Kaizen

Learning From Less Successful Kaizen Events: A Case Study
Jennifer A. Farris, Texas Tech
Eileen M.Van Aken, Virginia Tech
Toni L. Doolen, Oregon State University
June Worley, Oregon State University
Abstract: This paper describes results from an ongoing research program focused on identifying determinants of
Kaizen event effectiveness, both in terms of initial event outcomes and the sustainability of outcomes. Although anecdotal published accounts suggest that increasing numbers of companies are using Kaizen events, and that these projects can result in substantial improvement in key business metrics, there is a lack of systematic research on
Kaizen events. A particular weakness of the current published accounts is the lack of attention to less successful events – only strongly successful applications of Kaizen events receive much coverage in the accounts; however, the organizational learning literature suggests that understanding less successful cases is a key component of organizational learning. We present a case study from a less successful Kaizen event to demonstrate how the case study event contributed to organizational learning.
We also present a set of methods and measures that can be used by practicing engineering managers and engineering management researchers to evaluate and analyze Kaizen event performance. The implications of the case study event for the current body of knowledge on Kaizen events are also examined, and, finally, directions for future research are described.
Keywords: Productivity, Teams, Lean Manufacturing,
Quality Management
EMJ Focus Areas: Strategic and Operations Management,
Program and Project Management, Quality Management

A

“Kaizen event” is a focused and structured improvement project, using a dedicated cross-functional team to improve a targeted work area, with specific goals, in an accelerated timeframe (Letens, Farris, and Van Aken, 2006).
During the relatively short timeframe of the

References: Vol. 62 (1965), pp. 335-343, Academic Press. 4 (1969), pp. 142-175. and Research, 9:2 (1980), pp. 147-160. Executive Suite,” Journal of Management, 23:3 (1997), pp. Cole, Robert E., “The Quality Revolution,” Production and Operations Management, 1:1 (Winter 1992), pp Cuscela, Kristin N., “Kaizen Blitz Attacks Work Processes at Dana Corp.,” IIE Solutions, 30:4 (April 1998), pp Dissertation (2006), Virginia Tech. 20061), CD-ROM. Vol. 20 No. 3 20062), CD-ROM. Event Teams,” Proceedings of the Industrial Engineering and Research Conference (May 2007), CD-ROM. Gaito, John, “Measurement Scales and Statistics: Resurgence of an Old Misconception,” Psychological Bulletin, 87:3 (1980), Goldstein, Gerald, and Michel Hersen, Handbook of Psychological Assessment, Pergamon Press (1984). Hand, David J., “Statistics and the Theory of Measurement,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 159:3 (1996), pp Performance, The Association for Manufacturing Excellence (1999). Lawler, Edward E., and Susan A. Mohrman, “Quality Circles After the Fad,” Harvard Business Review, 63:1 (Jan/Feb1985), pp. (Spring 1987), pp. 42-54. Conference (October 2006), CD-ROM. Likert, Rensis, “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes,” Archives of Psychology, 140 (1932), pp Lord, Frederic M., “On the Statistical Treatment of Football Numbers,” The American Psychologist, 8 (1953), pp Michell, Joel, “Measurement Scales and Statistics: A Clash of Paradigms,” Psychological Bulletin, 100:3 (1986), pp Management, 40:1 (Jan/Feb 1998), pp. 14-21. Mohr, William. L., and Harriet Mohr, Quality Circles, AddisonWesley Publishing Company (1983). Oakeson, Mark, “Kaizen Makes Dollars & Sense for MercedesBenz in Brazil,” IIE Solutions, 29:4 (1997), pp. 32-35. Sheridan, John H., “Kaizen Blitz,” Industry Week, 246:16 (September 1, 1997), pp Cummings and B.M. Straw (Eds.), 14 (1992), pp. 231-266, JAI Press. Stevens, Stanley S., “On the Theory of Scales of Measurement,” Science, 103 (1946), pp Stevens (Ed.), (1951), pp. 1-49, Wiley. Bulletin, 96:2 (1984), pp. 394-401.