CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR HUMAN

RESOURCE OUTCOMES IN KAIZEN EVENTS: AN

EMPIRICAL STUDY

Assignment No. 1

PRODUCTION SYSTEM DESIGN AND

ANALYSIS

SUBMITTED TO:
MAJ. SALEEM

SUBMITTED BY:
HANEEN SAIF
2010-NUST-MS-PHD-03
 SUMMARY
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR HUMAN
RESOURCE OUTCOMES IN KAIZEN EVENTS: AN
EMPIRICAL STUDY
This paper uses results from a field study of 51 events in manufacturing organizations to
identify the set of input process factors that most strongly relate to the development of
employee attitudinal outcomes and problem solving capabilities in kaizen events.

In literature review first of all the relation of employee development with lean implementation
has been studied. Findings have been mixed up, some authors suggest a negative while others
conclude that a positive relation exists between lean implementation and employee satisfaction.
In addition, most of the work has not empirical or quantitative; rather the results were drawn
on qualitative basis. The author recommends a further research on the topic.

The second topic reviewed is Kaizen event research. Again a limited study is found on the topic
with no clear methodology or enough conclusion. Most of the studies focus on relationship
between event characteristics and technical performance outcome without empirically
measuring human resource outcomes. Again most of the studies rely on qualitative data and not
quantitative measures. Due to the diversity in the types of teams there is no definite set of
variables describing the team effectiveness.

Environmental factors related to the external market context of the organization were
not included in the research, as they were not expected to vary substantially at the
event level.

The initial model for research on Kaizen event consists of the following:

 Input
1. Goal Clarity
2. Goal Difficulty
3. Team Autonomy
4. Team Kaizen Experience
5. Team Leader Experience
6. Team Functional Heterogeneity
7. Management Support
8. Event Planning Process
9. Work Area Routineness
 Process factors
1. Action Orientation
2. Affective Commitment to Change
3. Intemal Processes
4. Tool Quality
5. Tool Appropriateness
 Outputs
1. Understanding of CI
2. Skills
3. Attitude
4. Goal Achievement
5. Impact on Area
6. Overall Perceived Success

This research used a multi site field study of 6 manufacturing organizations out of
which 4 were public sector organizations (secondary wood products, electronic motor
manufacturer and manufacturer of large transportation equipment). Two out of 6 were
private sector organizations (specialty equipment manufacturer, steel component
manufacturer). the targeted processes were operations, sales and marketing, customer
service and technical support, product design, production planning and inventory
control, process design, engineering and related activities.

The selection criteria for study participants should have following characteristics:

 All participating organizations manufacture products of some type.

 All participating organizations had been conducting kaizen events for at least
one year prior to the start of study,
 All participating organizations use kaizen events as part of a formal
organizational improvement strategy rather than as a “single use” change
mechanism.
 All participating organizations conduct kaizen events relatively frequently i.e.
one event per month on average.

For data collection, five factors were used in the research including:

 Kaizen program interview: conducted once per organization.

 Kickoff questionnaire: once per event
 Team activities log: once per event
 Report out questionnaire : once per event
 Event information questionnaire: once per event
1. Kaizen program interview measures Organizational characteristics, approach to
conducting events, perceived benefits from Kaizen event program.
2. Kickoff questionnaire measures Goal clarity, goal difficulty, affective
commitment to change, team kaizen experience.
3. Team activities log measures High-level description of event activities broken
down by days and by half hour increments
4. Report out questionnaire measures Attitude, understanding of CI, skills, team
autonomy, management support, action orientation, internal processes.
 5. Event information questionnaire measures Team functional heterogeneity, team
leader experience, event planning process, work area routine-ness, tool
appropriateness and tool quality.

Some factors were measured through perceptual scales and others were measured
through factual data. Then factor analysis was used to evaluate the validity of multi item
scales. Three factors analysis were performed and the same items were loaded to single
component as:

 Kickoff questionnaire measures

 Goal clarity
 Goal difficulty
 Affective commitment to change
 Report out questionnaire input and process measures
 Internal processes
 management support
 Team autonomy
 Action orientation
 Report out questionnaire outcome measures
 Understanding of continuous improvement
 Skills
 Attitude

However, the factor analysis resulted in two underlying dimensions i.e Kaizen
Capabilities and Attitude. Cronbach’s α was used to evaluate the reliability of the scales.
revised scales. The values were evaluated against the commonly applied thresholds of
0.70 for established scales and 0.60 for newly developed scales. All scales except one
had values greater than 0.70 and most scales (six out of nine) had values of 0.80 or
greater.

Following the conclusion of the study, findings were reported to the participating
organizations to evaluate the validity of study conclusions and to allow the
organizations to benefit from the results. In general, participating organizations found
the study results convincing and used study feedback to evaluate the effectiveness of
their current practices and to identify potential changes. As mentioned, the study
provided partial support for the three broad research hypotheses. Specific findings of
the study areas follow:

 Internal processes and goal clarity were the strongest predictors of both kaizen
capabilities and attitude.
 Management support and team functional heterogeneity were significant predictors
of attitude, but not kaizen capabilities.
 Team autonomy, affective commitment to change, goal difficulty, work area
routineness, team kaizen experience and team leader experience were significant
predictors of kaizen capabilities but not attitude.
 Some variables proposed to affect Kaizen event outcomes, i.e. action orientation, tool
quality, tool appropriateness, and event planning process, showed no significant
relationship to either outcome in this study.