KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN

A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett

KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN
A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

Dilek Demirbas
Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, Department of Economics Theory, İstanbul, Turkey

Rhys Blackburn
University of Northumbria, Newcastle Business School, Supply Chain Management, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

David Bennett
University of Northumbria, Newcastle Business School, Supply Chain Management Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
Published by
Istanbul University Press
Istanbul University Central Campus
IUPress Office, 34452 Beyazıt/Fatih
Istanbul - Turkey
www.iupress.istanbul.edu.tr

Kaizen Philosophy in a Modern Day Business

By Dilek Demi̇ rbas, David Bennett and Rhys Blackburn

ISBN: 978-605-07-0699-4
e-ISBN: 978-605-07-0689-5

DOI: 10.26650/B/SS05.2019.001

Istanbul University Publication No: 5250

Faculty of Economics Publication No: 654

It is recommended that a reference to the DOI is included when citing this work.

This work is published online under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This work is copyrighted. Except for the Creative Commons version published
online, the legal exceptions and the terms of the applicable license agreements
shall be taken into account.

First published April, 2019

Printed in
Düzey Bilişim Reklam Org. Yay. San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti.
Merkez Mah. Begonya Sokak No.12-14 Gaziosmanpaşa, Istanbul - Turkey
Certificate No: 12096
CONTENTS

The Authors...................................................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................................vi
The List of Figures......................................................................................................................................................vii
The List of Tables..................................................................................................................................................... viii
Abbreviation................................................................................................................................................................ix
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................x
1. Literature Review......................................................................................................................................................3
1.1. Origins of Kaizen............................................................................................................................................3
1.2. Modern Definitions.........................................................................................................................................4
1.3. Principles of Kaizen........................................................................................................................................6
1.4. Implementing Kaizen......................................................................................................................................7
1.5. Advantages of Kaizen Implementation.........................................................................................................12
1.6. Requirements for Successful Kaizen............................................................................................................13
2. Methodology...........................................................................................................................................................19
2.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................................19
2.2. Research Philosophy.....................................................................................................................................19
2.3. Secondary Data.............................................................................................................................................20
2.4. Case Study....................................................................................................................................................20
2.5. Research Strategy.........................................................................................................................................21
2.6. Participants & Sampling...............................................................................................................................22
2.7. Interviews......................................................................................................................................................23
2.8. Ethics............................................................................................................................................................24
2.9. Limitations....................................................................................................................................................25
2.10. Data Analysis..............................................................................................................................................25
3. Findings and Discussion.........................................................................................................................................29
3.1. Understanding of Kaizen..............................................................................................................................29
3.2. Principles of Kaizen......................................................................................................................................32
3.3. Implementation of Kaizen............................................................................................................................34
3.4. Advantages of Kaizen...................................................................................................................................36
3.5. Requirements................................................................................................................................................38
3.6. Perceived effectiveness of Kaizen................................................................................................................40
4. Conclusion..............................................................................................................................................................45
4.1. Objectives.....................................................................................................................................................45
4.2. Summary.......................................................................................................................................................47
4.3. Limitations of Study.....................................................................................................................................48
4.4. Suggestions for Future Research..................................................................................................................48
References...................................................................................................................................................................49

iii
THE AUTHORS

Dilek Demirbas received her PhD in Political Economy from University of Leicester,
Leicester in England in 2000. She used to work as an academic at Newcastle Business
School from 2001 to 2013 and now she is a Professor in Economic Theory at Faculty of
Economics, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

David Bennett was awarded his PhD in 2008 researching the UK automotive industry supply
chain. He is a Senior Lecturer at the Newcastle Business School, University of Northumbria
in Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Rhys Blackburn received his MA in Supply Chain Management in 2018. He works in

National Transport for Co-op Food.

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this undertaking could not have been possible without the participation
and full assistance of Istanbul University. The authors wish to express their gratitude to the
dedicated staff of Istanbul University, whose contribution is sincerely appreciated and
gratefully acknowledged.

Although this book is prepared with utmost care, there may be some errors and is subjected
to further enhancements.

vi
THE LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Forming the Building Block for Kaizen.................................................................4

Figure 1.2 Principles of Kaizen Philosophy............................................................................ 6
Figure 1.3 Implementing Kaizen.............................................................................................7
Figure 1.4 The PDCA Cycle....................................................................................................9
Figure 1.5 The Value Flow and Identify Solutions................................................................ 10
Figure 2.1 Inductive Approach to Research........................................................................... 19
Figure 2.2 Interview Flows....................................................................................................24
Figure 3.1 A Bell Curve Trend............................................................................................... 32

vii
THE LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Specific and Measurable Goals ............................................................................ 11

Table 2.1 Differences Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research ..............................21
Table 2.2 Participants and Sampling ................................................................................... 22
Table 2.3 The Four Key Considerations of a Social Science Researcher ............................25
Table 3.1 Participants Basic Understanding of Kaizen ........................................................30
Table 3.2 Frequency Used ................................................................................................... 31
Table 3.3 Interview Results for Principles ........................................................................... 33
Table 3.4 Data Excludes Two Participants Who Responded ‘unsure’ ................................. 34
Table 3.5 The responses of Participants When Asked About the Implementation
of Kaizen Activities at VMUK ............................................................................35
Table 3.6 The Perceived Advantages of Kaizen Implementation Within
the VMUK Supply Workforce .............................................................................37
Table 3.7 The Perceived Requirements for Successful Kaizen ........................................... 39
Table 3.8 Perceived Effectiveness of Kaizen ....................................................................... 40

viii
ABBREVIATION

QCCs Quality Control Circles

PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle
TPS Toyota Production system
VMUK VMUK LIMITED Business Supplies and Equipment, UK

ix
INTRODUCTION

Many scholars have mentioned about the importance of Kaizen philosophy in Japanese
management, and the concept is often shown as an underlying principle of Toyota Production
System, Lean Production, and TQM. However, there is a great deal of inconsistency within
literature of what Kaizen actually represents in a modern-day business and most importantly in
the perception of the average worker. This research looks to explore how Kaizen is understood
and perceived by the Supply Chain workforce of a UK Vehicle Manufacturer (VMUK) which
is a British based tier 1 automotive manufacturer that produces over 507,000 cars per year.
Open since 1986 the site covers 2 square kilometres and employs over 7000 people.

With increasingly high levels of productivity, the plant produces more cars per worker
than any other factory in Europe. Working to a strict yet efficient no-defect policy, the plant
has become one of the largest manufacturers in the UK car industry. As stated by Childerhouse
et al. (2003) this a significantly large, competitive and pressurised industry which often acts
as a barometer for today’s environment and economy. As a result, VMUK are constantly
focused on improvement and innovation to secure their position in the market. VMUK excels
through a variety of Japanese manufacturing management techniques that have transformed
the face of European car manufacturing. Implementing a Just-in-Time delivery process,
VMUK rely on a network of in-house suppliers to create an efficient and cost-effective
supply chain. VMUK utilise electronic linkages to make orders with their suppliers, with
deliveries being made from sites that are located strictly within a 3-4 Mile radius. Using this
process requires a combination of flexibility and predictability (Kumar and Midha, 2001),
but allows for a highly efficient synchronous supply of materials as and when they are
required for production.

Important to this study, VMUK pride themselves on their use of continuous improvement
throughout the company, but particularly within their in-house supply network. Using the
knowledge and experience of direct line workers, both internal and supplier, VMUK benefit
from the creation of incremental and applicable improvements. The success of such
improvements is to be discussed further in this study.

VMUK would be a great case study example of an Automotive industry organisation with
existing, consistent, and efficient supply chain processes and strategies. The company not
only utilise Kaizen strategies but pride themselves in the efficiency of doing so, providing an
excellent area of research for this paper. Furthermore, there is a widely accepted belief that
often non-Japanese companies struggle establishing long-term and effective Kaizen. Using a
case study, we are interested to see how these techniques have been developed, translated,
and implemented to an English majority workforce.

x
 The study will look firstly to explore relevant areas of literature regarding Kaizen and its
efficient implementation in part one. After defining what Kaizen is and its origins, advantages
and requirements of Kaizen, as well as the key principles set out in literature. We also review
strategies involved in creating continuous improvement such as Quality Circles and Teians
and will give an expanded view on Lean Production techniques such as 5S, SOP, and Value
Stream Mapping.

Then in part two, the chosen methods to analyse the primary data will be explored. This
part will describe and justify the processes used and discuss the ethical consideration and
limitations of the research.

Next, in part three literature will be compared to primary research undertaken within
VMUK, consisting of 12 Semi-structured, qualitative, interviews with members of staff from
a variety of roles, ages and experiences within the VMUK supply chain. After that, this part
will discuss and analyse the key findings from the primary research conducted. Theories
discussed in the literature review section will be compared to the primary data to identify
contrasts and correlations.

The final part within this study bring together the research to formulate conclusions
relating back to the initial objective set out at the start of the research. This part shows that,
with exceptions, there is a lack of in depth understanding of Kaizen in the workforce likely
as a result of poor training and education. A bell curve is identified with those most
knowledgeable and experienced with Kaizen being members of staff with 5-10 years of
experience within VMUK.

Workers perceptions on the implementation, principles, advantages, and requirements of

Kaizen seem to be the most important aspects of the study. The effectiveness of Kaizen is
mainly depends on the company implementation of Kaizen even though the participants
might believe Kaizen in concept is effective.

xi
PART 1
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 3

1. Literature Review

1.1. Origins of Kaizen

Kaizen is a philosophy that suggests a human life and lifecycle can be consistently
bettered, translating according to Colenso (2000), to “change and good”. The Japanese word
is often linked to the term ‘continuous improvement’ which it is frequently referred to in
western organisations and literature as a replacement for the Japanese terminology. Agmoni
(2016) finds that, as a philosophy, Kaizen not only prompts positive developments but places
a focus on identifying and rectifying issues before they develop and take effect.

The foundation of Kaizen was laid in Japan after the Second World War, when the country
was attempting to rebuild factories and rethink many systems. The concept of Kaizen began
to be formed and it took off in the 1950s. According to Masaaki Imai, the father of Kaizen
strategy, it is the most important concept of Japanese management – the key of Japanese
business success (Prošić, 2011).

The concept of Kaizen encompasses a wide range of ideas. It involves making the work
environment more efficient and effective by creating a team atmosphere,improving everyday
procedures,ensuring employee satisfaction, and making a job more fulfilling, less tiring, and
safer (Kenton, 2018).

The origins of Kaizen in supply chain management can be traced back to the Japanese
automotive industry, with Shingo’s (1981) paper on the ‘Toyota Production system’ -
developed and implemented in the early 1950s by Taiichi Ohno, former Executive Vice
President of Toyota Motor Company (as can be seen from Sako, 2004).

Forming the building block for Kaizen, the concept of lean manufacturing focused on
ways to remove ‘muda’ waste from production processes. Hines and Taylor (2000) defines
such waste as non-value adding activities that, in the eyes of the final customer, do not make
a product or service more valuable. Keeping with Inman’s (1993) description of high
inventories as the “flower of all evil”, Lean looked to minimise inventory to ‘zero’ in addition
to defects, breakdown, handling, set up and lead time (Shingo, 1981).

Over time, Lean production has become increasingly popularised with western
organisations, stimulated by Womack, Jones, and Roos’ (1990) study of the Toyota Production
System. Comparing the Japanese strategy to other manufacturing organisations around the
world, this acted as quantification for earlier manufacturing studies (Shingo, 1981;
Schonenberg, 1982; Monden, 1983).
4 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

A key step in the TPS house, (see Figure 1.1) Kaizen serves as a key mechanism used to
fully incorporate Lean production processes into an existing supply chain (Davis, 2011).
Providing arguably the first well known and most frequently cited paper on Kaizen itself,
Imai (1986) documents the core principles and values of Kaizen in relation to the improvement
process. As a result of these works, concepts of Kaizen in supply chain management are
being increasingly embraced by organisations worldwide. The difference between this
literature however, and modern western literature varies greatly, this is discussed further in
the study.

Figure 1.1. Forming the building block for Kaizen (Lean Enterprise Institute, 2015)

It is important to note, that although the term ‘Kaizen’ originated in Japan, many principles
of continuous improvement can be seen in western organisations pre- dating the boom of the
Japanese car industry. A significant example of this is put forward by Graban and Swartz
(2012) who outline the employee suggestion program used within the British Navy as long
ago as 1770.

1.2. Modern Definitions

The definitions of Kaizen in modern literature often follow a similar pattern of key words
and phrases, however, they often struggle to pinpoint a definite meaning for the term.
Although the nature of Kaizen stems from Japanese philosophies, modern western literature
focuses heavily on Kaizen as a process, strategy, or even a productivity tool. This is likely
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 5

due to an over-reliance of western organisations on utilising Kaizen strictly as a management

tool to reduce the costs of a manufacturing process. Some of the key objectives of the Kaizen
philosophy include quality control, just-in-time delivery, standardized work, the use of
efficient equipment, and the elimination of waste. The overall goal of Kaizen is to make small
changes over a period of time to create improvements within a company (Kenton, 2018)

Davis (2011) defines Kaizen as “a process aimed at making continuous improvement, by

focusing on and eliminating wastes inherent to the manufacturing processes being employed”.

Coimbra (2013) defines Kaizen as “a long-term strategy that systematically seeks to

achieve small, incremental changes in processes in order to improve efficiency and quality”.

Abdulmouti (2015) defines Kaizen as a “Productivity tool that emphasizes continuous

improvement through regular, incremental improvement”.

These definitions are well suited from a strategy perspective but are not fully representative
of Kaizen. Looking back at early Japanese literature, Imai (1986) defines Kaizen as “a culture
of ongoing improvement involving everyone—top management, managers and workers”.

This is far from an easy-applicable strategy, as in modern literature, and instead focuses
on Kaizen first as a culture amongst staff. Imai (1986) pushes this further stating that the
concept is often “so deeply ingrained in the minds of both managers and workers that they
often do not even realise that they are thinking Kaizen”. Ishikawa (2013) points out “Kaizen
is not a panacea for cost-reduction or productivity improvements. It is not a problem-solving
tool; it only creates a mindset of improvement that equips people to address the larger issues
better”.

Kaizen philosophy goes beyond simple productivity improvement into a process that, when
done correctly, humanizes the workplace, eliminates waste (Muda) and overly hard work
(Muri), and teaches people how to identify and eliminate wastes in a scientific method (Davis,
2011). Kaizen strives to empower the workers, increase worker satisfaction, and facilitate a
sense of accomplishment, thereby creating a pride in their work. If the culture of Kaizen is not
being properly represented in many papers, it is clear to see why Kaizen is often found difficult
to successfully implement, especially in non-Japanese organisations (Laraia et al., 1999).

This, however, is not to say that all authors misrepresent the ideals of Kaizen. For example,
Brunet and New (2003) excellently define Kaizen to “consist of pervasive and continual
activities, outside the contributor’s explicit contractual roles, to identify and achieve
improvement outcomes that are believed to contribute to the organisational goals”.
6 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

1.3. Principles of Kaizen

In previous literature, many authors provide a number of key principles in order to

provide further clarification for Kaizen. These can range from company requirements to
ordered steps in the implementation process, but ultimately they allow for greater
understanding rather than providing a simple definition. Though this varies, there are four
key points which can be identified throughout literature which encompass Kaizen
implementation (see Figure 1.2).

Process-Focused Continuous Incremental Collaborative

Figure 1.2. Principles of Kaizen Philosophy

Firstly, Kaizen must be process orientated. Process orientation states that before results
can be improved, processes must be improved, opposing a result-orientation where outcomes
are most important (Martichenko, 2004). This doesn’t state that the results aren’t of
importance, but instead places focus on high quality processes which will result in positive
results with the aim to achieve ‘zero defects’ (Hammer et al., 1993). Berger (1997) furthers
this by identifying two practical consequences: Management’s responsibility to stimulate
process improvement and the implementation of evaluating criteria e.g. employee efforts,
supervisor and first line manager support. Where Kaizen is most effectively used, a culture
of pull-flow thinking is implemented where supply is based on demand, allowing for optimal
information and material flow (Coimbra, 2013).

Secondly literature shows that Kaizen must be continuous. Many studies highlight the
importance of Kaizen as a long-term continuous strategy and that it should not be used as a
term for short term ‘Kaizen blitz’ or events (Cheser, 1998; Manos, 2007).

Handyside (1997) supports this, arguing Kaizen should not be used for instantaneous
benefit, but instead become “a habitual way of life in the organisation”. Creating a culture of
continuous improvement is vital and a key part of the original Japanese Kaizen philosophy.
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 7

Thirdly, Kaizen should be made up of incremental changes. Agmoni (2016) agrees with
this, characterizing Kaizen as “daily incremental actions that entail improvements to all
aspects of an organization”. This supports the work of Bessant and Caffyn, (1997) who state
that changes should not be major management-initiated reorganisations or technological
innovations, but instead small and incremental in nature. These changes should be close to
the ‘gemba’ (The real workplace) and be focused on waste elimination. This principle also
outlines that in order to be successful with incremental changes a focus must be placed on
maintaining supply chain standards, with Imai (1986) stating “There can be no improvement
where there are no standards”. This argues that Kaizen’s incremental improvements are
inseparable from strict maintenance of standards and highlights the use of 5S, Poka-yoke,
Standard operating procedures and PDCAs.

Finally, literature shows that Kaizen must be a collaborative effort throughout the
company. Kaizen needs to include the involvement and intelligence of the work force as well
as generate intrinsic psychological and quality of work-life benefits for employees (Brunet &
New, 2003). Imai (1986) states that Kaizen is based on a belief in people’s inherent desire for
quality and worth, and management has to believe that it is going to “pay” in the long run.
Kaizen must be fully represented and sponsored throughout the supply chain from
management to the average line worker in order to be successful.

1.4. Implementing Kaizen

In order to successfully implement Kaizen, many authors highlight the need for companies
to set up support activities and strategies that work to achieve workplace standardisation and
therefore highlight issues affecting the workplace (Imai,1986; Berger, 1997; Martichenko,
2004). Previous literature has identified the following as key activities. Figure 1.3 shows the
implementing Kaizen.

5S method emplementation Checking and sustaining Management performance measuring

Sort Process 5S
confirmation Audit
Process
Stabilize confirmation

Week meatings
Shine
5S
Audit
Standardize
Improvements
proposal
Sustain

Figure 1.3. Implementing Kaizen (Gupta and Jain, 2014)

8 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

5S

5S is a workplace organisation method that uses a set of tools for housekeeping and
maximising performance. Gupta and Jain (2014) analyse the use of 5S in implementing
Kaizen finding that the integration of the two concepts leads to increased process efficiency,
improved visibility, improved morale and safety of the employees, and reduced delays and
searching time. Flilip (2015) further praises 5S in this partnership stating that together they
make a powerful tool that can be implemented in any industry, whether it be micro, small,
medium or large.

Standard Operating Procedures

A standard operating procedure is a set of step-by-step instructions compiled by an
organization to help workers carry out complex routine operations. SOPs aim to achieve
efficiency, quality output and uniformity of performance, while reducing miscommunication
and failure to comply with industry regulations (Nakagawa, 1997). Imai (1986) places a
focus on maintaining standards when implementing Kaizen stating that “There can be no
improvement where there are no standards”. Berger’s (1997) paper furthers this stating the
two are inseparable, and highlights three key purposes of SOPs in Kaizen – individual
authorisation and responsibility, enhanced learning, and discipline.

Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle
The PDCA cycle is a critical model and a major practice of improvement, established
within the manufacturing industry by William Deming. Figure 1.4 shows the PDCA cycle. It
has been frequently adopted and promoted as a functional tool for continuous improvement
(Handyside, 1997). Watson et al. (2013) explains PDCA stating “it is an iterative, four-stage
approach for continually improving processes, products or services, and for resolving
problems. It involves systematically testing possible solutions, assessing the results, and
implementing the ones that have shown to work”. Using this in-line with Kaizen is key for
the efficient improvement of processes.
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 9

Plan
Collect and
analyse data

Act Do
Standardise Implement
and learn improvement
lessons plans

Check
Measure and
confirm result

Figure 1.4. The PDCA cycle (Deming, 1986)

Value Stream Mapping

Value Stream Mapping is an improvement method used in implementing ‘lean
thinking’ and is identified by previous literature as a leading formula for continuous
improvement activities (Filip, 2015; Brunet and New, 2013). A Value Stream Map is a
collection of all the actions, value adding and non-value adding, which are necessary for
a full process of a product through the technological flow, from the raw material to the
client. The final aim of the Value Stream Map is to provide clarity and visibility in order
to identify waste nodes in the value flow and identify solutions for their elimination (Banu
and Epureanu, 2009). Figure 1.5 illustrates the value and identify solutions.
10 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

Figure 1.5. The value flow and identify solutions (Banu and Epureanu, 2009)

Suggestion Boxes
Reviewing Graban and Swartz ‘s (2012) paper, a key method of implementing Kaizen is
a basic suggestion program. Their study finds the use of this within the British Navy, dating
back to 1770. This technique uses little resources for the company, yet allows workers to
voice their ideas, making functional improvements whilst boosting worker morale and
providing economic benefit (Kii, 2013). This frequently utilises the PDCA cycle identified
earlier.

Teians
As continuous improvement has developed, literature shows employee suggestions have
developed to form ‘Teians’, a Japanese term meaning ‘improvement’ and ‘proposal’ (Kii,
2013). Teains are utilised to resolve small scale problems, within the proposer’s immediate
working area and are commonly based on hands-on knowledge (Marin-Garcia et al., 2008).
They are reliant on an employee’s willingness to make implementable improvement ideas
(Van Dijk & Van den Ende, 2002) and involve the completion of electronic or paper-based
Teian sheets (Schuring & Luijten, 2001). In an efficient Teian system, most suggestions are
considered and evaluated, and are rewarded with recognition and involvement, over the
economic benefits offered in traditional systems (Ma, 2013).
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 11

Quality Control Circles

In addition, the use of quality control circles (QCCs) has become popular within Kaizen
implementation. A QCC consists of a group of workers usually 5-15, either from the same
department/ function or as part of a cross-functional team.

The groups meet voluntarily under the leadership of their supervisor on a regular basis,
usually for around an hour per week (Bacdayan, 2001). During these meetings the circle
shares ideas and expertise for improvement, analyses the causes and recommends a solution
to the management (Zailani, 1998).

The focus is based on specific and measurable goals and are often linked to long term
quality control activities (Wang et al., 2013). Where the reward of teian suggestions are often
individualistic, and are based on recognition and involvement,

QCCS differ through their group nature. Ma (2013) explores this theme stating that
“rewards are not directly offered to the meetings but are based on the utility of the end results,
as a result, rewards for QCCs are given to the group rather than to individuals”. Therefore,
it can be stated that through a QCC, employees are more focused on the improvement of the
company as a whole, instead of personal gain, whether this be conscious or sub-conscious.

In comparison, the teian and the QCC perform varying tasks within Kaizen and many
authors argue which is more efficient to utilise as can be seen from Table 1.1. However, to
achieve an effective culture of Kaizen both should be used combined to succeed in
establishing short-term and long-term focused change. The important point to recognize,
however, is that in order for these actions to be successful, they must be continuously
applied and not on a one-off basis as found by studies such as (Cheser, 1998) and (Manos,
2007).
Table 1.1. specific and measurable goals

Japanese Teian QCC

Purpose incremental changes Larger changes

Scale Local Company-wide

Form Individual Group

Improving place of work

Motivation Recognition / employee involvement
Reward based on outcome

Organisation Informal Formal

12 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

1.5. Advantages of Kaizen Implementation

The positive effects of successful Kaizen implementation are discussed throughout

previous literature:

Waste Removal - Linking back to its roots in lean production, Kaizen’s primary goal
is to identify potential areas of waste removal (Womack, Roos & Jones, 1990). Manos
(2007) praises Kaizen for this, stating that it is “the ultimate and only way of improvement,
to truly achieve lean production”. Within this removal of waste comes a wide number of
resulting benefits affecting a supply chain network, including productivity and efficiency
improvements, quality control, flexibility and reduced cost (Bessant et al., 2001).

Customer Satisfaction - Chen and Tjosvold (2006) identify that this has enabled Japanese
companies to “improve customer satisfaction, improve productivity index, achieve world-
class standard, increase employee job satisfaction and improve company revenue”. Agmoni
(2016) cites Kaizen for its ability to achieve such results through collaboration highlighting
the importance of Teians and QCCs (Davis, 1990).

Employee Morale/Involvement - As an additional result of this, the emphasis on employee

participation can encourage employees to think differently about their work and boost the
morale and the sense of responsibilities among the employees regarding their workplace
(Maarof & Mahmud, 2015). “Intrinsic needs for skill development, quality and worth combined
with management acknowledgement for efforts and reward systems for results”, are proposed
by Berger (1997) as the sources of motivation for workers to participate in improvement
activities. However, it should be noted that Pandey (2012) argues that manager seniority and
discipline often force the majority of workers to participate in improvement activities.

Low Risk - In contrast to Kaizen, most other forms of improvement are reliant on
innovation or major changes. Inman (1993) states “Innovation is dramatic, a real attention
getter. Kaizen, on the other hand, is often undramatic and subtle”. Imai (1986) states that
Kaizen “is not about retooling, redeveloping, or investing heavily in the latest technologies.
Kaizen is an overall business concept that entails a number of quality concepts developed
steadily”. Kaizen allows companies to make slow, subtle changes at very low cost, which
translates to low risk. Graban and Swartz (2012) points out that “Managers can always go
back to the old way without incurring large costs”

Immediacy - Pandey (2012) identifies that a major effect of Kaizen, is the benefit of
immediate results. Instead of focusing on large scale, often capital-intensive improvements
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 13

(Terziovski,2002), Kaizen instead focuses on creative investments that continually solve a

larger number of smaller problems.

Long-term Focus - And finally, a major effect of Kaizen is the long-term process it
creates for continuous improvement, set out at a level that spans the entire supply chain. With
a strategic objective aimed at lowering total costs and achieving greater efficiency (Recht &
Wilderom. 1998), Kaizen is a powerful tool to achieve long-term operational excellence as
long as it is fully implemented and sponsored by management (Kii, 2013).

1.6. Requirements for Successful Kaizen

Much of Kaizen literature supports the potential benefits of implementing a Kaizen

philosophy in a supply chain, however there are a number of key areas of difficulty
identifiable in previous literature. Without carefully considering these aspects, a failure in
implementation will likely result in negative implications to the company (Tanner &
Roncarti, 1994).

Involvement & Training - Despite being praised by Agmoni (2016) for its involvement
of the entire workforce, workforce participation is a key difficulty in implementation often
faced by supply chain management. Ghalayini et al. (1997) describe Kaizen as “characterized
by operatives on the shop floor, identifying problems and proposing solutions”. However,
without effective communication and knowledge management (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995;
Pagell, 2004) employees will not be willing to become involved with the process. Robinson
& Schroeder (2009) support this stating the absence of compensation or reward, lack of
proper training for the employees and long delays in getting the suggestions processed are the
main causes of failure. In addition, Garcia-Sabater et al. (2011) have identified further
challenges in worker involvement including resistance to change among mature workers, and
confusion of the concept of continuous improvement.

Management support & Sponsorship - In addition to including the workforce, it is also

vital that management fully support and sponsor the implementation of Kaizen. As stated by
Imai (1986), top management’s commitment to having a clear corporate strategy, policies and
goals stimulate Kaizen culture in the organization. Evans and Lindsay (2008) and Bessant et
al. (1994) support this, listing management’s effort and commitment as a pre-requisite to
Kaizen.

Garcia-Sabater et al. (2011) identify key requirements such as manager involvement

and leadership, clear objective setting and measurement, availability of resources,
14 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

existence of cross-functional teams, and a clear and fixed organization structure.

However, Watanabe (2011) argues against the requirement for a fixed organisational
structure, finding that an organisation that uses ad-hoc relationship and collective
membership with a high degree of autonomy, self-discipline and openness tends to be
more successful as compared to a static organization. Looking closer at the style of
management, Bateman (2003) identifies that a management approach which has an
“open minded culture” and “enthusiasm” towards change tends to develop a positive
Kaizen culture in the organization (Doolen et al., 2008).

Selection of ideas - Even when implementing effective Kaizen events, it is vital that the
ideas taken from employees are well evaluated, selected and implemented. Aoki (2008)
shows difficulties of selecting the right idea and supporting methods to enable, adopt, and
sustain the selected ideas for change. In order to effectively select and implement ideas
Mauborgne (1999) refer to the ‘value innovation strategy’ where the emphasis is placed on
value and the customer instead of competition. This focus on value innovation pushes
managers to go beyond standard changes to effective, continuous, and incremental
improvements of existing products, service, and processes.

Cultural and literal translation - Since it’s humble beginnings in Japan, the concept of
Kaizen has spread worldwide due to huge successes in the automotive industry. However,
previous literature shows that the transferal of concepts from one cultural and organisational
context to another can often lead to misinterpretation and failure (Berger, 1997; Oliver et al.,
2002; Herron and Hicks, 2008).

Oliver et al. (2002) evidences this difficulty in his extensive study, finding that non-
Japanese organisations implementing Kaizen perform comparatively poorly according to a
number of indicators including: productivity, quality, changeover time, problem solving, and
buyer-supplier relations.

Where the Japanese culture values small-step incremental innovation, Choi and Liker
(2007) explain that traditional Western values tend to emphasize the role of science and
technology in major innovative leaps forward. Davis (2011) explains that whereas the
American style stresses the suggestion’s economic benefits and provides financial
incentives, the Japanese style focuses on the morale-boosting benefits of positive employee
participation.

Brunet & New (2003) offer a prime example of this mis-translation found in the fact that
“quality control circles” became “quality circles” (QC) in the Western concept. This implies
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 15

that the management role and responsibility for controlling QC activities were perhaps
underestimated and left out. Hackman and Wageman (1995) provide similar arguments
regarding the changing of core concepts, such as the transformation of the Japanese TQC to
the Western total quality management (TQM).

Sustainability - Finally, in order to be successful, a difficulty posed to many companies

is to build a long-term and sustainable culture of Kaizen. Martichenko (2004) explains that
although focused improvement initiatives are important, and should be completed, they need
to flow through an organization “like a river” rather than as isolated, sporadic bursts of
improvements. Davis (2011) states the need for a full 18-month outline of planning, with
targets, purposes, and budgets to be reviewed and evaluated regularly.

In summary, this section has reviewed the existing literature on Kaizen, looking at key
aspects such as its origins, modern definitions, and principles. Within the literature a theme
of variation between traditional and modern western implementation has been developed,
which will be analysed further within the findings. In addition, practical aspects such as
activities, advantages and requirements of implementation are discussed and will be applied
to a case study within the findings.
PART 2
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 19

2. Methodology

2.1. Introduction

Focusing on VMUK, representatives of the company, and their supply chain partners,
provided the author with first-hand knowledge, experiences, perceptions and opinions to
create a wealth of primary data. This combined with secondary data from previous literature,
worked to achieve the proposed research objectives outlined in the introduction.

This section will expand upon how this research was formulated, implemented and
actioned throughout the study, to obtain accurate and reliable data through systematic and
methodical approaches.

2.2. Research Philosophy

For this study, an inductive approach to research is being. This used seen from Figure 2.1.
This method involves the search for information from observation, and the development of
explanations and theories for such information through a series of hypotheses (Bernard,
2011). No theories or hypotheses are applied in the beginning of the research, allowing the
inductive reasoning to be built purely from patterns, resemblances and regularities in
experience (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012).

Figure 2.1. Inductive Approach to Research

The process of the inductive approach involves observing specific interactions,

formulating general patterns that occur from the observations, creating theories from the
work and then backing these up in the study, to draw informed and evidenced conclusions
(Tracy, 2012).

Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle (2010) describe inductive reasoning as a “bottom-up”

approach to knowing, in which the researcher uses observations to build a clear picture of the
subject that is being studied. This approach was selected as it allows for a greater definition
20 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

and understanding than a deductive approach, aligning well with the objectives of the
research. In addition, the inductive approach offers greater freedom and flexibility in terms
of direction than the deductive approach, which focuses on firm conclusions as a result of
previous theories and hypothesis (Cameron and Price, 2009).

2.3. Secondary Data

The research completed in this book is also supported by secondary data compiled,
discussed and evaluated in the literature review section. Secondary data is information that
has previously been gathered and published and can be accessed for use by other researchers.
The data may have been collected for different purposes than intended for the current study
but can be effectively applied without manipulation. This can include data, internal or
external, qualitative or quantitative, and can range from journal articles, to interviews, to
national surveys (Smith & Smith, 2008).

It is important to consider however, that using secondary data does warrant potential
issues to effective research, such information that is inaccurate, outdated, or inapplicable. In
order to remedy this, all sources were evaluated based on the four key criteria set out by Scott
(2014), which are: Authenticity, Credibility, Representativeness, and Meaning. This ensures
all secondary data gathered in this study is reliable and fit for purpose.

As a result, a large number of benefits are provided to the author when conducting
research, including time, resource and cost savings. In addition, with the significant expansion
of available data, the research benefits from greater reliability, better understanding, and
provision of a basis for comparison.

2.4. Case Study

Yin (1984) describes the case study approach as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context through multiple sources of evidence”. This
method of research excels at bringing understanding of a complex issue or object and can extend
experience or add strength to what is already known through previous research (Bryman, 2012).

Defining the broad research topic of Kaizen, the case study focusses on VMUK’s in-
house supply network and allows a wide range of data to be consolidated for analysis and
discussion. The advantages of the case study method are its applicability to real-life,
contemporary, human situations and its public accessibility through written reports (Spring,
1997). Case study results relate directly to the reader’s everyday experience and facilitate an
understanding of complex real-life situations.
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 21

2.5. Research Strategy

Within this case study, a qualitative research approach was taken in terms of collecting
data. Denzin and Lincoln (2018) define Qualitative research as “a multimethod focus,
involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter”.

The aim of qualitative research is to understand the social reality of individuals, groups
and cultures as closely as possible as its participants feel it or live it. Therefore, people and
groups, are studied in or as close to their natural setting. Research following a qualitative
approach is exploratory and seeks to explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ a particular phenomenon, or
behaviour, operates as it does in a particular context (McLeod, 2017).

Unlike quantitative research, where data is gathered in a numerical form, qualitative

research can be gained from a variety of sources including observations, interviews,
diary accounts and ethnography. Table 2.1 shows further differences between the two
strategies.

Table 2.1. Differences Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Qualitative Quantitative

Conceptual Concerned with understanding Concerned with

human behaviour from the discovering facts about
informant’s perspective social phenomena
Assumes a dynamic and Assumes a fixed and
negotiated reality measurable reality

Methodological Data are collected through Data are collected through

participant observation and measuring things
interviews
Data are analysed by themes Data are analysed through
from descriptions by informants numerical comparisons and
statistical inferences
Data are reported in the language Data are reported through
of the informant statistical analyses

Source: Adapted from Minchiello et al. (1990, p. 5)

As a result of using qualitative research, the focus of the study is not on numbers but
words, allowing the use of interviews with semi-structured open-ended questions.

This allowed respondents in the study to provide greater detail, using their own choice of
words, providing more rounded results and a greater understanding.
22 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

2.6. Participants & Sampling

Table 2.2 Participants and Sampling shows a table of the interviewees within this study.
To undertake an in- depth primary study, a case study approach was taken with a sample of
12 information-rich cases. The interviewees came from a variety of areas, with varying levels
of experience, knowledge, and levels of authority. We found it to be important to receive
information from all areas of the supply chain network with the sample containing managers,
supervisors, line workers, and representatives from third party suppliers. This allowed for a
broad perspective to be taken and as a result, gave a fair representation and understanding of
the supply network as a whole. Names of the participants are removed for ethical purposes.

Table 2.2. Participants and Sampling

Participant Job Role Experience

A Controller - Warehousing 5 Years

B Placement Student – Cost Reporting 12 Months

C Technician - Material Handling 4 Years

D Graduate Controller – Inbound Logistics 3 Years

E General Manager – Operations Management 20 Years +

F Section Manager – Parts Control 7 Years

G Manager - In-House Supplier 9 Years

H Admin Assistant – Inbound Logistics 2 Years

I Senior Controller – Parts Control 20 Years +

J In-House Supplier – Outbound Logistics 4 Years

K Senior Line Supervisor 15 Years

L Section Manager – Kaizen Team 6 Years

In terms of sampling a purposive approach was taken, a non-probability method, whereby the
author relies on their own judgement in order to select the population of the study (Black, 2010).

The main objective of a purposive approach is to produce a sample that can be logically
assumed to be representative of the population. This is often accomplished by applying
expert knowledge to select a sample of elements that represents a cross-section of the
population (Lavrakas, 2008). Although Cooper and Schindler (2008) highlight the potential
bias of using such method, it was decided that it provided the greatest understanding whilst
reducing cost and time expenditure.
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 23

Key requirements for inclusion in the study were: a role within the area of the study, a
reasonable length of experience, and willingness to participate in a potentially lengthy
interview process. It was also vital that the participants were not all selected as ‘experts’ of
Kaizen to get a full representation of the supply network’s views and perceptions.

It should also be noted that elements of snowball sampling were utilised to acquire
additional participants for the study. This method provided further participants through initial
interviewees’ recommendations on who should be included in the sample population (Wilson,
2014).

2.7. Interviews

In order to collect high quality, qualitative data, interviews were conducted Individually
with 12 participants from the VMUK supply network. These interviews were informal and
took place in quiet areas such as canteens and break areas, in order to ensure the participants
were comfortable and responsive. The responses were recorded by Dictaphone and key notes
were made throughout the interview. Open ended questions were used allowing participants
to answer with a spontaneous response in their own words (Popping, 2015).

For the purpose of this study, a semi-structured approach was used within the interview.
This gave the opportunity to seek insights and expansion of key points whilst allowing a
variation in both questions and format addressed at each interviewee. Although a structured
approach may have provided quicker, and easier to analyse data, this method allowed for a
greater understanding to be built of the subject area. With no structure at all however, the
information gained would be too distant and sporadic therefore elements of structure were
introduced. When conducting the research, a list of themes, areas, and key questions were
noted to cover the varying interviews, to ensure useful and applicable data was acquired
(Saunders, 2011). Figure 2.2 shows questions within the interview were kept semi structured
but the areas of discussion often followed the flow.
24 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

Figure 2.2. Interview Flows

Although most interviews took place in person, there were a number of interviewees that
were instead sent an online questionnaire due to time and scheduling constraints. Although
this may not have been an as effective method, the layout of the questionnaire was well-
designed to provide the most accurate, and informational results. Despite these interviews
often not providing as much of a deep insight as face to face interviews, they were very much
useful in gaining a wider sample of data.

2.8. Ethics

“Within research, the author must adhere to sound ethical values in order to promote the
aims of the research, imparting authentic knowledge, truth and prevention of error” (Sudeshna
and Datt, 2016)

Table 2.3 lists the four key considerations of a social science researcher and the actions
taken in this study to meet them.
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 25

Table 2.3. The Four Key Considerations of a Social Science Researcher

KeyConsiderations Actions taken

Avoiding harm ▪ Research Process was explained and discussed before proceeding.
▪ Opportunity to decline/ leave was available at all times
▪ Interviews took place in social areas (Canteens/Meeting areas) to avoid safety
risks
Ensuring anonymity ▪ Names of employees were not used on record
▪ Roles within company were kept general
Assuring Consent ▪ Individual consent forms were signed by each participant before the interview
▪ Participants could remove their answers from the record at any point during or
after the interview
Avoiding deception ▪ Research Process was explained and discussed before proceeding.
▪ Start and end of interview process was clearly signalled. Any information
before or after could not be used.
▪ A copy of the transcript and notes could be sent to the Participant if asked for.

Face to Face interviews were recorded by dictaphone and key notes were made throughout
the interview. Online interviews were sent and returned via email, with additional notes being
made. All data was stored electronically on password protected platforms and was deleted
promptly after the completion of the research.

2.9. Limitations

In terms of limitations for this research, the primary limitation that can be identified is
scale. Restricting the sample size to 12 participants allowed an understanding to be built from
qualitative responses, whilst keeping cost and time consumption relatively low. However, in
order to gain a greater representation of the supply chain, or the company as a whole, a much
larger sample size would have to be studied.

It should also be noted that generalizations may occur in such research, having focused
on one specific area within one specific company. In order to gain a full picture multiple areas
and companies could be studied for greater benchmarking.

Finally, Saunders, L e w i s and Thornhill (2012) argue that close exposure to one particular
organization can lead to biased data. Being a former employee and local to the site this again
highlights a need for further organizations to be studied before any universal hypotheses can
be made.

2.10. Data Analysis

Within this study, a thematic approach was used for the analysis of data. This is commonly
used within qualitative research and is defined by Braun and Clark (2006) as “a method for
identifying, analysing, and reporting themes and patterns within data”. These patterns are
26 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

identified through a rigorous process of data familiarisation, data coding, and theme
development and revision (Tuckett, 2005).

Wilson (2014) encourages the use of this approach stating that by breaking the raw data
into manageable sections, it can “easily allow the facilitation of comparisons amongst the
participants and their transcripts, allowing for rational conclusions to be made”.

The main reason for which this process was chosen is that thematic analysis is often more
flexible than other forms of analysis, applicable to a variety of different theoretical
frameworks. Allowing rich, detailed and complex description of data it is well suited to
questions of experiences, perception, and understanding, making it a perfect fit for this case
study.
PART 3
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 29

3. Findings and Discussion

3.1. Understanding of Kaizen

Table 3.1 shows the participants basic understandings of Kaizen, including an attempted
definition, its origin and where they first came across it. The answers vary in knowledge
level, but all provide a basis to assess the understanding and perception of Kaizen within
VMUK’s supply chain workforce.

Looking at how the members of the supply chain define Kaizen, it is interesting to see that
out of the 12 interviewed, 3 members did not know exactly what Kaizen was. Those not
understanding were: a placement student with 12 months experience, a materials handling
technician, and a member of staff from an in-house supplier. Furthering this participant C
explains it as “one of those things you hear about, but don’t really need to know”. This shows
a lack of education and inclusion specifically towards the lower levels of the workforce, a
defining failure identified by Brunet & New (2013) for fully effective Kaizen. It should be
noted however, that despite not knowing how to define Kaizen, when it was explained or put
into context there was often realisation and understanding, this supports Imai’s (1986)
findings that Kaizen is engrained into the culture, whether they know it or not (Imai, 1986).

Reviewing the definitions provided one key term stands out – ‘Continuous improvement’.
This term was present in 7 of 9 answers given, with even a third of the sample believing
this was in fact the direct translation of Kaizen. Although continuous improvement is
frequently referred to in literature, there appears to be a lack of knowledge within the
workforce, past this term with many offering it up as there only real answer. Looking at the
best definitions, Participant E defines Kaizen as “a process of continuous improvement
made up of daily, small changes to the way we work” whereas Participant L defines it as “a
philosophy of continuous improvement, aiming to better the way we work across the entire
company”. These align with the definitions found in literature by Davis (2011) and
Abdulmouti (2015).

When asked about the origin of Kaizen, 100% of the sample can identify its origins in
Japan. This is likely due to the company’s Japanese heritage and upper management being
largely Japanese, in addition to the use of other Japanese terms such as 5S and Monozukuri.
However, only 25% of the sample can identify it as coming from Toyota, proving that very
few know of its origins within the Toyota Production System. This brings about the question
of whether full understanding can be achieved without the knowledge of its original purpose
and the benefits of literature.
 30
Table 3.1. Participants Basic Understanding of Kaizen

Where first
Participant Definition Thoughts Origin Translation Type
learned of
Japan
“Process of Continuous improvement, “Helps the company move forward,
A Manufacturing Change Nissan induction Process
making changes to the way we work” if used the right way”
Industry
“Don’t know, don’t really need to Japan
B “No idea” Don’t Know Nissan Philosophy
know”
“Unsure of what it is, one of those
Asia
C “Don’t Know” things you hear about but don’t Don’t Know Nissan Strategy
really need to know”
“Idea is positive; however, it is not
“Philosophy to achieve continuous Japan Continuous
D always implemented properly and University Philosophy
improvement in all areas of working” Toyota improvement
often used as a buzzword”
“A process of continuous improvement “Effective strategy for
Japan Process/
E made up of daily, small changes to the improvement, and moving forward Change Nissan
Motor Industry Philosophy
way we work” in the industry”
“A philosophy of continuous “Much different to Uni, something
Japan Continuous Philosophy/
F improvement looking at processes and you don’t really have time to University
Toyota Improvement Strategy
systems to look how to improve them” consider daily”
“Good that they look to always
“A process used by Nissan to improve Japan
G improve, often makes life easier Don’t Know Nissan Process
their production” Nissan
for us”
KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

H “Improvement” “Not sure” Japan Improvement Nissan Process

Change and
“Talked about a lot but not sure if its Japan
I “Continuous Improvement” “Something Nissan Philosophy
implemented properly” Motor Industry
else”
“Think it’s a department at Nissan Japan
J “Not sure, something Nissan use” Don’t Know Nissan Strategy
that look to make improvements”
“Process used for continuous “Don’t really have much to do with Continuous
K Japan Nissan Process
improvement” it, something management deal with” Improvement
“A philosophy of continuous “Efficient way to improve buy
Japan Change
L improvement, aiming to better the way utilising the knowledge and University Philosophy
Toyota Good/Better
we work across the entire company” experience of the workforce”
“A culture of ongoing improvement Japan. Toyota
Change
Literature involving everyone—top management, N/A Production N/A Philosophy
Good/Better
managers and workers” (Imai, 1986) System
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 31

Looking to provide further definition the participants were asked whether they believed
Kaizen to be a philosophy, strategy, tool or process. Table 3.2 Frequency Used Kaizen as a
philosophy gained the most responses, as fitting with many authors (Imai, 1986; Shingo,
1981; Davis, 2011), closely followed by those believing it to be a process. Those who
answered philosophy tend to have more knowledge on Kaizen whereas those answering
process have either less knowledge or less interaction with Kaizen activities. Interestingly
2 participants identified Kaizen as both a philosophy and a strategy or process, identifying
that it was often multi-faceted. With the combination of process and strategy gaining more
answers than philosophy a clear western management perspective can be identified as
supported by Choi and Liker (2007).

Table 3.2. Frequency Used

Type Frequency Used

Philosophy 6
Strategy 3
Tool 0
Process 5

Looking to explain the differences in knowledge of Kaizen within the Supply Chain a
number of trends can be identified. Firstly, a hierarchical trend can be noticed within the
results with those higher up in the management ladder having much more knowledge, and in
fact a much more positive perspective. This can be exampled by Participant E, a General
Manager, and therefore the highest-ranking member of staff, who has a particularly in-depth
and optimistic view of Kaizen within the interview. Comparing this to participant B or C a
significant difference can be seen in understanding and outlook. Participant K defines Kaizen
as “something management deal with” showing a cultural split, thereby representing poor
collaboration within the company. This split can also be seen in the differences in answers
between more hands-on practical roles, and office-based roles. Collaborating poorly is a key
issue for implementation as identified in literature by Brunet and New (2013).

Secondly a trend can be identified within the length of service within the supply chain
workforce. A bell curve trend is shown in Figure 3.1 with members of staff within the 5-10-
year experience range having the most understanding. Those above and below this, clearly
have less education from the company or less direct experience with Kaizen activities. It can
also be identified that Participant E is an outlier to this trend.
32 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

Figure 3.1. A bell curve trend

Finally, a trend can be seen in that those participants who first encountered Kaizen in
University have a much greater depth of knowledge. Despite participant F stating that it is
“Much different to what is taught in Uni”, answers from participants A, D, F, and L are much
more detailed and often have much more in common with previous literature.

3.2. Principles of Kaizen

The 12 participants were asked whether the four key principles of Kaizen identified by literature
were present in VMUK’s Kaizen implementation. Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 show the results.

The principle of process-orientation was found to be true by all participants. This shows
VMUK focuses on high quality processes, in order to gain positive results. This is supported
throughout literature as a key component of Kaizen (Berger, 1997).

Literature also shows that Kaizen should be continuous. However, a third of the sample
states that this is not the case at VMUK. Participant I explains this saying that “Kaizen
activities are only now and again, when people have enough time to make changes, instead
of putting out fires every day”. This suggests Kaizen is not implemented on a fully continuous
basis, which will likely result in ineffective processes.

Agmoni (2016) states that Kaizen should be made up of “daily incremental actions that
entail improvements to all aspects of an organization”. Of those who gave answers, this is
agreed upon by 90%. This suggests that VMUK do indeed implement incremental
improvements to processes. Participant K disagrees with this stating that “often smaller
changes aren’t implemented as they aren’t worth the risk of stopping production”. A fair
point, however, it should be considered that this response is firmly in the minority.
 Table 3.3. Interview Results For Principles
Participant Process-Orientated Continuous Incremental Collaborative
it comes into place when
“Yeah, I’d say so, the primary “Generally, “I’d say it is, anyone is free to make a
A management identify an area they “Yes, it’s usually pretty minor”
focus anyway” suggestion at the very least”
need to improve”
B “Don’t Know” “Don’t Know” “Don’t Know” “Don’t Know”
“Yeah there’s constantly things
C “I think so” “Yeah” “Probably not, I know I’m not included”
changing on the line”
“Yes, it’s definitely focused “People are continuously looking “Kaizen includes some areas and levels
“There’s rarely huge changes
D on how we can improve how to make things better, whether it’s but not all, for every 5 you include, you
because that would cost so much”
we work” officially Kaizen or not” basically exclude another 100”
“Yes, improving our work “Yes, it’s engrained in the way we “Yes, we focus on making small, “We all are involved in making
E efficiency is the number one work” daily changes to the way we work” improvements, it’s always been that way”
priority”
“It’s often focused at where “No not really, I think there’s a limit to how
“Yes, sometimes it can be difficult to “Yes, rarely ever a big change but
F operations are slow and how many you can include really. Often people
keep up with the change in fact” they do add up”
we can improve them” don’t want to be involved”
“In terms of suppliers, Kaizen
is focused on improving our “It’s just little changes or steps in “If they include their suppliers then yeah
G “Yeah, it’s a constant process”
processes and efficiency to our processes” I’d say yes”
meet their standards”
“The vast majority of changes are
“I’d say sometimes more than others
H “Yeah I agree” small, but there’s is a huge amount “Yes, I’d say so”
but it’s definitely still continuous” per day”
“Kaizen activities are only now and “Yeah, high risk bigger changes “I wouldn’t say everyone. There’s
“Yes, usually it’s to improve again, when people have enough time
I are often much mire difficult to get definitely people that are more involved
machinery or change SOPs” to make changes, instead of putting approved” than others”
out fires every day”
J “Don’t Know” “Don’t Know” “Don’t Know” “Don’t Know”
“Often smaller changes aren’t
“Yeah I’d say it’s pretty “Usually only involves the people at the
K “No, I’d say its once in a while” implemented as they aren’t worth
process focused” top”
the risk of stopping production”
“Yes, definitely, the main “Yes, it usually comes in the form “Yes absolutely, everyone is involved with
L focus of Kaizen is to improve “Yes, the cycle never stops” of small changes, but them small the Kaizen processes”
our internal processes” changes can have a huge impact”
“Process orientation states “Kaizen needs to include the involvement
that before results can be “Kaizen should become a habitual “Daily incremental actions that and intelligence of the work force as well
Literature improved, processes must way of life in the organisation” entail improvements to all aspects as generate intrinsic psychological and
Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett

be improved” (Martichenko, (Handyside, 1997) of an organization” (Agmoni, 2016) quality of work-life benefits for employees”
2004) (Brunet & New, 2003)
33
34 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

Table 3.4. Table Data excludes two participants who responded ‘unsure’

Principal Yes No

Process Orientated 100% -

Continuous 60% 40%

Incremental 90% 10%

Collaborative 50% 50%

Finally, literature shows Kaizen must be fully collaborative, represented and sponsored
throughout the supply chain from management to the average line worker in order to be
successful. With 50% of respondents answering no, this principle is the least represented
within VMUK. Participant D furthers this stating that “Kaizen includes some areas and levels
but not all, for every 5 you include, you basically exclude another 100”. Participant K, I, and
F similarly conclude that Kaizen processes seem to pick out those in the middle, but not those
at the bottom. This links with the bell curve of knowledge identified in section 3.1. It is
important to note that without full collaboration of the workforce, VMUK cannot achieve the
most efficient levels of Kaizen.

3.3. Implementation of Kaizen

Table 3.5 shows the responses of participants when asked about the implementation of
Kaizen activities at VMUK.

When asked whether Kaizen was implemented at VMUK, 100% participants responded
yes. However, these answers were often not fully positive prompting responses such as “In
parts” or “in certain areas more than others”. Furthering this, when the participants were
asked whether they had personally been involved in Kaizen, only 58% responded yes. This
supports the earlier finding that VMUK’s workforce believe Kaizen may not be fully
collaborative across all levels of the business. This goes against the findings of literature for
successful Kaizen implementation.

Motivation for taking part in Kaizen activities seems to be based around worker involvement
and job rotation, Participant J best sums this up stating Kaizen gives the “Opportunity to make
a change that might not have happened otherwise”. It is clear there is very little financial
incentive in current Kaizen activities, linking processes to the traditional Japanese standard,
found by (Davis, 2011), which focuses on the morale-boosting benefits of positive employee
participation. The importance of cultural translation is discussed by Aoki (2008) as a key
requirement for success and has been achieved well here. Given a list of Kaizen activities,
 Table 3.5 the responses of participants when asked about the implementation of Kaizen activities at VMUK.
Which Processes are used Have you been part of What makes you want to take
Participant Is Kaizen used at Nissan? Are these effective?
at Nissan? them personally? part?
and motivation.
“Yeah, In certain areas more PDCA, Suggestion boxes, “Yes, I’ve taken part in “Working in a group is often “Involvement
A certainly not any
than others” CFT’s, SOP, 5S most of these activities” more effective than solo ideas” There’s
financial reward”
“Not really, everybody “Make improvements to the
B “Yeah, I think so” QCC, SOP, 5S has to follow SOP and 5S “I’m not sure” way we work”
though”
“I guess so, things are always
“Yes, it’s definitely talked Suggestion boxes, QCCs,
C “No” changing about, not always for “Money”
about anyway” SOP, 5S the better though”
“If given time to do it
“Yes, but more in the “Not sure, not really in my
D PDCA, QCCs, SOP, 5S “A little” away from usual role,
manufacturing areas” area” acknowledgement too”
“Yes, almost all the changes
“Of course, It’s implemented PDCA, Suggestion boxes, “A chance to change the
E “Yes, in all processes” made in the company comes
throughout the business” QCCs, SOP, 5S company for the better”
from Kaizen activities”
“Yes, plus there’s a “Can be, but relies on “Improving the workplace, it’s
specialist team whose role PDCA, Suggestion boxes, budgeting whether changes
F “Yeah from time to time” often the little changes that
it is to make continuous SOP, 5S can actually be made a lot of make a big difference”
improvements in processes” the time”
“Yeah, there’s a team “Yeah id say so, keeps us on “Improving the processes helps
G PDCA, SOP, 5S “briefly”
especially for it” track” us to be much more efficient”
“I’ve done admin work,
H “Yeah definitely” PDCA, QCC, SOP, 5S prepared figures and “I’d imagine so” “Something different to do”
presentations”
“Can be, but often comes down “Job rotation, wouldn’t like to
I “Yes, in parts” PDCA, CFT, SOP, 5S “Yeah I’ve taken part quite to money, also the changes tend
a few times” be put in charge though”
to take a while”
“Yes, there’s a team we deal “Opportunity to make a change
“I guess so, we’re constantly
J with who are designed to SOP, 5S “No, not directly” that might not have happened
making changes to processes”
find improvements” otherwise”
“Not sure, things often take a “I’m busy enough with my own
“Yes, well at least they say while to put in place and when
K Online suggestions, SOP, 5S “Not particularly” role, only financial incentives
so” they do they’re not always would interest me”
helpful
“yes, some changes have
“Absolutely, its engrained in “Ability to make a difference,
PDCA, Suggestion boxes, “Yes of course, everyone more resistance than others
L the culture of the company not only in your own working
Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett

QCC, 5S, SOP does” but in the end there’s always

from top to bottom” but on the company itself”
improvement to be made”
35
36 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

Participants were asked to identify which Kaizen activities they had witnessed being used
within VMUK. Firstly, it can be identified that 100% of participants have witnessed the use
of Standard operating procedures and 5S, as well as 83% witnessing the use of PDCAs.
These activities allow a baseline of standardisation to allow change to be made. Of the 12
interviewed, only 1 participant identified the use of VSM within VMUK, being Participant L,
the member of the Kaizen team. This suggests it is used within that area but not across the
whole company.

When asked about Teians, participants often did not recognise the term, but when
explained 50% responded this or a similar suggestion box style approach was in place.
Participants agreed the Teian sheet layout discussed by (Schuring & Luijten, 2001) was not
used, but agreed with the motivational aspects identified by Ma (2013). Similarly, many
participants didn’t recognise the use of the term QCC within VMUK, but 66% responded that
group-based Kaizen activities were in place, fulfilling similar functions as identified by
literature, but referred to as Cross-Functional Team Meetings or CFTs.

When asked which processes were most effective in implementing Kaizen the majority
concluded that the use of PDCAs and group-based meetings made the best improvements.
A number of participants agreed that 5S and SOPs supported Kaizen in terms of
standardisation, but participants were often frustrated in how it limited their ability to
work as they would like. When asked about suggestion boxes and Teians, participants
often felt like their ideas weren’t been taken seriously, with little feedback given, or
changes made as a result. Management support and the selection of ideas is frequently
identified in literature as a key requirement for Kaizen by authors including Ma (2013)
and Aoki (2008).

3.4. Advantages of Kaizen

Table 3.6 shows the perceived advantages of Kaizen implementation within the VMUK
supply workforce. Of the advantages identified individually by the participants the most
frequent answer is the improvement of efficiency and productivity, being referred to as the
first point by almost all the participants. Another major theme is the use of the knowledge and
experience of the entire workforce, rather than just the top level of management, this point is
specifically mentioned by those at the lower end of the hierarchy. Other advantages identified
include gaining competitive advantage and improving quality. Interestingly only three of the
participants identify the advantage of waste reduction, a key benefit identified in literature
(Womack, Jones and Roos, 1990).
 Table 3.6. the perceived advantages of Kaizen implementation within the VMUK supply workforce

Reduces Reduced
Participant Identified advantages Productivity Quality Morale Low Risk Immediate Long-term
Waste Cost
Improves efficiency
A Agree Agree Agree Not sure Agree Agree Disagree Agree
Utilises the ideas of the workers
Constantly evolving
B Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree
Allows to stay ahead of competition
Improves efficiency
C Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
Better quality of products
Reduces waste and improve efficiency
D Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree
Provides a structure/mindset for employees
Allows you to look forward
E Harness the ideas of the workforce Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
Correct issues before a problem occurs
Reduces waste to provide competitive advantage
F Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree
Involves the staff and shopfloor
Uses knowledge and experience of workforce
G Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not sure
Allows you to continuously improve
Productivity and quality
H Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
Ideas of the whole company
Efficiency and quality
I Opinions of whole workforce Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree
Stay ahead of competition
Involves people who wouldn’t usually get a say
J Better than competition Agree Agree Agree Not sure Agree Disagree Agree Agree
Efficiency and Quality
Make improvements that are helpful and applicable
K Agree Trade-off Trade-off Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree
Knowledge and experience of workforce
Involves the entire workforce
Knowledge and experience
L Reduces Waste Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
Increases productivity and quality
Boosts morale and worker involvement
Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett
37
38 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

Noticing participants were struggling to name more than two or three advantages, they
were shown advantages identified in previous literature, and asked whether they agreed or
disagreed, this resulted in some interesting findings. Firstly, 25% disagreed with Kaizen
reducing cost, Participant K explains this saying “that by the time the change is thought of,
discussed, planned, tested, and implemented, you’ve often spent more than what you would
have saved in the first place”. This could be true if VMUK are not flexible enough to change
and do not have the processes and budget set up specifically for continuous improvement.
Another 25% disagree with Kaizen improving morale and worker involvement again citing a
lack of collaboration throughout all levels of the workforce as discussed earlier.

In terms of major disagreements, 50% of participants say that Kaizen changes are never low
risk, and that despite often being incremental, there is always risk involved. This is true in a
workplace where any minor change could cause an expensive production-line stoppage.
Furthering this, 58% disagree that Kaizen is immediate, stating that changes often take time to
implement due to planning, testing, and approvals, processes undertaken to reduce and mediate
risk. As a result, it could be questioned whether Kaizen is suitable for a high-risk workplace such
as VMUK. If a necessary change cannot be made for the fear of incurring larger mistakes,
advantages identified in literature such as the removal of waste and increased productivity are
thoroughly limited. This suggests that Kaizen is better implemented in environments of low risk.

3.5. Requirements

Table 3.7 shows the perceived requirements for successful Kaizen. The workforce agrees
with previous literature on a number of key requirements including training and knowledge,
management support, and idea selection. Efficient translation and adjustment from the
Japanese style is not included in any of the responses. This is likely due to many of the
participants not knowing the differences between traditional and commonly western Kaizen
implementation, witnessing Kaizen first in VMUK. In addition, the participants do not
identify the requirement of sustainability within their answers. It is therefore suggested that
there is a lack of education of the key requirements underpinning Kaizen.

However, the participants do identify more practical requirements not commonly

discussed within previous literature. Time away from their existing role seems to be a major
requirement for most staff, with many concerned that they do not have enough time in their
own schedule for Kaizen. Setting up a team for Kaizen will be helpful but without full
collaboration of the workforce a fully efficient culture cannot be built (as mentioned in
Magnier-Watanabe, 2011).
 Table 3.7. the perceived requirements for successful Kaizen

Training & Management Idea Japanese

Participant Identified requirements Involvement Sustainability
Knowledge Support selection Translation
A Time. Budget availability. Knowledge. Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
B Full worker involvement. Effective selection of ideas. Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
Full worker involvement. Effective selection of ideas.
C Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
Communication.
Physical workspace. Manpower. Communication from
D Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
management to staff.
Communication. Worker involvement. Willingness to
E Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
change.
Full worker involvement. Efficient implementation.
F Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree
Following through on ideas. Openness to change.
G Communication. Practicality. Management support. Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
H Training, Budget availability. Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
Budget availability, Training, Communication, Target
I Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
setting & Purpose.
J Leadership, Communication. Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
Management support, Finance, Time and freedom for
K Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree
change, Efficient processes, Use of worker knowledge.
Management support and sponsorship, Budget
L Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
availability, Flexibility, Openness to change.
Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett
39
40 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

Identified as the most important requirement by participant I, financial availability needs

to be present for the conducting of Kaizen activities and implementation of improvements.
This is a feature that according to participants A, H, I, K, and L is not frequently available at
VMUK. Participant K suggests that this should be set aside from departments’ standard
budgets and be used solely to conduct Kaizen activities. This therefore reduces pressure to
utilise the money elsewhere. This furthers the literature found within the review and adds
more practical, real-life applications to the theory.

3.6. Perceived effectiveness of Kaizen

Overall, the perceived effectiveness of Kaizen amongst VMUK workers is fairly mixed,
but with some major recurring themes. When asked whether Kaizen is effective 100% of the
sample answered yes. Many participants stated previously identified advantages and were
positive about Kaizen in concept (see Table 3.8).

Table 3.8. Perceived Effectiveness of Kaizen

Question Yes No Unsure / Mixed
Is Kaizen effective? 100% - -
Is Kaizen used effectively at VMUK? 33% 25% 42%

However, when asked their opinion on Kaizen at VMUK a variety of answers were given.
Firstly, 33% of the sample responded that VMUK use Kaizen effectively. Participant J
identifies that processes are constantly changing in their area of working and Participant A
highlights the effectiveness arising from group-based activities. Participant L concludes
VMUK’s long history of using Kaizen, and its strong company performance is evidence
enough of its efficiency.

Disagreeing with this, 25% of the sample outright stated that Kaizen was not being used
effectively at VMUK, citing failures in key principles and requirements identified in
literature. However, gaining the largest percentage, 42% of respondents gave mixed
responses perceiving that Kaizen was only sometimes effective, or effective in certain
areas but not others. This mixed response shows that they are positives to be found within
their Kaizen, however in the eyes of the employees, there are a number of improvements
to be made.

Trends in perceived effectiveness align well with earlier identified trends in

understanding. It can be seen that respondents that perceived Kaizen to be effective were
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 41

often in management positions, and or, had been with the company for 5-10 years. At the
opposite end of the scale, respondents with less knowledge of Kaizen, and in lower levels,
or more practical roles, had a much more negative perception of Kaizen. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the greater the understanding of Kaizen the better the perceived
effectiveness of Kaizen.

Workers perception of issues in the implementation of Kaizen, can be evidenced

throughout the findings, however, can be narrowed down to three major factors:

Timing – Respondents frequently answered that Kaizen was not used in a continuous
format, instead Kaizen activities were put in place when management decided changes
needed to be made, often based off poor results in key performance indicators. When potential
improvements, were identified the changes often take a long time to implement due to
managerial planning and approval to avoid risk.

Budget – Many participants perceive a lack of financial availability for Kaizen to be a

major factor in its ineffective implementation. Participant K states that money for change just
often isn’t available within their strict budgets.

Collaboration – As a key point throughout the findings, many participants conclude that
Kaizen implementation at VMUK is not fully collaborative and does not work to use the
entire knowledge and experience of the workforce. The implementation of Kaizen activities
and changes are not reflected equally throughout areas of working and many members of
staff feel left out from the process. Failing a key principle of Kaizen identified in literature
suggests it is very unlikely to be successful.

In order to improve implementation at VMUK the participants were asked what they
would do to make Kaizen better. The most common answer to this, was greater knowledge
and training. Many felt like the concept of Kaizen is not explained well enough and suggested
further teaching in induction and training sessions. In addition, improving the general
awareness and involvement in Kaizen was suggested.

Finally, a number of participants suggested that further time and money should be
spent on Kaizen. Participant L identifies that to be more successful the company need
to input more manpower, more budget, and more freedom to make changes. He states
that only then can VMUK truly achieve the principles set out in previous literature for
effective Kaizen.
PART 4
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 45

4. Conclusion

This section will revisit the six initial aims and objectives, that were stated at the beginning
of the study, in order to deliver a relevant conclusion to the study. It will also look at the
limitations that had to be addressed during the research and provide suggestions for future
research.

4.1. Objectives

Analyse the understanding of Kaizen amongst VMUK supply chain workers

The primary research shows that the understanding of the concept of Kaizen amongst
workers is relatively poor. A quarter of the sample couldn’t give a definition of Kaizen and
participant C explains it as “one of those things you hear about, but don’t really need to
know”. However, it should be considered that once explained or put into context there was a
consistent realisation and level of understanding amongst the sample. This proves Imai’s
(1986) theory that Kaizen is often engrained into culture without the workers even knowing.
Many did understand the concept of Kaizen but all too often defined it simply as continuous
improvement, another term which in itself needs further definition to fully explain. This
suggests a lack of depth in knowledge and education of Kaizen throughout the workforce.

Almost all participants did not know of Kaizen’s origins in the Toyota Production System
as identified in the literature review, and a focus was often placed on a western management
style strategy approach as found by Choi and Liker (2007).

The research identified key trends in understanding, primarily a bell curve effect in
understanding vs the length of experience, with those in the 5-10-year range much more
experienced and knowledgeable than others.

Analyse how VMUK workers perceive Kaizen to align with key principles set out in
literature

Firstly, participants all agreed that VMUK’s Kaizen was process orientated. This is
highlighted by Berger (1997) and Martichenko (2004) as a key aspect to ensure change is
based on high quality processes and a zero-defect mentality. Similarly, 90% of the study
agreed that changes made based off Kaizen were incremental in format and based off a level
of standardisation, supporting the findings of Bessant and Caffyn (1997).

However, the study shows that the participants do not perceive VMUK to be fulfilling all
of these principles efficiently. 40% of the sample do not believe VMUK’s Kaizen to be
46 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

continuous. Participants feel Kaizen is implemented on occasion, when management deem

changes need to be made. This goes against the principle set out by Imai (1986) and discussed
by Agmoni (2016), to ensure Kaizen is implemented in a continuous and long-term manner.
Additionally, 50% of the sample identified that Kaizen was not collaborative across the
whole company. Participants K, I, and F conclude that Kaizen processes seem to pick out
those in the middle, but not those at the bottom. This links with the bell curve of knowledge
identified in section 3.1. This principle is highlighted as being vitally important for success
by Imai (1986) and Brunet and New (2013).

Analyse the implementation of Kaizen activities at VMUK

From the primary research, 100% of the sample agree that Kaizen is implemented in
VMUK, however only 58% think they have personally taken part in a Kaizen activity. This
supports the earlier finding that VMUK’s workforce believe Kaizen may not be fully
collaborative across all levels of the business. Motivation for Kaizen is based upon job
rotation and worker involvement and has very little financial incentive, linking it to the
traditional Japanese methods identified by Davis (2011). The use of support activities found
in literature including PDCAs, 5S, and SOP are well represented by the research, however
Teians and QCCs are often unheard of in that specific terminology. When simplified,
participants agree that they can be found within VMUK, but this conclusion is not unanimous
across all levels. Participants agree that these activities do provide benefit, but complaints
can be found regarding limiting their workflow and productivity.

Identify the perceived benefits of Kaizen

From the research, the benefit identified most frequently is the improvement of efficiency
and productivity. Many discuss the importance of including the experience and knowledge
from the entire workforce, a benefit which is highlighted often by those lower in the hierarchy.
Interestingly only three of the participants identify the advantage of waste reduction, a key
benefit identified in literature (Womack, Jones and Roos, 1990). When shown the benefits
listed in previous literature a number of justified disagreements were made for its application
in VMUK including reducing cost, improving worker morale, low risk, and immediacy.
These factors are all considered when evaluating the effectiveness of Kaizen implementation.

Identify the perceived company requirements of Kaizen

From the research, the workforce agrees with previous literature on a number of key
requirements including training and knowledge, management support, and idea selection.
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 47

Efficient adjustment and translation from the Japanese style is not included in any responses
likely due to a lack of depth in training and education on the matter. Participants do identify
further, more practical, requirements not frequently identified in literature such as time away
from their current role and financial availability. This furthers the literature found within the
review and adds more practical, real-life applications to the theory.

Evaluate VMUK workers perceived effectiveness of Kaizen implementation and their

suggestions for improvement

The final goal of the study was to assess worker perception on the effectiveness of Kaizen.
The study finds that 100% of participants find Kaizen to be effective in concept, but only
33% believe it to be implemented efficiently at VMUK. Making up the largest percentage
42% gave mixed responses, perceiving that Kaizen was only sometimes effective, or effective
in certain areas but not others. This shows an issue in the lack of continuity and companywide
collaboration that is evidenced throughout the findings. Trends on perceived effectiveness
align well with earlier identified trends in understanding especially with the bell curve of
understanding found in section 3.1. Therefore, it can be concluded from this study that the
greater the understanding of Kaizen the better the perceived effectiveness of Kaizen.

When discussing the issues of Kaizen implementation, the sample discuss three main
factors – Timing, in terms of continuity and immediacy, budget, and collaboration. These
issues link with the findings of the literature review for successful Kaizen and highlight areas
for improvement for VMUK. When asked how the participants would go about improving it
themselves the main responses included further education and training, increased budgets
and freedom to change.

4.2. Summary

In summary, we believe that the research goals set out at the beginning of the study have
been met, providing an in-depth analysis of the understanding and perceptions of Kaizen
from the perspective of a VMUK supply chain worker.

Based on the findings of this study, there is concern regarding the effectiveness and
suitability of Kaizen for VMUK. Based on the perception of the workers, there is a clear lack
of education and training, resources, buy-in, and culture needed to fulfil its requirements. The
nature of the company causes issues in suitability due to its sheer scale and high level of risk
in production. In our opinion, in order to gain full competitive advantage VMUK need to
have a major re-assessment and re- engineering of their Kaizen processes, resolving the
48 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

issues found in this study, starting first with the true meaning of Kaizen and the inclusion of
the average worker. In more Macro Level, as Lemma (2018) mentioned that Kaizen focuses
on one key aspect of economic transformation: improving firm-level productivity. What it
does not do, which could be improved in the future, is look at the effects on individual
workers within Kaizen-implementing firms, i.e. how it affects turnover rates, trained labour
productivity, etc.

4.3. Limitations of Study

Although we find the results of this study to be accurate and representative of VMUK’s
supply chain department, being based on one department alone may not reflect the full extent
of the company. Furthering this, being based solely on VMUK may not reflect the entire
automobile industry. Using a larger and wider sample, although more time consuming, would
provide a greater representation of the subject, and potentially allow for greater findings.

Another limitation of this study would be a lack of comparative practical data to compare
perceptions against. Although comparing against a review of literature did result in interesting
findings, a comparison against productivity figures surrounding Kaizen activities would
provide an interesting topic of discussion.

Finally, this research acts as a wide overview of Kaizen in VMUK, each point discussed
could be analysed further in independent studies to create a more detailed discussion.

4.4. Suggestions for Future Research

▪ For future studies, it can be suggested that research of Kaizen perceptions within a
wider sample of VMUK or the vehicle manufacturing industry as a whole

▪ A comparison of perceptions of Kaizen effectiveness against company data

▪ An in-depth study of VMUK’s use of 5S and SOPs to support Kaizen

▪ A study into whether Kaizen is suitable for high risk production environments
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 49

References
Abdulmouti, H. (2015). The Role of Kaizen (Continuous Improvement) in Improving Companies’
Performance: A Case Study. International Conference On Industrial Engineering And Operations
Management, 87.
Agmoni, E. (2016). The role of Kaizen in creatinf radical performance results in a logistics provider.
Logforum, 12(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.17270/j.log.2016.3.4
Aoki, K. (2008). Transferring Japanese Kaizen activities to overseas plants in China. International Journal
Of Operations & Production Management, 28(6), 518-539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 01443570810875340
Bacdayan, P. (2001). Quality improvement teams that stall due to poor project selection: An exploration of
contributing factors. Total Quality Management, 12(5), 589-598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09544120120060079
Banu, M., & Epureanu, A. (2009). Value Stream Mapping and Kaizen concept implemented in a shaft
manufacturing chain. Dunarea De Jos University Of Galati, 2829(516).
Bateman, N. (2003). Companies’ perceptions of inhibitors and enablers for process improvement activities.
International Journal Of Operations & Production Management, 23(2), 185-199. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/01443570310458447
Berger, A. (1997). Continuous improvement and Kaizen: standardization and organizational designs.
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 8(2), 110-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09576069710165792
Bernard, H. (2011). Research methods in anthropology (5th ed.). Plymouth: Altamira.
Bessant, J., & Caffyn, S. (1997). High-involvement innovation through continuous improvement. International
Journal Of Technology Management, 14(1), 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.1997.001705
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., & Gallagher, M. (2001). An evolutionary model of continuous improvement behaviour.
Technovation, 21(2), 67-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4972(00)00023-7
Black, K. (2010). Business Statistics: Contemporary Decision Making (6th ed.).Chicago: John Wiley & Sons.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research In Psychology,
3(2), 77-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brunet, A., & New, S. (2003). Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study. International Journal Of Operations &
Production Management, 23(12), 1426-1446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570310506704
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cameron, S., & Price, D. (2009). Business research methods: A practical approach.London: Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development.
Chen, Y., & Tjosvold, D. (2006). Participative Leadership by American and Chinese Managers in China: The
Role of Relationships. Journal Of Management Studies, 43(8), 1727-1752. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00657.x
Cheser, R. (1998). The effect of japanese Kaizen on employee motivation in u.s. manufacturing. The
International Journal Of Organizational Analysis, 6(3), 197- 217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb028884
50 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

Choi, T., & Liker, J. (2007). Bringing Japanese Continuous Improvement Approaches to U.S. Manufacturing:
The Roles of Process Orientation and Communications. Willey Online Library
Childerhouse, P., Herma, R., Mason-Jones, R., Popp, A., & Towill, D. (2003). Information Flows in
Automotive supply-chains-identifying and learning to overcome barriers to change. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 103(7), 491-502.
Coimbra, E. (2013). Kaizen in Logistics and Supply Chain. New York [u.a.]: McGraw- Hill Education.
Colenso, M. (2000). Kaizen Strategies for Improving Team Performance. Team Performance Management:
An International Journal, 6(1), 37-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/tpm.2000.6.1_2.37.2
Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2008). Business research methods. Boston: McGraw- Hill/Irwin.
David, A. (1990). The customer/supplier relationship—the Nissan way. Total Quality Management, 1(1), 59-
68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544129000000006
Davis, J. (2011). Progressive Kaizen. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Deming, W. (1986). Out of Crises. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for
Advanced Engineering Study.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Doolen, T., Van Aken, E., Farris, J., Worley, J., & Huwe, J. (2008). Kaizen events and organizational
performance: a field study. International Journal Of Productivity And Performance Management, 57(8),
637-658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410400810916062
Evans, J., & Lindsay, W. (2008). Managing for quality and performance excellence (7th ed.). Mason, OH:
Thomson Higher Education.
Filip, F. (2015). The 5S lean method as a tool of industrial management performances. IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science And Engineering, 95, 012127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/95/1/012127
Garcia-Sabater, J., Vidal-Carreras, P., Santandreu, C., & Perello-Marin, R. (2011).
Practical experience in teaching inventory management with Edublogs. Journal Of Industrial Engineering
And Management, 4(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2011.v4n1.p103-122
Ghalayini, A., Noble, J., & Crowe, T. (1997). An integrated dynamic performance measurement system for
improving manufacturing competitiveness. International Journal Of Production Economics, 48(3), 207-
225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0925-5273(96)00093-x
Graban, M., & Swartz, J. (2012). Healthcare Kaizen. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis/CRC Press.
Gupta, S., & Jain, S. (2014). The 5S and Kaizen concept for overall improvement of the organisation: a case
study. International Journal Of Lean Enterprise Research, 1(1), 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/
ijler.2014.062280
Hackman, J., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total Quality Management: Empirical, Conceptual, and Practical
Issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 309. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393640
Hammer, M., Champy, J., & Tathan, R. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Revolution. New York: HarperCollins.
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 51

Handyside, E. (1997). Genba Kanri. Aldershot, Hampshire: Gower.

Harrington, H. (2006). Process management excellence. Chico, Calif.: Paton Press LLC.
Herron, C., & Hicks, C. (2008). The transfer of selected lean manufacturing techniques from Japanese
automotive manufacturing into general manufacturing (UK) through change agents. Robotics And
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 24(4), 524-531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2007.07.014
Hines, P., & Taylor, D. (2000). Going Lean - A guide to implementation. Cardiff: Lean Enterprise Research Centre.
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen, the key to Japan’s competitive success. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Inman, R. (1993). Inventory is the flower of all evil. Prod. Inventory Mgmt. Journal, 31, 41-45.
Ishikowa, K. (1954: 2013). Introduction to Quality Control. JUSE Press.
Kenton, W. (2018). Kaizen. Investopedia. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bNZtqQL_Gn_-PK-
QWxQODY9V61oSConn
Kii, K. (2013). Kaizen Teian: The bottom up approach for productivity improvement. Kaizen Institute.
Retrieved from https://in.Kaizen.com/blog/post/2013/12/09/Kaizen-teian-the-bottom-up- approach-for-
productivity-improvement.html
Kumar, R & Midha, P. (2001). A QFD based methodology for evaluating a company’s requirements for
collobrative product development. Industrial Management &Data Systems, 101(3), 126-131
Laraia, A., Moody, P., & Hall, R. (1999). The Kaizen Blitz. New York: John Wiley.
Lavrakas, P. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.
Liker, J. (2013). Toyota way. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lemma, A. (2018). “The role of Kaizen in economic transformation”. Working Paper 533, Overseas
Development Institute, London.
Lodico, M., Spaulding, D. & Voegtle, K. (2010). Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice,
2nd Edition. San Francisco.
Ma, J. (2013). The adoption and implementation of Kaizen in sino-japanese automotive joint ventures.
Newcastle Business University.
Maarof, M., & Mahmud, F. (2015). A Review of Contributing Factors and Challenges in Implementing
Kaizen in Small and Medium Enterprises. Procedia Economics And Finance, 35, 522-531. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/s2212-5671(16)00065-4
Magnier-Watanabe, R. (2011). Getting ready forKaizen: organizational and knowledge management enablers.
VINE, 41(4), 428-448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03055721111188520
Manos, A. (2007). The Benefits of Kaizen and Kaizen Events. Quality Progress, 40(2), 47-48. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/openview/9d2fe051fa4889fcd7cfd18f6cae1d2b/1?pq-origsite=
gscholar&cbl=34671
Marin-Garcia, J., Pardo del Val, M., & Bonavía Martín, T. (2008). Longitudinal study of the results of
continuous improvement in an industrial company. Team Performance Management: An International
Journal, 14(1/2), 56-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527590810860203
52 KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY IN A MODERN-DAY BUSINESS

Martichenko, R. (2004). What’s the Problem with Continuous Improvement. Leancor. Retrieved from https://
leancor.com/continuous-improvement
Mauborgne. (1999). Strategy, Value Innovation, and the Knowledge Economy. Sloan Review, 37.
McLeod, A. (2017). Qualititive v Quantitive. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.
simplypsychology.org/qualitative-quantitative.html
Mendelbaum, G. (2006). Keep your eye on the ball. APICS Magazine, (35).
Minichiello, V. (1992). In-depth interviewing. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Monden, Y. (1983). Toyota production system: practical approach to production management. N o r c r o s s
GA: Industrial Engineering and Management Press,.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business
Press.
Oliver, N., Delbridge, R., & Barton, H. (2002). Lean Production and Manufacturing Performance Improvement
in Japan, the U.K. and U.S. 1994-2001. ESRC Centre For Business Research, 232.
Pagell, M. (2004). Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of operations, purchasing
and logistics. Journal Of Operations Management, 22(5), 459-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jom.2004.05.008
Pandey, P. (2012). Benefits of Kaizen. Presentation, https://www.slideshare.net/howtopossible/benefits-of-
Kaizen.
Popping, R. (2015). Analyzing open-ended questions by means of text analysis procedures. Bulletin of
Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 128(1), 23-39.
Prošić, S. (2011). Kaizen Management Phylosophy. I International Symposium Engineering Management
And Competitiveness 2011 (EMC2011) June 24-25, 2011, Zrenjanin, Serbia
Recht, R., & Wilderom, C. (1998). Kaizen and culture: on the transferability of Japanese suggestion systems.
International Business Review, 7(1), 7-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0969-5931(97)00048-6
Robinson, A., & Schroeder, D. (2009). The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement.
Quality Management Journal, 16(4), 27-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2009.11918248
Sako, M. (2004). Supplier development at Honda, Nissan and Toyota: comparative case studies of
organizational capability enhancement. Industrial And Corporate Change, 13(2), 281-308. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1093/icc/13.2.281
Saunders, M. N. (2011). Research methods for business students, 5/e. Pearson Education India.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students (6th ed.). Harlow:
Pearson Education.
Schonberger, R. (1982). Japanese Manufacturing Techniques: Nine Hidden Lessons in Simplicity. The
Academy Of Management Review, 8(3), 513. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257841
Schuring, R., & Luijten, H. (2001). Reinventing suggestion systems for continuous improvement. International
Journal Of Technology Management, 22(4), 359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2001.002969
 Dilek Demirbas, Rhys Blackburn, David Bennett 53

Scott, J. (2014). A Matter of Record. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Shingō, S. (1981). A study of the Toyota production system (1st ed.). Tokyo: Japan Management Association.
Smith, E., & Smith Jr, J. (2008). Using secondary data in educational and social research. McGraw-Hill
Education (UK).
Spring, L. (1997). The case study as a research method. Uses And Users Of Information, 42.
Sudeshna, S., & Datt, S. (2016). Importance of Ethical Considerations. Project Guru. Retrieved from https://
www.projectguru.in/publications/importance-ethical- considerations-research/
Tanner, C., & Roncarti, R. (1994). Kaizen leads to breakthroughs in responsiveness—and the shingo prize—
at critikon. National Productivity Review, 13(4), 517-531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/npr.4040130406
Terziovski, M. (2002). Achieving performance excellence through an integrated strategy of radical innovation
and continuous improvement. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(2), 5-14. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/13683040210431419
Tracy, S. J. (2012). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating
impact. John Wiley & Sons.
Tuckett, A. (2005). Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: A researcher’s experience. Contemporary
Nurse, 19(1-2), 75-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/conu.19.1-2.75
van Dijk, C., & van den Ende, J. (2002). Suggestion systems: transferring employee creativity into practicable
ideas. R And D Management, 32(5), 387-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00270
Wang, L., Wang, Y., Lou, Y., Li, Y., & Zhang, X. (2013). The role of quality control circles in sustained
improvement of medical quality. Springerplus, 2(1), 141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-141
Watonobe, R. (2011). Getting ready for Kaizen: organizational and knowledge management enablers. Vine,
41(4), 428–448.
Watson, T., Doherty, J. & Christensen, S. (2013). Parameter and predictive outcomes of model simplification.
Water Resources Research, 49, 3952–3977.
Wilson, V. (2014). Research Methods: Sampling. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9(2),
45-47.
Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world (1st ed.). London [u.a.]:
Simon & Schuster.
Yin, R. (1984). Case study research and applications (1st ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Zailani, S. (1998). Quality Control Circles. OR Insight, 11(2), 20-23. Retrieved from https://link.springer.
com/article/10.1057/ori.1998.11