See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254192814

Thoughts on Kaizen and its Evolution: Three Different Perspectives

and Guiding Principles

Article · January 2011

DOI: 10.1108/20401461111189407

CITATIONS READS
37 2,081

3 authors, including:

Manuel Francisco Suárez Barraza L. Kerbache

Universidad de las Americas Puebla HEC Paris
42 PUBLICATIONS   482 CITATIONS    65 PUBLICATIONS   711 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

aizen, a continuous improvement practice in organizations: A comparative study in companies from Mexico and Ecuador View project

SPECIAL ISSUE IN TQM JOURNAL: Kaizen: An Ancient Operational Innovation Strategy for Organizations Of The XXI Century View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Manuel Francisco Suárez Barraza on 21 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Lean Six Sigma
Thoughts on kaizen and its evolution: Three different perspectives and guiding
principles
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza Juan Ramis-Pujol Laoucine Kerbache
Article information:
To cite this document:
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza Juan Ramis-Pujol Laoucine Kerbache, (2011),"Thoughts on kaizen and its
evolutionThree different perspectives and guiding principles", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol.
2 Iss 4 pp. 288 - 308
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20401461111189407
Downloaded on: 21 December 2016, At: 10:07 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 87 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1753 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2003),"Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study", International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 23 Iss 12 pp. 1426-1446 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570310506704
(1997),"Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizational designs", Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 110-117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09576069710165792

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:167573 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing 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 Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

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

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm

IJLSS
2,4 Thoughts on kaizen and its
evolution
Three different perspectives and guiding
288 principles
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza
EGADE Business School, México, Tecnológico de Monterrey,
Monterrey, México
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

Juan Ramis-Pujol
Operations Management and Innovation Department,
ESADE – Ramon Llull University at Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, and
Laoucine Kerbache
Industrial Engineering and Operations Research,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Since Masaaki Imai coined the term Kaizen in the mid 1980s it has been regarded as a key
element in the competitiveness of Japanese companies. However, even though Kaizen was defined by the
author who created the term, writings by scholars and practitioners in the field exhibit a certain degree of
ambiguity and inconsistency. Finally, there is a clear need to develop this theory in the field of operations
management. The purpose of this paper is to analyse Kaizen in the academic and practitioner literature,
in order to better understand it and further explore and contribute to its potential theoretical profile.
Design/methodology/approach – A literature review was carried out using Kaizen as a search
term. Various databases were used for this purpose and books written by both scholars and by
practitioners on the subject were also consulted. The literature concerning Kaizen was methodically
analysed and categorised.
Findings – The findings of the study indicate that Kaizen is presently displayed under three
perspectives or umbrellas, which include a series of principles and techniques. By comparing the three
perspectives, a set of guiding principles and/or cornerstones for Kaizen have also emerged.
Research limitations/implications – Analysis and classification is based on the literature that
has been found and reviewed, along with the knowledge of authors on the subject, and may include
other features as well as other angles of analysis.
Practical implications – The Kaizen literature review is very limited. In writing this paper a
considerable number of articles and research related to Kaizen has been reviewed. This review resulted
in an initial classification of Kaizen (three umbrellas) and four major topics, which may prove useful
for managers or executives who are introducing or developing Kaizen in their organizations.
Originality/value – As far as the authors are aware, this is one of the first papers that proposes a
literature review in an attempt to clarify Kaizen, both in academic and practitioner ambits.
Keywords Continuous improvement, Operations management, Kaizen, Literature review,
Guiding principles
International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma Paper type Conceptual paper
Vol. 2 No. 4, 2011
pp. 288-308
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-4166
An earlier version of this paper was accepted for publication in Proceedings of 3rd World
DOI 10.1108/20401461111189407 Conference on Production Operation Management (POMS), Tokyo, Japan.
 Introduction Thoughts on
Since Masaaki Imai coined the term kaizen in the mid-1980s in his book KAIZEN – kaizen and its
The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success (1986), it has been freely used in connection
with Japanese management practices and as a possible key to the operational success evolution
of Japanese companies. Indeed, the concept has gained so much currency that Kaizen is
considered the key to Japanese companies’ competitiveness in the last three decades of
the twentieth century (Imai, 1986; Brunet, 2000). Over the last 20 years, some have 289
applied the concept as a magic wand through staff participation in improvement
suggestion schemes while others have treated it as a group of techniques and tools for
cutting waste. Yet others have treated it as simply an approximation to management
approaches such as the West’s total quality management (TQM) or in its Japanese
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

forms, company wide quality control (CWQC), the Lean manufacturing and the Toyota
Production System (TPS). In this environment, some top and middle managers reflect
the importance of Kaizen or Lean-Kaizen in the practitioner literature by continually
describe their improvement efforts to reduce cost, increase customer satisfaction,
increase quality and improve its speed to market with a new product and process
innovation (Jusko, 2004; Koltzenburg, 2004). Besides, for Fujio Cho, Chairman of
Toyota Motor Corporation recognized that Toyota was aware the new outposts would
no absorb its continuous improvement (CI) company culture reflected in the “Toyota
Way”, and that Kaizen had to be deliberately recreated by their middle managers in
each new Toyota location of the world (Kissoon, 2010, p. 40).
Although Imai provided a definition of Kaizen, writings by scholars and
practitioners in the field exhibit a certain degree of ambiguity and inconsistency (Singh
and Singh, 2009). Finally, there is a clear need to develop this theory in the field of
operations management. This paper analyses the various definitions of Kaizen in the
academic literature and then goes on to analyse research on Kaizen in scholarly
literature and writings by business practitioners. Both strands lead to both the
substance and findings of our study, which describes Kaizen from three perspectives,
highlighting its nuances and finding common points or possible guiding principles
and/or cornerstones of Kaizen. The conclusions tendered might be analysed, developed
and improved to give a better understanding of Kaizen and perhaps even to light the
way for future theoretical and practical research in the field.

What is Kaizen?
Although Kaizen is defined by Imai (1986, 1997) in his two books on the subject, this
Japanese word – which means “improvement” – still lacks a detailed explanation that
would shed greater light on its theoretical content. Various authors have explained
Kaizen from different perspectives. Imai (1989, p. 23) defined it as: “a means of
continuing improvement in personal life, home life, social life, and working life. At the
workplace, Kaizen means continuing improvement involving everyone – managers and
workers alike”. For Newitt (1996), Imai’s definition (1986, 1989) of Kaizen stems from two
Japanese Kanji: KAI – change, ZEN – good (improvement), and in “Continuous
improvement or principle of continuous improvement” (Lillrank and Kano, 1989, p. 28).
Thus, a first definition of Kaizen is based on its use in companies for fostering staff
involvement in process improvement (Elgar and Smith, 1994). Here, one should note that
Bessant (2003) indicates that mobilizing staff and getting them to participate creates a
channel through which they can contribute to the company’s development.
 IJLSS Put simply, “they work with their hands but use their brains to think”. This idea is
2,4 comparable to the initial studies carried out by the Human Relations School, in which
Mayo, Maslow, McGregor and Herzberg advocated this kind of management approach
(Malloch, 1997).
In this respect, the Japan Human Relations Association (1990) notes that for the
Japanese, the word Kaizen symbolises daily problems and the way staff face up to
290 them. On occasions, Kaizen has also been seen as an ethical force that each worker
finds within himself to voluntarily solve daily problems and convince himself of the
value of his work (Styhre, 2001). Other authors have begun to see it as a “philosophy of
life” which may embrace personal and family spheres as well as the work one (Imai,
1986; Wittenberg, 1994; Gondhalekar et al., 1995). As part of this tendency to
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

understand Kaizen as a way of reconciling individual values with those of his setting,
some authors go even further and see Confucian roots to the concept. Confucianism
prizes respect for and harmony with the environment through a balance struck
between the individual and nature (Bodek, 2002; Imai, 2006). Kaizen can thus be seen as
a principle or “individual spirit” of cooperation and improvement (Brunet, 2000) which
has a swift positive impact on society (Gondhalekar et al., 1995). In addition, specific
research on the subject in Japanese companies reveals wide variety when it comes to
understanding and implementing Kaizen. Indeed, interpretation and application
depended on the features of each firm. Brunet and New (2003, p. 1428), who undertook
this research, thus defined Kaizen as: “A host of continuous activities in which those
involved play specific roles for identifying and ensuring improvements that contribute
to corporate goals”.
As a matter of fact, in the original definition of Imai (1986) of Kaizen, the author who
coined the term and fostered the concept claimed: “[. . .] the Kaizen business strategy
involves everyone in an organisation working together to make improvements without
large capital investments.” Nevertheless, in a recent interview in Spain, Imai (2007)
notes that Kaizen means:
[. . .] continuous improvement every day and every moment by everyone in the company no
matter what post they happen to occupy. It ranges from small, incremental improvements to
radical innovation (breakthrough process redesign/innovation – Japanese Kayrio).
This new view of Kaizen by Imai is shared by some Western authors, for instance
Hamel (2009) defined Kaizen as follow:
Kaizen is much more than an event; it is a philosophy, mindset and, for breakthrough
performance, a most critical vehicle to achieve strategic imperatives and execute value
stream/process improvement plans.
The breakthrough performance for process innovation has probed in empirical works
with a positive result on the relationship between TQM (incremental improvement) and
innovation. In the simple terms, the empirical results show a causal relationship between
quality performance and innovation performance (Prajogo and Sohal, 2003, p. 912).
Rother (2009) in his book of Toyota Kata, drawing on six years of research into Toyota’s
employee-management routines found the process redesign innovation practices and
incremental improvements are complementary techniques of the “Improvement Kata
(Kaizen)”. This result is shared by Ortı́z (2009) in his own book about Kaizen and Kaizen
events. The importance of the link between both improvement approaches (incremental
and radical) was show in the lack of the meaning that Toyota Motor Corporation gave
 in some years to this dual relationship. For instance, the Prius brake problem was caused Thoughts on
by one software error (needs of radical innovation) (Dahlgaard-Park, 2011, p. 505). kaizen and its
Other authors go further, embracing the ideas of Taichi Ohno at the Toyota Motor
Company, who argues that Kaizen should be uppermost in employees’ thoughts every evolution
second of the day (Suárez-Barraza, 2007). The Japanese Union for Scientifics and
Engineers uses Kaizen as an axiom to define other concepts without delving into the
term itself (Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005). In this respect, other researchers consider that 291
Kaizen is a term that is still evolving and thus means different things depending on
when and in which company it was used (Tozawa and Bodek, 2002). Lastly, there are
authors who argue that Kaizen or CI should be considered as just another element in
TQM (Crosby, 1979; Ishikawa, 1986; Deming, 1986; Garvin, 1987; Juran, 1990;
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

Feigembaum, 1991; Dean and Bowen, 1994; Oakland, 1999; Hellsten and Klefsjö, 2000)
or as a basic platform in the Toyota manufacturing or Lean manufacturing system,
characterised by staff tackling the problems and waste arising from their daily work
through improvement teams, applying the 5’S and standardisation (Womack et al.,
1990; Ho and Citmill, 1996; Liker, 2004; Spear, 2004; Hino, 2006; Shingo, 2007). Both
the Western and Japanese approaches have been studied by several authors to compare
concepts and principles and find similarities (Magaña-Campos and Aspinwall, 2003).

Analysis of Kaizen in the literature

A literature review was carried out using Kaizen as a search term. Various databases
were used for this purpose: Proquest, Business Source Elite, Business Source Premier,
Emerald, Science Direct and Google Scholar. Books written by both scholars and by
practitioners on the subject were also consulted. It was found that Kaizen appears to
refer to two kinds of papers in the literature. One kind researched the Japanese variant
of Kaizen, as defined by Imai (1986), while the other looked at the Western
interpretation of Kaizen as “CI”.

The Japanese variant of Kaizen

First of all, there is a dearth of scholarly literature on the Kaizen’s Japanese variant.
However, we did turn up several articles on practical cases and examples. An article
published in Strategic Direction (2004, p. 23) journal notes that research on the Japanese
variant of Kaizen is virtually non-existent. The only reference turned up was by Brunet
and New (2003) of the Said Business School in Oxford. One of the few studies of the
Japanese variant of Kaizen is Cheser’s (1998) quantitative research on the impact of the
approach on staff in Japan’s manufacturing plants. His findings show that staff
motivation in the studied companies rose markedly in the first six months after
introduction of the TPS. This in turn increased staff motivation. He also noted the scope
for further academic study of Kaizen (Cheser, 1998). A similar empirical study – that
conducted by Brunet and New (2003) – has already been mentioned. In their study of
11 Japanese steel-making and motor companies (Nippon Steel, Honda, Susuki,
Toyota Kyushu, Sumitomo Metal, etc.), they concluded that there was considerable
diversity in the way Kaizen operated in Japanese firms. However, they also pointed to
strong similarities, particularly regarding the integration of Kaizen in the management
system and its core principles when it came to implementation (Brunet and New, 2003). In a
similar vein, Aoki (2008) concludes that it is feasible to transfer Kaizen to other countries
which have a culture different to that of Japan, provided that they succeed in implementing
 IJLSS in these organisations – outside of Japan – Kaizen’s fundamental capabilities (its basic
2,4 principles) which, from the viewpoint of the author, are: employee-based
improvement-seeking initiatives; inter-departmental and functional communication;
discipline of employees; and the standardisation of work in order to eliminate “Muda”.
In other conceptual articles on Kaizen, Cheser (1994) argues that Kaizen goes further
than the Western notion of CI. In other respects, Cheser (1994) notes that it embodies
292 the same principles guiding CIs. Although Imai (1986, 1989) does not refer directly to
guiding principles, he indicates Kaizen can take at least three forms:
(1) Kaizen management;
(2) group Kaizen; and
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

(3) individual Kaizen.

The first of these – Kaizen management – is the most important given that its
organisational strategy (policy and objectives) and management system embrace all
company staff. Group Kaizen focuses on improvement team and/or quality circles and
the solution of daily problems. Lastly, there is individual Kaizen focusing on bottom-up
organisational design, i.e. staff suggestions from shop floor workers. These, according
to the author, are the ones who know work processes best and are thus well placed to
come up with solutions to problems. Imai (1986, 1997) provides a set of concepts and
features for implementing Kaizen:
.
Kaizen and management, the responsibility for innovation and improvement
remains with senior management while keeping up work standards and
ensuring incremental improvements lies with middle managers and workers.
According to Imai (1989, p. 43) in the term that he defined as “Kaizen flag”, the
top managers has the responsibility of radical innovations (Kayrio) in their
managerial objectives, the middle managers and the supervisors are in charge of
the operational improvements, and finally the operators (workers) lies with the
process standards maintenance.
.
The focus on processes versus results.
.
Continuous monitoring of plan, do, check, act (PDCA) and standardize, do, check,
act (SDCA) cycles by all company players.
.
Rewarding quality.
.
Let the figures do the talking (statistical control).
.
Customers constitute the next process.

In this connection, Berger’s (1997) analysis is based on Imai’s (1986) contribution and
proposes three guiding principles for Kaizen:
(1) Process-oriented Kaizen, covering processes and aimed at improving their
results.
(2) Kaizen oriented to maintaining and improving standards. Here, keeping up
daily work implies maintaining standards, which can be improved through CI in
the company.
(3) Individual Kaizen, based on Imai’s group and individual Kaizen.
 This focuses on staff improvement suggestions. One should note here that Berger Thoughts on
(1997, p. 115) proposes his own classification of Kaizen-related teams (quality control kaizen and its
circles, organic CI, expert task force and wide focus CI groups). Finally, a summary of
the research analysed which follows the Japanese variant is presented in Table I. evolution

The Western variant of Kaizen

The term most commonly used in the literature to refer to the Western variant of 293
Kaizen is CI, although – as some writers point out – it abounds more in references to
the Japanese variant of Kaizen. However, there is a need to broaden the theoretical
foundations of the concept (Savolainen, 1999; Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005). This is
because Kaizen – understood as CI – tends to be conceived as a general element,
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

attribute or critical factor in other management approaches such as TQM, Lean

manufacturing or the TPS. Nevertheless, work by Lillrank and Kano (1989), Schroeder
and Robinson (1991), Bessant and Caffyn (1997), Lindberg and Berger (1997), Caffyn
(1999), Savolainen (1999), Kaye and Anderson (1999), Bessant (2003), Jorgensen et al.
(2003) and De Jager et al. (2004) have made significant contributions in helping to fill
this theoretical gap. In this respect, an important contribution to this Kaizen variant is
Schroeder and Robinson’s (1991) work, which traces the origin of CI to initiatives
undertaken by the US Government in the 1940s and 1950s to increase the nation’s
industrial productivity. Lindberg and Berger (1997) studied the application of CI in
various kinds of Swedish companies. These authors found that Swedish firms go
beyond merely creating a “parallel” or “virtual” organisational structure when carrying
out Kaizen activities (which is what companies using the Japanese variant do). Instead,
they ensure that improvement teams are part and parcel of daily work.
The “high involvement innovation” model drawn up by the team running the
“CI Research for Competitive Advantage” team between 1992 and 1997 at Brighton
University in the UK provides a powerful tool for evaluating the usefulness of
implementing CI (Caffyn, 1999). Work by Bessant and Caffyn (1997), which is
concentrated in a book by the first author (Bessant, 2003) provides a model in which CI or
the Western variant of Kaizen is not a static concept but rather one that has developed
through five levels (pre-CI, structured, goal oriented, proactive, CI capability), in each of
which specific behaviour patterns emerge in the successful implementation of CI. These
authors argue that each of these behavioral traits exhibited by the company over time
constitute elements that are needed to ensure CI becomes one of the firm’s core
capability. Here, Caffyn (1999, p. 1142) defined the ability to carry out CI as: “a company’s
ability to secure competitive advantage by extending innovation to a significant
proportion of its staff”.
Within this more Western orientation, Kaizen has also been approached from a
more practical managerial and organisational angle, defining the term itself, in the
form of methodology and/or technique shaped into a series of tools necessary to
eliminate activities which do not add value to work processes, the so-called “muda” in
Japanese. Among these are Kaizen blitz (Tillinghurst, 1997; Cuscela, 1998);
Gemba-Kaizen workshops or weeks, also known as “short-cycle” Kaizen, rapid
Kaizen or Kaikaku (Montabon, 2005; Sheridan, 1997; Melnyk et al., 1998); Kaizen Office
(Lareau, 2003); and Kaizen Teian ( Japan Human Relations Association, 1990). The
most recently evolution of the Western literature of Kaizen it the possible relationship
between the term and the Lean-Six Sigma approach. Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park
 Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

2,4

294
IJLSS

Table I.

Japanese variant
Kaizen research in its
Authors Approach of study/analysis level Key research findings Kaizen techniques and tools used

Al Smadi Conceptual paper and secondary databases The authors concludes, that, if properly PDCA cycle
(2009) implemented, Kaizen model can Visual management
substantially contribute for high
competitiveness without a need for major
investment
Aoki (2008) Case studies of nine medium- and large-sized Some common characteristics of Standardisation
Japanese auto-parts overseas plants in China management practices in Kaizen was Eliminating Muda
were conducted identified: actively used team-based rather Communication skills
than individual-based suggestion schemes; Generating discipline
they had human resource practices that Cross-functional management
emphasized the importance of having (communication)
workers who could do more than one job
and long-term employment; and the
managers of successful cases conducted
shop floor visits to check the work
processes every day
Manos (2007) Conceptual comparison between Kaizen and Kaizen focused on the Japanese variant has Training
Kaizen events four characteristics: (a) minor Eliminating Muda
improvements over time, (b) through Standardisation
improvement teams, (c) low cost, and 5’S
(d) should be carried out as a way of life Problem-solving techniques
Total flow management
Shingo (2007) Presents a conceptual analysis of Kaizen from Presents some models of how to use Kaizen Kaizen groups or teams
the perspective of Professor Shingo, during his at Toyota, which Shingo (2007) called Observation and experimentation
many years as a consultant with Toyota Motor scientific thinking management. These Problem-solving methodology
Company frameworks enable any group or
improvement team to break down a
problem and generate ideas for
improvement
(continued)
 Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

Authors Approach of study/analysis level Key research findings Kaizen techniques and tools used

Brunet and Empirical, in-depth, longitudinal analysis in Should maintain Kaizen ideas or guiding Policy deployment (Hoshin Kanri)
New (2003) 11 Japanese companies principles despite the extensive variety of Zero-defect concept
practices, techniques and tools that are Small improvement groups
used in organisations Suggestions system
Berger (1997) Conceptual, oriented towards guiding Made up of three guiding principles: Improvement teams classified as follows:
principles (1) process-oriented Kaizen, (2) Kaizen (a) quality circles, (b) organic teams,
oriented towards maintaining and (c) task force teams, and (d) broad-based
improving standards, and (3) individual- approach teams
oriented Kaizen
Malloch (1997) Empirical, case study in the UK company The introduction of Kaizen requires a Improvement teams
Dieselco (multinational company assembling rational, strategic approach from Standardisation
diesel engines) executives, in order to avoid confusing Total quality control
workers over concepts, techniques and Total productive maintenance
tools. But the implementation of Kaizen
under the employees’ own understanding
of it helped Dieselco to achieve the
management objectives put forward
Gondhalekar Empirical case study in the Indian Kaizen helps align the objectives of the Recognition systems
et al. (1995) organisation Godrej Soap Ltd, proposing a company with those of employees, and Active training
theoretical model therefore, this alignment contributes to Improvement suggestion systems
sustainability through management’s Improvement teams
active intervention to sustain the effort
Tanner and Empirical case study in an organisation The critical factors crucial to the Improvement team
Roncarti leading the intravenous catheter market implementation of Kaizen are: (a) focus of Standardisation
(1994) ( Johnson & Johnson Medical’s Criticón the action: related to the implementation of Total quality control
Vascular Access Facility) the team’s improvement proposals, (b) early Total productive maintenance
successes, (c) linking techniques and tools Just in time
with goals, and (d) managing cultural
change and values, namely the
implementation of Kaizen in all aspects of
the organization
Source: By authors
evolution
kaizen and its
Thoughts on

295

Table I.
 IJLSS (2006) analyse the principles and results of Lean production and compare the Lean
2,4 production philosophy with the Six Sigma quality process and the principles of TQM,
which includes Kaizen. The authors concluded that the Lean production philosophy
and the Six Sigma steps are essentially the same, and both have developed from the
same root – the Japanese TQM practices (CWQC) (Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park,
2006, p. 278), which is Japanese variant of Kaizen. Teresco (2008) in a practitioner
296 approach shows some case of US manufacturing companies that “traditionally” would
either roll out the implementation of Lean-Kaizen or Six Sigma, but not both, explains
the author. Therefore, Teresco (2008, p. 40) indicates:
The lean folks would focus on waste reduction, typically on the plant floor, via kaizen and
continuous improvement. Those selecting Six Sigma, on the other hand, usually employed
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

Black Belts or Green Belts to work on longer-term projects using an approach called DMAIC
(Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control). The focus of Six Sigma organizations is
typically centered on variation reduction projects.
This possible link in the works shops between Lean-Kaizen and Six Sigma is shared by
King (2009) that claimed: “one Six Sigma project can be conducted by a Kaizen event”.
Ramakrishnan and Testani (2010) argued in the same line of evidence, their
conclusions go beyond and claimed that Kaizen event that bottoms-up Kaizen events
have a key role in sustaining an organisation’s Lean-Six Sigma transformation
initiatives. However, Schroeder et al. (2007) conclude that Six Sigma has distinctive
features in terms of its deployment approach and emergent structure of TQM (Kaizen
included). Finally, finding a possible link between Kaizen and Six Sigma, Kumar and
Antony (2008) assess the current status of quality initiatives in the UK manufacturing
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and report the differences in the quality
management practices of Six Sigma (that include Lean-Kaizen) SMEs against the ISO
certified firms.
Table II describes the characteristics of each of these.

Three perspectives of Kaizen

Having conducted an analysis of the literature on Kaizen, we propose three
perspectives for understanding the concept:
(1) Kaizen as a “management philosophy”;
(2) Kaizen as a component of TQM; and
(3) Kaizen as a theoretical principle for improvement methodologies and
techniques.

Perspective 1: Kaizen as an umbrella term for management philosophy

The first perspective is of Kaizen as a “management philosophy”, which involves a set
of principles and values that underpin company management. In other words, this
perspective embraces all Japanese-inspired management practices, techniques and
tools that form part of CWQC (Imai, 1989, p. 40) (Figure 1). In fact, some writers
consider that Kaizen as a management philosophy is a development of the quality
control ideas found in Japanese manufacturing companies in the 1960s and 1970s and
in which the work of Ishikawa, Mizuno, Shingo, Miyauchi and Ohno played a crucial
role (Sawada, 1995). The empirical studies in the literature seem to indicate that
this perspective of Kaizen is the one found in high-performing Japanese companies
 Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

Practical
approach Authors Features and elements of the practical approach Kaizen tools and techniques used

Kaizen Laraia et al. (1999), Cuscela This Kaizen methodology in its Western variant is a series of Improvement teams
blitz (1998), Sheridan (1997) and events that take place over a relatively short period of time, Redesigning processes (the blitz)
Tillinghurst (1997) i.e. between two and five days, aimed at identifying and improving Action plans for improvement
Mudas in the shop floor work processes. Also, Kaizen blitz requires Value stream mapping
five key elements for its implementation: (1) using a strategic Statistical techniques and tools
perspective to implement Kaizen blitz (create a plan or specific Process flow leveling
programme), (2) applying Kaizen events to transform the Seven basic quality tools
organisational culture, through empowering employees, (3) making
sure that everyone understands the principles and techniques of
Kaizen blitz at the time of application, (4) recruiting the right people
for the Kaizen Promotion Office (KPO), and finally (5) searching for
ways to eliminate employees’ resistance to change, including their
fear of the unknown and pressures to reduce costs
Gemba- Wennecke (2008), Lewis Gemba-Kaizen workshops represent a real link between the Improvement teams
Kaizen (2007), Ortı́z (2006), Bodek organisation’s strategy and daily operations with a central Redesigning processes (the blitz)
workshops (2002), Montabon (2005) and objective in mind – to swiftly eliminate Mudas. The key elements Action plans for improvement
Melnyk et al. (1998) are: (a) forming an improvement team, (b) planning and Value stream mapping
anticipating results, (c) strategic links, (d) employee participation, Statistical techniques and tools
and (e) appointing an event leader Process flow leveling
Kaizen Lareau (2003) This is based on a model that the author called: SLIM-IT. This term Improvement teams
Office is understood as the application of different mechanisms which the Redesigning processes (the blitz)
author defines as: “Structure, Lean Daily Management System, Action plans for improvement
Metrics, Mentoring, Tools, Training, Team-work, and Information Value stream mapping
Technology”. The objective of this methodology designed by the Statistical techniques and tools
Kaufman Consulting Group is reduce operational and management Application of information technology
costs in organisations by eliminating Mudas, similar to the Coaching
previous methodologies
(continued)
evolution

variant
Kaizen in the Western
Practical approaches to
kaizen and its
Thoughts on

297

Table II.
 Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

2,4

298
IJLSS

Table II.
Practical
approach Authors Features and elements of the practical approach Kaizen tools and techniques used

Kaizen Japan Human Relations This approach goes far beyond the simple employees suggestion Proposal system
Teian Association (1990) box system used in the US military in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, Improvement teams
Kaizen Teian is operated from a more integral angle organisational Active training
management under three basic principles: (1) a participatory Rewards system
system whereby employees participate in improving their work on Commitment from top management
a voluntary basis, (2) development of skills, management has the
responsibility to train employees at all times and employees have
the responsibility to learn through practice, and finally (3) the
creation of a driving force, comprising top management policies,
executive participation, development of objectives and
mechanisms for reward (preferably non-cash)
Lean- George et al. (2003), Dahlgaard Motorola’s Six Sigma process was developed and implemented first DMAIC
Kaizen and Dahlgaard-Park (2006), in manufacturing, and from 1990 the process was adapted to the Design of experiment (DOE)
and Six Schroeder et al. (2007), Kumar non-manufacturing areas of the company (George et al., 2003). Kaizen blitz
Sigma and Antony (2008), Teresco They have six step to implement: (1) identify physical and Redesigning process
(2008), King (2009) and functional requirements of the customers, (2) determine the critical
Ramakrishnan and Testani characteristics of product, (3) determine for each characteristic,
(2010) whether controlled by part, process or both, (4) determine
maximum range of each characteristic, (5) determine process
variation for each characteristic, (6) if process capability (Cp) is less
than two then redesign materials, product, process as required
Source: By authors
 Thoughts on
Kaizen as a kaizen and its
Management evolution
Philosophy

299
Principles and Values Techniques

Maintain and improve Total Productive Maintenance

standards Total Quality Control
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

Focus on process Autonomation (jidoka)

Gemba improvement SMED
management PDCA and SDCA cycle
People’s participation Small group activities and
Top management improvement teams
commitment Kanban and JIT
Discipline and constancy Total Flow Management
Experimentation and Cross Functional Management
observation skills 5’S and muda elimination
Gemba and visual management
Hoshin Kanri
Figure 1.
Kaizen as an umbrella
Zero Defects term for management
philosophy
Source: Adapted from: Imai (1989, p. 40)

(Cheser, 1998; Brunet, 2000; Brunet and New, 2003; Liker, 2004; Hino, 2006). In the same
vein, other authors see Kaizen as a “management philosophy”, forming the foundations
underlying the corporate values and cultures of these firms. A case in point is the
Toyota Motor Company and its management model – “Toyota Way 2001” (Hino, 2006,
p. 82). Liker (2004, p. 306) explains how an organisation can implement the
management principles and business philosophy that are the basis of Toyota’s
reputation for high quality and profitability; he talks about the “lean learning
enterprise”, and how Toyota continually adapts its culture to the local conditions.
The literature analysis reveals that Kaizen understood as a “management
philosophy” sees company management in terms of maintaining and improving work
standards. For Imai (1986, p. 74), Kaizen cannot exist without standardisation – in
other words, incremental, cumulative improvements are only possible when standards
have been established and upheld through daily work. A significant indication of this
pragmatic Kaizen-inspired vision of work is that all employees must meet standards.
Management thus focuses on compliance. One can thus see Kaizen as a way of
interpreting work discipline (Imai, 1986). From this perspective, standardisation, order,
discipline and cutting waste are fundamental features of Kaizen (Imai, 1997; Brunet
and New, 2003).
Two other key features of the “management philosophy” perspective of Kaizen are that
maintenance and improvement of standards is carried through the involvement of all
company staff. Companies adopting this approach use improvement groups (group
Kaizen) and suggestion schemes (individual Kaizen). The literature suggests
 IJLSS the perspective is intrinsic (Berger, 1997) and based upon Jishusei or staff free will (Lillrank
2,4 and Kano, 1989). The literature suggests the concept of “zero defects” is an underlying one,
inspiring workers to automatically and spontaneously seek improvements to work
processes (Brunet and New, 2003). Lastly, improvements to shop floor work processes
(Gemba in Japanese) are made through constant, disciplined staff effort. This rests on skill
in identifying waste and experimenting with improvements under controlled conditions.
300 Various techniques are used to maintain and improve standards; each of them closely
linked to Kaizen’s guiding principles (Figure 1). The underpinning for this perspective lies
in the strong link between senior management and staff when it comes to Kaizen as a
“management philosophy”. The link is expressed through policies and targets that cover
everyone from top management to shop floor workers and is termed Hoshin Kanri in
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

Japanese. Figure 1 shows the relationships described above.

Perspective 2: Kaizen as an element of TQM

The second perspective sees Kaizen as just another element in TQM. The literature
indicates that the roots of improvement programs in the west can be traced back to work
undertaken by the US Government in its “training within industry” initiative during the
Second World War. The program included training and education of supervisors and
employed statistical control and CI of processes (Schroeder and Robinson, 1991). Later
on, the program was introduced in Japan in the 1950s by various experts in the field such
as Deming and Juran (Ishikawa, 1986; Robinson, 1990). For Deming (1986, p. 49), the
notion of CI as part of TQM was interpreted in the context of 14 guiding principles such
as “constant improvement in systems for goods and services”. Juran (1990) considers the
perspective only formed part of the “quality trilogy”, understood as quality
improvement or a break in processes following the two previous planning and control
stages. The debate on the theoretical principles and elements of TQM is an ongoing one,
even though empirical work has shed some light on the theory from a TQM management
perspective. Some of these studies have helped determine CI as an element of TQM, this
being reflected in various constructs that exhibit significant correlations (Flynn et al.,
1994; Powell, 1995; Ahire et al., 1996). Dean and Bowen (1994, p. 394) state that CI (Kaizen)
is one of the three elements making up TQM, the other two being client orientation and
teamwork. However, for this author, CI as an element of TQM means constant company
commitment to examining technical and administrative processes with a view to finding
better ways of working. To attain this aim, various techniques are employed such as
statistical control of processes, the history of quality (methodology for solving
problems), and flow diagrams providing links to TQM (Figure 2). Other authors have
argued that CI (Kaizen) is also a key element or value in TQM when this acts as a
management system (Ho and Fung, 1994; Hellsten and Klefsjö, 2000). Other studies
indicate that CI can be seen as a corporate capability, whether it forms part of TQM or
some other kind of improvement and innovation program (Bessant and Caffyn, 1997;
Bessant, 2003). Figure 2 shows the foregoing.

Perspective 3: Kaizen as a theoretical principle for improvement methodologies and

techniques
The third and last perspective arising from our literature analysis concerns Kaizen as
the theoretical underpinning for the application of methodologies and/or techniques for
cutting waste. The quest to cut waste is intended to improve the quality of processes
 Thoughts on
kaizen and its
Total evolution
Quality
Management

301
Principles and Values Techniques

Customer Focus Self-assessment

Process control Quality Function Deployment
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

Teamwork Quality Circles

Employee fulfillment and Supplier partnership
empowerment Design of experiment
Continuous Statistical process control
Improvement (Kaizen) Quality Control Story
Base decisions on facts Benchmarking
Training and education Quality Control seven tools
Effective leadership Flow and control charts
Figure 2.
Kaizen as an element
of TQM

and products, reduce lead time, optimise just-in-time delivery of goods and even
enhance cash flow. The literature review revealed at least five methodologies and/or
techniques under this umbrella category Kaizen Blitz, Gemba-Kaizen, Office Kaizen
and Kaizen Teian, Lean-Kaizen Six Sigma. The first feature of this perspective is its
limited scope. The aim is to cut wasteful activities in Kaizen workshops and events,
which only last a few days and aim to elicit improvement ideas from staff with in depth
knowledge of the work (Sheridan, 1997; Cuscela, 1998). Removing “waste” over such
short-time scales helps yield swift gains in terms of staff participation and results,
which constitute the second feature of this approach. The third feature is the quest to
cut waste across the board (cross-functional approach). To this end, each improvement
project is led by an employee whose technical prowess is well known (these staff
members are usually highly experienced veterans). Lastly, improvement projects are
monitored by staff committees/groups following implementation (Figure 3).
The literature review reveals this perspective of Kaizen, with all its attendant
methodologies and techniques that embody the main working principles of Kaizen as a
“management philosophy” (Figure 1), which is carried out through the techniques and
tools shown in both Figures 1 and 3. Accordingly, its scope and emphasis is a micro
one from the organisational standpoint, focusing as it does on work operations and
processes and on worker participation. Here, one should note that Kaizen Office and
Kaizen Teian tend to have a more organisational focus that embraces things such as
organisational structure, performance measurement of the company as a whole, and
various aspects of strategy ( Japan Human Relations Association, 1990; Lareau, 2003).
Even so, they also centre on operational aspects of Kaizen as a “management
philosophy”. This last perspective is shown in schematic form in Figure 3.
 IJLSS
2,4 Kaizen Principles
Methodologies and techniques
(Kaizen Blitz, Office, Teian,
Lean-Six Sigma)

302
Principles and values Techniques

Limited scope Quality Control Story

Remove muda Process redesigns (blitzes)
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

Quick wins and teamwork Value Stream Mapping

Top management support 5’S and standardization
Use the capacity of highly Action’s plan and coaching
experience veterans Process mapping and flow
Improvement’s ideas charts
“Homework” concept DMAIC and DOE
Committee office of Quality Control seven tools
Figure 3. support the improvement Statistical techniques
Kaizen as a theoretical effort Flow balance
principle for improvement
Cross-functional approach
methodologies and
Intensive training
techniques

Themes for future research and conclusions

The three perspectives explored in this paper provide a first approximation to
understanding Kaizen. Evidently, other categories could be drawn up, depending on the
analytical viewpoint chosen. In this regard, we are aware that it is very difficult to make
a clear theoretical and analytical distinction between each of the proposed viewpoints
and/or umbrellas, as some principles and techniques are presented in one umbrella or
another (Figure 4). This could be the result of how Kaizen has evolved over the years
both in the academic arena as well as in the field. Also, these principles and techniques
could have arisen as a result of the “poor” or “different” understanding or approach that
Western countries have adopted to this Japanese approach (Brunet and New, 2003).
In fact, as we described Imai (1986) and Berger (1997) proposed his own view about a
possible link between Kaizen approaches. However, our proposals it is unique based in
our analysis of the preview authors. In that sense, we hope that our findings will spark
useful debate on a subject that has received little attention in the academic literature.
We therefore conclude this paper with various aspects and themes that arose during our
research and which could light the way for future theoretical/practical studies.

Clarifying the Kaizen concept

In keeping with Brunet and New’s (2003) findings, it appears that Kaizen is a concept on
which there is little agreement, even in Japanese companies. This may be because its
basic principles as set out by Imai (1986, 1997) and formulated by Berger (1997) are freely
adapted by senior managers to meet the needs of their firms (Brunet and New, 2003).
This has created a great deal of confusion and may explain why Western attempts to
adopt the concept have had mixed success (Spear, 2004). Lillrank (1995) indicates that
 Guiding Principles Thoughts on
“Cornerstones” kaizen and its
Total
-Team work evolution
-Eliminating Muda and Kaizen Principles
Quality gemba management
Methodologies and
Management -Education and Training
-Commitment from Top Techniques
Management
-Proposing and applying
303
Perspective 2 improvements Perspective 3
-Focus on process and
-standards

Kaizen as a
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

management
Philosophy

Perspective 1

Figure 4.
Identified guiding
principles of Kaizen
Note: Comparative analysis of perspectives

the transfer of Japanese corporate practices – including Kaizen – requires considerable

clarification and re-interpretation before they are put into practice. Despite the latest
studies turned up in the literature on Kaizen (Berger, 1997; Brunet, 2000; Brunet and
New, 2003; Aoki, 2008; Suárez-Barraza et al., 2009; Singh and Singh, 2009), in depth
study is still needed to clarify the nature and scope of Kaizen. Lastly, it is worth stressing
that clarification of the Kaizen concept is not simply a question of theoretical and
semantic interest. On the contrary, such clarification is vital for companies if they are to
avoid endless frustration and blunders in applying Kaizen to the real world.

Kaizen’s applications in companies

Various methodologies and techniques were identified in the literature for applying
Kaizen in companies. These included Kaizen Blitz, Gemba-Kaizen workshops, Kaizen
Office, Lean-Kaizen Six Sigma right through to those based on staff suggestion
schemes such as Kaizen Teian or broader approaches such as TQM. Although each of
these provides details regarding implementation, some of the principles of Kaizen as a
“management philosophy” (Figure 1) are absent when implementing these methods.
In this respect, companies seeking well integrated, holistic guiding principles find only
“recipes and pre-established methodologies”. Therefore, the idea of striving
continuously to improve on a daily basis in order to cope with the changes and
pressures from the external environment (Wittenberg, 1994; Imai, 2007) gains strength,
from the standpoint of Kaizen. Accordingly, Kaizen can be understood as a set of
guiding principles that steer improvement and learning, especially in terms of the
principles that are presented in its three perspectives and which can be considered as
“cornerstones” (Figure 4). The sheer diversity of Kaizen-related methodologies makes
 IJLSS this task all the harder. Hence, the need to establish Kaizen’s basic principles and thus
2,4 facilitate its application both in Japan and further afield. The same hurdle to practical
application arises in relation to the techniques and tools identified in each of the
approaches (Figures 1-3). Finally, in depth study is needed of the key factors for
Kaizen’s successful application. Here, one should note the same kind of difficulties
arose in building a theoretical construct for concepts such as TQM (Flynn et al., 1994;
304 Powell, 1995; Ahire et al., 1996). Furthermore, identification of key factors would have
practical implications for companies considering implementation of any of the three
strands of Kaizen discussed above.

Corporate pluralism and Kaizen application

Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

The literature review revealed that studies on the application of Kaizen were limited
almost entirely to big corporations, multinationals and a handful of their suppliers
(whether in Japan or in the West) (Tanner and Roncarti, 1994; Malloch, 1997; Cheser,
1998; Brunet and New, 2003). There is a dearth of knowledge on the situation in SMEs
that needs to be remedied. In one of his latest lectures, Imai (2007) reported the
successful implementation of Kaizen in a medium-sized firm in India. Studies are also
needed on how large corporations apply Kaizen to their departments, units, and
processes and to the company as a whole and discover the reasons for either wholesale
or piecemeal adoption. Montabon (2005) has also explored the application of the third
perspective of Kaizen to services. This is beginning to enrich research by drawing a
distinction between application to manufacturing and to services. Some others authors
are also blazing a research trail on Kaizen in the public sector (Suárez-Barraza and
Ramis-Pujol, 2008; Suárez-Barraza et al., 2009).

References
Ahire, S., Gholar, D. and Waller, M. (1996), “Development and validation of TQM implementation
constructs”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-56.
Al Smadi, S. (2009), “Kaizen strategy and the drive for competitiveness: challenges and
opportunities”, Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 203-11.
Aoki, K. (2008), “Transferring Japanese Kaizen activities to overseas plants in China”,
International Journal of Operation & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 518-39.
Berger, A. (1997), “Continuous improvement and Kaizen: standardizations and organizational
designs”, Integrated Manufacturing System, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 110-17.
Bessant, J. (2003), High Involvement Innovation, Wiley, Chichester.
Bessant, J. and Caffyn, S. (1997), “High-involvement innovation through continuous
improvement”, International Journal Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-28.
Bhuiyan, N. and Baghel, A. (2005), “An overview of continuous improvement: from the past to
the present”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 761-71.
Bodek, N. (2002), “Kaizen: Kazam!”, Passport, January, pp. 60-2.
Brunet, A.P. (2000), Kaizen: From Understanding to Action, Institution of Electrical Engineers,
London, pp. 1-45.
Brunet, A.P. and New, S. (2003), “Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1426-46.
 Caffyn, S. (1999), “Development of a continuous improvement self-assessment tool”, International Thoughts on
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 1138-53.
Cheser, R. (1994), “Kaizen is more than continuous improvement”, Quality Progress, Vol. 27,
kaizen and its
pp. 23-5. evolution
Cheser, R. (1998), “The effect of Japanese Kaizen on employee motivation in US manufacturing”,
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 197-217.
Crosby, P. (1979), Quality is Free, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 305
Cuscela, K. (1998), “Kaizen blitz: attacks work processes at Dana Corp”, IIEE Solutions, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 29-31.
Dahlgaard, J.J. and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2006), “Lean production, Six Sigma, TQM and
company culture – a critical review”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 263-81.
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2011), “The quality movement: where are you going?”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 493-516.
Dean, J.W.J. and Bowen, D.E. (1994), “Management theory and total quality improvement
research and practice through theory development”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 392-418.
De Jager, B., Minnie, J., de Jager, J., Welgemoed, M., Bessant, J. and Dave, F. (2004), “Enabling
continuous improvement: a case study implementation”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 315-24.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Elgar, T. and Smith, C. (1994), Global Japanization: The Transnational Transformation for the
Labour Process, Routledge, London.
Feigembaum, A.C. (1991), Total Quality Control, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S. and Schroeder, R. (1994), “A framework for quality management
research and an associated measurement instrument”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 11, pp. 339-66.
Garvin, D.A. (1987), “Competing on the eight dimensions of quality”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 65, pp. 101-9.
George, M., Rowlands, D. and Kastle, B. (2003), What is Lean Six Sigma?, Springer, New York, NY.
Gondhalekar, S., Babu, S. and Godrej, N. (1995), “Towards using Kaizen process dynamics: a case
study”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 9,
pp. 192-209.
Hamel, G. (2009), Kaizen Event Fieldbook: Foundation, Framework, and Standard Work for
Effective Events, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, New York, NY.
Hellsten, U. and Klefsjö, B. (2000), “TQM as a management system consisting of values,
techniques and tools”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 238-44.
Hino, S. (2006), Inside the Mind of Toyota, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Ho, S. and Citmill, S. (1996), “Japanese 5-S practice”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 45-53.
Ho, S. and Fung, C. (1994), “Developing a TQM excellence model”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 6
No. 6, pp. 24-30.
Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen – The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, Random House, New York, NY.
Imai, M. (1989), Kaizen, la clave de la ventaja competitiva japonesa, CECSA, México (in Spanish).
Imai, M. (1997), Gemba Kaizen, Mcgraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Imai, M. (2006), “What is total flow management under Kaizen approach?”, paper presented at
2006 Day of Kaizen Conference, Kaizen Institute, Barcelona.
 IJLSS Imai, M. (2007), “Mejorar la calidad es la mejor forma de reducir los costes”, Interview in the
Business Newspaper La Gaceta, December 19, Barcelona, p. 36 (in Spanish).
2,4
Ishikawa, K. (1986), What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Japan Human Relations Association (1990), Kaizen Teian I y II, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA.
306 Jorgensen, F., Boer, H. and Gertsen, F. (2003), “Jump-starting continuous improvement through
self-assessment”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23
No. 10, pp. 1260-78.
Juran, J. (1990), Juran y el Liderazgo para la Calidad. Un Manual para Directivos, Dı́az Santos,
Madrid.
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

Jusko, J. (2004), “Lonely at the top”, Industry Week, Vol. 253 No. 10, pp. 58-60.
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.
King, P. (2009), Lean for the Process Industries: Dealing with Complexity, Productivy Press,
New York, NY.
Kissoon, N. (2010), “The toyota way or not? New lessons for health care”, Physician Executive
Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 40-2.
Koltzenburg, T. (2004), “The latitudes of lean”, American Printer, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 64-6.
Kumar, M. and Antony, J. (2008), “Comparing the quality management practices in UK SMEs”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 108 No. 9, pp. 1153-66.
Laraia, A.C., Moody, P. and Hall, R. (1999), The Kaizen Blitz: Accelerating Breakthroughs in
Productivity and Performance, Routledge, Iowa, IA.
Lareau, W. (2003), Kaizen Office, American Society for Quality ASQ, Milwaukee, WI.
Lewis, J. (2007), “Don’t lean on Kaizen events”, FDM, November, pp. 73-4.
Liker, J. (2004), The Toyota Way, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Lillrank, P. (1995), “The transfer of management innovations from Japan”, Organization Studies,
Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 971-89.
Lillrank, P. and Kano, N. (1989), Continuous Improvement: Quality Control Circles in Japanese
Industry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Lindberg, P. and Berger, A. (1997), “Continuous improvement: design, organization and
management”, International Journal Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 86-101.
Magaña-Campos, J. and Aspinwall, E. (2003), “Comparative study of Western and Japanese
improvement systems”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 423-36.
Malloch, H. (1997), “Strategic and HRM aspects of Kaizen: a case study”, New Technology, Work
and Employment, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 108-22.
Manos, A. (2007), “The benefits of Kaizen and Kaizen events”, Quality Progress, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 47-8.
Melnyk, S.A., Calanton, R., Montabon, F. and Smith, R. (1998), “Short-term action in pursuit of
long-term improvements: introducing Kaizen events”, Production & Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 69-76.
Montabon, F. (2005), “Using Kaizen events for back office processes: recruitment of frontline
supervisor co-ops”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 10,
pp. 1139-47.
 Newitt, D.J. (1996), “Beyond BPR & TQM – managing through processes: is Kaizen enough?”, Thoughts on
Proceedings Industrial Engineering, Institution of Electric Engineers, London, pp. 1-38.
kaizen and its
Oakland, J.S. (1999), Total Organizational Excellence – Achieving World Class Performance,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. evolution
Ortı́z, C. (2006), “The Kaizen 13”, Industrial Engineer, April, pp. 33-4.
Ortı́z, C. (2009), Kaizen and Kaizen Events Implementation, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.
Powell, T.C. (1995), “Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and
307
empirical study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Prajogo, D. and Sohal, A. (2003), “The relationship between TQM practices, quality performance,
and innovation performance: an empirical examination”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20 No. 18, pp. 901-18.
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

Ramakrishnan, S. and Testani, M. (2010), “The role of Kaizen events in sustaining a lean
transformation”, in Johnson, A. and Miller, J. (Eds), Conference Proceedings of the 2010
Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Cancun, Mexico, pp. 1-5.
Robinson, A. (1990), Modern Approaches to Manufacturing Improvement, Productivity Press,
Portland, OR.
Rother, M. (2009), Toyota Kata, Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness and Superior
Results, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Savolainen, T.I. (1999), “Cycles of continuous improvement: realizing competitive advantage
through quality”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19
No. 11, pp. 1203-22.
Sawada, N. (1995), “The Kaizen at Toyota Production System”, CHU-SAN-REN Quality Control
Course Nagoya, No. 6, pp. 1-38.
Schroeder, D. and Robinson, A. (1991), “America’s most successful export to Japan-continuous
improvement programmes”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 67-81.
Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C. and Choo, A.S. (2007), “Six Sigma: definition and
underlying theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 536-64.
Sheridan, J. (1997), “Kaizen blitz”, Industry Week, Vol. 246 No. 16, pp. 19-27.
Shingo, H. (2007), Kaizen and the Art of Creative Thinking, Enna Products Corporation,
Enna, WA.
Singh, J. and Singh, H. (2009), “Kaizen philosophy: a review of literature”, The IUP Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 51-72.
Spear, S. (2004), “Learning to lead at Toyota”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 78-86.
Strategic Direction (2004), “Kaizen at Nippon: behind the theory”, Strategic Direction, Vol. 20
No. 5, pp. 23-5.
Styhre, A. (2001), “Kaizen, ethics, and care of the operations: management after empowerment”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 795-810.
Suárez-Barraza, M.F. (2007), El Kaizen: la filosofı́a de Mejora Continua e Innovación Incremental
detrás de la Administración por Calidad Total, Panorama, México (in Spanish).
Suárez-Barraza, M.F. and Ramis-Pujol, J. (2008), “Process standardisation and sustainable
continuous improvement: a closer look at the application of ISO 9000 to Logroño City
Council (Spain)”, International Journal of Quality and Standards, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-35.
Suárez-Barraza, M.F., Smith, T. and Dahlgaard-Park, S. (2009), “Lean-Kaizen public service:
an empirical approach in Spanish local governments”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 143-67.
 IJLSS Tanner, C. and Roncarti, R. (1994), “Kaizen Leads to breakthroughs in responsiveness and the
Shingo Prize at Critikon”, National Productivity Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 517-31.
2,4 Teresco, J. (2008), “How to organize for lean Six Sigma”, Industry Week, November, pp. 38-41.
Tillinghurst, D. (1997), “Kaizen blitz”, Industry Week, May, pp. 19-27.
Tozawa, B. and Bodek, N. (2002), Kaizen Rápido y Fácil, TGP Hoshin, Madrid.
Wennecke, G. (2008), “Kaizen-Lean in a week: how to implement improvements in healthcare
308 settings in a week”, Medical Laboratory Observer, August, pp. 28-31.
Wittenberg, G. (1994), “Kaizen, the many ways of getting better”, Assembly Automation, Vol. 14
No. 4, pp. 12-17.
Womack, J., Jones, P. and Ross, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson,
Associates, New York, NY.
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

About the authors

Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza, PhD in Management Science (ESADE Business School), obtained
a Master’s degree in Total Quality Management, Industrial Engineering and Continuous
Improvement Productivity (Kaizen) from Sophia University and Chu-San-Ren Consultant
Company in Tokyo and Nagoya, Japan. Currently he is an Operation and Innovation Management
Full Professor in EGADE Business School, México, Tecnológico de Monterrey, and Visiting
Professor in Lean-Kaizen issues in ESADE Business School, Spain. His professional activities have
included working for Bimbo, Pemex and Toyota. He has published his research outputs in TQM
Journal, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, International Journal of Quality and
Standards, International Journal of Quality and Service Science, Journal of Family Business
Management and Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, among
others. He has published five books in Spanish about Kaizen and Process Innovations.
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: manuelfrancisco.
[email protected]
Juan Ramis-Pujol, PhD (University of Versailles in Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines) obtained a
Master of Business Administration from Georgetown University. He is an Associate Professor
and Lecturer in the Department of Operations Management and Innovation at ESADE Business
School-Ramon Lllul University; also a Visiting Professor at HEC Paris Business School. He was
Assistant Professor at the Université de Versailles St.-Quentin-en-Yvelines (1998-2002), where he
is now a Visiting Professor. He has carried out consultancy and research-action work on process
innovation and quality in various companies in France and Spain and has published in TQM
Magazine, Measuring Business Excellence, International Journal of Quality and Service Science,
Journal of Family Business Management, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
among others.
Laoucine Kerbache holds a PhD, an MSc, and a BSc in Industrial Engineering and Operations
Research, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (USA). He is Associate Dean, Director of the
HEC PhD Program. He has been teaching (undergraduate, MBA, and executive programs),
researching and consulting in the field of operations and supply chain management, logistics,
and applied quantitative methods for more than 25 years.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Suárez-BarrazaManuel F. Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza Dahlgaard-ParkSu Mi Su Mi Dahlgaard-Park

Rodríguez-GonzálezFrancisco G. Francisco G. Rodríguez-González Durán-ArechigaCarolina Carolina
Durán-Arechiga Universidad de las Americas Puebla (UDLAP), Puebla, México Institute of Service
Management, Lund University, Lund, Sweden Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de
Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa, Culiacan, Mexico . 2016. In search
of “Muda” through the TKJ diagram. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 8:3, 377-394.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Kurt Hozak Department of Management and Decision Sciences, Wall College of Business, Coastal
Carolina University, Conway, SC, USA Eric O. Olsen Department of Industrial Technology, Orfalea
College of Business, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA . 2015. Lean
Downloaded by Universidad de las Americas Puebla At 10:07 21 December 2016 (PT)

psychology and the theories of “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 6:3,
206-225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Lidia Sanchez, Beatriz Blanco. 2014. Three decades of continuous improvement. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence 25:9-10, 986-1001. [CrossRef]
4. Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza EGADE Business School, Campus Santa Fe, Santa Fe, México José Á.
Miguel-Dávila Business Administration, University of León, León, Spain . 2014. Assessing the design,
management and improvement of Kaizen projects in local governments. Business Process Management
Journal 20:3, 392-411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Kodo Yokozawa School of Management and Governance, University of Twente, Enschede, The
Netherlands Harm-Jan Steenhuis College of Business and Public Administration, Eastern Washington
University, Spokane, Washington, USA . 2013. The influence of national level factors on international
kaizen transfer. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 24:7, 1051-1075. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
6. Christopher Stabile, William F. Ritchie. 2013. Clarifying the Differences between Training, Development,
and Enrichment: The Role of Institutional Belief Constructs in Creating the Purpose of Faculty Learning
Initiatives. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2013:133, 71-84. [CrossRef]

View publication stats