Total Quality Management, 2015

Vol. 26, No. 9, 1002– 1016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1068594

Bringing Kaizen to the classroom: lessons learned in an Operations

Management course
∗
Manuel F. Suárez-Barrazaa and Francisco G. Rodrı́guez-Gonzálezb
a
Business Management Department, Universidad de las Américas Puebla (UDLAP), Puebla,
Mexico; bEGADE Business School, Campus Ciudad de Mexico, Ciudad de México, Mexico

The managerial approach of Kaizen is used by different organisations around the world
in order to improve the performance of their work processes and operations. Both the
Total Quality Management literature and Kaizen have shown different efforts to
illustrate the application of this approach in the traditional classroom-style business
education. Also, business schools have a clear need for showing consistency
between what is being taught in the classroom and what is being done in the day-to-
day operations of the organisation. The purpose of this article is to describe the
systematic application of Kaizen and its learned lessons during the last three years in
the Operations Management (OM) course from the Master in Business
Administration graduate programme taught at the Mexican Business School. An
exploratory qualitative study was conducted. This research project provides
empirical evidence of how Kaizen’s continuous improvement cycle (PDCA) enables
better results in students who have taken the subject of OM in a business school.
The findings in each phase of the cycle show the Kaizen-oriented improvement
actions and the results obtained in final grades (exam) and written reports. Finally,
the study contributes to the limited existing literature on Kaizen in education and
subsequently disseminates this information in order to provide impetus, guidance
and support towards improvement in the quality of teaching in a business school.
Keywords: Kaizen; quality in education; process improvement; total quality
management

1. Introduction
The managerial approach of Kaizen is used by different organisations around the world to
improve the performance of their work processes and operations (Ortı́z, 2009; Suárez-
Barraza, Smith, & Dalhgaard-Park, 2012). The essence of Kaizen, as told by Imai
(1986), is simple and direct: Kaizen means improvement; nevertheless, it also means invol-
vement including workers and managers. A way of life is assumed at work, at home and
within the society. With this definition, an elemental question arises: Can Kaizen be
applied in an educational environment? The answer is that, at least, the need to
improve the graduate educational programmes of business/management schools rep-
resents a constant pressure to get accredited and certified by international institutions
that pursue the highest standards of quality in education, such as The Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) (AACSB, 2002, 2011).
Moreover, Total Quality Management (TQM) literature and Kaizen have demon-
strated different efforts to illustrate the application of these approaches in traditional class-
room-style business school education (Dahlgaard, Kristensen, & Kanji, 1995; Emiliani,
2005; Zimmerman, 1991). Also, there exists a strong need by business schools to show

∗
Corresponding author. Email: manuel.suarez@udlap.mx

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

 Total Quality Management 1003

congruence between what is taught and what is applied in the operation itself. For
example, a student who is enrolled in an Operations Management (OM) course expects
that at least the elementary principles such as waste elimination (Muda in Japanese)
can be found in the operating processes of the business school, and, of course, in the
actual OM course. Thus, there must be clear, complete and detailed syllabi; specific,
simple and clear evaluation criteria, and of course, when students are enroling in their
courses, they expect such proceeding to be fast and error-free. The accreditation of
degree programmes in business or management by AACSB International observes excel-
lence as a requirement in their undergraduate and graduate education programmes
(AACSB, 2004), and ‘challenge educators to pursue continuous improvement . . . ’
(AACSB, 2004). One important remark here is that AACSB does not define what ‘continu-
ous improvement’ means, so the term ‘improvement’ stays unclear and in an open field;
this can cause confusion and unclear meanings (Drennan, 1999; Emiliani, 2005; Zimmer-
man, 1991). However, AACSB, like most organisations, subscribe to quality, excellence
and continuous improvement.
Lastly, in Mexico and Latin America, there is a lack in the academic literature that
show continuous improvement efforts such as Kaizen to improve the quality of graduate
programmes and courses at both universities and business schools. The most significant
examples that have been found in the literature on the subject are those from Emiliani
(2005), which describe the application of Kaizen in graduate programmes in the USA,
and the one from Bradley and Willett (2004), where the application of Kaizen projects
by Cornell students is shown. Thus, this investigation contributes to develop and boost
the theoretical construct of the application of Kaizen in the educational field.
In this research, the systematic application of Kaizen in an OM course of the Master in
Business Administration (MBA) graduate programme at EGADE (Escuela de Graduados
en Administración y Dirección de Empresas) Business School, the graduate business
school of the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM) at
its Mexico City site, is shown. The EGADE Business School has the ‘triple crown’ accred-
itation: The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), European
Foundation for Management Development Quality Improvement System (EQUIS) and
Association of MBAs (AMBA), and was recently recertified in 2013.
The OM course at EGADE is a part-time course from the introductory courses of the
MBA programme, where the traditional topics of OM such as elementary theories of OM,
inventory management, linear programming, manufacturing, process management and
improvement, localisation and supplier strategies and supply chain management are
taught, with special emphasis on the topics of Kaizen and Lean Manufacturing. Therefore,
the purpose of this paper is to describe the lessons learned from the application of Kaizen
in the OM course over three years. First, a literature review of the application of Kaizen
and TQM in a learning environment is made. Second, the specific context and character-
istics of the OM course of the MBA programme at EGADE Business School are described
and third, a detailed explanation of how Kaizen is applied in the OM course is presented.
Lastly, the paper is closed with the obtained results, and finally concludes with the lessons
learned in the form of the obtained benefits of its application over three years as well as the
barriers found during the improvement effort.

2. What is Kaizen?
Although Kaizen is defined by Imai in his two books on the subject (1986, 1997), this Japa-
nese word – which means ‘improvement’ – still lacks a detailed explanation that would
1004 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

shed greater light on its theoretical content. Various authors have explained Kaizen from
different perspectives. Imai (1989, p. 23) defined it as ‘a means of continuing improvement
in personal life, home life, social life, and working life. At the workplace, Kaizen means
continuing improvement involving everyone – managers and workers alike’. For Newitt
(1996), Imai’s definition (1986, 1989) of Kaizen stems from two Japanese Kanji: KAI ¼
Change, ZEN ¼ Good (improvement), and from Continuous Improvement or Principle of
Continuous Improvement (Lillrank & Kano, 1989, p. 28). The leaders of some business
understand continuous improvement more formally as: ‘Continuous, incremental
improvement of an activity to eliminate waste, unevenness, and unreasonableness
(called, muda, mura and muri in Japanese) and create more value’, where waste is
defined as: ‘any activity that adds cost but does not add value as perceived by customers
– typically end-use customers)’ (Ohno, 1988; Womack & Jones, 1996).

3. Kaizen and TQM in the education context

Kaizen originated from manufacturing processes (Fujimoto, 1999; Imai, 1986, 1997;
Suárez-Barraza, 2007), and its success in uncovering a problem, making it visible,
looking for its root causes and then eliminating them was of extreme importance in the
development of the manufacturing sector in countries such as Japan and Korea. After
its expansion in the USA by means of the Lean Manufacturing term (Womack, Jones,
& Ross, 1990), Kaizen was globally known. From the nineties, the application of TQM
and Kaizen started to turn towards the services sector (Bowen & Youngdahl, 1998;
Suárez-Barraza & Ramis-Pujol, 2010; Swan, 2003), due to the term Muda that can also
be present in the processes that generate a service as an output.
In this sector, but in the education field, a seminal investigation was developed by
Dahlgaard and co-authors in 1995, starting the debate of the importance of the application
of TQM in education (Kells, 1995; Tofte, 1995; Van Zadelhoff, De Wet, Pothas, & Pet-
rorius, 1995). In this sense, Spanbauer (1995) found that the key elements of the appli-
cation of TQM in higher education are academic leadership, personnel training, the use
of scientific methods and customer focus. Logothethis (1995) goes further by indicating
that in order to apply these methods in education, it is necessary to conform new curricula
and a new kind of professors who pursue quality and continuous improvement at all times.
A summary of this work was presented in the Total Quality Management Journal and it is
shown in Table 1.
More recently, Emiliani (2005) found that the application of Kaizen in an Executive
Management Programme can be very effective to improve the quality of service and
value added to the students. In the same line, Bradley and Willett (2004) report that stu-
dents of the manufacturing course at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at
Cornell University were able to learn the methodology of Kaizen projects to apply it in
benefit of the Lord Manufacturing Corporation. Finally, Lilja (2010) indicates that as a
result of his study, continuous improvement combined with appreciative design can
improve the evaluation and design of graduate courses.

4. Setting the context: the OM course

The Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey was founded in 1943 by
Eugenio Garza Sada. Today, it is a private university with 31 campi along Mexico, about
15 international sites and 4 graduate schools. The EGADE Business School as a graduate
business school started operations since the eighties in Mexico City and was known then as
 Total Quality Management 1005

Table 1. Special issue of total quality management in education (1995).

Author Article Main findings
Dahlgaard, Total Quality Management and The authors presented the TQM
Kristensen, and Education pyramid in education. Four main
Kanji cornerstones are presented: focus in
facts, everybody’s participation,
continuous improvement and focus
on the customer and the employee.
Logothetis Towards quality management of Quality management may provide a
education challenge to an educational
institution, but an even greater
challenge is the quality management
of education within the institution.
To meet this challenge, a new breed
of educators is required and a new
educational curriculum needs to be
developed.
Spanbauer Reactivating higher education with The key elements of TQM in education
TQM: using quality and are leadership, education and
productivity concepts, training, organisational climate,
techniques and tools to improve customer service, scientific
higher education management tools, meaningful data
and team problem-solving.
Van Zadelhoff, De Quality management principles Simple quality management tools and
Wet, Pothas and applied to teaching operations techniques can be implemented in
Pretorius research at a small university the education process with success.
The main target is to increase the
motivation for the student of the
course to study hard.
Kells Creating a culture of evaluation Implementation of TQM in higher
and self-regulation in higher education is presented based on an
education organisations analysis of the culture of such
organisations and the factors and
strategies found to be related to the
implementation of changes therein.
Source: own elaboration.

EGA Business School (Escuela de Graduados en Administración), and it expanded to the

rest of the Tecnológico de Monterrey campi where a Master in Management was taught.
However, since 2010, a homologation process was started and only one business school
remained the EGADE Business School. It operates in two cities: Monterrey and Mexico
City.
The OM course of the MBA programme at EGADE Business School is 1 of the 14
courses that comprise the programme. It is considered as an introductory course alongside
the Managerial Economics, Corporate Finance, Marketing Management and Leadership
and Organisational Behavior courses. It is designed in 12 units of three and a half hours
each and it is taught quarterly all year long. Generally, this course has an average of 25
enrolled students for each group, and two or three groups are opened per quarter depending
on the demand. The Kaizen approach for this course is applied in at least two groups of the
ones that are opened per quarter. The course is commonly taught on Tuesday or on Wed-
nesday from 18:30 to 22:00 hours with a 15-minute break at 20:00 hours.
The principal author first knew the Kaizen philosophy during his graduate studies in
Tokyo and Nagoya, Japan. He attended the Universidad de Sophia and worked at the
1006 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

consulting agency CHU-SAN-REN between 1994 and 1995. During this lapse of time, he
had the opportunity to be a disciple of professors who were involved in the philosophy,
such as Akira Takana, Shigeru Mizuno, Naokata Sawada, Masao Nemoto and Masaaki
Imai (who forged the term Kaizen). Since his return to Mexico, he has worked as a
research professor in the field, as well as being an advisor in several companies in
Kaizen application. Since 1996, he has worked supporting several different educational
organisations with the implementation of Kaizen in their work processes, administrative
as well as academic. Since 2010, at EGADE Business School he has redesigned several
educational processes using the Kaizen approach. He had at least two fundamental
objectives:

(1) To reduce the number of operations in academic services processes such as regis-
trations, admissions and grading, among others.
(2) To conform Kaizen project teams that allow solving operational problems related
to course execution.

One of the pilot tests was the application of Kaizen in the OM course, and it is described as
follows.

5. Methodology
A case study methodology was adopted (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994). This approach is
particularly useful when the research needs to answer ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions (Yin,
1994). The methodology is also considered suitable for research on operational manage-
ment (Voss, Sikriktsis, & Frohlic, 2002). In this study, given the nature of the methodology
and the research questions posed, the case of a business school in Mexico is presented. The
case chosen thus had great scope for contributing to theoretical understanding and devel-
opment. Pettigrew (1997) notes that the importance of this kind of sample selection lies not
in the number of cases but in an in-depth study in each case (Pettigrew, 1997, p. 342).
To ensure data consistency, two data-gathering methods were used: (1) direct obser-
vation and (2) document analysis (Yin, 1994). For direct observation, the author and
co-author were present teaching the OM class during three years from 2010 to 2012.
During this stage, snapshots were taken to record Kaizen implementation in the OM
course. This is of great importance in providing study evidence and drawing up the
report. During these visits, documentation was gathered on the application of the
Kaizen approach in the OM course. This documentation included individual written
reports per class, business simulation game’s reports, Kaizen application projects and
Final Exams. Lastly, a case study protocol and a database on the case study were drawn
up to make the study more reliable (Pettigrew, 1997). Our data analysis sought to
ensure the validity of the construct through the use of multiple sources of evidence and
carefully planned data-gathering. We also sought to increase the external validity of the
research by making multiple comparisons with other case studies from the literature
(Yin, 1994).

6. Applying the Kaizen approach in the OM course

Since 2010, the first author began to experiment with the application of Kaizen in the OM
course of the MBA programme. For that to be, the logic that Deming (1986) and Imai
(1986) established for the continuous improvement cycle or PDCA (Plan, Do, Check,
Act) was followed.
 Total Quality Management 1007

Following the conceptual framework’s logic of PDCA, the process of Kaizen appli-
cation started with the Plan phase, in which a detailed course programme or syllabus
was designed 100% student-centred (costumer focused). The syllabus contains the
course purpose, the topics being taught detailing how much time each of them takes,
the class dynamics, the exercises, the simulations, the written reports and the lectures
and/or case studies. The syllabus is a vital planning instrument because students receive
it one month before school starts, via the Blackboard platform, with all the corresponding
material. This way students can plan their readings and work exercises; they can even read
in advance topics related to the course. Another important element of the syllabus is the
grading mechanism, which must be clear, detailed and specific at all times for it to be con-
formed as a standard or academic requirement. An example is shown in Table 2.
Over the last three years, the planning phase of the PDCA cycle has allowed students
of the OM course to create a previous scenario in a specific and detailed way, which gen-
erates certainty in each of them before starting the course sessions.
The Do phase of the continuous improvement cycle comes next. During this phase, stu-
dents take each session that comprise the course. During its execution, the application of
Kaizen has allowed to take the OM course to a level of practical experience (learning by
doing) not experienced before with the traditional courses offered by the MBA programme
at EGA Business School (previous to the year 2010, that was the business school name as
stated previously). At least three vital mechanisms were generated for the development of
this practical experience: (1) individual written reports per class, (2) the prism and cylin-
der business simulation and (3) Kaizen application projects.
Let us examine the first mechanism: the individual written reports per class. With these
reports, the OM course students learn at all times the importance of being constant in their
studies of a course from the MBA programme. The mechanism of Kaizen applied to the
individual report works by following the principle that only 30% of the knowledge is
retained when taking a face-to-face class (by presentation) (Garza-Salazar, 2013). As
such, students attend the class and at the end, they elaborate their written report. In
other words, after the professor has explained each subject of the OM class (a posteriori),
students synthetise again the provided information and then they generate a written report.
This way, they read and study what was previously presented in class, and they write down

Table 2. Grading criteria of a written report.

Grade Criterion to consider
50-69 No written report is turned in or it is overdue.
70-79 The written report covers practically nothing of the class content, so that its content is very
poor. The report has no structure and has little creativity; it is a “cut and paste” of the
teaching material of the course.
80-89 The written report presents a mild content of the class. It practically covers all the
theoretical aspects studied in its synthesis, as well as part of the exercises and
simulations conducted in class, but goes no further, adding little value to the written
report. It limits itself to comply with what it is requested.
90-96 The written report presents a very good content of the class. It covers completely the
theoretical and practical sections of the course (100%) and adds value with personal
experiences, points of view, criticizes the topic and even points to additional research
that fortifies what is being taught at class.
97- Realizes the previous criterion in a constant and disciplined way during the course,
100 maintaining its level.
Source: Design by own.
1008 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

the concepts again, developing a double reflection. In the written reports, they express
those reflections about the topics seen in class, combining a synthesis of the theoretical
concepts acquired during each class. Moreover, the students add to this synthesis their
work experiences. The individual reports are prepared each week and are turned in the
next session. Regarding the form, they do not have a specific length, it is just asked that
they cover 100% of what is seen in class. During the three years of the application of
this Kaizen mechanism, students feel that the report has helped them to improve the reten-
tion of the topics seen in class and, of course, this has been reflected in their final grades
(see the following chart for the results).
The second mechanism is the prism and cylinder business simulation. This mechanism
follows too the ‘Learning by Doing’ principle. It consists of a game or business simulation
that has the objective of making the participants feel the need to organise their work based
on processes to obtain quality products. Students are grouped in teams of minimum four
participants and a maximum of eight and then are asked to build a prism and a cylinder
(Figure 1). Quality requirements such as measures, symmetry and cut quality are provided
by the professor, who represents the client that ‘buys’ the finished product at the end of the
production cycle from each team. This business simulation game allows students to
experience the different phases of a production process, where a process-focus approach
is needed in order to conclude with products that meet the quality requirements. Over
the last three academic years, students have shown appreciation for this Continuous
Improvement technique, that has been taken from the Kaizen philosophy, such as that
the knowledge derived from the virtual production line that is represented by the simu-
lation is acquired in a direct and experimental way.
The third mechanism that equally applies Kaizen principles is the Kaizen improvement
project at the end of the course. The application of this mechanism has allowed students to

Figure 1. The prism and cylinder business simulation snapshot.

 Total Quality Management 1009

develop ‘case study type’ projects, where they have been able to apply Kaizen techniques
and tools in real-life cases and practices in their own organisations. From their point of
view, students have had the great opportunity to present problems or situations in order
to improve them within their work places. Over the last three years, students have
applied these Kaizen tools and techniques in different types of organisations: manufactur-
ing (car assembly plants, cleaning products and food, among others) as well as service
organisations (banks, restaurants, airlines, schools and, until recently, communication
enterprises). The organisations range from small to medium businesses to large
corporations.
The third phase of the PDCA cycle is the validation (check) phase. During this
phase, students get to know the evaluation process in a Kaizen-oriented OM course.
The professor specifies and generates a detailed standard of the way he will evaluate
them. The evaluation is always a detailed feedback and it follows what is indicated in
Table 2 for written reports. With the criteria shown in Table 2 (that is part of the syllabus),
students can validate the standard of their evaluation result. When students hand in their
written reports during class, the professor evaluates it and provides feedback during the
next consecutive class. Each and every one of the evaluations are reported in a specific
way, with a percentage of the grade assigned to each element. Students can see from
the very first day of class what the evaluating mechanisms will be, how that evaluation
will be conducted and the weight each element has. As such, the professor describes
that this evaluation is the execution of the syllabus in class form during the three-
month course.
Finally, the professor indicates that the elements with more weight for the final grade
are the written reports and the Kaizen improvement project due to their focus on the
Kaizen philosophy of ‘learning by doing’. Although the final exam takes a larger percen-
tage of the final grade, it is used only to ratify the acquired knowledge during the practical
part of the course (written reports and Kaizen improvement project).
Each quarter, the PDCA cycle allows to generate the Act phase: the opportunity to
improve the programme and course planning. Following students’ feedback, the course
professor standardises the good practices oriented towards the Kaizen philosophy, in
other words, towards continuous improvement. He also has the opportunity to make cor-
rections to the class topics, the exercises or simulations presented in class, and of course,
getting up to date the case studies. As such, the correction cycle is presented in a continu-
ous way each quarter, in that same order of ideas.

7. Findings and discussion

To extend in a more quantitative way the Kaizen implementation in this OM course, a
comparative diagram (EGA vs. EGADE business schools) of the average final grades
obtained by students with the traditional evaluation mechanism (EGA Business School,
from 2007 to 2009) vs. the new Kaizen approach mechanism (EGADE Business
School, from 2010 to 2013) that includes the individual written reports and final exam
(Table 3 and Figure 2) was made. For each year, the quarters analysed were January –
April, May – July and September – December. The total number of students who partici-
pated in the sample was 301 for the last three years (2010 ¼ 112; 2011 ¼ 95; 2012 ¼ 94).
For the case of the individual written reports, we take the number of students who were
enrolled in the OM course and multiply it by 10, which corresponds to the number of
theoretical and practical sessions that was taught per quarter. Let us remember that each
student has to hand in an individual written report per class. This way, 3010 written
1010 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

Table 3. Table of the evaluation criteria of the OM course.

Criterion % of Final Grade
† Class participation and presentations 10%
† Written reports 20%
† “Case study type” Innovation Project presentation 30%
† Final Exam 40%
Total 100%
Source: Design by own.

reports were analysed. Of course, the grade average per quarter and per year from each
course was obtained. Before the EGADE Business School was constituted, the researchers
took the data of the grading mechanism per class and per quarter. This grade mechanism
was a homework report similar to the individual report without the Kaizen characteristic
values (reflection process – Hansei, create a 100% synthesis of the content of the class and
working examples). The result of the data obtained can be seen in Table 4.
After implementing the previously indicated Kaizen techniques in the new EGADE
Business School OM course, a significant progress could be seen in the grade average
of the individual written report per class, per quarter and per year. The results are
shown in Table 5.
The overall progress of the grade average in the OM course could be observed only
after the study was conducted in the year 2012. In order to avoid a skewing of results,
two peers (experts in OM) were asked to evaluate the individual written reports so as to
have someone external to the professor to conduct the evaluation. A graphic showing
the comparison of traditional grading mechanisms vs. the new Kaizen approach grade
averages is shown here (Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2. Tendencies between traditional and Kaizen grading mechanisms.

 Total Quality Management 1011

Table 4. Average grade of traditional grading mechanisms per class, per quarter and per year
before Kaizen implementation.
Quarter/Year 2007 2008 2009
January –April 88a 87 90
May –July 87 86 84
September –December 90 89 88
a
The scale goes from 0 to 100 (100 being the maximum grade that can be obtained).
Source: own elaboration.

Table 5. Average grade of individual written reports per class, per quarter and per year after Kaizen
implementation.
Quarter/Year 2010 2011 2012
January –April 92a 94 95
May –July 91 95 98
September –December 92 97 98
a
The scale goes from 0 to 100 (100 being the maximum grade that can be obtained).
Source: own elaboration.

Figure 3. Tendencies among grades before and after Kaizen implementation.

For the final exams, the same analysis was made. The average grade per quarter and
per year before and after Kaizen was implemented was calculated. In total, 301 final
exams were examined. It can be seen in the following table and graphic that the influence
1012 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

Table 6. Average grade of final exams per quarter and per year before and after Kaizen
implementation.
2007 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012
Quarter/Grades before after before after before after
January –April 82 92 85 90 88 94
May –July 83 88 82 89 85 95
September –December 82 89 87 93 86 96
Source: own elaboration.

of Kaizen techniques in the OM course was reflected in the grade average of the final
exams (Table 6 and Figure 3).
The results shown in this investigation coincide with those obtained in a similar field
by Emiliani (2005) and Bradley and Willett (2004) in the USA, by indicating that Kaizen
application can help educational institutions to obtain more effective and efficient
teaching and learning processes from the student’s point of view. This investigation,
unlike the literature on Kaizen and TQM in the education field that was reviewed in
Section 3, presents a case study where management is indicated at the micro level,
where Kaizen promotes and stimulates the student’s knowledge and achievement in
an OM course.
The authors are aware that measuring the increase in students’ knowledge of OM
topics cannot be done easily just because Kaizen was applied to the teaching – learning
process. Thus, the use of written reports and final exams was a measurable and objective
way to do it. Nevertheless, to measure each student’s individual degree of learning would
involve more profound and complex subjects such as experiential learning (Kolb, 1983) or
Knowledge for Action (Argyris, 1993).
A synthesis of Kaizen application is shown in the following table.

Improvement opportunity Improvement made

1. PLAN PHASE – The general course
goal and specific objectives
1.2 Course syllabus
2. DO PHASE – The individual written
report
2.2 The prism and cylinder simulation
First, a general course goal was established, oriented to
learning by doing, an element that was not included
before the Kaizen implementation. Second, the general
objective is centred on one fundamental element: the
reflection the student makes regarding the knowledge
gained using Kaizen tools and techniques.
The ambiguity and unclearness were removed from the
syllabus in the grading elements (individual written
reports per class, final exam, participation in class and
applied Kaizen projects). Standardised tables for
evaluating students in an objective way were designed
(Tables 2 and 3).
It was implemented as a grading mechanism. It allows
the student to review the fundamental theoretical
elements seen in the course by way of writing the
content of the class at the end of it, thus generating a
practical reflection of each topic.
Readings and case studies that did not add value to the
student’s learning process were removed. A face-to-
face simulation was implemented in which students

(Continued)
 Total Quality Management 1013

Continued.
Improvement opportunity
2.3 Applied Kaizen projects
3. CHECK PHASE – The course
grading mechanisms
3.2 Final exam
4. ACT PHASE – Cause analysis
4.2 Incorporated class experience
Source: own elaboration.
Improvement made
experiment firsthand the process and continuous
improvement concepts.
This mechanism is one of the main characteristics of the
Kaizen application in the OM course. Its design,
application and exposition on behalf of the students
allow a deep learning process of the contents of the
OM course.
The implementation of these three mechanisms has
allowed the standardisation of the course contents in a
simple and direct way in order to generate ‘learning by
doing’, and at the same time unnecessary academic
material is eliminated before applying Kaizen.
With the evaluation mechanisms in place, the student had
certainty, standardisation and clarity on how he will be
evaluated. This mechanism allowed the sequence of
the topics for each class to be reordered, and now each
class is related to exercises and simulations, as well as
to certain reading assignments. For a student with no
previous experience in OM, it is a key topic in his
learning process.
With Kaizen, students obtained an exam centred on the
core concept that a manager in an organisation should
know about OM. It is not a complex exam; on the
contrary, it is simple, practical and direct. It is
multiple-choice and presents exercises similar to those
seen in class.
In the last session, a reflection exercise of the knowledge
acquired in class is conducted by the students. The tool
that is used is the cause-and-effect diagram with the
goal to establish a relationship among objectives and
learning.
Kaizen allows the professor to set a diversity of
mechanisms to establish different methods of learning
for adults, allowing at all times to expand the learning
experiences of the students in class. One example is
the prism and cylinder simulation.

7. Lessons learned: benefits and main barriers

It is possible to apply Kaizen successfully in a graduate course. Its implementation allows
to improve key elements of the teaching – learning process in an OM course. The benefits
that Kaizen have provided during its implementation in the OM course over the last three
years are the following:

. The professor has the opportunity to plan his course focusing on his ‘client’, the
student, and thus in his learning. The planning instrument is the syllabus; its elabor-
ation is centred on the client and his learning objectives.
. The improvements and changes that were and are being made are centred on the
PDCA improvement cycle and it is aligned with the students’ needs.
. The course is standardised in sequence, execution and evaluation. This allows to
have a homogeneous improvement platform ready in each quarter.
1014 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

. Kaizen allows to generate multiple improvement and innovation ideas so that the
course is better each following quarter.
. For this particular case, higher grades were observed on individual written reports
and on final exams.
. For the professor and students, Kaizen represented a positive experience during the
OM course of the MBA programme; they have fond memories when they graduate.
. Students who build Kaizen teams during the OM course take the concept and adapt it
to their organisations. At all times, they are energised and motivated by working in a
team that seeks at all times continuous improvement, even if it was simulated during
class.
. The process of teaching– learning sustained in the main objective is the focus of con-
tinuous improvement. Before Kaizen, the focus was on results (that students scored
higher passing grades), a wrong and complicated situation because focusing on the
output of the process rendered useless all actions taken to change it. Besides, it gen-
erates a better understanding of the importance of ‘learning by doing’ in each and
every class.

During these three years, different obstacles and barriers were present that tried to block
the Kaizen application effort in the OM course. Universities and business schools are dif-
ficult to deal with when one tries to change their academic processes, especially when
such approaches come from the private sector, and are little understood by academics
centred in other areas of management (Zimmerman, 1991). The faculty ∗∗ tries to do
few changes all over the years, derived from the ‘academic ego’, and the stability that
protocols and routine in universities generate. Four big barriers that were identified
are the following:

. Change that comes from professors and students at times challenges policies estab-
lished by university administrators.
. Faculty peers who fail to see the importance of continuous improvement in the
courses they teach.
. Simple and direct application methods such as Kaizen are seen by faculty as ‘lax’
from the scientific point of view. Several professors consider themselves as
‘experts’ in qualitative and quantitative methodologies that solve problems, and
as such, Kaizen is seen as a mere managerial tool.
. Implementing a change in a service process is not so simple due to its intangibility,
unlike a change in a manufacturing process. This provokes ‘doubts’ and ‘disbelief’
in professors and academic staff.

Finally, this paper has limitations. It is difficult to generalise the results because only one
MBA course was chosen (OM), and this course is centred in only one Mexican university
and business school. Besides, the course lends itself because it is part of the specialised
management being taught there: OM. There could be other factors that influenced the posi-
tive tendency that was observed: the Professor’s leadership, the teaching– learning process
based on the Professor’s pedagogical experience and, of course, the student’s profile sus-
tained by the MBA admission process. Also, the student’s learning style could be known at
the very beginning of the course and his/her progress could be measured using the Kaizen
approach (Kolb, 1983).
However, the results of this study coincide with studies conducted in other universities
in another country presented in the literature, so a first contribution to the literature of the
 Total Quality Management 1015

application of continuous improvement and TQM in the education sector can be estab-
lished in a micro-view way.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
AACSB. (2002). Management education at risk. St. Louis, MO: AACSB International. Retrieved
May 28, 2014, from www.aacsb.edu/publications/metf/METFReportFinal-August02.pdf
AACSB. (2004). Eligibility procedures and standards for business accreditation. St. Louis, MO.
Retrieved May 31, 2014, from www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp
AACSB. (2011). Accreditation standards. St. Louis, MO: AACSB International. Retrieved May 31,
2014, from www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bowen, D. E., & Youngdahl, W. E. (1998). “Lean” service: In defense of a production-line approach.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(3), 207–225.
Bradley, J., & Willett, J. (2004). Cornell students participate in Lord Corporation’s Kaizen projects.
Interfaces, 34(6), 451 –459.
Dahlgaard, J. J., Kristensen, K., & Kanji, G. (Eds.). (1995). A special issue on ‘total quality in edu-
cation. Total Quality Management, 6(5&6), 443–619.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT/CAES.
Drennan, L. (1999). Total quality management in the Scottish universities. International Journal:
Continuous Improvement Monitor, 1(4), 1–15. Retrieved May 20, 2014, from www.llanes.
panam.edu/journal/library/vol1No4/drenna.html
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532– 550.
Emiliani, M. L. (2005). Using Kaizen to improve graduate business school degree programs. Quality
Assurance in Education, 13(1), 37– 52.
Fujimoto, T. (1999). The evolution of manufacturing system at Toyota. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, pp. 129 –172.
Garza-Salazar. (2013). Presentación del Modelo TEC 21, Conferencia impartida en la ciudad de
Monterrey, Nuevo León, Junio de 203.
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen-the key to Japan’s competitive success. New York, NY: Random House.
Imai, M. (1989). Kaizen, la clave de la ventaja competitiva japonesa. México, DF: CECSA. (In
Spanish).
Imai, M. (1997). Gemba Kaizen. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
Kells, H. R. (1995). Creating a culture of evaluation and self-regulation in higher education organ-
izations. Total Quality Management, 6(5/6), 457–467.
Kolb, D. (1983). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development.
Lilja, J. (2010). Putting appreciate design into practice: A case study of a course evaluation and
design process. Journal Business Management, 31(3), 1089–1101.
Lillrank, P., & Kano, N. (1989). Continuous improvement-quality control circles in Japanese indus-
try. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Logothetis, N. (1995). Towards a quality management of education. Total Quality Management, 6(5/
6), 479 –486.
Newitt, D. J. (1996). Beyond BPR & TQM – managing through processes: Is kaizen enough?
Industrial Engineering. London, UK, IEE Savoy Place. Institution of Electric Engineers,
pp. 1 –38.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Ortı́z, C. (2009). Kaizen and Kaizen events implementation. New York, NY: Prentice Hall Editorial.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management,
13(4), 337 –348.
Spanbauer, S. J. (1995). Reactivating higher education with total quality management: Using quality
and productivity concepts, techniques and tools to improve higher education. Total Quality
Management, 6(5/6), 519– 537.
1016 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

Suárez-Barraza, M. F. (2007). Kaizen, la filosofı́a de mejora continua e innovación incremental,

detrás de la Administración por Calidad Total. México, DF: Panorama.
Suárez-Barraza, M. F., & Ramis-Pujol, J. (2010). Implementation of Lean-Kaizen in the human
resource service process. A case study in a Mexican public service organisation. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 21(3), 388–410.
Suárez-Barraza, M. F., Smith, T., & Dalhgaard-Park, S. M. (2012). Lean service. An analysis and
classification. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(3– 4), 359–380.
Swank, C. K. (2003). The lean service machine. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 123– 130.
Tofte, B. (1995). A theoretical model for implementation of total quality leadership in education.
Total Quality Management, 6(5/6), 469 –478.
Van Zadelhoff, C. J., De Wet, A. G., Pothas, A., & Petrorius, P. (1995). Quality management prin-
ciples applied to the teaching of operations research at a small university. Total Quality
Management, 6(5/6), 539– 546.
Voss, C., Sikriktsis, N., & Frohlic, M. (2002). Case research in operations management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195–219.
Womack, J., & Jones, D. (1996). Lean thinking. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Womack, J., Jones, P., & Ross, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York, NY:
Rawson & Associates.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research, design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zimmerman, W. J. (1991). Kaizen in search of quality. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education,
39(3), 7 –10.
Copyright of Total Quality Management & Business Excellence is the property of Routledge
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.