research the management commitment influenced the

kaizen process in the form of „change management – positively influencing kaizen

implementation‟; „high turnover of management – adversely affecting kaizen implementation‟;

„management support – positive influence on kaizen implementation‟; „management perceptions

about kaizen – influencing kaizen implementation depending on managerial perceptions‟; and

„management commitment – positively influencing kaizen implementation‟. Direct quotes from

respondents emphasizing the role of management commitment in kaizen implementation are

provided in Appendix. Management awareness and motivation for kaizen varied among

companies resulting in various levels of kaizen implementation.

of 36

The second construct emerging from the data is the „extent of kaizen-methods application‟.

The findings show that companies used a broad range of kaizen methods including 5S, small

group activity, Pareto analysis, Ishikawa diagram, suggestion system, employee involvement,

root-cause analysis, on-the-job training, and visual management. Data analysis revealed that

many companies considered the mentioned kaizen practices central to their kaizen

implementation. These practices, in many cases, were not only the starting point but also

consistent focus of kaizen implementation endeavours. In many cases, kaizen professionals

invited from Japan to facilitate kaizen implementation in Dutch factories focused on these

practices. However, the extent of the use of these methods varied greatly among companies.

This, in turn, affected the intensity and functionality of kaizen implementation. Direct quotes

from respondents about these constructs are provided in Appendix. Kaizen implementation

framework as a function of these two constructs is shown in Figure 1. The findings are discussed

in terms of these two constructs.

Figure 1: Kaizen implementation framework

4.2 Reliability and validity of this research

We took a number of measures to ensure the reliability and validity of this research. A case study

protocol was developed to guide researcher in the field. The purpose of the case study protocol

Management commitment

High commitment

Low commitment

Kaizen approach – the extent

of kaizen-methods application

High degree of use

Low degree of use

Kaizen functionality

Employee pro-activeness

Organisation-wide use of kaizen methods, and

Continual improvement initiatives at the production floor

The emerged constructs

influencing

kaizen functionality

of 36

was also to ensure that research operations can be repeated with accuracy. The measures taken

for reliability are in line with Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (2003). To ensure the construct validity,

data was collected from multiple sources (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003) including interviews

with managers and operators, observations, and company‟s internal documents analysis. Data

from multiple sources of evidence was triangulated to reach the conclusions. For example, data

regarding kaizen approach was obtained first from interviews. Analysis of internal documents

provided further information regarding the use of kaizen methods. The onsite observation

provided further details and confirmation about the existing kaizen practices. In the nutshell

findings are based on triangulation of evidences from multiple sources. We also discussed the

emerging constructs with interviewees. Internal validity was addressed through: 1) explanation

building – why a particular kaizen approach and the management commitment is needed for

kaizen functionality; 2) looking for contrasting evidences that could oppose the emerging

constructs and relationships to ensure the robustness of our suppositions – for instance, whether

high kaizen functionality existed in cases with low management commitment and with low

application of kaizen methods; 3) discussing the emerging constructs and relations with

interviewees; and 4) producing direct quotes from respondents, where insightful, to make sure

that correct inferences are being drawn. External validity which mainly concerns with ensuring

that findings are generalisable across broader contexts (Yin, 2003) was addressed through

selection of multiple cases from different industrial sectors.

5. Research findings

The „management commitment‟ and „kaizen approach‟ emerged as the main determinants of

kaizen implementation. This means that successful kaizen implementation is a function of

of 36

management commitment and the approach used for kaizen implementation. The findings are

discussed in terms of these two factors.

5.1 High management commitment, high degree of kaizen-methods application

Three companies fall in this category. First company, control equipments manufacturer (CEM),

makes industrial automation components, electronic components, and healthcare equipments.

The second company, photographic film manufacturer (PFM), manufactures photography papers

and papers used in electronic devices such as medical equipments. The third company, heavy

machinery manufacturer (HMM), makes heavy machinery.

The CEM is a manufacturer of large variety of electronic components. The examples include

sensors, printed circuit boards (PCB), automated assemblies, and healthcare equipments. The

company was established in the Netherlands in 1988. Large numbers of Japanese expatriates

were deployed in this company to start kaizen. The Japanese expatriates introduced kaizen

practices in the company such as 5S, small group activities, determining root cause through

Ishikawa diagram and left the company after five years. The new Dutch management did not

know much about kaizen and was not motivated for kaizen. So while some kaizen practices

executed at the operational level were still there but due to lack of management motivation and

awareness kaizen could not flourish, remained isolated operational level practices and problems

started appearing. This led the company‟s headquarter to introduce change management program

at the company. As a first step a new Dutch managing director (MD) trained in kaizen was

brought. Then key managers at the company were sent to Japanese mother company for training.

Some Japanese kaizen professionals were also brought in the company. While the use of some

kaizen tools and techniques already existed in the company, the change management and

bringing new managers, trained in kaizen, provided a strong stimulus for organisation-wide

of 36

kaizen implementation. The company started a formal kaizen program with full support of top-

management. Kaizen methods including 5S, small group activity, visual management, root-cause

analysis, operational streamlining using kanban, and continuous improvement were put to use.

The production manager noted,

“We use a broad range of kaizen practices on regular basis. Sometimes, to prevent the abandonment of

one kaizen practice, we use old kaizen practices with different names to make it challenging for

employees. This promotes the use of kaizen practices on regular basis”

Kaizen program is now more than a decade old and is an essential part of the overall

management system of the organisation. Top-management makes kaizen implementation a

regular feature through trainings and developing a „sense of urgency‟. Training remains an

essential kaizen feature at the CEM. It is in the form of both on-the-job training as well as

sending employees to mother company in Japan for training. Management creates sense of

urgency by bringing and discussing actual problems, as they arise in the production and come

from marketing, with employees on a regular basis. Employees see actual problems and feel the

pressure for improvement. The production manager noted,

“When employees see problems in the products they made themselves, they better understand the

problem and feel the pressure and urgency of the problem. This creates the strong motivation for kaizen

implementation”

“You need to create a sense of urgency for implementing kaizen. We develop a sense of urgency by

creating a burning platform where we show employees the problems and the need for improvement.

When you show employees problem and prove the need of kaizen they buy it and then it is the right time

to start kaizen implementation”

“The role of management is critical in kaizen implementation. You need to convince employees for kaizen and

then lead them for the change. Creating a sense of urgency, on its own, is not sufficient”

of 36

Kaizen implementation, thus, remains a regular feature of this company. When management

noticed that kaizen program has reached maturity, is embedded in organisational culture, and has

developed into a role-model, the plant of the company where kaizen was initiated was developed

into a „show-case factory‟. Kaizen initiatives were then transferred to other functions such as

warehouse and distribution using kaizen professionals of the production department.

Employees at the CEM had high level of kaizen understanding. Employees also showed high

degree of proactiveness – determined using the kaizen operationalisation provided in sub-section

3.3. Interviews with managers and operators revealed that kaizen methods were a part of

routines. Kaizen methods, such as use of 5S, Kanban, JIT, root cause analysis, teamwork, muda

elimination, and visual management were highly visible on the production floor.

The PFM is the second company whose kaizen program is well established. This company

started its operations in 1986 by hiring fresh graduates directly from Dutch schools. They were

then sent to Japan for six months training. Managers mentioned in interview that trained

operators were critical to the kaizen implementation. They started practicing kaizen in the

company and disseminated it organisation-wide. Kaizen program was supported by 20 Japanese

expatriates working in the Dutch company. Kaizen implementation got full structural and

infrastructural support and started organisation-wide kaizen implementation. Structural support

was in the form of trainings in the use of kaizen methods – including 5S, PDCA cycle, K-T

method, visual management, and kanban-based inventory management. Infrastructural support

was in the form of development of teams, small group activities, employee involvement and

motivation. Other infrastructural changes regarding human resources management are discussed

in the next sections. In this whole process there was consistent support from the mother company

in Japan. Kaizen was implemented on a continual basis.

of 36

Management used a structured approach to kaizen implementation that included providing

necessary resources, structures, and overall infrastructure for kaizen implementation. A part of

this structured approach was „kaizen goal setting‟ for improvement along various dimensions of

operations management. The starting point for kaizen implementation was goal setting for

operational dimensions such as quality, productivity, waste reduction, cost, and delivery. At the

core of this structured approach was the development of organisational culture conducive for

kaizen. The company developed the slogan „quality first, the family way‟ which meant that

company needed to improve the quality and operational performance while working in a way

that was just like a family. Japanese managers at the company introduced teamwork and trust-

based culture at the workplace. This was further supported with „no firing policy‟ and social

events at the end of each year involving family members, and also introducing other changes that

conveyed a message that company really cares about employees and their families. During

interviewees a number of managers noted that such initiatives received employees‟ appreciation

and boosted their morale. All these changes shaped the overall culture of the company that was

integral to the growth of kaizen. One operator noted,

“We work like a family. We do not treat each other as colleagues, rather members of the family”

Many young operators who obtained kaizen training and experience in their routine jobs were

promoted later to managers. The kaizen program, thus, remains a well institutionalised program

organisation-wide and remains an essential element of organisational culture.

The kaizen program was implemented at the PFM since its inception and matured over time.

The management approach was to implement kaizen for long term benefits through training

employees in the use of kaizen methods and cultural change leading to employee motivation and

development. To summarise, the kaizen implementation was a function of the „use of broad

of 36

range of kaizen methods‟ and „management commitment‟. The latter crystallised in the form of

recruiting fresh graduates and then their kaizen training; and development of kaizen culture.

The third company, HMM, started its operations in the Netherlands in 1992. This company

relies heavily on employees training for its kaizen implementation. The mode of training is on-

the-job training where employees are trained about the application of kaizen methods in their

routine tasks. Employees have high level of kaizen understanding and motivation. Kaizen is,

therefore, implemented on a regular basis and throughout the company. Kaizen implementation

is actively supported by the top-management.

The kaizen approach of aforementioned companies can be summarised as: 1) high

management commitment that crystallizes in nurturing employees‟ motivation and providing

infrastructural support for kaizen methods; and 2) organisation-wide use of broad range of kaizen

methods for performance improvement.

5.2 High management commitment, low degree of kaizen-methods application

A number of companies fall in this category where management was committed for kaizen

implementation and the approach for kaizen implementation was low degree of kaizen methods

application.

One company falling in this category is a zipper manufacturer and was established in the

Netherlands in 1964 and started kaizen implementation the same year. Japanese management of

this company is committed to kaizen and has in-depth understanding of kaizen. During

interviews managers noted a number of factors that influenced kaizen implementation. The most

important were cultural differences and communication. One Japanese manager, explicitly

referring to the „power difference‟ structure in Japan and the Netherlands, explained that in

of 36

Japanese factory when managers emphasize kaizen to subordinates, it is accepted as such due to

two reasons. First, Japanese workers are fully aware of this concept as it is indigenous to Japan

and they understand its importance. Second, the high power distance structure in Japanese

companies leads the employees to accept without much questioning. These two factors, however,

do not exist at all in Dutch culture where power distance is too low, and in so doing, operators

question each initiative, and managers have to convince operators of the benefits of kaizen

before they could buy it. Japanese mangers having orientation in Japanese companies did not feel

comfortable in this situation and kaizen implementation could not be implemented to the full

extent. Nevertheless management was committed for kaizen implementation. The approach used

by the managers for kaizen implementation was to employ a limited set of kaizen practices such

as 5S, visual management, trouble shooting techniques, and visualisation of performance.

Communication gap between Japanese mangers and Dutch operators also determined the

extent of kaizen implementation. The mode of communication between Japanese managers /

kaizen professionals and Dutch operators was English – first language of neither of the two.

Although Japanese managers and kaizen professionals could demonstrate the use of kaizen

practices, the underlying philosophy and the rich information required for their effective kaizen

understanding could not be communicated. The poor communication led to the use of limited set

of kaizen methods. Another reason of inconsistent and limited use of kaizen methods was that

the Japanese MD of the company kept changing every four to five years. This affected the

middle-management support and consistency of kaizen implementation, thus, leading to further

difficulties in implementation of broad range of kaizen methods.

Some other companies also fall in this category. A number of factors, determining kaizen

implementation, common to these companies were:

of 36

Dutch managers, although familiar with the kaizen concept and its expected benefits, did

not know what practices it comprised and how to put them in practice.

In some cases, management had a very narrow vision of kaizen and thought that it

consisted of some performance improvement practices that have their origin in Japan.

Management put these limited practices into use. This resulted in a scenario where

committed management advocated the use of few set of kaizen methods and thought that

kaizen was implemented.

Management had some problematic areas that were so conspicuous that it required the

use of some kaizen methods more than others. For example, in one organisation large

amount of waste was problem so management focused on „muda elimination‟ – waste

elimination. Management, in such cases, employed a very limited set of kaizen practices

meant for fixing that particular problem.

In some organisations, there was high turn over of management. The new management

developed new priorities. This led to the inconsistent use of kaizen methods resulting in

limited set of kaizen practices.

Communication gap between Japanese managers / kaizen professionals and Dutch

operators also hindered the understanding of underlying kaizen philosophy and prevented

the use of full range of kaizen practices.

In all the cases falling in this category, management made committed efforts for kaizen

implementation and made use of kaizen approach that consisted of a limited set of kaizen

methods. Kaizen functionality was limited to the use of a set of employed practices. This could

not develop in the employees the proactive problem finding, problem solving, and continuous

improvement – that are pivotal to kaizen implementation. Nor did companies develop team

of 36

working or small group activities that are essential to kaizen. At the production floor the use of

kaizen methods was also very limited.

5.3 Low management commitment, low degree of kaizen-methods application

The first company, a flux core wire (used in welding) manufacturer, was established in 1994.

The top-management of this company has understanding of kaizen and used the kaizen approach

characterised by low extent of kaizen-methods application. The MD of the company believed

that an essential pre-requisite for kaizen implementation is life long employment which is a

common feature in Japanese companies employing kaizen. It is difficult to implement kaizen if

there is high employee turnover. If kaizen trained employees leave the company so frequently, it

causes irreparable loss. The MD further noted that lifetime employment is not common in the

Netherlands and employee turnover rate is higher as compared to Japanese companies. It is,

therefore, not a worthy investment of time and resources to implement kaizen in the Dutch

company. In addition, the top Japanese management also kept changing every four to five years.

This made it further difficult to implement the broad range of kaizen practices consistently. The

use of kaizen methods was limited to the use of checklists, employee suggestion system, and

employee job rotation.

The second company, a manufacturer of dairy products, started its operations in the

Netherlands in 1994 and started kaizen the same year. The company, however, could not develop

organisation-wide kaizen mainly due to varying level of commitment at various management

tiers. For the MD of the company kaizen was not a priority and so top-management did not

emphasize kaizen. For the operations manager, who was Japanese, kaizen was essential for

competitiveness of the company. Not finding the support of the MD, the operations manager

started implementing kaizen practices such as small group activities and 5S. Due to lack of MD

of 36

commitment the use of kaizen practices remained isolated and limited and could not grow as

organisation-wide performance management program. As a result the kaizen implementation

remained confined, mainly, to few kaizen practices.

Kaizen functionality in both aforementioned cases was limited in terms of proactive problem

identification and problem solving at the production floor. Quality control circles and small

group activities could not be developed. Kaizen practices were least visible at the production

floor. To summarise, the kaizen implementation existed in its minimum form in the two

companies.

The CEM Company, mentioned earlier in „high management commitment, high degree of

kaizen-methods application‟ initially passed through this stage in its struggle for kaizen

implementation. The company remained in this stage with low degree of kaizen-methods

application and low management commitment unless it introduced change management to

improve its kaizen implementation.

Some other companies also fall in this category. The common reasons for why they could not

implement kaizen were: 1) the management of the companies did not know much about kaizen

and its benefits, 2) did not know how to implement kaizen, 3) inability to motivate workforce for

kaizen; and 4) faced difficulties in kaizen implementation. As a result kaizen existed in these

companies in its minimum form.

5.4 Low management commitment, high degree of kaizen-methods implementation

A number of companies passed through this stage before transition to another stage. One such

case is discussed here. The HCM, a manufacturer of heavy construction machinery, struggled

long with the implementation of kaizen but could not develop organisation-wide kaizen. The first

of 36

attempt for kaizen implementation started immediately after the company was established and

one Japanese production manager was sent to the Dutch factory. The Japanese production

manager was expert of starting production set up, with little knowledge and motivation for

kaizen. This company initially started from „Low management commitment, low degree of

kaizen-methods application‟. Realising the difficulties in kaizen implementation, the headquarter

sent several Japanese kaizen professionals for starting kaizen. The kaizen professionals, who

started working at the production floor, introduced several kaizen practices and developed a

kaizen model for the whole organisation. This was a significant move towards kaizen

implementation and led to high degree of kaizen methods application. At that time, the company

employed extensively various kaizen methods despite that top-management had neither

understanding of kaizen nor was motivated enough. This stage was, thus, „low management

commitment, high degree of kaizen-methods application‟. This scenario, however, changed once

the Japanese kaizen professionals left the company after completing their assignment. This led to

the reduction in the use of kaizen methods. Realizing these difficulties, the headquarter sent a

new Japanese factory manager. The new manager experienced in kaizen implementation made

efforts to resurrect the fading kaizen methods. Management introduced organisation-wide

changes to provide a supporting environment for kaizen implementation. Use of kaizen practices,

however, remained limited. One lesson that the company learned from the kaizen professionals

was that use of kaizen methods could further be improved through enhanced communication of

kaizen experts with Dutch operators. This stage was, thus, „high management commitment, low

degree of kaizen-methods application‟. The decline in the use of kaizen methods was an

alarming situation for the management. Finally management hired Dutch kaizen consultant to

promote kaizen communication with their Dutch operators. The Dutch consultant and the

of 36

Japanese production manager, together, made organisation-wide efforts to deploy kaizen

methods. At the time of this research company employed broad range of kaizen methods and

management was satisfied with their kaizen initiatives. This stage could be categorised as „high

management commitment, high degree of kaizen-methods application‟. This resulted in highly

functional kaizen with high employee proactiveness, development of quality control circles,

proactive problem identification and problem solving.

This company, thus, represents a case that underwent multiple transitions in kaizen

implementation. This happened due to change in management and gap in communication among

the Japanese managers and trainers and the Dutch employees. The company started its journey

from a stage of „low management commitment, low degree of kaizen-methods application‟

through „low management commitment, high use of kaizen-methods application‟ and „high

management commitment, low degree of kaizen-methods application‟ to „high management

commitment, high degree of kaizen-methods application‟.

6. Results

6.1 Kaizen implementation – a function of management commitment and kaizen-approach

The findings of this research highlight the pivotal role of „top-management commitment‟ and the

„kaizen approach‟ in the implementation of kaizen. The role of management commitment in the

implementation of kaizen could be expected as a critical factor since the kaizen implementation

is an organisation-wide performance improvement program and requires active management

commitment, allocation of resources, and consistent support. However the findings also show

that it is not only the management commitment but also the kaizen implementation approach that

is critical to the success of kaizen. For example, in our first category, labelled as „high

management commitment, high degree of kaizen-methods application‟, the company used a

of 36

synergistic approach where „organisation-wide, broad range of kaizen methods‟ application was

supported by the top-management. In this case, the top-management actively encouraged the use

of broad range of kaizen methods and used various approaches to support kaizen. The

management created a sense of urgency in employees by sharing and discussing with them the

complaints from the market. This led the employees to think that there were serious problems

with the products they manufactured and customers were unwilling to buy them. The cumulative

impact of such initiatives was an enhanced understanding of kaizen throughout the organisation

and leading to use of broad range of kaizen-methods. The management commitment at the CEM

remained an essential and regular element. Once the top-management realised that kaizen had

caught roots in the plant, management decided to make it a „show-case‟ factory and started

implementing kaizen to other functions of the organisation including distribution, and

warehouse.

Similarly at the PCM, the kaizen implementation was characterised by a full range of kaizen-

methods application fully supported by top-management commitment. In this case, management

introduced extensive organisation-wide changes to introduce kaizen. Kaizen professionals were

invited form Japan and management introduced deep impacting cultural changes. While the

kaizen professional trained Dutch employees in the application of kaizen methods, the

management introduced concomitant changes to support kaizen implementation – such as: 1)

goal setting for quality, productivity, waste reduction, cost, and delivery, 2) the development of

kaizen nurturing environment – teamwork and trust-based culture, 3) human resources policies –

no employee firing, and 4) employees recognition through social events. Similarly in the third

company, kaizen program relied heavily on the top-management commitment and extensive

employees‟ on-the-job-trainings. The kaizen initiatives at this company were embedded in the

of 36

whole organisation and were actively supported by the top-management. This highlights the

synergistic role of „top-management commitment‟ and the use of the „broad range of kaizen-

methods organisation-wide‟.

On the other hand, the organisations falling in the category of „high management

commitment, low degree of kaizen-methods application‟ faced problems in the organisation-wide

implementation of kaizen. In the companies falling in this category, management was motivated

for kaizen implementation but could not develop the synergistic use of management commitment

and the use of kaizen-methods. The main reasons for inability to fully develop organisation-wide

kaizen were: 1) managers‟ narrow vision of kaizen where they perceived kaizen as merely a

collection of few practices; 2) inability to convince employees for kaizen implementation and,

thus, employees not buying the idea of kaizen implementation, 3) intentional use of some tools

and techniques, such as muda elimination, to address the priority problems; 4) failure to develop

organisation-wide kaizen; and 5) frequent change of top-management leading to inconsistent

kaizen implementation. The approach of „high management commitment, low degree of kaizen

methods application‟ gave rise to kaizen program having limited functionality.

This shows that while the top-management commitment is essential for kaizen

implementation, the concurrent use of organisation-wide kaizen methods is also critical. An

inability to develop „organisation-wide and broad range of kaizen-methods‟, despite the top-

management motivation for kaizen, leads to only „techno-centric‟ approach to kaizen whose

spectrum is narrow. These companies, thus, could not develop a fully functional and effective

kaizen – determined in terms of employee pro-activeness to identify and solve problems,

organisation-wide use of kaizen methods, and continual improvement initiatives at the

production floor. Thus implementation of a fully functional kaizen requires both management

of 36

commitment as well as high degree of kaizen-methods application. This also means that kaizen

implementation is a simultaneous function of both the top-management commitment as well as

the kaizen approach. This leads to our first proposition:

Proposition 1: Successful kaizen implementation is a simultaneous function of both the

management commitment and the kaizen implementation approach.

6.2 The stages of kaizen implementation and dynamic transition among stages

The findings highlight that organisations may have various stages of kaizen implementation

depending on the level of management commitment and the use of kaizen-approach. The cases

could be categorised into four types based on the level of management commitment and kaizen

approach – the extent of the application of kaizen-methods. The three organisations falling in the

first category „high management commitment, high degree of kaizen-methods application‟ were

able to develop an organisation-wide and fully functional kaizen program. The CEM, for

instance, not only developed the organisation-wide kaizen but also moved towards development

of „show-case factory‟ as a model for kaizen and implemented kaizen to other organisational

functions as well. The PFM was able to integrate kaizen not only in the core business processes

but also in the company culture. We also noted the instances when kaizen application remained

to minimum even when there was high management commitment. Thus, there may be various

stages of kaizen implementation depending on the level of management commitment and kaizen

approach. This could be explained through Figure 1 which shows various stages of kaizen.

of 36

Figure 1: Various stages of kaizen implementation

The findings show that the kaizen implementation is not a static process and organisations

may move among various quadrants, as shown in Figure 1, depending on how they approach

kaizen and leverage management commitment. This means that organisations may move among

various quadrants and their kaizen programs may undergo improvements as well as deterioration.

The HCM Company mentioned in „low management commitment, high degree of kaizen-methods

application‟ is one salient example. To summarise the description of this case, the company went

through all mentioned stages of kaizen, as reflected in the quadrants of the Figure, before it

finally moved to the highly functional state. Its journey to kaizen started from the „passive

kaizen‟. When the headquarter noticed difficulties in kaizen implementation, it sent kaizen

professionals to help company with kaizen implementation. These kaizen professionals taught

the employees how to implement kaizen and developed kaizen-model for the company, thus,

moving the company to „ad hoc kaizen‟. The departure of kaizen professionals led to the

reduction in the use of kaizen methods, moving the company to the „dormant phase‟. Finally the

company employed a Dutch consultant to facilitate effective communication with Dutch

operators and to promote the application of kaizen methods. Similarly the CEM, initially

struggled long with „ad hoc kaizen‟ before it finally introduced the change management to

Highly functional

kaizen

Passive kaizen

Dormant kaizen

Ad hoc kaizen

High degree of

kaizen-methods

application

Low degree of

kaizen-methods

application

Low management

commitment

High management

commitment

of 36

introduce organisation-wide kaizen. The PFM implemented full kaizen right from the beginning.

PFM, CEM, and HMM (all highly functional kaizen) applied broad range of kaizen methods

with concomitant employee engagement, motivation, and training and management support to

provide conducive infrastructure. The findings also show that the dairy company, falling in the

category of „low management commitment, low degree of kaizen methods application‟, had two

tiers of management having different perceptions towards kaizen. In this case, middle managers

not winning the support of top-management were able to employ kaizen practices to some extent

leading to „passive kaizen‟. Some other companies also struggled with kaizen implementation in

different ways. This is explained in Figure 2 which shows possible transitions among the various

stages of kaizen. The Figure shows only some generic possible transitions. In practice

organisations may be located anywhere in the four quadrants depending upon the level of

management commitment and kaizen approach.

Figure 2: The possible transitions among various stages of kaizen

In all above cases, organisations used different approaches to kaizen implementation. These

approaches included change management (at CEM), hiring consultant to facilitate kaizen-

specific communication (at HCM), and inviting kaizen professionals (at HCM and CEM). The

Highly functional

kaizen

Passive kaizen

Dormant kaizen

Ad hoc kaizen

High degree of

kaizen-methods

application

Low degree of

kaizen-methods

application

Low management

commitment

High management

commitment

of 36

PFM used extensive on-the-job trainings and cultural changes impacting employee hiring and

firing policies, employee motivation, and work style. This means that while organisations can

move from one stage of kaizen implementation to another, they would need different types of

approaches for this transition. And this approach would depend upon existing stage of kaizen.

This leads to our second proposition:

Proposition 2: Organisations may have various stages of kaizen implementation; moving from

less functional to highly functional kaizen requires different strategies depending on the existing

stage of kaizen implementation.

7. Discussion

7.1 Synergy of management commitment and kaizen approach

The emergence of two constructs, i.e., management commitment and kaizen approach is in line

with the definition of kaizen used by Brunet and New (2003) who defined kaizen as “the degree

to which the processes of kaizen are systematised and organised, and the degree to which senior

managers specify or influence the themes of kaizen activities” (p. 1428). In addition to

determinants of kaizen implementation, this research also reveals how these determinants

influence kaizen implementation. Regarding „management commitment‟ previous research

shows that top-management commitment is essential for the kaizen implementation, see for

example, Bessant (2003), Boer and Gertsen (2003), and Brunet and New (2003). However,

findings of this research provide further explanation to the role of management commitment and

highlight its synergy with kaizen approach. As we find that in cases that fall in the category of

„high management commitment; low application of kaizen methods‟ (dormant kaizen),

management commitment was essentially there but kaizen approach was low degree of kaizen-

of 36

methods application. The companies in this category could not develop kaizen mentality and

organisation-wide kaizen – determined in terms of employee-proactiveness, organisation-wide

use of kaizen, use of kaizen methods by employees at shop-floor, and continual improvement

initiatives at the shop-floor. This means that the development of a functional kaizen is

determined not only by the management commitment but also by the kaizen approach. Same is

also with the cases that fall in the category of „high management commitment, high degree of

kaizen-methods application‟ (functional kaizen). In these companies management was

committed for kaizen implementation and used kaizen approach involving high degree of kaizen-

methods application. They were able to develop a functional kaizen – a culture promoting

organisation-wide use of kaizen and continual improvement on regular basis. This research, thus,

provides extension to the previous research concluding that management commitment is the

main determinant of kaizen implementation. The concurrent role of management commitment

and use of kaizen-methods application highlights the need of kaizen implementation to be

addressed along the both frontiers.

While the kaizen methods are needed to provide necessary structures and means for root-

cause analysis, problems solving, operational streamlining, and continual improvement;

management commitment is needed to promote and institutionalise their use. Management

commitment in such cases appears in the form of allocation of organisational resources such as

human, financial, material, technological, and infrastructural; work design; and the use of

incentives to support such initiatives. This was prominent, in particular, in the case of CEM

where management actively supported the use of kaizen-methods through creating a sense of

urgency by discussing market complaints and problems with employees. The management

commitment was also prominent in the case of PFM where management emphasised the

of 36

development of kaizen culture reflected in employee recruiting patterns, work style, and

organisation of social events. The findings, thus, highlight that organisations need to align their

social and technical initiatives to develop a functional kaizen. The need of social and technical

alignment lies at the heart of socio-technical system theory (Appelbaum, 1997; Manz and

Stewart, 1997; Pasmore, 1988) – the alignment of the social side with the technical side of the

enterprise. The findings can also be viewed from the perspective of „structural‟ and

„infrastructural‟ support required for kaizen implementation. The structural element includes

kaizen methods – statistical process control, flow charts, problem solving methodologies, quality

costs, histograms, benchmarking, Pareto diagram, cause and effect diagram, etc, and their

formalisation. The infrastructural elements include management commitment, employee

involvement, motivation, and empowerment required for kaizen implementation. The effective

kaizen implementation requires both structural and infrastructural changes (Table 1) and their

alignment.

Kaizen methods Kaizen infrastructure

5S, Ishikawa diagram, Pareto analysis,

small group activities, suggestion system,

root-cause analysis,

Top-management support

Employee motivation

Employee involvement

Empowerment

Kaizen information

Team building and quality circles

Developing shared norms and values

Conducive culture

Table 1: The structural and infrastructural elements of kaizen

7.2 Dynamic process of kaizen implementation

Kaizen implementation is a function of management commitment and kaizen approach.

Variations in these two factors can give rise to various types of kaizen implementation stages.

Findings of this research are in line with the findings of Brunet and New (2003) who found that

the kaizen programs change over time and that there are significant differences in the way kaizen

was put to practice in organisations. They further found that kaizen program of each company

of 36

was the result of their complex and specific history. Our findings show that Kaizen

implementation is not a static process rather a dynamic one where companies can move from one

stage to another depending upon their management commitment and kaizen approach. The

findings also show that it was common among cases to improve to highly functional kaizen after

passing through several transitions. While kaizen implementation is discussed in literature in

terms of its benefits, and factors affecting kaizen implementation; the process of kaizen

implementation, in particular, the process whereby kaizen implementation goes through various

transitions is not adequately discussed in previous publications (Brunet and New, 2003). This

transition among various stages of kaizen could be explained in terms of structural contingency

theory which attempts to explain context–structure–performance relationships (Melan, 1998).

This theory states that organisations that succeed to establish a fit between organisational

structures – kaizen methods in this case, and contextual factors – management commitment in

this case, would achieve higher performance – development of a function kaizen, than those that

fail to do so. It can be assumed that it is the fit between managerial commitment, which

crystallizes in the form of supportive context and a conducive organisational culture, and kaizen

methods that determines the success of kaizen implementation. In other words, it is not the

independent effect of kaizen methods or the management commitment that leads to a fully

functional kaizen program.

Kaizen implementation is an important topic of research because kaizen implementation

requires organisational resources and managers‟ time. Depending on particular contextual

factors, organisations may have their kaizen implementation at any one of the aforementioned

stages. The understanding of kaizen process is likely to enable effective management of kaizen.

Future research should focus on testing the stated propositions using longitudinal and / or cross-

of 36

sectional research. Future research could focus on whether similar process of kaizen

implementation also exists in countries other than the Netherlands. The four quadrants

representing the kaizen implementation stages need further research. A number of cultural

factors are highlighted in within-case description as affecting kaizen implementation in the

Dutch companies. Further research is needed to fully explore the role of cultural factors in kaizen

implementation.

of 36

Appendix

Some exemplary quotes from respondents

Role of leadership

“Current production manager … is a Kaizen professional. The kaizen activities are running very well now because the

managers are involved. Operators are enjoying it. If the top management was replaced, let us say, by the previous production

manager who had no interests in Kaizen, it will disappear immediately.”(Project manager)

“Level of kaizen activities is depending on MD because we had changes in the company‟s MD every four years. Current MD is

here since August last year; before that previous MD was here for two and a half year, two more MDs were here before them.

This is not a good strategy” (Production manager)

“Kaizen started when the company was established, which means from the start. At that time the company was set up and was

led by the Japanese managers who tried to introduce all the techniques which they knew. This mentality was quite supported

during the first 5 years. Then Dutch management took over and these activities faded away.” (MD)

“Our MD is changing every 5 years. Current MD is here for more than a year. Every MD is doing totally different things. So

kaizen is totally depends on MD. If the MD is changing frequently, it is not nice” (Production manager)

“Our top-management is the main driver for kaizen implementation (Equipment programmer)

“Dutch team leader tried to initiate 5S program since he did not receive support and resource from the top manager, it

diminished after a year.” (Production manager)

Role of kaizen methods

It is typical for people to think that the Toyota Way is an example of Kaizen methods such as JIT, Kanban, and so on. These are

mere methods and processes that are established in a culture. (Project Leader Planning Project)

For me kaizen is continuous improvement in small steps, in the end with big result. Do it at the production floor, engineering

issues or something else but with the employee on the production floor. That is, for me, Kaizen. And all the rest of the tools we

call it re-manufacturing. And remanufacturing is kaizen as well.

I think kaizen is a mentality and also methods. For example, 5S. We are doing 5S from the beginning, so we know 5S… [now]

we are busy with the lean manufacturing concept. These tools are different steps in kaizen implementation. We must learn the

methods from very beginning (Kaizen engineer) Kaizen is the continuous improvements which are defined as small steps. Continuously present in your working methods like

the Deming wheel is consisting of plan, do, check, and act (Plant manager)

“In Japan, we use 5S as groundwork and then implement the suggestion system or daily use of Kaizen circles” (Director

production and R&D development)

“Kaizen method is especially to involve operators and to make them aware of the importance. What I experienced in the past

was that once accident happened, we used Kaizen methods to find out what the reason was of that accident. Sometime you have

different conclusions than your first idea. That is also one suggestion from the Nippon Steel. I think (kaizen is about) tools”

(Factory manager)

“Kaizen is a system that deals with plan, act, kind of sequence to improve your procedures and the products” (MD)

“Kaizen [is a collection of methods] like quality management and plan, do, check, and act cycle” (operator)

We started with Ishikawa Diagram … we are [now] using small group activities, 5S, and more shop floor level improvement

activities. Every Monday we do kaizen activities like training, 5S, and TPM. Every Monday we have a day like 5S or TPM or

[company‟ name] principals. (equipment programmer)

[to implement kaizen] we use checklists and suggestion systems

Kaizen is a collection of methods

One employee referring to the kanban production system noted: [our kaizen system is] very much driven by the Japanese

company to use Kanban system in the production area that is a physical system which identifies that you work with two or three

or four boxes of material and once you use one box of material you trigger for the next in the mean while you reorder for the

one used. So it is replaced in time to assure continuous work. Once we miss the part we really cannot finish the product. Lead

time is 8 weeks so you are out …we had once we had a big problem of that. So we had to slow down three production lines

with almost two to three weeks.

of 36

References

Adler, P. S. (1999), "Building better bureaucracies", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13

No. 04, pp. 36-47.

Adler, P. S. and Borys, B. (1996), "Two types of bureaucracies: enabling and coercive",

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. March, pp. 61-89.

Appelbaum, S. H. (1997), "Socio-technical systems theory: an intervention strategy for

organizational development", Management Decision, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 452-463.

Beechler, S. and Yang, J. Z. (1994), "The transfer of Japanese-style management to American

subsidiaries: contingencies, constraints, and competencies", Journal of International

Business Studies, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 467-491.

Bessant, J. (2003), High-involvement Innovation: Building and sustaining competitive advantage

through continuous change, Wiley, Chichester.

Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., Gilbert, J., Harding, R. and Webb, S. (1994), "Rediscovering continuous

improvement", Technovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-29.

Boer, H., Berger, A., Chapman, R. and Gertsen, F. (2000), CI changes: from suggestion box to

organisational learning. Continuous improvement in Europe and Austrailia, Ashgate

publishing, Aldershot.

Boer, H. and Gertsen, F. (2003), "From continuous improvement to continuous innovation: a

(retro)(per)spective", International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 26 No. 8,

pp. 805-827.

Brunet, A. P. and New, S. (2003), "Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study", International Journal

of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1426-1446.

Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. (1961), The Management of Innovation, Tavistock Publications,

London.

Choy, C. L. and Jain, H. C. (1987), "Japanese management in Singapore: Convergence of human

resource management practices", Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp.

73-89.

Courtright, J. A., Fairhurst, G. T. and Rogers, L. E. (1989), "Interaction patterns in organic and

mechanistic systems", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 773-802.

EC. (2006). Europeans and their Languages. Retrieved February 1st, 2011, from

http://www.externarelationer.adm.gu.se/digitalAssets/759/759844_Europeans_and_their_

Languages_-_EC_2006.pdf

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989), "Building Theories from Cases Study Research", Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-548.

Flynn, B. and Saladin, B. (2006), "Relevance of Baldrige constructs in an international context:

A study of national culture", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 583-

603.

Fujimoto, T. (1999), The evolution of a manufacturing system at Toyota, Oxford University

Press, New York.

Fukuda, K., Gordon, D., Oliver, N. and Wilkinson, B. (1989), "Japanese style management

transferred: The experience of East Asia", Vol. No., pp.

Imai, M. (1986a), KAIZEN: The Key to Japan's Competitive Success, McGraw Hill New York,

NY.

Imai, M. (1986b), Kaizen: The Key to Japanese Competitiveness Success, Random House

Business Division, New York.

http://www.externarelationer.adm.gu.se/digitalAssets/759/759844_Europeans_and_their_Languages_-_EC_2006.pdfhttp://www.externarelationer.adm.gu.se/digitalAssets/759/759844_Europeans_and_their_Languages_-_EC_2006.pdf

of 36

JETRO. (2006). Japanese Manufacturing Affilitates in Europe and Turkey - 2005 Survey.

Retrieved February 2, 2009, from http://www.jetro.go.jp/en/reports/statistics/

Kenney, M. and Florida, R. L. (1993), Beyond mass production: The Japanese system and its

transfer to the US, Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.

Kono, T. (1982), "Japanese management philosophy: can it be exported?", Long Range

Planning, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 90-102.

Liker, J. K. (2004), The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's greatest

manufacturer McGraw-Hill, New York.

Liker, J. K. and Morgan, J. (2006), "The Toyota way in services: the case of lean product

development", The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 5-20.

Manz, C. C. and Stewart, G. L. (1997), "Attaining flexible stability by integrating total quality

management and socio-technical systems theory", Organization Science, Vol. 8 No. 1,

pp. 59-70.

Marksberry, P., Badurdeen, F., Gregory, B. and Kreafle, K. (2010), "Management directed

kaizen: Toyota's Jishuken process for management development", Journal of

Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 670-686.

Melan, H. E. (1998), "Implementing TQM: a contingency approach to intervention and change",

International Journal of Quality Science, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 126-146.

Nonaka, I. (1994), "A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation", Organization

Science, Vol. 5 No. 01, pp. 14-37.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University

press, New York.

Parry, M. E. and Song, X. M. (1993), "Determinants of R&D-Marketing integration in high-tech

Japanese firms", Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 4-22.

Pasmore, W. A. (1988), Designing effective organizations: the sociotechnical systems

perspective, John Wiley, New York, NY.

Power, D., Schoenherr, T. and Samson, D. (2010), "The cultural characteristic of individualism /

collectivism: a comparative study of implications for investment in operations between

emerging Asian and industrialized Western countries", Journal of Operations

Management, Vol. 28 No. 03, pp. 206–222.

Putti, J. and Chong, T. (1985), "American and Japanese management practices in their Singapore

subsidiaries", Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 106-114.

Recht, R. and Wilderom, C. (1998), "Kaizen and culture: on the transferability of Japanese

suggestion systems", International Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 7-22.

Smeds, R., Olivari, P. and Corso, M. (2001), "Continuous learning in global product

development: a cross-cultural comparison", International Journal of technology

management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 373-392.

Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine That Changed the World,

Rawson Associates, New York.

Yin, R. K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks,

CA.
http://www.jetro.go.jp/en/reports/statistics/

muhammad asif and kodo yokozawa school of management ... · 2/5/2011 · companies are designed to...

Documents