The TQM Journal

The best of both worlds? Use of Kaizen and other continuous improvement
methodologies within Portuguese ISO 9001 certified organizations
Luis Miguel Fonseca, José Pedro Domingues,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Luis Miguel Fonseca, José Pedro Domingues, (2018) "The best of both worlds? Use of Kaizen and
other continuous improvement methodologies within Portuguese ISO 9001 certified organizations",
The TQM Journal, https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2017-0173
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2017-0173
Downloaded on: 18 April 2018, At: 07:14 (PT)
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 47 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 20 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:478382 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

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

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm

Best of
The best of both worlds? Use of both worlds
Kaizen and other continuous
improvement methodologies
within Portuguese ISO 9001
certified organizations Received 15 December 2017
Revised 18 January 2018
7 February 2018
Luis Miguel Fonseca and José Pedro Domingues Accepted 11 February 2018

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto,

Instituto Politecnico do Porto, Porto, Portugal

Abstract
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

Purpose – ISO 9001:2015 edition, by adopting modern management and quality approaches, can foster the
application of continuous improvement (CI) methodologies. The purpose of this paper is to assess the level of
utilization of Kaizen and other CI methodologies within Portuguese ISO 9001 certified organizations, namely,
amid organizations that have already implemented ISO 9001:2015.
Design/methodology/approach – After the literature review, a quantitative research, supported on an
online survey, was adopted. The survey yielded 309 valid responses (response rate 18 percent) encompassing
71 organizations already certified against ISO 9001:2015 and the remaining 238 against ISO 9001:2008.
The results of the statistical analysis performed were reviewed with a focus group of five quality and
organizational excellence managers.
Findings – The results show a mildly use of Kaizen, Lean and Six Sigma (SS) by Portuguese ISO 9001
certified organizations, which is increase when compared to previous studies. The sample of organizations
that are already certified by ISO 9001:2015 have mean and median levels of customer improvement
methodologies adoption (Lean, Kaizen, SS) higher than those that are still certified against ISO 9001:2008.
However, the Kruskal-Wallis test showed that these differences are not statistically significant. Concerning
the adoption of these methodologies by activity sector, the sample median values seem to suggest that Lean
and SS are more commonly adopted in the industry than in the services, but according to the Kruskal-Wallis
test these differences are not statistically significant. Checklists, plan-do-check-act cycle and process
diagrams, followed by DMAIC, are the quality tools that are most frequently adopted. A high workload due to
the transition process for ISO 9001:2015 and the lack of qualified people were suggested as possible
explanations for these results by the Expert Focus Group.
Research limitations/implications – The study is restricted to ISO 9001 certified organizations in
Portugal and due to the short time since ISO 9001:2015 implementation it should be considered as having an
explanatory nature and subject to future confirmation.
Originality/value – This study on the application of CI methodologies between ISO 9001:2015 and ISO
9001:2008 certified organizations contributes to the Kaizen and CI body of knowledge and provides inputs to
the organizations and professionals that aim to successfully apply it.
Keywords Six Sigma, Lean, Continuous improvement, Kaizen, ISO 9001:2015
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The introduction of ISO 9001:2015 International Standard–s edition and the rising attention
to Kaizen and other continuous improvement (CI) methodologies (such as Lean or Six Sigma
(SS)) within Portuguese organizations are the main motivations for this research.

The authors would like to thank the contribution of the respondents. CIDEM, R&D unit is funded by
the FCT – Portuguese Foundation for the Development of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science,
Technology, and Higher Education, under the Project UID/EMS/0615/2016. This study had the The TQM Journal
financial support of FCT Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia of Portugal under the project UID/CEC/ © Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2731
00319/2013. Pedro Domingues is supported by FCT post-doc Grant Reference SFRH/BPD/103322/2014. DOI 10.1108/TQM-12-2017-0173
 TQM ISO 9001 certification has seen a considerable growth in Portugal (Fonseca, 2015) and
research supports that the successful implementation of CI programs are related to how
effectively they are articulated with the company existing quality management systems
(QMS) although they are frequently perceived as alternative and not complementary
approaches (Pfeifer et al., 2004). There is research acknowledging an increase on the use of
CI projects over time (Gonzalez Aleu and Van Aken, 2017), and the integration of SS with
ISO 9001 QMS has been recognized as a relevant research subject (Kumar et al., 2008).
However, due to its novelty, the research on the adoption and use of Kaizen, Lean or SS by
ISO 9001:2015 certified organizations are scarce. This investigation aims to assess the
level of utilization of Kaizen and other CI methodologies within Portuguese ISO 9001
certified organizations by checking if there are statistical differences on the level of
adoption of Kaizen, Lean and SS between: those companies that proceeded with the ISO
9001:2015 transition and those that had not (RQ1); and between manufacturing and
service oriented organizations (RQ2). It would be expected that since ISO 9001:2015
edition requires or reinforce modern management and quality approaches, ISO 9001:2015
QMS certified organizations would have a higher adoption of Kaizen and other CI
methodologies than those still certified with ISO 9001:2008.
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

The paper starts by reviewing the several existing quality paths with an emphasis on
Kaizen Lean, SS and ISO 9001:2015, concluding that they mutually reinforce each other.
A quantitative research, with an online survey, was adopted to understand if there are
statistically differences on the level of application of these CI methodologies by
ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 9001:2008 certified organizations, and between service oriented
and producing business, yielding 309 valid responses (response rate 18 percent).
The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis statistical test was performed to test the research
questions and a focus group of quality and organizational excellence managers was
assembled to gather further information on the results. This is a novel investigation on
Kaizen application within ISO 9001:2015 and contributes both to the Kaizen and ISO
9001:2015 body of knowledge and provides inputs to the organizations and professionals
that aim to successfully apply them.

2. Literature review
2.1 An overview of several quality paths
There are several paths for organizations that want to adopt quality management (Fonseca,
2015), such as the teaching of Quality Gurus (Deming, Crosby, Juran, Ishikawa, Taguchi, to
name just a few), the CI methodologies (Kaizen, Lean, SS, Lean SS), the ISO 9000
International Standards and the Business Excellence Models (e.g. EFQM or the MBNQA).
Quality has evolved from inspection to statistical process control, quality assurance and
finally the business excellence models. Quality management is a management philosophy
that has grown from a narrow and mechanic perspective (statistical quality control) to a
broader and holistic one, known as total quality management (TQM) and Business
Excellence (Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park, 2006).
According to Powell (1995), “TQM is an integrated management philosophy and set of
practices that emphasizes, among other things, continuous improvement and meeting
customers’ requirements,” while for Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park (2006) it “is a company
culture characterized by increased customer satisfaction through continuous improvements,
in which all employees actively participate.”
CI methodologies, such as Kaizen, Lean and SS, are a focus of this research. They have
a common genesis in the Toyota Production System (TPS) and share some basic
principles, such as employee involvement and participation of people, throughout all the
organization levels, in the CI processes ( Jaca et al., 2012; Prajogo and Sohal, 2006;
Dahlgaard-Park, 2011).
 2.2 CI methodologies Best of
2.2.1 Kaizen. Kaizen is the practice of CI and was originally introduced by Masaaki Imai in both worlds
his 1986 book Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success. Kaizen is a Japanese term
meaning “change for the better” and it is the combination of two Japanese ideograms,
Kai (改) – change and Zen (善) – better.
Kaizen is an umbrella concept for a management philosophy based on a set of principles
and values (Imai, 1986, 1997):
• top management commitment and leadership;
• focus on processes;
• Gemba (place where things happen) improvement management;
• people’s participation;
• non-judgmental and non-blaming approach;
• standardization, discipline, and constancy;
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

• experimentation and observation skills; and

• systemic thinking.
Kaizen is in line with the Japanese culture orientation for discipline and self-improvement,
with roots on the “samurai” medieval Bushido code (Sakaya, 1995). Within a business
environment, it implies continuing improvement involving everyone in the organization.
Kaizen originated in manufacturing processes (Imai, 1986) and its application was promoted
by Taiichi Ohno to improve quality and productivity at Toyota Motor Corporation, in the early
1950s. Ohno started by observing Toyota production processes and identifying “Muda”
(a Japanese word for waste) in its different types namely, overproduction, inventory,
transportation, waiting, motion, overprocessing and correction. In addition, Ohno regulated the
materials and process flow by using “Kanbans” as communication tools for the production and
inventory control systems, in a “pull” system mode. Finally, Ohno applied a system of managing
production processes that result in line balancing, one-piece flow, little or no excess material
inventory on hand at the plant site and little or no incoming inspection, known as just-in-time
( JIT) (Coimbra, 2016). JIT and “Jidoka” (“intelligent automation” or “humanized automation”
process malfunctions or product defects can be automatically detected, the process can stop
themselves and alert operators) are the pillar of Ohno TPS based on the notion of leveling and
waste elimination. By successfully applying Kaizen and TPS, Toyota Motor Corporation
become a “Dontotsu” company a Japanese term meaning “by far the better one” (Imai, 1986).
Womack et al. (1990) recognized this when stating that Toyota, by drastically eliminating its
“fatness,” become a Lean organization and Kaizen has been recognized as a management
approach that fosters excellence and operational innovation (Brunet and New, 2003).
Imai (1997) stated that “Management must learn to implement certain basic concepts and
system to realize the Kaizen strategy:”
• Kaizen concepts: management must improve and maintain; process-oriented thinking
to achieve better results; follow the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) and the standardized-
check-act cycles; put quality first; speak with data; the next process is the customer.
• Kaizen systems: use total quality control/TQM to improve the overall management
performance and quality, adopt JIT production system (TPS) to eliminate non-value-
added activities and achieve a lean and flexible production system; implement total
productive maintenance to improve equipment quality; apply policy deployment
throughout the organization; use suggestion systems and small-group activities.
 TQM More recently, Imai redefined Kaizen as “every day, everybody and everywhere
improvement, from small incremental improvement to dramatic strategic improvement”
(Coimbra, 2016, p. 118). Other authors have defined Kaizen as a philosophy and mindset
for breakthrough performance to achieve strategic imperatives and execute value stream/
process improvement plans (Hamel, 2009) or an element of TQM (Dean and Bowen; Powell,
1995). However, as Suárez-Barraza et al. (2011) have acknowledge, the Kaizen literature is
very limited and based on the literature review, the authors proposed a classification of
Kaizen under three perspectives or umbrellas, which include a series of principles and
techniques: as a “management philosophy;” as a component of TQM; and as a theoretical
principle for CI methodologies and techniques. Additionally, further investigation
addressing the Kaizen success factors should be pursued (Suárez Barraza and Miguel
Dávila, 2008), e.g. what are the most suitable tasks, team designs and Kaizen event
support activities (Glover et al., 2014).
2.2.2 Lean. Lean production or lean thinking (Womack et al., 1990; Womack and Jones,
1996) is based on the concept of achieving improvements in most economical ways with an
emphasis on “Muda” (waste) elimination and is in line with Ohno’s TPS. Lean employs
minimum resources for maximum output and it is based on five principles (Womack and
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

Jones, 1996, p. 10):

• specify the value by specific product;
• identify the value stream for each product;
• make the value flow without interruptions;
• let the customer pull value from the producer; and
• pursue perfection.
Lean production is a production philosophy that intends to combine the flexibility of
craftsmanship with the low cost of mass production and its roadmap is well suited to
the automotive industry and other mass production industries (Dahlgaard and
Dahlgaard-Park, 2006).
According to Womack et al. (1990), top management should foster teamwork and focus
on Lean tools and techniques, creating a polyvalent organization that strives to
identify problems and their causes, instead of searching and punishing the responsible.
For McDonald et al. (2002), the key areas of Lean manufacturing are flexibility; elimination
of waste; optimization; monitoring of processes and involvement of people.
Subsequently, several tools and techniques have been developed to facilitate Lean
implementation, such as the value stream mapping to design the flow of value of a product
(Rother and Shook, 2003).
2.2.3 SS and Lean SS. SS is a CI methodology based on a disciplined approach for
dramatically reducing defects and producing measurable financial results and is much more
than a quality tool, a statistical technique, or its technical meaning of a failure rate of
3.4 parts per million (Linderman et al., 2003). SS allows companies to significantly improve
their bottom line by minimizing waste and resources, while increasing customer satisfaction
(Harry and Schroeder, 2000).
SS improvements are made on a project basis, applying one of the available SS
frameworks (Fonseca, 2017):
• DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve and control) for existing products or
processes, incremental improvement is enough.
• DFSS (design for SS) using DMADV (design, measure, analyze and improve), when
there is the need for radical improvement of existing products or processes.
 • DFSS using IDOV (identify, design, optimize and validate) if a new process, or new Best of
products, or radical improvement of existing products or processes are required, and both worlds
a new conceptual solution is needed.
SS come to life in the 1980s in the USA at Florida Power and Light when the company
decided to apply for the Deming Prize and learned the methodology from ( JUSE)
consultants (Voehl, 2000). It has subsequently been applied with quite positive results
in companies, such as Motorola and General Electric. Although SS application in Portuguese
companies has never been extensive (Fonseca, 2017), the release of ISO 9001:2015 is an
opportunity for companies to revitalize their QMS by applying SS.
Comparing Lean with SS, Lean focus more on speed and waste elimination (efficiency),
whereas SS emphasizes process improvement and variation and defect reductions
(effectiveness). SS and DMAIC do not explicitly require the application of pull and flow
principles and can be regarded as friendlier for non-manufacturing industries.
Lean Six Sigma (LSS) methodology dates back to the late 1990s, by integrating lean
principles to reduce waste with SS tools and techniques to achieve zero variation. For Lande
et al. (2016), LSS merges the speed and waste lean focus (efficiency) with process
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

improvement variation and defect reductions of SS (effectiveness). According to Laureani

and Antony (2012), LSS is “a business improvement methodology that aims to maximize
shareholders’ value by improving quality, speed, customer satisfaction, and costs: it
achieves this by merging tools and principles from both Lean and Six Sigma.”

2.3 ISO 9001:2015

More than 1 million organizations have adopted International Standard ISO 9001 – QMSs
requirements, and were independently audited and certified by a recognized certification
body, on a worldwide basis, throughout all activity sectors (International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), 2017).
Although ISO 9001 International Standard cannot be considered as a TQM or a Business
Excellence Model, it does incorporate many of the principles of these models and can be
considered as a step toward that direction (Fonseca, 2015). With ISO 9001 2015 edition this
proximity with TQM has been reinforced. Based on a survey within IRCA registered auditors
and subsequent statistical analysis, Fonseca and Domingues (2017) concluded that the
statistical analysis of the results supports the view that ISO 9001:2015 is in line with modern
business and quality management concepts and will be a useful tool for the companies.
ISO 9001:2015 edition is based on the seven quality management principles: customer
focus, leadership, engagement of people, process approach, improvement, evidence-based
decision-making and relationship management (ISO, 2015).
ISO 9001:2015 edition brought forth some major changes when compared to the 2008
version, such as: the adoption of a “high-level structure” with identical core text, terms and
definitions, that will be used for all ISO management systems standards; the need to
identify, understand and monitor, the external and internal issues that may impact the
organization QMS ability to deliver its intended results, and the needs and expectations of
relevant stakeholders; a strong emphasis on top management leadership (to engage and
support the QMS) and on process approach and intended results; the adoption of risk-based-
thinking; the consideration of change management and knowledge management;
replacement of the concept of continual improvement (incremental improvement) by
improvement, allowing also for periodic breakthroughs, reactive change or reorganization,
or other sorts of disruptive improvements (Fonseca, 2015).
When compared with the 2008 edition, ISO 9001:2015 requires both a stronger leadership
to lead the QMS and achieve the intended results and a stronger people engagement (people
involvement was enough in the 2008 edition). The standard acknowledges that “successful
 TQM organizations have an ongoing focus on improvement” (ISO, 2015) and is now more aligned
with modern quality and management concepts (Fonseca and Domingues, 2017). There is an
increased emphasis on achieving results by applying more pragmatic and non-prescriptive
approaches, rather than following procedures and generating documents, which is more
aligned with the CI methodologies, such as Kaizen.

2.4 Convergent or different paths?

When comparing Kaizen with ISO 9001 it should be acknowledged that the original Kaizen/
TPS was conceived as a system with top management leadership involving people that were
empowered by education and training in CIs and not as a management system standard.
For Imai (1997, p. 60) Kaizen should be an integral part of International Standards QMS
certifications, to improve process and standards on a continual basis. Authors, such as Marques
et al. (2013), have proposed conceptual integration models to align SS projects with ISO 9001
QMS policies and objectives to strengthen process management and continual improvement
and to establish effective relationships between SS and ISO 9001 organizational structures.
According to Dahlgaard et al. (1998), the five principles and the aim of lean production, as
well as the principles and tools behind SS, are embedded in the principles, concepts and tools
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

of holistic TQM.
In summary, Kaizen, Lean, SS and LSS are more than just CI methodologies, tools and
statistics, providing reliable roadmaps for improving processes and results. ISO 9001 QMSs
are systemic and comprehensive approaches for organizational improvement to deliver the
intended results, and the needs and expectations of relevant stakeholders. ISO 9001 can
encompass and integrate Kaizen, Lean and SS and can be more effective when this happens,
within a right organizational culture.
Previous research has shown the Portuguese organizations use mainly basic quality
tools (Fonseca et al., 2015) and the adoption of SS is very scarce (Fonseca, 2017).
Additionally, there is a lack of studies to quantify the use of Kaizen and Lean in Portugal.
However, a research on the competencies demanded today for Quality and Organizational
Excellence Managers amidst ISO 9001 certified organizations, from different sizes, and
across all activity sectors, in Portugal, highlighted that the master of quality tools &
techniques (quality engineering hard factors: basic and advance quality tools, improvement
methodologies, such as Lean, SS and Kaizen) are of critical importance (Fonseca et al., 2017).
Since ISO 9001:2015 is closer to TQM than ISO 9001:2008 and requires new and
reinforced approaches, this research aims to assess if the organizations that proceeded with
the implementation of ISO 9001:2015 show a higher level of adoption of CI methodologies,
such as Kaizen, Lean or SS, than those that are still certified with ISO 9001:2008.

3. Methodology
This research is framed within a broader investigation addressing the adoption of ISO
9001:2015 and the future competencies demanded for today Quality and Organizational
Excellence Managers (Fonseca et al., 2017). A quantitative research, supported on a survey
online during May 2017, was adopted to understand the level of application of CI
methodologies, such as Kaizen, among ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 9001:2008 certified
organizations, by the leading Portuguese certification body. The survey followed a similar
structure already adopted in previous research (e.g. Fonseca and Lima, 2015), where
construct reliability was tested and validated with Cronbach α (greater than 0.7).
The survey structure encompassed four major group of questions addressing the
following main themes: organization characterization (three questions); ISO 9001:2015
certification/transition (ten questions); evaluation of the level of adoption of quality
methodologies (Lean, Kaizen, SS) by the respondent companies (two questions: How
frequently does your organization applies the following CI methodologies; How frequently
 does your organization applies the following quality and engineering tools?). A Likert Best of
five-point agreement scale – never; rarely; occasionally/sometimes; most of the times; both worlds
always – was used to evaluate these questions. Likert-type scales are frequently used in
research and scales using five or seven scale points are the most common (Hartley, 2013).
The five points scale was adopted to allow comparability with previous research studies on
ISO 9001:2015 application (Fonseca and Domingues, 2017).
The ultimate purpose was to evaluate the level of adoption of Kaizen, Lean and SS and to
test the two research questions:
RQ1. Are there statistical differences on the level of adoption of Kaizen, Lean and SS
between those companies that proceeded with the transition and those that had
not?
RQ1. Are there statistical differences on the level of adoption of Kaizen, Lean and SS
between service oriented and manufacturing organizations?
The analysis of the survey results suggests that it is representative of the population, since
the distribution by company sector and size, is consistent with the population. “Wave
analysis” was also adopted to compare the results from late respondents and early
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

respondents (Armstrong and Overton, 1977) and the results over the four consecutive weeks
(data collection period) showed no significant differences, which supports the assumption
that non-respondents (absent responses) should be like those of the respondents, minimizing
possible non-respondents bias error.
The statistical analysis and statistical hypotheses testing were carried out, supported in
the outputs collected from the IBM SPSS v. 23. The Kruskal-Wallis ranks statistical test was
adopted throughout the results analysis. An Expert Focus Group of five Quality and
Organizational Excellence Managers was assembled to comment the results and gather
further knowledge on its possible implications.

4. Results and discussions

According to the ISO 2016 survey of certifications (ISO, 2017), in the end of 2016, there were a
total of 6.164 ISO 9001 certified organizations in Portugal, with 5.208 (84 percent) certified against
ISO 9001:2008 and the remaining 956 against ISO 9001:2015 (16 percent). Approximately 1,720
organizations (28 percent of total Portuguese ISO 9001 certifications) were contacted via e-mail
during March 2017, by a leading Portuguese Certification Body, with a link to answer the survey.
A total of 309 organizations answered (response rate 18 percent), with 71 (23 percent) already
certified against ISO 9001:2015 and the remaining 238 (77 percent) ones against ISO 9001:2008.
Services with 51 percent of total responses were the main activity sector of the respondents
followed by industry with 38 percent and commerce with 11 percent, which contributes for a
well-balanced sample of service oriented and producing businesses. Only 6 percent of the
respondents’ organizations had more than 250 employees, with 31 percent employing between 50
and 250 collaborators and with 62 percent employing less than 50 collaborators, which is in line
with the Portuguese profile of the certified companies’ high SMEs density.
Concerning the individual respondents, they were mainly quality managers (80 percent),
followed by CEOs (11 percent) and other quality management collaborators (8 percent).
The descriptive statistics of the three variables Kaizen, Lean and SS presented in Table I
evidence a moderate use of these CI methodologies by the Portuguese ISO 9001 certified
organizations, which are higher than the findings of previous research. Within the
respondent organizations, Lean and Kaizen are reported as those with a higher level of
adoption, closely followed by SS. The mean sample values for the adoption of Lean, Kaizen
and SS are higher in ISO 9001:2015 certified organizations than in ISO 9001:2008 ones.
Comparing industry with services (including commerce) sectors, Lean has a higher mean
 TQM value in industry, as it could be theoretically expected, since the application of pull and flow
principles might not be so user friendly for services.
The normality of the data was assessed according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and
Shapiro-Wilk tests. The SPSS outputs (Figure 1, Tables II and III) suggest that the data do
not present a normal distribution, which indicates that the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis
statistical test should be adopted to test the research questions.
To ascertain if there were statistical differences concerning the level of adoption of CI
methodologies (Lean, Kaizen, SS) between those companies that proceeded with the transition
and those that did not the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis statistical test was performed for
the two research questions. Based on Tables IV and V, the Kruskal-Wallis test showed that
there was not a significant difference in Lean, Kaizen and SS levels of adoption, between those
companies that proceeded with the transition to the ISO 9001:2015 standard and those that did

Methodology ISO 9001:2008 ISO 9001:2015 Industry Services

CI Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

Table I. Kaizen 1.980 1.260 1.947 1.247 2.162 1.344 2.03 1.267 2.11 1.404
Variables descriptive Lean 1.989 1.158 1.947 1.112 2.205 1.341 2.28 1.277 1.95 1.071
statistics Six Sigma 1.829 1.144 1.803 1.127 1.971 1.224 1.93 1.223 1.79 1.136

100 Mean = 1.99 120 Mean = 1.98 120 Mean = 1.83

SD = 1.158 SD = 1.26 SD = 1.144
n = 189 n = 186 100 n = 181
100
80

80 80
Frequency

Frequency
Frequency

60
60 60
40
Figure 1. 40 40

Histogram with 20
20 20
normal curve
superposition 0
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
0
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
0
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Var_Lean_Num Var_Kaizen_Num Var_6Sigma_Num

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Table II. Var_Lean_Num 0.296 189 0.000 0.793 189 0.000

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Var_Kaizen_Num 0.324 186 0.000 0.759 186 0.000
and Shapiro-Wilk Var_SS_Num 0.340 181 0.000 0.735 181 0.000
tests (SPSS output) Note: aLilliefors significance correction

Var_ISO 9001 edition Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Var_Lean_Num ISO 9001:2008 0.299 151 0.000 0.791 151 0.000

Table III. ISO 9001:2015 0.282 38 0.000 0.804 38 0.000
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Var_Kaizen_Num ISO 9001:2008 0.336 150 0.000 0.750 150 0.000
and Shapiro-Wilk
tests (SPSS output) – ISO 9001:2015 0.271 36 0.000 0.796 36 0.000
variables grouped by Var_SS_Num ISO 9001:2008 0.347 147 0.000 0.728 147 0.000
the ISO 9001 edition ISO 9001:2015 0.307 34 0.000 0.766 34 0.000
(2008 and 2015) Note: aLilliefors significance correction
 not (low χ2 score and asymptotic σW0.05). Although the sample median for Lean, Kaizen and Best of
SS is higher for ISO 9001:2015 than for ISO 9001:2008 organizations, the RQ1 “There are both worlds
statistical differences on the level of adoption of Kaizen, Lean and SS between those
companies that proceeded with the transition and those that had not” cannot be confirmed.
RQ2 “There are statistical differences on the level of adoption of Kaizen, Lean and SS
between service oriented and manufacturing organizations” was also tested with Kruskal-
Wallis test. The sample medians seem to suggest that Lean and SS are more commonly
adopted in industry than is services; however, the results, presented in Tables VI and VII,
showed that there was not a significant difference in Lean, Kaizen and SS levels of adoption,
between the service (including commerce) and the producing oriented companies (low χ2
score and asymptotic σ W0.05).
Amongst the quality and engineering tools applied by the respondent organizations,
checklists, PDCA cycle and process diagrams are the most frequently adopted. DMAIC
also shows interesting levels of adoption, while Histograms and Pareto Charts lagging,
as shown in Figure 2.
An Expert Focus Group of five Quality and Organizational Excellence Managers was
assembled to comment on these results. The overload of work due to the transition process for
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

Var_ISO 9001 edition n Mean rank

Var_Lean_Num ISO 9001:2008 151 93.68

ISO 9001:2015 38 100.26
Total 189
Var_Kaizen_Num ISO 9001:2008 150 92.12
ISO 9001:2015 36 99.25 Table IV.
Total 186 Ranks – variables
Var_SS_Num ISO 9001:2008 147 89.98 grouped according to
ISO 9001:2015 34 95.41 the ISO 9001 edition
Total 181 (2008 and 2015)

Var_Lean_Num Var_Kaizen_Num Var_SS_Num

χ2 0.508 0.613 0.370

df 1 1 1 Table V.
Asymp. Sig. 0.476 0.434 0.543 Kruskal-Wallis
Notes: Kruskal-Wallis test statistics 2015 (SPSS output) – variables grouped according to the ISO 9001 test statistics
edition (2008 and 2015) (SPSS output)

Var_Activity Sector_ n Mean rank

Var_Lean_Num Services + Commerce 61 65.84

Industry 81 75.77
Total 142
Var_Kaizen_Num Services + Commerce 63 71.10
Industry 77 70.01
Total 140 Table VI.
Var_SS_Num Services + Commerce 58 64.74 Ranks – variables
Industry 75 68.75 grouped according to
Total 133 the activity sector
 TQM ISO 9001:2015 was the main reason for not using CI methodologies in a more intense way.
The other reason was the perception that they require heavy statistics and the organizations
lacked qualified people, which suggest the need for proper training to end wrong perceptions
and acquire the right people competencies and skills. Another issue that has emerged in the
focus group discussion is the need for the leadership to promote an adequate culture and
working environment with emphasis on teamwork, career development and training, and
respect and proper care for all the organization people, which is line with the investigation
carried by Jaca et al. (2014).

5. Conclusions
The results show a moderate use of Kaizen, Lean and SS by Portuguese ISO 9001 certified
organizations, which is increase when compared to previous studies (Fonseca, 2017).
The sample of organizations that are already certified by ISO 9001:2015 have mean and
median levels of CI methodologies adoption (Lean, Kaizen, SS) higher than those that are
still certified against ISO 9001:2008. However, according to the Kruskal-Wallis test these
differences were not statistically relevant. Concerning the adoption of these methodologies
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

by activity sector, the sample median values seem to suggest that Lean and SS are more
commonly adopted in the industry than in the services, but according to the Kruskal-Wallis
test, there was not a significant statistically difference in the level of quality methodologies
adoption (Lean, Kaizen, SS) between those companies that are certified with ISO 9001:2015
International Standard and those that are not. The sample median values seem to suggest
that Lean and SS are more commonly adopted in industry than is services, but accordingly

Table VII.
Kruskal-Wallis test
Var_Lean_Num Var_Kaizen_Num Var_SS_Num
statistics (SPSS
output) – variables
grouped according the χ2 2.248 0.029 0.432
activity sector df 1 1 1
(Industry and Asymp. Sig. 0.134 0.865 0.511
services/commerce) Notes: Kruskal-Wallis test; grouping variable: Var_Num_Activity

Level of quality tools adoption (1 never to 5 – always)

4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

1
Figure 2.
Mean values of 0.5
quality tools adopted
0
by the respondent Histogram Cause and Checklists Pareto Process PDCA cycle DMAIC Others
organizations effect diagram diagram
diagram
 to the Kruskal-Wallis test these differences are also not statistically significant. Amongst Best of
the quality and engineering tools applied by the respondent organizations, Checklists, both worlds
PDCA cycle and process diagrams are the most frequently adopted followed by DMAIC.
These results suggest that the organizations are more focused on achieving the ISO
9001:2015 transition than in intensifying their improvement activities, as it could be
expected with the application of the new/reinforced ISO 9001:2015 approaches. As a result,
they cannot fully benefit from the systematic use of CI methodologies.
A high workload due to the transition process for ISO 9001:2015 and the lack of qualified
people were suggested as possible explanations for these results by the Expert Focus
Group. Moreover, there is the perception that CI methodologies require heavy statistics and
the use of basic quality tools is enough which highlights the need for proper training to end
wrong perceptions and acquire the right people competencies and skills.
ISO 9001:2015 has reinforced leadership and people engagement requirements for the
organization leaders need to promote the adequate culture and working environment
including teamwork support and people development. According to recent research
(Fonseca et al., 2017), ISO 9001 certified organizations demand that Quality and
Organizational Excellence Managers master quality tools and improvement methodologies,
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

such as Lean, SS and Kaizen. These factors might contribute to increase the application of CI
methodologies within ISO 9001 organizations.
From the academic point of view, this investigation brings a novel contribution in the
application of CI methodologies within ISO 9001 certified organization, with a focus on the
new ISO 9001:2015 edition. As organizations strive to complete the transition to ISO
9001:2015 they can boost their improvement activity by using more intensively CI
methodologies within the systemic and integrated ISO 9001:2015 quality management
system approach, which is relevant for practitioners.
Concerning the limitations of this research, this investigation is restricted to ISO 9001
certified organizations in Portugal; however, it covers a wide range of sectors and
organizations and can be of value to other countries and contexts. Since ISO 9001:2015
International Standard was edited September 15, 2015 and its implementation is in still on
the early stages, future studies should be carried out to assess the use of CI methodologies
and projects by certified organizations and the changes induced by ISO 9001:2015.

6. Future scenarios
Kaizen, Lean and SS appeared within the context of the second- (Electrification and
Industrialization) and third- (Electronic automation) industrial revolutions. However, the
fourth industrial revolution has already started (Schlick et al., 2012), and its new paradigm
may have a significant impact on the application of CI methodologies. Industry 4.0 (I4.0),
also known as the internet of things, industrial internet and the fourth industrial
revolution, was introduced to develop German economy in 2011 (Vogel-Heuser and Hess,
2016). Since then, it has developed into a new reality and both the EU (European
Commission, 2015) and China (China 2025: European Union Chamber of Commerce in
China, 2017) have launched I4.0 initiatives. I4.0 integrates people and digitally- connects
machines with the internet and information technology. It implies the digitization of
manufacturing via connected networks of humans and robots interacting and working
together and promotes information sharing and analysis along the full global value
chains. People work is facilitated by software-based systems, mobile IT solutions and
connected sensors that observe the equipment and processes functions in real time, and
provides big data available for the workers and process improvement teams, allowing for
faster and better decisions to improve process and results. Although Industry 4.0 is still in
the early it would be an interesting to investigate this trend namely how it will impact the
use and application of CI methodologies and of QMSs.
 TQM References
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Brunet, A.P. and New, S. (2003), “Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1426-1446.
Coimbra, E.A. (2016), Kaizen – A Strategy for Improvement, Growth, and Profitability,
McGraw-Hill, Madrid.
China 2025: European Union Chamber of Commerce in China (2017), “China manufacturing 2025:
putting industrial policy ahead of market forces”, available at: http://.docs.dpaq.de/ 12007-
european _ chamber _ cm2025-en.pdf
Dahlgaard, J.J. and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2006), “Lean production, Six Sigma, TQM and company
culture – a critical review”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 263-281.
Dahlgaard, J.J., Kristensen, K. and Kanji, G.K. (1998), Fundamentals of TQM, Carfax, London.
Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2011), “The quality movement: where are you going?”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 493-516.
European Commission (2015), “Digital transformation of European industry and enterprises”,
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

Strategic Policy Forum on Digital Entrepreneurship, 25 March, pp. 5-7.

Fonseca, L. (2015), “From quality gurus and TQM to ISO 9001:2015: a review of several quality paths”,
International Journal for Quality Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 167-180.
Fonseca, L. and Domingues, J.P. (2017), “ISO 9001:2015 – quality, management, and value”,
International Journal for Quality Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 149-158.
Fonseca, L.M. and Lima, V.M. (2015), “Impact of supplier management strategies on the organizational
performance of ISO 9001 certified organizations”, Quality Innovation Prosperity/Kvalita Inovácia
Prosperita, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 32-54.
Fonseca, L.M., Domingues, J.P. and Sá, J. dos Guimarães (2017), “Leading quality in the 21st century:
profiles of quality and organizational excellence managers”, Quality – Access to Success, Vol. 18
No. 61, pp. 34-38.
Fonseca, L.M., Lima, V.M. and Silva, M.M. (2015), “Utilization of quality tools: does sector and size
matter?”, International Journal for Quality Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 605-620, available at:
www.ijqr.net/journal/v9-n4/4.pdf
Fonseca, Luis Miguel Ciravegna Martins da (2017), “In search of Six Sigma in Portuguese SMEs”,
International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 31-38.
Glover, W.J., Farris, J.A. and Van Aken, E.M. (2014), “Kaizen events: assessing the existing literature
and convergence of practices”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 39-61, doi:
10.1080/10429247.2014.11432003.
Gonzalez Aleu, F. and Van Aken, M.E. (2017), “Continuous improvement projects: an authorship
bibliometric analysis”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 467-476, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-07-2016-0105
Hamel, G. (2009), Kaizen Event Fieldbook: Foundation, Framework, and Standard Work for Effective
Events, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, New York, NY.
Harry, M.J. and Schroeder, R. (2000), Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy
Revolutionizing the World’s Top Corporations, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Hartley, J. (2013), “Some thoughts on Likert-type scales”, International Journal of Clinical and Health
Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 83-86.
Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen – The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, Random House, New York, NY.
Imai, M. (1997), Gemba Kaizen, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
International Organization for Standardization (2015), “ISO 9001:2015 – Quality management systems
– requirements”, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
 International Organization for Standardization (2017), “ISO Survey 2016”, International Organization Best of
for Standardization, Geneva, available at: www.iso.org (accessed 20 December 2017). both worlds
Jaca, C., Viles, E., Mateo, R. and Santos, J. (2012), “Components of sustainable improvement systems:
theory and practice”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 142-154.
Jaca, C., Vilesa, E., Paipa-Galeano, L., Santos, J. and Mateo, R. (2014), “Learning 5S principles from
Japanese best practitioners: case studies of five manufacturing companies”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 15, pp. 4574-4586.
Kumar, M., Antony, J., Madu, C.N., Montgomery, D.M. and Park, S.H. (2008), “Common myths of
Six Sigma demystified”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 8,
pp. 878-895.
Lande, M., Shrivastava, R.L. and Seth, D. (2016), “Critical success factors for Lean Six Sigma in SMEs
(small and medium enterprises)”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 613-635.
Laureani, A. and Antony, J. (2012), “Critical success factors for the effective implementation of Lean
Sigma: results from an empirical study and agenda for future research”, International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 274-283.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R., Zaheer, S. and Choo, A. (2003), “Six Sigma: a goal theoretic perspective”,
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 193-203.

McDonald, T., Van Aken, E. and Rentes, A.F (2002), “Utilising simulation to enhance value stream
mapping: a manufacturing case application”, International Journal of Logistics, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 213-232, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13675560210148696
Marques, P., Requeijo, J., Saraiva, P. and Frazão-Guerreiro, J. (2013), “Integrating Six Sigma with
ISO 9001”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 36-59.
Pfeifer, T., Reissiger, W. and Canales, C. (2004), “Integrating Six Sigma with quality management
systems”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 241-249.
Powell, T.C. (1995), “Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical
study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S. (2006), “The relationship between organization strategy, total quality
management (TQM), and organization performance – the mediating role of TQM”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 168 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Rother, M. and Shook, J. (2003), Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Add Value and Eliminate
Muda, Lean Enterprise Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Sakaiya, T. (1995), What is Japan?, Editorial Andrés Bello, Santiago de Chile.
Schlick, J., Stephan, P. and Zuhkle, D. (2012), “Produktion 2020. Auf dem Weg zur 4.0. industriellen
revolution”, IM – Fachzeitschrift fur Information Management und Consulting, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 26-33.
Suárez Barraza, M.F. and Miguel Dávila, J.A. (2008), “Encontrando al Kaizen: un análisis teórico de la
mejora continua”, PECVNIA, Vol. 7, pp. 285-311.
Suárez-Barraza, M.F., Ramis-Pujol, J. and Kerbache, L. (2011), “Thoughts on kaizen and its evolution:
three different perspectives and guiding principles”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 288-308.
Voehl, F. (2000), “Six sigma: a breakthrough strategy for results”, The STANDARD, Vols 2000-1,
The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality, Milwaukee.
Vogel-Heuser, B. and Hess, D. (2016), “Guest editorial Industry 4.0-prerequisites and visions”,
IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 411-413.
Womack, J., Jones, P. and Ross, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson, Associates,
New York, NY.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking – Banish Waste and Create Wealth in your
Corporation, Simon & Schuster, London.
 TQM Further reading
Dean, J.W.J. and Bowen, D.E. (1994), “Management theory and total quality improvement research and
practice through theory development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 392-418.
Fonseca, L., Leite, D. and Lima, V. (2014), “Six sigma methodologies: implementation and impacts on
Portuguese small and medium companies (SMEs)”, International Journal for Quality Research,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 583-594.
George, M., Rowlands, D. and Kastle, B. (2003), What is Lean Six Sigma? Springer, New York, NY.
Kumar, M. and Antony, J. (2008), “Comparing the quality management practices in UK SMEs”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 108 No. 9, pp. 1153-66.

About the authors

Luis Miguel Fonseca, PhD, is a Professor at ISEP, Porto School of Engineering, of Quality and
Organizational Excellence, Business and Industrial Management and Sustainability, at MSc and BSc
courses, since 1989. He is also a Professor (invited) of Sustainability and Social Responsibility at
University, Department of Production and Systems, School of Engineering, from 2103. Luis Fonseca
holds a PhD in Management (ISCTE-IUL, 2012), an MBA (IEP/ESADE, 1993), a Specialization in
Quality Engineering (UNL/ISQ, 1987) and is an Electrical Engineer (UP, 1982). He is presently the
Downloaded by UFMG At 07:14 18 April 2018 (PT)

President of the North Delegation of APQ (Portuguese Association for Quality), an ASQ (American
Society for Quality) Fellow and has been a previous ASQ Country Conselor for Portugal (2007-2010).
He is also a Senior Member and an Industrial Engineer and Management Specialist by Ordem dos
Engenheiros (Portuguese National Association of Engineers) and serves on the Board of a non-profit
organization. Luis Fonseca was the CEO in the systems certification industry managing leading
organizations and delivering enduring and profitable results. With a highly accomplished and
successful Senior Manager record in a variety of organizations in different multicultural contexts,
he finds it easy to adapt to new challenges. With a systematic and strategically thinking orientation
and a focus on prioritization and results, he inspires and communicates that vision to others, creating
links between strategic thinking and tactical and operational realization, and engaging people in an
effective way. He last worked for 15 years (1997-2012) in the Systems Certification Business, as the
General Manager of APCER (www.apcergroup.com/portugal/index.php/pt/) and the Vice President
of the IQNet Association (www.iqnet-certification.com/) and has extensive experience in ISO 9001/
14001 Auditing and EFQM Lead Assessor practice. He is a Researcher at CIDEM- Center for
Research and Development in Mechanical Engineering with the main primary research focus on
Quality and Organizational Excellence, Business and Industrial Management, Sustainability, and
Social Responsibility. Luis Fonseca is a regular presenter and speaker to both academic audiences
and practitioners on a broad variety of topics linked to quality and organizational excellence,
business management, and sustainability. He enjoys sports, traveling, and encountering new
cultures. Luis Miguel Fonseca is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: lmf@isep.ipp.pt
José Pedro Domingues received the Bachelor degree in Chemistry (1996), the MSc Degree in Textile
Environmental Chemistry (2001) and a PhD Degree in Industrial Engineering and Systems (2013) all of
them from the University of Minho. His doctorate thesis addressed the topic of integrated management
systems and the development of a maturity model. He is currently engaged in a post-doc Project aiming
at the assessment of maturity and efficiency of integrated management systems. Additionally, he
lectures at Instituto Superior de Engenharia- Instituto Politécnico do Porto (ISEP-IPP) being
responsible for the “Quality, Environment and Safety Management” curricular unit at a Master Course.
The research work in being carried out at IEM research line (ALGORITMI research center). He is a
Co-author in circa 70 papers (journals, conference proceedings, book chapters) some of them recognized
and awarded both in Portugal and abroad.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com