NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MALAYSIA IMPLEMENTING KOBETSU KAIZEN STEPS IN A MANUFACTURING COMPANY GOODWAY RUBBER INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the National Technical University College of Malaysia for the Degree Bachelor of Manufacturing Engineering (Process) By MURUGAN S/O NAGARETINAM. Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering November 2005ABSTRACT With the Japanese re-export of several prominent management concepts such as total ‘quality control (TQC), just-in-time production (JIT) and lean production, one common factor cited for operational excellence has received considerable attention during the last decade. The concept of KAIZEN has been introduced to the management arena, at times as the “missing link” in explanations for the widely noted operational excellence of Japanese firms, ‘The first well-known and most frequently cited proponent of kaizen was Imai, who wrote KAIZEN ~ The Key to Japan's Competitive Success (1986). He outlined the concept, its core values and principles, its relation to other concepts and the practices used in the improvement process. Kaizen is a Japanese philosophy that means continual incremental improvement. “Kai” translates as Change and “Zen” translates as good or for the better. Implementation of the Kaizen system needs the involvement of all level of employees in a company. Manufacturing industries is the best place to implement the Kaizen project and ts efficiency. This paper illustrates about Kaizen project at GOODWAY Rubber Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd. Goodway Rubber Industries is a well known re-tread tyre maker for automotives. The implementation is done at“factory 4. The improvement project undertaken is based on line 2. Various losses and process downtime are affecting the specified process line. Kobetsu Kaizen 10 steps are used as guidelines to tackle the surfacing. problems. The proposed Kaizen project would be able to increase the productivity, reducing. abnormal time and eliminating the Six big losses recorded. The implementation of Kobetsu evaluat Kaizen steps in the production line number two have significantly increase the Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) from 81.42% to 87.8% thus allowing an improvement of 6.38%. The contribution of Kaizen to the Overall Equipment Losses also records a decrease from 18.58% to 12.2%. The main concem of the project is to focus on performance losses ‘which consists minor stoppages and speed loss. The elimination of losses results in higher productivity output and more decent work condition. Keywords:- Kaizen, Productivity and Process improvement, Overall Equipment EffectivenessPeralihan konsep — konsep pengurusan seperti Total Quality Control (TQC), Just — In- Time (JIT) dan Lean Manufacturing adalah sumbangan daripada empayar perindustrian Jepun. Konsep ~ konsep pengurusan yang berteraskan penambahbaikan atau perubahan kepada sistem pengurusan konvensial kapada yang lebih cekap dan menguntungkan. la juga itu. Antara konsep yang terkemuka ‘memberikan impak positif kepada sesuatu organi adalah Kaizen. Kaizen secara amnya telah diperkenalkan kepada firma- firma Jepun dan dikanalpasti sebagai punca utama kegemilangan sektor perindustrian Jepun. Tokoh Kaizen pertama adalah Imaiyang turut menerbitkan sebuah buku yang bertajuk KAIZEN- The Key ‘To Japan's Competitive Success (1986). Beliau zmenggariskan nilai-nilai utama dan prinsip Kaizen, hubunganya dengan konsep- konsep Iain dan cara yang digunakan dalam melaksanakanya. Kaizen adalah falsafah Jepun yang membawa maksud perubahan berterusan, “Kai” merujuk kepada perubahan dan “Zen” meryjuk kepada yang lebih baik, Pengaplikasian Kaizen memertukan penglibatan semua lapisan pekerja didalam sesebuah adalah di sektor organisasi. Tempat terbaik untuk mengaplikasikan’ konsep Kaizen pembuatan dimana kecekapanya dapat diuji secara menyeluruh dan berkesan. Buku tesis ini menerangkan tentang projek Kobetsu Kaizen di Goodway Rubber Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd di kilang 4 di bahagian line 2. Goodway Rubber Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd adalah pengeluar produk tayar celup berkualiti dan terkemuka di dunia. Terdapat beberapa jenis pembaziran masa dan operasi berlaku di kawaasan kajian. Pembaziran ini dikenalpasti dan cara- cara pembaikan dijalankan selaras dengan konsep Kobetsu Kaizen. sebagai panduan. Penggunaan konsep ini telah membawa perubahan dari segi peningkatan kecekapan mesin daripada 81.42% kepada 87.8%. Manakala, pembaziran masa dan operasi pada mesin dan cara bekerja telah dikurangkan daripada 18.58% kepada 12.2%.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION KAIZEN, pronounced by Ky Zen, is a Japanese philosophy that means onttinuous, incremental improvement. “Kai” translates as Change and “Zen” translates us good or for the better. When applied to the work place, it means continual improvement that involves managers and works alike (Vincent S.Palmer, 2001). The development of kaizen also known as continuous improvement is vital for a developing company to keep on moving with current market flow. Kokuo (1996) describes Kaizen as a Japanese word meaning gradually and orderly, continuous improvement. The KAIZEN business strategy involves everyone in 1 organization working together to make improvements without large capital vestments. As per explained, Kaizen contributes much to provement of an ‘organization or any working atmosphere. Kaizen can be applied to any area in need of provement (Joseph C. Chen et al.,1997). In fact, the overall concept of continuous improvement appears to be relevant to every area of industrial and logistics activity, rom the production of basic materials such as steel, aluminium and timber to munufacturing industries as diverse as automotive, furniture, canning, food and drink (Leigh Pomlet 1994). Kaizen strives toward: perfection by eliminating waste. It clintinates waste to be any activity that is not value adding (Kevin O'Brien,2003).1.1 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY Kobetsu Kaizen improvement method proves to be the backbone of every success companies. The objectives of the project are:- |. To implement Kobetsu Kaizen improvement steps in Goodway Rubber (M) Sdn. Bhd. 2. To analyze and define the contribution of the case study done at Goodway Rubber. 1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY ‘The project evolves in manufacturing company which practices kaizen improvement method in its production arena. The main concem of the study is 10 ight the importance and impact of the kaizen continuous improvement project approach in manufacturing companies. The scope is narrowed to Goodway Rubber (M) Sdn Bhd in its production line. Factory 4 buffing section especially at line 2. What would be the manufacturing sector’s altemative way of increasing productivity or reducing waste rather than conventional method? ‘This question is highlighted in the further discussion and literature surveys which have been done. Apart from that, the case study was conducted through references made from Kobetsu Kaizen 10 steps, journals, books and websites which contain information about Kaizen. The thesis paper also includes comparisons which are obtained by using the Kobetsu Kaizen method. A clear understanding of kaizen and its application in industry is the main concem of why the study is performed. 1.3 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY ‘The study is limited to Kobetsu Kaizen and doesn’t include any other improvement methods available around. The scope is narrowed to the Kaizenapplication at Goodway Rubber and all rel 1.4 BACKGROUND OF COMPANY Goodway Integrated was incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act, 1965 on 19th June 2003 as a private limited company under the name of Prosperous Image Sdn Bhd. Subsequently, on 9th September 2003; it was converted to a public limited company and assumed its present name on 15th October 2003 (Company profile, 2004), The Group is principally involved in the development, manufacturing and distribution of technical compounds, tyre compounds and other rubber related products. The Group also provides retreading services (Company profile, 2004). Since being founded in 1990, Goodway Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd has made deep in roads into the highly established rubber industry (Company profile, 2004). Despite being the youngest player, Goodway has successfully hamessed its roaring energy to state-of-the-art German technological expertise in rubber compounding. The result is a consistent delivery of an impressive range of innovative and high quality products (Company profile, 2004). This delivery of excellence each and every time has eared Goodway the proud title, "The largest retread rubber ‘manufacturer in Asia." (Source: - Company profile, 2004). Goodway now supplies an impressive range of retread materials and high quality technical rubber compounds to leading retread manufacturers, commercial vehicle proprietors, new tyre manufacturers along with Fortune 500 companies dealing in hoses and other rubber related products. Goodway’s loyal customer base today spans over 50 countries including the A: profile,2004), Pacific, Middle East, Oceania and the Americas (CompanyGoodway delivers a series of superior precured treads for the cold retreading process (vulcanization of retread tyres in a chamber or autoclave at temperatures tunging from 95°C to 120°C). Each precured tread has its unique tread pattern and utilizes a series of specially engineered compounds suited to various applications and turgeted road conditions (Company profile,2004). 1.5 PROBLEM STATEMENT Problem ident fe section of this paper, Kobetsu Kaizen Improvement Project is used as ication is vital in every project to be done. As per stated in the je puideline to improve OEE and eliminating the OEL are discussed further in the next pages to come. The current working set-up contains losses from various factors. Losses ure identified and rectified. The company found it to be a decline in production rate in the factory 4 buffing section. The output rate per day doesn’t reach the target. There are two types of product in the section, 10m PTL and 3m PTL. Here are some of the scriptions of the problem. Refer to Table 1.0 below. There are two lines in producing, the finished part in the buffing section. It involves manpower and conveyer to transport the PTL. * 80 pieces/ Hour 39.72 pieces/ Hour 30 pieces/ Hour 2.03 rolis/ Hour Output Target Current Output Differences Between Target and Current 28 rol 20 pieces 25.35% 93.23% ‘Table 1.0:- Description of Output losses in the project line Output Decrease In Output Rate Total Loss of TimeHence, it is obvious that there is a major loss in the line. The major losses in the line fied and Kobetsu Kaizen 10 steps are followed gradually. Figure 1.0 at the € ident )xt page shows the normal and abnormal time for each of the 11 processes involved in ‘© project line, Take note that the abnormal time is higher than the normal time. NORMAL AND ABNORMAL TIME OF PROCESSES 40 ee) 52 By : g> is; 2 20 I Eis i 10 ti 9 a | 5 La A 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Process Number lormal Abnormal Figure 1.0:- Normal and Abnormai time differentiation Source:- Goodway Rubber Industries (M) Sdn Bhd 1.6 PLANNING OF PROJECT ‘The duration of the project is four months. It took four months to fully adapt the Kobetsu. Kaizen 10 steps as it requires much longer time for analysis and implementation time. The effectiveness of the countermeasures done was analyzed for a period of one month so that a more reliable and trustable data are gathered, Refer to ix C for the scheduling of the project.1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT {he report is logically organized into five (5) chapters and appendices: Chapter one is the introduction and is composed of objectives, scope of study, imitations, background of company and problem statement. Chapter two comprises literature review of all terminologies of KOBETSU KAIZEN, dctinition of Kaizen, History of Kaizen, Benefits of Kaizen, Overview of Kaizen philosophy, Principles of Kaizen, Ten steps of Kobetsu Kaizen and Overall Equipment asses (OEL) and Six Big Losses Identifications. Chapter three describes in detail the methodology followed in this research study. Chapter four investigates the adoption and implementation of Kobetsu Kaizen ‘improvement method in the production line number 2 of factory 4 Goodway Rubber Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd. The results of each step of Kobetsu Kaizen implementations sre explained in detail in the sequence. Based on the data obtained from each step, a wtuphical tool in the form of a cause and effect diagram was used in studying and improving the processes to determine the root cause. Finally, a series comparison is done to prove the project has fulfilled the objective and target set by the group. Chapter five is more concerned on discussion and conclusion. The overall umprovements that have been done at the project line are evaluated and graphical «comparison is done for every aspect such as OEE, OEL, Minor Stoppages and Speed Juss, Comparison between before and after implementation is done and discussed. The Chapter is more emphasis on overall view as each of the comparisons has been \plained in Chapter 4 briefly. Conclusion and recommendation for future studies are explained in brief,CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ‘The following chapter will discuss furthermore about kaizen and its fundamental elements which are collected through literature surveys done. It includes information about principles of kaizen, elements and relevant data to be added to further enhance the understanding and knowledge about Kaizen. Apart from that, other applications of Kobetsu Kaizen implementations in industry also discussed further detailed. 2.1 DEFINITION OF KAIZEN KAIZEN has become part of the Japanese manufacturing system and has contributed enormously to the manufacturing success, evolving over a period of forty years (Paul Brunet, 2000). In other ways around, the author identifies Kaizen as a spirit of Improvement founded on a spirit of cooperation. According to Kokuo (1996), KAIZEN is a culture of sustained continuous improvement focusing on eliminating waste in all systems and processes of an organization. The application of Kaizen is equally effective in manufacturing oF service industries regardless of the size of the organizations (Ken Lewis, 1995). According to Colin Ashmore (2001), Kaizen formed by the union of ‘Kai’ which means change and ‘Zen’ meaning good or ‘for the better’. If we go deeper into the definition which was given by the author, we can realize that Kaizen is a continuous improvement project which needs constant changes and modifications to the specified area of scope resulting in a positive outcome.‘The management literature has often credited kaizen and the participation of the workforce in process improvement and refinement as being a key element in Japanese manufacturing success (Elgar and Smith, 1994; Senge, 1990; Utterback, 1995). However, there have been few attempts to provide a comprehensive description or explanation of the concept. The bulk of the extant literature relates to the context of Jupanese transplant operations or implementations by Western companies (Cheser, 1998; Malloch 1997; Parker and Slaughter, 1988; Vasilash, 1998). The most well known proponent of the kaizen concept was introduced by Imai (1986, 1997) provides descriptions of kaizen in Japan, but falls short of a detailed explanation in order to maintain prescriptive clarity. Kaizen is the Japanese word for improvement, carrying the connotation in industry of all the uncontracted and partially contracted activities which take place in the Japanese workplace to enhance the operations and the environment. Kaizen epitomizes the mobilization of the workforce, providing the main channel for employees to contribute to their company’s development. In isolation, the concept seems simple: “with every pair of hands, you get a free brain” (Bessant, 2000). There are close comparisons to be drawn between kaizen and ideas of past research in industrial relations, starting from Elton Mayo and the Human Relations school of Maslow, McGregor, Argyris and Herzberg. Various writers emphasis different key features, but many focus on three key notions: (1) That kaizen is continuous - which is used to signify both the embedded nature of the practice and also its place in a never-ending journey towards quality and efficiency; (2) That it is usually incremental in nature, in contrast to major management initiated reorganizations or technological innovation (e.g. the installation of new technology or machinery); and 3) It is participative, entailing the involvement and intelligence of the work force, generating intrinsic psychological and quality of work-life benefits for employees.Kaizen is closely associated with but not identical to the idea of QCs (Lillrank und Kano, 1989) and TQM, and resonates with many recent ideas in management from the knowledge management of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, the development and ‘ommunieation of knowledge) to the balanced scorecard of Kaplan and Norton (1996, the continuous monitoring of a wide range of processes), De Haan er al. (2001) \omment on the importance of kaizen to Japanese production control mechanisms. Auizen needs to be distanced from the more recent Western development, kaizen blitz llinghurst, 1997), whereby management involves employees in re-engineering ‘nuainstorming sessions. ‘Three key issues arise regarding kaizen in practice. First, what is the nature of : what purpose does it serve, how does it do so and is its deployment in a specific «xtqanization relatively stable? Second, how uniform is the adoption of kaizen? Is there a omsistent pattern of application, and if so what are the implications for attempts to rectify and export the concept outside of the Japanese setting? Finally, how is kaizen sustained, once the low hanging fruit of easy improvements have been harvested? {illinghurst, 1997). 2.2 HISTORY OF KAIZEN Kaizen has its origin in Japan but it is practiced all over the world. Masaaki Imai introduced the concept to America in 1986 in his landmark book, Kaizen - The Key to Japan's Competitive Success. Imai, a graduate of Tokyo University in American Studies, lived in the United States for five years during the 1950s, working for the Japanese Productivity Center in Washington, DC. His principal responsibility then was w escort Japanese businessmen through major American plants so they could learn about “the secret of American productivity.” From this work he compared the methods used by American and Japanese firms to increase productivity. The American or Western approach was to seek breakthrough improvements through innovation using high technology, massive capital investments and highly trained engineers. The Japanese or Easter way was to involve both workers and managers in making small,law cost improvements in the way work is done. Both management and workers find xn tor improvement every day. Kaizen typically starts with studying the way workers pettorm their jobs. The aim of this analysis is to develop plant people to recognize and ‘muke incremental improvements that could be made on a daily basis by those involved ‘with the production process. It was first introduced and applied by Masaaki Imai in 19Ko to improve efficiency, productivity and competitiveness at Japanese carmaker Juyota in response to increasing competition and the pressure of globalization, Kaizen iv now being increasingly adopted by manufacturing engineering companies in the west (Colin Ashmore,2001). Quoting Toyota, Bodek N (2003), explains how the company views its ‘employees as being “at the heart of everything we do”. As far back as 1937 when tayotu was founded, managers were characterized by their endless quest for making things in more efficient ways. They discovered that one of the most basic keys to \ntaining and improving quality was to stop the assembly line whenever there was a problem and deal with it instantly - a notion quite unheard of at many other car firms at the time. A culture developed where Toyota employees sought solutions by refusing to mcept quick fixes or compromise. At Toyota it is commonplace to be suspicious of the wavy way out. KAIZEN is the answer. Some 65 years on and these early processes still form part of what is known as the Joyota Production System (TPS). The TPS is acknowledged as a crucial part of detect reduction in assembly plants and the reputation for quality and reliability commanded by the Toyota brand throughout the world, As many as 60 to 70 ideas per eur, per employee, are written down, shared and implemented. The results have been npressive. KAIZEN proves to be their secret weapon of mass improvement. For two yeurs in succession Toyota's plant in Kyushu was accredited with the Platinum Plant (Quality Award, which is the highest ranking among vehicle assembly plants worldwide. Juyotu’s plants in North America have also won 15 quality awards, two of which gained wp marks in a 2001 study carried out by international marketing information firm J.D. Vawer (Lawrence Holpp,1989). 102.) THE BENEFITS OF KAIZEN Kaizen is a useful tool in improving current working method. From an operations point of view, Kaizen is vital to achievement of group targets and the improvement and involvement of the personnel. As illustrated by (Paul Brunet,2000: Berger, 1996; Nessant ef al.,1995; Keys ef al., 1994; Lillrank and Kano, 1989; Robinson, 1991), they ‘cuitlined some points as shown below:- 1, Leads to attention and involvement in work Hl. Consolidates team working and provides reason for commt management Ill, Provides ad hoc correction of incidents in routine work IV, Offers a role in company development and a chance to contribute V. Provides a background for on the job training VI. Leads to the understanding of the need for change and cooperation in its implementation VIL. Can eventually provide a laboratory for technical departments to develop their ideas VIII Makes everyone familiar with performance metrics and allows extension beyond standard benchmarks IX. Acts as an introduction to leadership and opportunity for promotion X. Reducing of six main losses as per stated WW2.4 OVERVIEW OF KAIZEN PHILOSOPHY Many of the Kaizen programs have called for benchmarking competitors and «establishing measures for the industry. Womack and Jones (1996) wrote: Our earnest advice to kaizen firms today is simple: To hell with your competitors; compete against perfection by identifying all activities that are muda and eliminating them. This is an absolute rather than a relative standard which can provide the essential North Star for any organization. Kaizen training has focused on both philosophical and cultural concepts and is based on the belief that the development of an individual's skill benefits both the company and that individual, and that people elements of constantly aim for self-improvement (Imai, 1986). This declaration cont the famous motivational theories developed by Abraham Maslow (Chester, 1994). Womack and Jones (1996) describe Muda as any human activity that absorbs resources but creates or adds no value to the process. Most employees could identify several different types of muda in their workplace, but unfortunately the waste that they identify is only the tip of the iceberg. The authors continue by stating that until these employees have been taught the essentials of Kaizen thinking, they are unable to perceive but a few types of the waste actually present in their environment. ‘The Kaizen Thinking approach begins with “...a conscious attempt to precisely define value in terms of specific products with specific capabilities offered at specific prices through a dialog with specific customers."(Womack & Jones, 1996). Many steps, such as attaching a wheel to a frame or moving a case of product from one location to another where the product is in demand, will clearly add value to the product. Some will not add value but will remain necessary under current conditions, and these include testing the installed wheel or packaging the product prior to shipment. A second type of muda or loss adds no value and could be eliminated immediately since it is not necessary. 12‘Once the value stream has been identified, the next step in lean thinking is to address flow. This requires a dramatic change in the way the problems to be undertaken are structured. Womack and Jones (1996) provided an example involving preparing a newsletter for mailing. Most of us would tackle the problem after the printing has been completed by folding all copies of the newsletter, placing stamps on the envelopes, then inserting the folded newsletter into an envelop and, finally, sealing all of the envelopes. When examining this process, it is not readily apparent to the observer that the newsletter is picked up four times. We compartmentalize and attempt to group tasks ‘without looking at the flow. By implementing Kaizen steps, it would reduce muda if the newsletter were folded, inserted into the envelope, stamped, and stacked. When explained, this opens up a new world of operation to those studying manufacturing processes. 2.5 PRINCIPLES OF KAIZEN Like several other concepts, Kaizen is drawing on features often mentioned under different headings such as TQM and lean production ~an “umbrella” concept tying bits and pieces together to a comprehensible whole. For this paper, it is seems sufficient to ‘conclude that kaizen is embedded in, but also a major feature of the Japanese quality movement. Acknowledging that kaizen features may commonly be mentioned elsewhere, the point is to highlight some principles and their implications for Western organizations trying to establish and sustain Kaizen processes.(Refer to figure 2.0) Lillrank and Kano (1989), refer to kaizen as the “principle of improvement” and even though kaizen is not clearly defined in the JUSE (Japanese Union for Scientists and Engineers) literature it is “used like an axiom to define other concepts”. Returning to Imai (1986) it is, however, possible to trace some core features of Kaizen by using the characteristics of the ideal type kaizen. Refer to figure 2.0 132.5.1 Pri le 1:- Process orientation Kaizen is process-oriented, i.e. before results can be improved, processes must be improved, as opposed to result-orientation where outcomes are all that vounts (Imai, 1986, p. 16-17). Kaizen does not state that results are of minor importance, but rather that ‘munagement attention should be directed towards creating sound processes since it ts assumed that good results will follow automatically. However, good results lucking the control of the process are not sufficient in as much as results are caused by largely unknown factors. The principle has at least two practical consequences for the improvement process. First, management's main responsibility is to stimulate and support the effort of organizational members to improve processes. In order to be improved, a process must be understood in detail, which in tum means that variability and imerdependence in the separate activities and methods used to combine people, ‘machines, material and information have to be known and controlled. Monitoring and improving process variability at this level of detail requires that a majority of employees are actively involved, Consequently, management needs to support employees with adequate skills and training in simple process oriented methods such as the “seven quality tools”. In addition, focusing on processes, i.e. activities and work methods, instead of their often compounded outcomes facilitates the use of employee experience and common sense. Second, process-orientation calls for evaluating criteria which can monitor and bring attention to the improvement process itself, while simultaneously acknowledging its outcome. The number of suggestions, implementation and participant rates are used as prime criteria for evaluating the improvement process in terms of 1994; 1996; Berggren 1994; Ilirank and Kano, 1989). .g. employee efforts, supervisor and first line manager support ( Berger 42.5.2 Principle 2:- Improving and maintai g standards Lasting improvements can only be achieved if innovations are combined with an ongoing effort to maintain and improve standard performance levels (Imai, 1986, pp. 6-7). Kaizen is distinctive in its focus on small improvements of work standards as «result of an ongoing effort. Furthermore, “There can be no improvement where there are no standards” (Imai, 1986, p. 74) which in essence denotes the relation between Kaizen and maintaining standard procedures for all major operations (Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)). In fact, the Japanese kaizen is argued to be inseparable from maintaining standards since this relation is one of the very foundations for claiming that small ongoing improvements can accumulate to an overall contribution to organizational performance. The reasons for highlighting standards can be traced to three general characteristics which are claimed to follow with the standardization of operating procedures: 1. Individual authorization and responsibility. Every person in an organization has the same level of responsibility and awareness of the work they are doing. 2. Enhanced learning through the transmittal, accumulation and deployment of experience from one individual to another, between individuals and the organization and from one part of the organization to another. 3. Discipline. One indication of the kaizen (and perhaps Japanese) pragmatic, view on standards is the claim that: The standard should be binding on everyone, and it is management's job to see that everyone works in accordance with the established standards. Thi 1986, p. 75). is called discipline (Imai, 152.5.3 Principle 3:- People orientation Kaizen is people-oriented and should involve everyone in the organization from Yop management to workers at the shop floor. Furthermore, 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 (Imai, 1986, p. 40). Two practical features can be derived from these principles. First, in order for everyone to be involved, there needs to be a form and content for ongoing improvements that make use of everyone's contribution in relation to e.g. skill and hierarchical level. According to Imai (1986), there are three types of kaizen activities, each with its own form and focus in the overall improvement process. Management-oriented kaizen concems the gradual improvement of systems procedures such as planning and control, organization, decision making processes and information systems but also to some extent the improvement of machinery and equipment.(Refer to figure 2.0) Group-oriented Kaizen as a permanent approach is represented in QCC and other small group activities in which employees focus primarily on improving work methods, routines and procedures. The temporary approach often involves teams of employees which are targeted on a special problem or a theme introduced by management. IndividuaL-oriented Kaizen is the third form of improvement work which to a large extent can be equated with suggestion systems. The primary focus is to improve one’s own work, i.e. on the spot improvements of work methods, routines and the use of resources. Second, the principle suggests that the motivation for kaizen is re dominantly intrinsic. The Japanese approach to motivation is quite pragmatic and avoids the obvious contradiction between volunteerism and the principle that everyone should be involved. 16Iutrinsie needs for skill development, quality and worth combined with ‘management acknowledgement for efforts and reward systems for results, are proposed to sufficient motivation for workers to participate in improvement tivities. In addition, appears that the indisputable nature of manager seniority and \livcipline can force a majority of workers to participate in improvement activities. The linguistic and cultural problems of understanding and transferring the ‘motivational aspects of Kaizen, might be found in the concept of “Jishusei” which is weuully translated as volunteerism. While the Japanese concept emphasizes the autonomous nature of improvement work, a Western interpretation would ‘ommonly equate volunteerism with the “free choice” of joining: Thus, ‘jishusei” is a matter of an individual being able to decide whether to join the activity or not; tather, it implies that the activity, once started, should be propelled by the energy of the members themselves, without constant oversight and interference from outside ((illrank and Kano, 1989, p. 94). Summing up the brief review of some core principles of kaizen and the related management concepts based on Japanese experiences, it seems that the churacteristics of kaizen can be described at two different levels. The first level concems the management improvement concepts which indicate a mind-set for the required management behavior, whereas the second level describes the practical outcomes for the workforce (Lillrank and Kano, 1989, p. 94). Figure 2.0:- Principles and types of Kaizen 7Le TENS: EPS OF KOBETSU KAIZEN According to Shores (1994), the productivity of most processes tends to increase. Whe process of improvement, then, begins with forming a Kaizen team that is teaponsible {or the product, while also carrying responsibilities for the consideration of the wocess, In these steps, the facts of the process and the direction for improvement ee examined. This information will be used in the next step, the current process, to gether information about the process. According to Richard C. Whitfield and Kam-Ming Kwok (1994), The Kobetsu haizen process defines a sequence of events that should be followed when a problem tecomes evident, Figure 3.0 outlines these events, and if they are followed properly the tunely und complete resolution of problems should be easy. It shows that the Kobetsu aisen system leads a team through a logical sequence of steps that force a thorough ‘analysis of the problem, its potential causes and possible solutions. The Kobetsu Kaizen system is popular for problem solving in Motorola Hong Kong and it has been applied tw aver 100 problem situations in the organization since 1989. ‘allowing are the Kobetsu Kaizen 10 steps:~ MODEL SELECTION ‘According to D J H Newitt (1996), model selection element describes the problem in quantities terms and decide the criteria for project success. The problem should be defined in terms of whose product is affected, what is wrong with it, when the problem arose, where the problem occurs, why it is a problem, how do ‘you measure the defects, and how many units are defective. As illustrated by Che Abd. Kadir (2003), model selection compromises all cclements that fair to be given attention because it contains all the relevant cause and it digest the outcome of the final result. 182.4.2 ORGAN LF, PROJECT TEAM. Hiecidde 0 use a team fo solve the problem. Form the team from approach tepreventatives of the affected groups and assign responsibilities for action (D J H Newitt, 1996). Ihe process of improvement, then, begins with forming a Kaizen team that is responsible for the product, while also carrying responsibilities for the consideration of the process. In this step, the facts of the process and the direction tor improvement are examined (Mr.Samsom et al;1999) 2,3) IDENTIFY PRESENT LOSSES Waste elimination is one of the easiest ways for a company to improve its ‘operations. A company needs to go to where the work is being performed, observe what is going on, recognize waste and take steps to eliminate it (Tony Muanorek,2003) Kobetsu Kaizen pillar deals with those losses that cannot be handled by any ther pillar, All six big losses and its 27 elements have to be considered by the Kobetsu Kaizen committee and make up the loss structure for the company. Next, the priorities of the losses are identified and assign project team to work on specific lovses area ( A.A.Amaranda, 2002). According to the author, 5S system must be improved and sustained to eliminate the search time loss. Losses identified by identifying abnormalities. All the possible causes of the problem are identified and tested to decide which are in fact important (D J H Newitt, 1996). (Refer to figure3.7) 191.0.4 KOBETSU KAIZEN THEME AND GOAL SETTING ‘Aer gathering detailed information about the current process, the Kaizen team \entified the goal, which took into consideration the directions of the management uroup (Mr.Samsom er al.,1999) According to A.A.Amaranda (2002), Kobetsu Kaizen themes are selected based on losses, setting targets and ability of the group to conduct the project. Apart from that, the identification of bottleneck areas and its priority level determines the theme and goal setting. 2.6.8 SCHEDULING Planning is an essential part of Kaizen activity it defines the exact timing and duration of the proposed project to finish. It might take a week or worse up to six months depending on the complexity of the process (MrSamsom ef al;1999). Without proper scheduling, work routine wouldn’t be pushed to the limit and actual progress will not commence simultaneously (A.A.Amaranda ,2002). 2.66 ANALYSIS AND COUNTERMEASURE. Viable long-term solutions to the problem are thought of and tested to make sure that they really do fix things without causing undesirable side effects (D J H Newitt, 1996). Before changes are made to any current processes, specific tasks and activities should be studied for complete understanding. “Process mapping” is an excellent tool to use during activity analysis (Damelio, 1996; Tucek, 1997). Use of process olved through his or her “ownership” and participation. Process mapping also helps identify the non-value- mapping enables gaining consensus among everyon 20aided steps within current procedures and helps guide the worker towards eliminating them, Through actual documentation of current specific tasks, a better under suinding of current processes is gained, 26.7 IMPLEMENTATION Irying to implement too much too fast has proven to be the downfall of many initiatives. Instead of taking the necessary time up-front to develop an overall, evults-oriented approach which incorporates a systematic deployment strategy and long-term implementation plan, the top priority for many organizations has been to uct many quality activities started as quickly as possible. When it comes to quality rr better (Richard Chang, 1995) ovement, doing more with many in a short period of time is not necessarily the corrective actions are permanently implemented. It is necessary to implement any ideas which have been agreed by the members to the real working environment, Implementations would deliver effective results and also otherwise (0d HL Newitt, 1996), (CONFIRM EFFECTIVENESS: Measurements, as used by economists and productivity analysts, are categorized fficiency has to do {nto two activity classifications: efficiency and effectiveness. with processes, that is, doing things better. On the other hand, effectiveness has do with outcomes — optimal behavior ~ doing the right thing (Johnson and Weber, 1985). Comparisons and differentiation between past and previous data vital to point out the effectiveness of kaizen activities. 1% of improvement made also considered as success of kaizen. Effectiveness reflects changes in productivity, less losses and process simplification ( Che Abd. Kadir, 2003). a14% TAKING MEASURE TO PREVENT RECURRENCE, Inanese kaizen is argued to be inseparable from maintaining standards since this cclution is one of the very foundations for claiming that small ongoing improvements can accumulate to an overall contribution to organizational fertormnnce (Anders Berger,1997). ‘he situation in monitored for a period to ensure that the problem is resolved ‘aout that the corrective actions are instituted (D J H Newitt, 1996). 16.40 HORIZONTAL REPLICATION cing successfully implemented and taking measures to prevent recurrence, the same line or section will be given the exact implementation idea. The proven idea 4 the basis of other machine or equipment replication ( Che Abd. Kadir, 2003). the hick off for next model starts through formation of teams, starting again the wh steps but now with different process (Johnson and Weber, 1985). 4.7 OVERALL EQUIPMENT EFFECTIVENESS (OEE) AND SIX BIG LADNSES: 4.2. Definition of Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OVERALL EQUIPMENT EFFECTIVENESS (OEE) is a "best practices” ‘#47 to monitor and improve the efficiency of the manufacturing processes (i.e. machines, manufacturing cells, assembly lines). O} is simple and practical. It takes {®e wnt common and important sources of manufacturing productivity loss, places ‘hem into three primary categories and distlls them into metrics that provide an 2excellent gauge for measuring where current status is and how we can improve (ohnson and Weber, 1985). Figure 2.1:- Overall Equipment Effectiveness Elements 2.7.2 Defining the Six Big Losses ‘One of the major goals of TPM and OEE programs is to reduce and/or eliminate what are called the Six Big Losses — the most common causes of efficiency loss in manufacturing. Appendix A refers to Losses, and shows how they relate to the OEE Loss categories (Johnson and Weber, 1985).. 1.7.3 Addressing the Six Big Losses ‘Now that we know what the Six Big Losses are and some of the events that contribute to these losses, we can focus on ways to monitor and correct them. Categorizing data makes loss analysis much easier, and a key goal should be fast and cficient data collection, with data put to use throughout the day and in real-time (D J H Newitt, 1996). Refer to Appendix B. 2.7.3.1 Breakdowns According to D J H Newitt (1996), eliminating unplanned Down Time is critical to improving OEE. Other OEE Factors cannot be addressed if the process is down. It is not only important to know how much Down Time your 23process is experiencing (and when) but also to be able to attribute the lost time tw the specific source or reason for the loss (tabulated through Reason Codes). With Down Time and Reason Code data tabulated, Root Cause Analysis is upplied starting with the most severe loss categories. 2.7.3.2 Setup and Adjustments Setup and Adjustment time is generally measured as the time between the last good parts produced before Setup to the first consistent good parts produced after Setup. This often includes substantial adjustment and/or warm-up time in order to consistently produce parts that meet quality standards. Tracking ¢ is critical to reducing this loss, together with an active program to ime (such as an SMED - Single Minute Exchange of Dies program) (Johnson and Weber, 1985). Many companies use creative methods of reducing Setup Time including ussembling changeover carts with all tools and supplies necessary for the ‘changeover in one place, pinned or marked settings so that coarse adjustments ure no longer necessary, and use of prefabriciited setup gauges (Johnson and Weber, 1985). 2.7.3.3 Small Stops and Reduced Speed ‘Small Stops and Reduced Speed are the most difficult of the Six Big Losses to monitor and record. Cycle Time Analysis should be utilized to pinpoint these loss types. In most processes recording data for Cycle Analysis needs to be automated since cycles are quick and repetitive events that do not leave adequate time for manual data-logging (A.A.Amaranda ,2002). By comparing all completed cycles to the Ideal Cycle Time and filtering. the data through a Small Stop Threshold and Reduced Speed Threshold the errant cycles can be automatically categorized for analysis. The reason for 24analyzing Small Stops separately from Reduced Speed is that the root causes are typically very different, as can be seen from the Event Examples in the previous table (Johnson and Weber, 1985). 2.7.3.4 Startup Rejects and Production Rejects Startup Rejects and Production Rejects are differentiated, since often the root causes are different between startup and steady-state production. Parts that require rework of any kind should be considered rejects. Tracking when rejects occur during a shift and/or job run can help pinpoint potential causes, and in many cases patterns will be discovered (MrSamsom et al.,1999). 2.8 SUMMARY The Kaizen process acknowledges the information at all levels of an ‘organization through the incorporation of a special type of intense teamwork. In uldition, process steps that require ten alternatives force teams to think “outside the box,” which often results in major innovations. Finally, the general guidelines are fundamentally sound manufacturing practices, such as “one piece flow” and the climination of non-value added practices. When implementing the Kaizen approach, much of the responsibility lies with upper management. Pitfalls include the tendency of upper management to micromanage the teams and a lack of initial training in teamwork effectiveness. The ability of an ‘nganization to respond to the rapidly changing global marketplace will eventually determine the ultimate success of that organization. The implementation of Kaizen ullresses many of the needs that modem organizations face. While Kaizen brings continuous improvement, it also develops a communications network throughout the ‘organization that intrinsically supports a method of checks and balances within daily ‘operations. The daily trials and tribulations that upper management once confronted on 25