See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350186298

Application of Kaizen philosophy for enhancing manufacturing industries'

performance: exploratory study of Ethiopian chemical industries

Article  in  International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management · March 2021

DOI: 10.1108/IJQRM-09-2020-0328

CITATIONS READS

2 507

1 author:

Haftu Hailu
EiT-M/EKI
8 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Practicable Integrative Continuous Improvement Framework ( ICIF) for Competitiveness: A Mixed Research of Ethiopian Manufacturing Industries View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Haftu Hailu on 16 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0265-671X.htm

Application of
QUALITY PAPER Kaizen
Application of Kaizen philosophy philosophy

for enhancing manufacturing

industries’ performance:
exploratory study of Ethiopian Received 28 September 2020
Revised 15 February 2021

chemical industries Accepted 1 March 2021

Haftu Hailu Berhe

Industrial Engineering, Ethiopian Institute of Technology - Mekelle (EiT-M),
Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia and
Ethiopia Kaizen Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Abstract
Purpose – Kaizen is an umbrella concept for a management philosophy based on a set of principles and values
with different tools and techniques that form part of Company-Wide Quality Control. The purpose of this study
to explore the empirical evidence of Kaizen philosophy practice and its effect on Ethiopian manufacturing
industries, chemical companies in particular.
Design/methodology/approach – After the literature review, an exploratory empirical research, supported
on a company observation, was adopted. The eight companies visit giveaway collecting annual technical
reports and Kaizen award presentations. The review structure encompassed four major approaches. The first
approach is conducting extensive literature review and adopting methodologies. The second approach is
examining secondary data and developing SWOT analysis. The third is exploring Kaizen practices, developing
framework, identifying drivers and barriers using charts, diagrams and graphs. The final approach is
proposing way forward and implications based on the findings from the investigative study to emphasize the
link between Kaizen practice and its effect on manufacturing industries’ performance.
Findings – The findings indicate practice of Kaizen brought in achieving monetary, nonmonetary and
qualitative results. However, results vary from company to company. The average attained improvements of
productivity, production volume, machine productivity and sales volume are 2.77%, 28.69%, 10.14% and
31.53% respectively. Moreover, a total of 71,932,472.19 ETB is saved by following structured framework and
practice of social and technical factors. However, companies could not sustain Kaizen activities and unable to
maintain the attained substantial improvements due to less effort made on some of the Kaizen practices
identified as barriers on the cause and effect diagram of this exploratory study.
Research limitations/implications: – A sample size of eight companies is not adequate to generalize key
findings of this study. This will be put right by carrying out further surveys in the future using questionnaire
and semistructured interviews.
Practical implications – The findings of this study underlined that practice of Kaizen philosophy on
chemical companies supported by structured implementation framework, full practice of drivers, eradicating
barriers, sustaining practices and maintaining improvements enable in enhancing chemical companies
performance through achieving quantitative (monetary and nonmonetary) and qualitative results.
Originality/value – Although there are a number of studies published on Kaizen, currently it is found that
there is lack of literature on practice and effect of Kaizen philosophy. Based on this exploratory study and
assessment, the framework and circumstance of Kaizen philosophy practices are providing valuable insights
for chemical companies, other manufacturing industries and organizations, which will be on board on this
voyage including Ethiopian Kaizen Institute, practitioners and academicians.
Keywords Kaizen, Practice, Effect, Driver, Barrier, Exploratory, Empirical, Chemical
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management
At the moment, the international business marketplace has turned out to be extremely © Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-671X
aggressive. Due to this reason, organizations are facing different challenges on improving DOI 10.1108/IJQRM-09-2020-0328
IJQRM customer service, making operation faster, more operation and reduction in costs. To
congregate these challenges, to survive and successfully compete in a market, companies
have to use the best management philosophies, strategies and tools (Hailu et al., 2020; Abate
and Mengesha, 2020; Su
arez-Barraza and Miguel-Davila, 2020). Kaizen is one of the best
management philosophies that is widely accepted not only in manufacturing industries but
also in business, service, commerce (Brunet and New, 2003; Jaca et al., 2018). Kaizen is a
Japanese concept that was translated in the Western culture as “continuous improvement,”
which could be applied in different aspects/roles in life, such as personal, social and
professional (Imai, 1986; Berger, 1997). Professionally, Kaizen refers to improve every day,
everyone (managers and front-line workers) and everywhere (any area, department or
process in an organization). To achieve this, different initiatives, methodologies or tools are
available under the umbrella of Kaizen (Imai, 1986). Over the last 30 years, some have applied
the concept of Kaizen as a magic wand through staff participation in improvement
suggestion schemes while others have treated it as a group of techniques and tools for cutting
waste. Yet others have treated it as simply an approximation to management approaches
such as the West’s total quality management (TQM) or in its Japanese forms, company-wide
quality control (CWQC), the Lean manufacturing and the Toyota Production System (TPS)
(Su
arez-Barraza et al., 2011). Similarly, this study also used the term Kaizen as a philosophy
that encompasses a production and quality management methodologies.
In the context of Ethiopia, the idea of kaizen was first brought to the attention in 2008, and
the introduction of kaizen as a management tool in Ethiopia has been started with the
assistance of JICA in response to the request of the government of Ethiopia to the government
of Japan for kaizen technology transfer to Ethiopia (Hailu et al., 2017b; Admasu, 2015). The
government of Ethiopia has given high attention to build the manufacturing and service
providing organizations by introduction and dissemination of kaizen philosophy through
establishing an institution of Ethiopian Kaizen Institute and cooperatively conducting
capacity-building program with JICA Ethiopia for the past 8 years. In Ethiopia, several
organizations have aggressively implementing Kaizen philosophy. Application of any
management philosophy should be investigated and explored to identify and discover the
applied structured frameworks and practices including drivers including Critical Success
Factors (CSFs) and barriers. This action enables company owners, government, stakeholders
and partners to take corrective actions for the improvement of their policies and strategies
relating to the practice of Kaizen philosophy.
But, there are merely very few previous studies that focus on assessing and analyzing the
effect of Kaizen philosophy on Ethiopian manufacturing industries. Besides, there is no
previous exploratory empirical study and even with significant data showing the structured
framework and circumstance of Kaizen philosophy practice in perspectives of Ethiopian
manufacturing industries, chemical industries in particular. Consequently, this study
emphasizes on exploring empirically the effect of Kaizen implementation on Ethiopian
manufacturing industries, case of chemical companies. Thus, the study is addressed through
the following research questions:
RQ1. How can Ethiopian chemical companies implement Kaizen for enhancing
organizational performance?
RQ2. What are the drivers and barriers experienced in dissemination and sustaining
Kaizen?
The general objective of this study was a twofold justification. First, it is to clarify the term
Kaizen in relation to its history, definition and principles. Second, it is to show in depth how
this philosophy applied in Ethiopian manufacturing industries, in relation to its particular
characteristics, its implementation and even the sustainability of this practice over time in
Ethiopian industries, the case of Chemical companies. In order to achieve this general Application of
objective, the following specific objectives were considered and addressed: identified Kaizen
company’s strength, weakness, opportunities and threats; realized the extent of Kaizen
philosophy implementation; identified the drivers of Kaizen philosophy practice; examined
philosophy
the effectiveness of Kaizen philosophy practice in selected Ethiopian chemical companies;
and identified the barriers experienced in dissemination and sustaining Kaizen philosophy
practices.

2. Literature review
2.1 Kaizen philosophy (history roots of Kaizen, definition and principles)
2.1.1 History roots of Kaizen. Kaizen historically began after Second World War when Toyota
first implemented in a group of workers performing the same or similar work, who meet
regularly to identify, analyze and solve work-related problems in its production process. This
revolutionary concept became very popular in Japan as a culture in the 1950s, and the term
kaizen became famous around the world through the works of Masaaki Imai. According to
this, Kaizen originated in Japan in 1950 when the management and government acknowledge
that there was a problem in their confrontational management system and a pending labor
shortage. Japan sought to resolve this problem in cooperation with the workforce. The
groundwork had been laid in the labor contracts championed by the government and was
taken up by most major companies, which introduced lifetime employment and guidelines for
distribution of benefits for the development of the company. This contract remains the
background for all Kaizen activities providing the necessary security to ensure confidence in
the workforce (Brunet, 2000). First, it was been introduced and applied by Imai in 1986 to
improve efficiency, productivity and competitiveness in Toyota, a Japanese carmaker
company in the wake of increasing competition and the pressure of globalization. Since then,
Kaizen has become a part of the Japanese manufacturing system and has contributed
enormously to the manufacturing success (Ashmore, 2001).
2.1.2 Definition of Kaizen. Although Imai provided a definition of Kaizen, writings by
scholars and practitioners in the field exhibit a certain degree of ambiguity and inconsistency
(Singh and Singh, 2009). For example, Imai (1986, 1997) defined Kaizen as a Japanese
philosophy that means continuous improvement (CI) process involving everyone, managers
and workers alike. Broadly defined, Kaizen is a strategy to include concepts, systems and
tools within the bigger picture of leadership involving and people culture, all driven by the
customer (Imai, 1986; Lina and Ullah, 2019). Various authors have explained Kaizen from
different perspectives. Imai (1989) defined it as: “a means of continuing improvement in
personal life, home life, social life, and working life. Newitt (1996) described the term Kaizen,
based on Imai’s definition (1986, 1989), as the combination of two Japanese ideograms
(Kanjis), Kai (改) which means change, and Zen (善), which means good or to improve or to be
reborn, and in “Continuous improvement or principle of continuous improvement” (Lillrank
and Kano, 1989). Womack and Jones (1996) refer to Kaizen as a lean thinking and lay out a
systematic approach to help organizations systematically to reduce waste. They describe
waste as any human activity that absorbs resources but creates or adds no value to the
process.
Thus, a first definition of Kaizen is based on its use in companies for fostering staff
involvement in process improvement (Elgar and Smith, 1994). Here, one should note that
Bessant (2003) indicates that mobilizing staff and getting them to participate creates a
channel through which they can contribute to the company’s development through using
their brains to think. This idea is comparable to the initial studies carried out by the Human
Relations School, in which Mayo, Maslow, McGregor and Herzberg advocated this kind of
management approach (Malloch, 1997).
IJQRM Imai (2007), based on the interview conducted in Spain, notes that Kaizen means:
continuous improvement every day and every moment by everyone in the company no
matter what post they happen to occupy. It ranges from small, incremental improvements to
radical innovation (breakthrough process redesign/innovation – Japanese Kayrio). This new
view of Kaizen by Imai is shared by some Western authors, for instance, Hamel (2009) defined
Kaizen as follows: Kaizen is much more than an event; it is a philosophy, mindset and, for
breakthrough performance, a most critical vehicle to achieve strategic imperatives and
execute value stream/process improvement plans. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the
definition is provided by Imai (1986), Lina and Ullah (2019).
Kaizen is originated in manufacturing processes (Imai, 1986; Fujimoto, 1999; Su
arez-
Barraza et al., 2018). Some authors attribute its beginning to the work of William Deming and
Joseph Jur
an (Mizuno, 1988), whereas others relate it to the improvement of processes in the
Toyota Motor Corporation during the 1950s and 1960s (Nemoto, 1987; Bessant and Caffyn,
1997; Su
arez-Barraza et al., 2018). Crucial elements in both cases are the importance of self-
development, discipline and pride in one’s work within the Japanese culture (Sakaiya, 1995;
Su
arez-Barraza et al., 2011, 2018). The Japanese culture, oriented toward a philosophy of
disciplined and constant self-improvement, which probably had its origin in the Bushido code
of the “samurai” during medieval Japan (Sakaiya, 1995), easily assimilated the lessons of
statistical process control, thus giving rise to the Japanese philosophy called Kaizen (Su
arez-
Barraza et al., 2011). This management approach is recognized as an improvement strategy
capable of ensuring excellence and operational innovation (Brunet and New, 2003). The
Kaizen philosophy approach has been present in the management arena for several years,
even in the field of organizations at the practical level such as philosophy, technique and
event (Montabon, 2005; Su
arez-Barraza et al., 2011; Cheser, 1998; Van Aken et al., 2010).
Therefore, there is a clear theoretical need to cover this conceptual gap through this study.
Within this context, it is necessary to deepen the knowledge of what is happening in
Ethiopian manufacturing companies with the practice of Kaizen.
2.1.3 Principles of Kaizen philosophy. In the analysis of Kaizen in the preceding literature,
most of the research initiatives were focused with the following issues or themes: systematic


literature reviews (Alvarez-Garc
ıa et al., 2018; Carnerud et al., 2018) of Kaizen articles and
origins and characteristics of Kaizen philosophy (M
endez and Vila-Alonso, 2018; Chung,
2018; Chiarini et al., 2018), case studies and implementation in manufacturing (Fonseca and
Dominguez, 2018) and services (Chen, 2018), drivers and barriers in Kaizen application
(Alvarado-Ram
ırez et al., 2018; Jaca et al., 2018; Mar
ın-Garc
ıa et al., 2018), Kaizen events and
their CSFs (Gonz
alez-Aleu et al., 2018). Moreover, Su
arez-Barraza et al. (2011) found that
Kaizen appears to refer to two kinds. One kind researched the Japanese variant of Kaizen
based on the review conducted in nine articles, as defined by Imai (1986). Here, the scholars
mentioned that Cheser (1994) argues that Kaizen goes further than the Western notion of CI.
He indicates that Kaizen can take at least three forms: Kaizen management; group Kaizen and
individual Kaizen. Imai (1986, 1997) provides a set of concepts and features for implementing
Kaizen: Kaizen and management; the focus on processes versus results; continuous
monitoring of plan, do, check, act (PDCA) and standardization, do, check, act (SDCA) cycles
by all company players; rewarding quality; let the figures do the talking (statistical control);
and customers constitute the next process. In this link, Berger’s (1997) analysis is based on
Imai’s (1986) contribution and proposes three guiding principles for Kaizen: process-oriented
Kaizen, covering processes and aimed at improving their results; Kaizen oriented to
maintaining and improving standards. Here, keeping up daily work implies maintaining
standards, which can be improved through CI in the company; Individual Kaizen, based on
Imai’s group and individual Kaizen. This focuses on staff improvement suggestions. One
should note here that Berger (1997) proposes his own classification of Kaizen-related teams
(quality control circles (QCCs), organic CI, expert task force and wide focus CI groups). While
the other looked at the Western interpretation of Kaizen as “CI” based on the review Application of
conducted on 19 articles, which categorized into five practical approaches: Kaizen blitz, Kaizen
Gemba-Kaizen workshops, Kaizen office, Kaizen Teian and Lean-Kaizen and Six Sigma. After
conducting an analysis of the literature on Kaizen, the scholars propose three perspectives of
philosophy
Kaizen for understanding the concept by taking Kaizen as a management philosophy; Kaizen
as a component of TQM; and Kaizen as a theoretical principle for improvement of
methodologies and techniques.
The first perspective is of Kaizen as an umbrella concept for a management philosophy
based on a set of principles and values (Imai, 1986, 1997; Fonseca et al., 2018) that underpin
company management: top management commitment and leadership; focus on processes;
Gemba (place where things happen) improvement management; people’s participation;
nonjudgmental and nonblaming approach; standardization, discipline and constancy;
experimentation and observation skills; and systemic thinking. In other words, this
perspective embraces all Japanese-inspired management practices, techniques and tools that
form part of CWQC (Imai, 1989).The underpinning for this perspective lies in the strong link
between senior management and staff when it comes to Kaizen as a “management
philosophy.” The link is expressed through policies and targets that cover everyone from top
management to shop floor workers and is termed Hoshin Kanri in Japanese. Kaizen as a
management philosophy encompassed principles and values and techniques. The identified
principles and values are maintained and improve standards, focus on process, Gemba
improvement management, people’s participation, top management commitment, discipline
and constancy, experimentation and observation skills. Whereas techniques identified by the
scholars are Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), Total Quality Control (TQC),
autonomation (jidoka), Single Minutes Exchange of Dies (SMED), PDCA and SDCA Cycle,
QCCs, small group activities and improvement teams, Kanban and Just In Time (JIT), Total
Flow Management (TFM), Cross-Functional Management, 5’S and muda elimination, Gemba
and visual management, Hoshin Kanri (Policy Deployment), zero defects, customer
orientation, suggestion system, discipline in the workplace, robotics, Quality and
Productivity Improvement (QPI), cooperative labor–management relations and new-
product development (Imai, 1986, 1989; Su
arez-Barraza et al., 2011).
The second perspective sees Kaizen as just another element in TQM. Here, TQM
encompasses principles and values and techniques. The identified principles and values are
customer focus, process control, teamwork, employee fulfillment and empowerment,
continuous improvement (Kaizen), base decisions on facts, training and education,
effective leadership. Whereas techniques identified by scholars are self-assessment,
quality function deployment, quality circles, supplier partnership, design of experiment,
statistical process control, QC story, benchmarking, QC seven tools, flow and control charts.
The third and last perspective arising from their literature analysis concerns Kaizen as the
theoretical principle for improvement or application of methodologies and/or techniques for
cutting waste. Here also Kaizen principles (methodologies and techniques) contained five
methodologies and/or techniques: Kaizen blitz, Kaizen office, Kaizen teian, Gemba-Kaizen
workshops and Lean-Kaizen Six Sigma. Moreover, with this perspective, the identified
principles and values are limited scope, remove muda, quick wins and teamwork, top
management support, use the capacity of highly experience veterans, improvement’s ideas,
“homework” concept, committee office of support, the improvement effort, cross-functional
approach and intensive training. Whereas techniques identified are QC story, process
redesigns (blitzes), Value Stream Mapping (VSM), 5’S and standardization, action’s plan and
coaching, process mapping and flow charts, Define–Measure–Analyze–Improve–Control
(DMAIC) and Design of Experiment (Doe), QC seven tools, statistical techniques and flow
balance (Su
arez-Barraza et al., 2011). At the end, the scholars discussed in relation to
aforementioned Kaizen’s application in companies. Despite various methodologies and
IJQRM techniques being identified in the literature for applying Kaizen in companies (included Kaizen
Blitz, Gemba-Kaizen workshops, Kaizen Office, Lean-Kaizen Six Sigma right through to those
based on staff suggestion schemes such as Kaizen Teian or broader approaches such as TQM,
some of the principles of Kaizen as a “management philosophy” stated earlier are absent when
implementing these methods. Thus, the scholars recommend companies seeking well-
integrated, holistic guiding principles. Accordingly, Kaizen can be understood as a set of
guiding principles that steer improvement and learning, especially in terms of the principles
that are presented in its three perspectives and which can be considered as “cornerstones.”
The guiding principles “cornerstones” identified by Su
arez-Barraza et al. (2011) are team work,
eliminating muda and Gemba management, education and training, commitment from top
management, proposing and applying improvements, focus on process and standards, which
are common for the three perspectives of Kaizen: as a management philosophy, an element of
TQM and Kaizen principles methodologies and techniques. Thus, the aforesaid identified
guiding principles “cornerstones” are taken and adapted for the purpose of this study.

2.2 Drivers to Kaizen philosophy application

Thus far, a number of studies have identified the drivers used for successful practice of
Kaizen philosophy. However, the identified practices are not analogous and lack evenness.
For example, Prajogo and Sohal (2004) state, based on Jaca et al. (2018), the most relevant
enablers for attaining a CI culture in companies are: top management support and
commitment, strategic focus on CI through the definition of an appropriate set of goals and
objectives, using the right methodology to implement CI throughout the whole organization,
creating and sustaining a CI culture, employee support and commitment, good information,
communication and knowledge-transfer systems and having a CI management and follow-up
system to track the CI. Other scholars (Mar
ın-Garc
ıa et al., 2018) also identified 14 facilitators:
good communication, assertive behavior, self-efficacy, knowledge management, training,
leadership, compensation systems, intrinsic motivation, feedback about suggestions,
participating in the implementation, protocol, enterprise culture, group composition and
sufficient resources. Hailu et al. (2020) also identified leadership and people management as
social factors; and strategy, resource management, process management and partnership as
technical factors. The other studies conducted by Gonzalez-Aleu and Van Aken (2016),
Gonz
alez-Aleu et al. (2018) similarly identified 53 CSFs under four categories: task design,
team design, organization and Continuous Improvement Project (CIP) process. However,
Gonz
alez-Aleu et al. (2018) described 47 out of 53 CSFs assessed as very important or higher (4
or higher on a six-point scale).
Different scholars also identified Kaizen practices as independent variables: leadership or
top management support (Shafiq et al., 2019; Jong et al., 2019; Rawashdeh, 2018; Baye and
Raju, 2016; Jalu, 2015; Beshah and Kitaw, 2014); Customer focus (Jong et al., 2019; Rawashdeh,
2018; Baye and Raju, 2016; Beshah and Kitaw, 2014); People management (Shafiq et al., 2019;
Jong et al., 2019; Rawashdeh, 2018; Baye and Raju, 2016); Process management (Shafiq et al.,
2019; Jong et al., 2019; Rawashdeh, 2018; Baye and Raju, 2016; Beshah and Kitaw, 2014);
Continuous improvement (Rawashdeh, 2018; Baye and Raju, 2016); Product design (Psomas
et al., 2014); Supplier quality management (Rawashdeh, 2018; Baye and Raju, 2016); Strategy
(policy, strategic planning) (Shafiq et al., 2019; Jong et al., 2019; Rawashdeh, 2018); Resources
including partnership (Shafiq et al., 2019; Beshah and Kitaw, 2014); Measurement, analysis
and knowledge management (Jong et al., 2019; Rawashdeh, 2018); Kaizen tools and
techniques (Jalu, 2015). Moreover, other preceding studies also identified Kaizen practices as
CSFs: leadership (Janji
c et al., 2019; Hailu et al., 2017b); Top management policy, commitment,
support (Kumar, 2019; Lina and Ullah, 2019; Todorovic et al., 2019; Abdulmouti, 2018; Hailu
et al., 2017b); process control (2017b); Culture of effective and flexible suggestion system
(Kumar, 2019; Abdulmouti, 2018; Hailu et al., 2017b); the use of problem-solving approach Application of
(Kumar, 2019; Abdulmouti, 2018; Khanna et al., 2017a, b; Amrutkar and Kamalja, 2017) and Kaizen
Supportive organization structure (Kumar, 2019; Janji
c et al., 2019); employee’s attitude
(Hailu et al., 2017b); employee’s and management involvement, team dynamics (good
philosophy
presentation and communication skills), recognition (Janji
c et al., 2019; Abdulmouti, 2018;
Hailu et al., 2017b); good management–employee relationship and train employees
(Todorovic et al., 2019; Lina and Ullah, 2019; Janji
c et al., 2019; Hailu et al., 2017b);
continual evaluation system and cultivating internal communication system (Todorovic
et al., 2019; Hailu et al., 2017b); strategic orientation (Todorovic et al., 2019). Moreover,
problem-solving approach is identified as one main category of strategic and human-
oriented factor practice by Kumar (2019), Abdulmouti (2018), Khanna et al. (2017a, b),
Amrutkar and Kamalja (2017).
To sum up the aforementioned literature, the drivers for successful practice of Kaizen
could be grouped into seven main categories: leadership and people as social factors;
process, strategy, partnership including supplier, resource and problem-solving approach
as technical factors by splitting resources and partnership; by merging continuous
improvement, Kaizen tools and techniques, product design, measurement and analysis
under process management; supplier quality management and customer focus under
partnership; knowledge management under people management. Thus, for the purpose of
this exploratory empirical study, the identified social and technical factors are adapted as
Kaizen drivers (Calvo-Mora et al., 2014; Bou-Llusar et al., 2008).

2.3 Barriers to Kaizen philosophy application

Research carried out by Alvarado-Ram
ırez et al. (2018) identified five barriers to application
of Kaizen based on their comparative study in companies from Mexico and Ecuador: lack of
involvement of all staff; restriction of resources (time, money and personnel); lack of formal
commitment and support of top management; low understanding of Kaizen and resistance
to change (custom, fear, etc.). Other scholars (Goshime et al., 2018) summarized common
barriers of Kaizen philosophy implementation by grouping into three: managerial barrier
(lack of lean culture, awareness, top management attitude, shop-floor employee attitude,
poor employee management as well as unavailability of automated system, unavailability
of real-time data, lack of training and lack of communication); operational barrier (unstable
customer handling, poor inventory control, longer lead times, operational invisibility, lack
of understanding of key concepts, lack of skilled labor and resistance to change); financial
barrier (resource constraints, implementation cost and lack of finances). Lina and Ullah
(2019) also recognized reasons behind failure of Kaizen philosophy practice. These are:
management and employees are not fully committed; thinking Kaizen as a short-term
project; overemphasis on tying kaizen to Key Performance Indicators (KPI); implemented
Kaizen philosophy in a heavily bureaucratic organization; where management pays lip
service to kaizen; where theoretical and practical training on kaizen philosophy is
inadequate; where management does not support kaizen initiatives. The researcher also
agreed with both studies of Goshime et al. (2018) and, Lina and Ullah (2019), the identified
barriers are real hindrances for successful completion of the practice of Kaizen philosophy.
But, this study considers the earlier identified barriers as practices that were not given high
attention by organization leaders, employees and even company partners. So that, if these
barriers are well practiced, definitely these are the drivers of social and technical success
factors, which enable for winning the implementation and achieving targeted results.
Therefore, this study explored the barriers of Kaizen philosophy practice with view of the
earlier identified social and technical practices.
IJQRM 2.4 Kaizen philosophy application in Ethiopia
In the current competitive and fast-growing world, only efficiently managed organizations
can survive. The development, implementation and management of new philosophies based
on customization are fundamental (Kumar, 2019; Hailu et al., 2015; Desta, 2011; Waheed et al.,
2010). The Ethiopia Kaizen Institute (EKI) customized the Japanese Kaizen in considering
organizations’ existing working culture, skill of employees and technology of machineries.
Based on EKI implementation strategy, the Kaizen philosophy practice is rooted in level-
based, namely the basic and intermediate level. For organizations to implement intermediate
level, completion of the basic level within the given EKI’s implementation requirement
including timeframe is an obligation. In the basic level, the four pillars of Kaizen philosophy
practices: housekeeping activities, 5S (Sort, Set in order, Shine, Standardize and Sustain) in
particular; Waste elimination (eight wastes: over-production, waiting, transportation, over
processing, inventory, motion, defects and excess human resource or unused human talent) or
elimination of non-value-added materials); Standardization of operation and the workplace
environment; Evaluating the end results of the kaizen activities in order to implement even
greater operational efficiency (cost effect) and effectiveness (the extent to which customers’
requirements are met) are expected to be implemented by any organizations (manufacturing,
service and educational institutions). In the intermediate level, organizations are also
anticipated to fully practice the following advanced Kaizen philosophy tools: TQM, JIT, TPM,
autonomation (Jidoka), seven QC tools, problem-solving techniques: PDCA, QC story formula,
industrial engineering basics including work study, time and motion study (Hailu et al.,
2017a, 2018a). Ethiopian companies used dedicated QCCs and/or cross-functional teams to
improve a targeted manufacturing work area (Hailu et al., 2015). These teams apply
structured process tools and human creativity with a goal of substantially improving the
performance of the work area, process or product (Hailu et al., 2017b).
Kaizen philosophy practice is done through performing managerial activities,
participation of small group activities or individual activities. For practice of any world-
class manufacturing system including Kaizen requires structured framework and guideline.
Hailu et al. (2018b) discovered five phases of Kaizen implementation guideline based on
examining few preceding studies within the scope of PDCA cycle: Preparation phase, which
includes initial gap assessment, planning and training; Designing phase; Implementation
phase; Stabilization phase; Sustaining phase including policy management review or
replanning. Based on this, before starting on any kaizen practices, management needs to be
passionately committed to undertaking an initial gap assessment of the internal and external
conditions of its company to determine how it has tailored its activities to meet the needs of its
domestic and global customers. In short, with a good understanding of the mission and
internalizing the vision, the brainstorming team needs to analyze the current situation to
identify problems using the strength, weakness, opportunity and threat (SWOT) analyses
(Desta, 2014). After preparation of the SWOT analysis, teams must use the implementation
guideline with respect to each step of PDCA technique to manage the implementation as
stated in the aforesaid literature.
Kaizen philosophy practices helped many firms to achieve better operational excellence
and improve their productivity (Tiwari, 2017). Lina and Ullah (2019) described the pilot
project done at Ethiopian private companies, from October 2008 to May 2011, brought
various positive results including both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative results
included are: clean working environment created; teamwork and motivation of workers
developed; health and occupational safety of workers improved; lower-level workers
accustomed to suggesting improvement ideas to management decisions – increased
employee participation; and knowledge obtained on how to meet quick delivery and to reduce
costs. Whereas Quantitative results obtained are categorized as monetary and nonmonetary
impact. Based on this, monetary impact included: by reducing costs companies able save
ETB 10,000 per month and ETB 78, 000 per annum, by generating additional income of Application of
ETB1.2 million per year, by just decreasing down time saved ETB 204,000 per day, by Kaizen
rectifying raw materials defect and used for manufacturing able to save ETB2.4 million, by
identifying, repairing and reusing of useable machines and equipment worth of ETB3.25
philosophy
million. Nonmonetary impact included: increasing labor productivity (by reducing time loss
for searching tools on average 50%), reduction of floor space around 50%, defect ratio
improvement in the range of 50–70%, lead time improved in the range of 16–90%, labor
saved from 15 to 90% (Lina and Ullah, 2019). Hailu et al. (2017b) stated, at the time of Kaizen
implementation, company was achieving substantial tangible and intangible improvements
with attractive physical changes. These achievements were explained in the research work of
Hailu et al. (2015). The authors listed the changes as: reduction of defect products from 49 to
20 pairs of shoes per month; achieving delivery times of products to the customer; Reduction
of inventory such as spare parts, semifinished and finished products results in 1,080,520 birr
saving; Improvements in daily production from 700 to 960 pairs of shoes and from 2.73 to 3.75
pairs of shoes per operator and the company also able to earn 33,244,820 birr for 3 years.
Moreover, Desta (2014) also remarks based on the report presented to Ethiopian Peoples’
and Federation House by Methara Sugar Company since June 2013. In Kaizen practice, the
Methara Sugar Factory has achieved a nationwide average sugarcane crop yield of 126.93
tons per hectare. At that time, both the sugarcane plantation and sugar production have
increased by 35 and 37% respectively. The production cost of one unit quintal of sugar has
also decreased by about 23 Ethiopian birr and the overall time efficiency has increased by
about 20% since the company has embarked on Kaizen (Desta, 2014). Hailu et al. (2015) also
defined the effect of kaizen philosophy implementation consequences on organizational
performance, based on Imai (1986), on achieving tangible results (increased market share,
sales volume, production volume, successful development of new products, shortening of
product development time, improved quality, fewer complaints, reduced defect costs, more
employee suggestions, fewer industrial accidents and in tangible results (more active use of
statistical QC, among others). Moreover, the EKI also used qualitative results measurement
instrument worksheet contained improvement indicators of free space, saved money from
discarding, 5S evaluation, searching time, number of accidents, eight wastes as stated above,
lead time, machine down time, frequency of machine failure, production volume, labor and
machine productivity, defect rate, raw material damage, number of customer complaint,
number of new suggestions and inventions, cost of saving from production, absenteeism.
Therefore, the literature review signifies there is ample Kaizen practice effect measuring
instrument. Therefore, this study also used the earlier identified measures as measuring
instrument indicators by adapting as shown in the findings of this study.
Based on the aforementioned literature, some of the studies that review the practice of
Kaizen and its effect are conducted in the context of Ethiopia. Still these studies are deficient
in empirical analytical evidence on exploring the effects achieved by the practice of Kaizen
philosophy including the levels of Kaizen, activities to be conducted, factors used and tools
applied in Ethiopian manufacturing industries context. Therefore, there is an opportunity to
contribute to the body of knowledge related to the empirical evidence on practice of Kaizen to
achieve both quantitative (monetary and nonmonetary) and qualitative improvements.

2.5 The main reason for conducting this research

The aforementioned literature review confirms, practice of Kaizen has definite effect on
manufacturing companies by securing quantitative and qualitative results. However, there is
no an adequate amount of quantitative statistical evidence that narrates the practice of
Kaizen philosophy and its effect on Ethiopian chemical manufacturing industries with the
status of their implementation, method of practice, drivers behind success, effect of practice
IJQRM and barrier of the practice perspective. Hence, this points out that still quantitative empirical
exploratory study is needed to completely understand the practice of Kaizen philosophy and
its effect on chemical manufacturing industries. Therefore, the goal of this research is to
empirically look at the practice of Kaizen philosophy and its effect on chemical
manufacturing industries in the circumstance where extent of Kaizen practice (method)
and drivers could bring effect on Ethiopian chemical manufacturing industries by achieving
both quantitative (monetary and nonmonetary) and qualitative results.

3. Materials and methods

3.1 Research framework
This research methodology is often used when the researcher does not have enough
knowledge to make conceptual distinctions or posit of an exploratory relationship between a
problem and its factors. There is no exploratory empirical study investigating the
relationship between Kaizen practice (factors) and its effect (operational and financial
performance) on Ethiopian chemical manufacturing industries. Due to this reason, this study
selected structured implementation framework discovered by Hailu et al. (2018b) within the
scope of PDCA cycle: Plan (preparation phase including initial gap assessment, action
planning and training; designing phase); Do (implementation phase); Check (stabilization
phase); Act (sustaining phase and policy management review or replanning phase) to explore
the practice of Kaizen philosophy on Ethiopian chemical manufacturing companies. This
study also used seven drivers of Kaizen philosophy practice identified by Hailu et al. (2020) as
social factors: leadership and people; technical factors: process, strategy, partnership,
resource and problem-solving approach as technical factors to explore the factors practiced
by Ethiopian chemical manufacturing companies. Moreover, this study also used
organizational effect measures as stated earlier and identified by Lina and Ullah (2019),
Hailu et al. (2017b, 2015), Desta (2014) and Imai (1986) to explore the confirmed various
positive effects achieved during practice of Kaizen philosophy including both qualitative and
quantitative (monetary and nonmonetary) results. Therefore, from the aforementioned
literature, this research developed a research framework (Figure 1), which related the
independent variable of Kaizen practices (structured implementation framework, social,
technical factors) to dependent variable of organizational effect (quantitative – monetary and
nonmonetary and qualitative results) (see Figure 2).

3.2 Research design

Scholars agree on the suitable research design that is the primary task toward scientific
analysis of research problems. The research design used to carry the necessary exploration to
achieve the purpose of this research is exploratory empirical research. Exploratory empirical
research is one type of research methodologies conducted for addressing a problem that has
not been clearly defined or a structured relationship that cannot be developed for a problem in
consideration. To get representative data, the researcher used previously driven formula by
Hailu et al. (2020) and Jalu (2015) considering the level of acceptable margins of error 5% and
assuming 95% of confidence level. The total sample size (n) is calculated by:

Kaizen Practices Organizational Performance

■ Structured implementation framework Application ■ Quantitative (monetary and
Figure1. ■ Social factors (leadership and people) non-monetary results
Research framework ■ Technical factors (process, strategy, ■ Qualitative results)
(the researcher) partnership, problem solving, resource)
 n¼
N
(1)
Application of
1 þ NðeÞ 2 Kaizen
philosophy
Where n 5 48 the sample size (selected chemical companies size), N 5 55 the size of the
population of existing chemical companies implementing Kaizen philosophy till this research
work conducted, e 5 the margin of error or the maximum error, and for this study it is 5%
with confidence level (95%). But, due to the constraint of resources, the researcher decided to
use eight (16%) companies with respect to the earlier calculated sample size (48). Therefore,
totally in the study area, eight chemical companies (A-MgCF, B-NCF, C-MCF, D-BSPE, E-GSF
and AABG, F-MPB, G-APF and H-KPI) are selected and from cement, paper work, soap and
detergent, cheep wood, pharmaceutical and painting subsectors. Companies A, B, and D are
implementing intermediate level. Whereas companies C, E, F, G, and H are implementing
basic Kaizen. Secondary data of annual technical reports, presentation documents,
magazines and EKI conference proceedings from the companies was collected using
document study based on reports submitted and presented to EKI. Triangulation is also done
with literature to relate the extent of Kaizen practices, the drivers, the results achieved, the
barriers faced and their implications to organizations’ sustainability.

3.3 Research approach

Based on the earlier literature review, there are few studies that identified the Kaizen
philosophy practices or independent variables and organizational success measures or
dependent variables, which tried to link practice of Kaizen philosophy and its effect on
manufacturing industries. Nevertheless, the investigative part of the studies regarding the
status of the practice by scanning relevant documents to identify encouraging practices and
gaps need to be improved practices, examining the extent of implementation, identifying the
drivers, effects and barriers are limited to show the correlation between Kaizen and
organizational effect. This can confirm the fact that more exploratory empirical research is
needed to understand the link. Hence, the approach in this research follows four ways in
dealing with the practice of Kaizen for achieving organizational results. The first move
toward is searching Kaizen concept, case studies, surveys in manufacturing industries
including service sector, extensively literature review and identifying adapted
methodologies. The second move is collecting relevant secondary data and performing an
assessment. The third move is analyzing, interpreting and synthesizing using SWOT
analysis, charts, diagrams, graphs and tables. The final move is proposing the way forward
based on the findings from the investigative study to emphasize the link between Kaizen
practice and its effect on chemical companies by discussion in proper approach to build up the
conclusions, implications (theoretical, practical and managerial) and recommendations for
the companies and government and future study in reference to study limitations presented
for the practitioners and academicians (Figure 2).
Moreover, the approach used to explore this study in particular the basic and
intermediate-level Kaizen practice is by understanding the extent of Kaizen practice
guideline stated in Hailu et al. (2018b) and merging the phases into three categories, which is
parallel to PDCA cycle: Plan (Preparation and Designing), Do (Implementation), Check
(Stabilization) and Act (Sustaining and Replanning) for practice of both levels. The approach
used for understanding the drivers is also based on the identified social drivers (leadership
and people) and technical drivers (process, strategy, partnership, resource, problem-solving)
(Hailu et al., 2020); the effects achieved on the companies are based on identified quantitative
(monetary and nonmonetary) results on Lina and Ullah (2019), Hailu et al. (2017b,2015), Desta
(2014) and Imai (1986).
IJQRM 1st 2nd
Approach: 3rd 4th Approach:
Approach: Approach: ■ Way forward
■ Searching ■ Collecting
Kaizen ■ Analyzin ■ Conclusions
and g and including
concepts, examining
case exploring recommendati
Start secondary Kaizen on
studies, data End
surveys practices ■ Implications
■ Developin ■ Developi (theoretical,
■ Extensive g SWOT
literature ng practical &
analysis framewor managerial)
review table
Figure 2. ■ Identify k ■ Limitations
Process flow for adapting ■ Drivers and future
research approach methodol ■ Barriers research
method (the researcher) ogies

4. Results and discussion

As it is defined earlier and following comprehensive investigation of the eight
chemical companies’ technical report and presentations, common Kaizen practice
issues: level of implementation, activities conducted within these levels, drivers used
for successful implementation, results achieved and tools used in implementation are
identified using SWOT analysis. Based on this, the SWOT analysis of the companies is
given as follows.

4.1 Preliminary analysis of Kaizen philosophy practice on chemical companies

To study the current and past conditions of Kaizen implementation, it is recommended first to
develop SWOT analysis. This enables to have a clear understanding of the current situation,
to identify motivators, drivers and barriers and effectives of the company’s problems in order
to become cognizant on the process, to increase positive attitudes and to promote teamwork.
As a result, training regarding to the SWOT should be given to employees engaged in
planning, because this will help them to successfully maintain and sustain Kaizen practice
changes plus enable them to generate future improvements, which is similar to Desta (2014).
Therefore, based on the review of company’s annual report, the summarized SWOT analysis
of companies is provided as follows. Strength of companies: long-term relationship agreement
with EKI (A–H); willingness to start Kaizen practice (A–H); building of employees’ capacity
on Kaizen (A–H); organizing Kaizen experts and office (A, B, C, D, F and G); allotting budget,
computer and office resources to 5S-Kaizen practice (B, C, F, G and H); able to use structured
Kaizen practice framework as shown in degree of Kaizen implementation further (A–H);
organizing experience-sharing seminars (A–H); able to conduct progress sharing (A, B, D);
establishing motivational system (B,C, F, G and H); able to ensure workplace standardization
(A–H); holding QCCs weekly meeting (A–H); start of QCC’s performance evaluation (A–H);
benchmarking best practices (C, E, F and G); able to achieve results in both levels as shown in
section 4.2 (A–H).
Weakness of companies: unable to sustain and maintain Kaizen activities and substantial
improvements (A–H); unable to practice with full commitment (A, C, E and H); inconsistent
training development (A–H); inconsistent monitoring and evaluation (A–H); poor purchasing
system (A–H); varying rewarding system (A, D, E and H); discouraging Kaizen structure (A–
H) and experts’ salary (A–H) and not organizing Kaizen office and hired Kaizen experts (E
and H); varying involvement in practice (A–H); weak team development (A–H); employees’
weak inspiration during implementation (A–H); inconsistent progress sharing (A–G); weak
information sharing (A–H); weak information communication technology infrastructure
(A–H); weak cooperation of supporting processes including research and development (A, D, Application of
E, F, H); poor quality of products (D, E, F, H); inconsistency achieved and loss data recording Kaizen
(A–H); poor utilization of statistical tools (A–H); poor utilization of QC story (A–H);
inappropriate theme selection (A–H); no linkage with universities (A–H); partners not
philosophy
involved in quality initiatives (A–H); receiving poor quality of raw materials (D, E, F, H); no
periodic evaluation of suppliers (A–H); insufficient know-how (A–H); rotation of management
(A–H); weak knowledge-based information management (A–H); no periodic review of policies
and strategies (A–H); unable to immediately solve challenges instantaneously (A–H).
Opportunities for companies: acquisition of free training and consultancy service from EKI
and JICA (A–H); long-term educational support (B, F and G); Kaizen-related third-country
training (H); seminars and workshops conducted by EKI and JICA (A–H); best companies
benchmarking (A–H). Threats faced by companies: political instability (A, B and C);
shortage of foreign currency (A–H); frequent power failure (A, E and H); COVID-19 virus
(A–H). Based on the earlier SWOT analysis finding, Table 1 illustrates that the practice of
Kaizen philosophy results in achieving both monetary and nonmonetary values in both
levels of Kaizen implementation strategy. However, some of the achieved indicators were
not recorded (new product development, product development time, quality (defect rate),
customer complaints, reduced defect cost, number of employee suggestions, reduced
number of accidents. Similarly, production volume per, machine operating time and
productivity, raw material supply capacity, waste of raw material, saving, productivity
and sales volume are considered improvement indicators for measuring the effect of
Kaizen philosophy on intermediate-level Kaizen philosophy practice on Ethiopian chemical
companies.

4.2 Preliminary analysis of Kaizen philosophy practice effectiveness

The practices of Kaizen implementation resulted in economic benefits as different authors
agreed (Lina and Ullah, 2019; Abdulmouti, 2018; Tiwari, 2017; Hailu et al. 2015, 2017; Desta,
2014; Imai, 1986). The benefits are either quantitative or qualitative or both. Here the
researcher presented and discussed the effect of basic and intermediate-level (Table 1) Kaizen
implementation separately for more understanding of the effects seen in the companies.
4.2.1 Preliminary analysis of chemical companies’ basic Kaizen philosophy practice
effectiveness. For comparison of the results, analytical way of graphical representation of
saved money and production volume improvement are given in Figures 3 and 4 (source of
results: from company’s final report and presentation).
Figure 3 illustrates that total amount of ETB 13,950,853 is saved from companies C, E, F
and G. However, the saving amount is differing from company to company. Company G has
saved more money than the other chemical companies C, E and F. This was due to the
discarding of unimportant equipment’s by selling and performing improvement activities
and modifications on existing machineries. Discarding committee and Kaizen promotion
teams were the responsible actors to perform this activity. Due to this reason, only three
companies could attain free spaces and the graphical representation of this is given in
Figure 4.
Figure 4 illustrates that company C has gained 2,000 square meter free space by
eliminating unlikely inventories of different office and production equipment’s than the other
chemical companies E and G, that is, 780 and 52.6 square meter respectively.
The comparison of chemical companies C, E, F and H with respect to an accident that
happened on these companies during the practice of basic Kaizen philosophy is given as
shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 illustrates that Company C has achieved 73.33% improvement on reduction of
accidents in the production area by creating continuous awareness on employees. Companies
 Table 1.
IJQRM

Nesra, 2012)
Abera, 2015;
compiled by the
companies (A–H)

researcher/author;
(Companies annual
its effect in chemical

technical report, 2018

Practice of Kaizen and
Practice of kaizen on achieving monetary and nonmonetary results
Description Practice of basic-level kaizen Practice of intermediate-level kaizen
Check and Act Check and Act
Kaizen (Stabilization, (Stabilization,
practice Plan (Preparation and Sustaining and Plan (Preparation Sustaining and
Phases Designing) Do (Implementation) Replanning) and Designing) Do (Implementation) Replanning)

Kaizen Seminars and 5S practice, Workplace Consultant Seminar and Cause analysis via Comprehending the
activities workshops, Signing standardization, feedback, workshops, Sign an listing of possible results, Measuring and
with EKI, Diagnosing, Operation Measurement of agreement, causes, Selection of evaluation, Comparison
Customization of standardization, Waste results, Performance Highlight training to critical root causes, with target, Corrective
training material, elimination, Managers evaluation, management, Kick Listing of possible action, if needed, and,
Arrangement of morning market Rewarding system, off, Policy solutions, Selection of Revised the plan,
facilities, Selection of meeting, Kaizen Benchmarking of development, best solution, Action Progress sharing,
trainees, Training promotion teams best practice, Exit Theme selection, plan, Implementation, Action plan,
team) (pre and post weekly meeting, plan Selection and Progress sharing Standardization,
exam), Assigning Progress sharing, formation of cross- Training on new
Kaizen officer, Consultant feedback functional teams, standards, Progress
Organizing Kaizen Training (pre and sharing, Final technical
promotion teams, post exam), report, Closing
Leaders training, Diagnosing, Setting ceremony, Rewarding,
Diagnosing current target, Action plan Scaling up
situation, Action plan,
Allocating appropriate
budget, Consultant
feedback, Kick-off
Kaizen Leadership, people, Process, leadership, Leadership, people, Leadership, people, Leadership, people, Leadership, people,
drivers process, strategy, problem-solving, process, strategy, process, strategy, process, strategy, process, strategy,
resource, partner, people, strategy, partner, problem- resource, partner, resource, partner, partner, problem-
problem-solving resource, partner solving problem-solving problem-solving solving

(continued )
 Practice of kaizen on achieving monetary and nonmonetary results
Description Practice of basic-level kaizen Practice of intermediate-level kaizen
Check and Act Check and Act
Kaizen (Stabilization, (Stabilization,
practice Plan (Preparation and Sustaining and Plan (Preparation Sustaining and
Phases Designing) Do (Implementation) Replanning) and Designing) Do (Implementation) Replanning)

Kaizen tools Overview of Kaizen, 5S, Muda, 5Whys, 5S, Muda, 5 Whys, TQM, TPM, TPS, Problem-solving SWOT analysis,
and 3Mu’s (Muda, Mura and 5W2H, Brainstorming 5W2H, Industrial technique or QC story Problem-solving
techniques Muri), 5S (Sort, Set in Brainstorming Engineering basics, or PDCA, technique, QC story,
order, Shine, 7 QC tools, QC story Brainstorming, fish PDCA, Pare to diagram,
Standardization, Shine), (or Problem-solving bone, scatter diagram, 5 histogram, flow chart,
QCC, Selection matrix, technique or PDCA), Whys line and bar graphs,
5S checklist, Gant chart Cross SWOT Gantt charts, Control
analysis, Policy charts
management and
deployment, process
mapping, bar
graphs, Gantt charts
Qualitative Increased safety awareness, establishing corporate culture and teamwork, Improved analytical skill; improved use of QC tools; improved data
result able to create Kaizen culture (evaluation, minutes, reporting, QCC members recording system; Improved establishing standards; improved team
ranking); QCC builds ability for solving problems; QCC member’s creativity working; improved communication skill; Improved Kaizen knowledge;
and generating new improvement ideas is improved.; Employees working improved leadership skill; Improved Consultation, research and training
morale is improved; Workplace is well organized; Rewarding system is skill
established and best performers are rewarded
Non- 5S: Free space in square meter-2832.6 square meter , 5S evaluation-69.79 %, Production volume per year-27.18 %, Machine operating time hr./year-
monetary Searching Time (minutes)-80.69 %, Number of Accidents-60.76 %; Waste 20.51 %, Machine productivity ton/hr-10.13 %, Raw material supply
result elimination: Transportation time-93.90 %, Inventory (qty.)-63.45 %; capacity-17.16 %, Waste of raw material-6.25 %, Productivity tones per hr.-
Productivity: Lead time- 16%–90%, labor productivity-45 %, Machine 2.77 %, new product development-NA, Product development time-NA,
productivity-12.32 %; Machine down time in hrs.-34.65 %, Frequency of Quality (defect rate)-NA, Customer complaints-NA, Reduced defect cost-
machine failure-50 %, Production volume per day-30.21 %; Quality: Defect NA, Number of employee suggestions-NA, Reduced number of accidents-
rate- 50%–70%, Raw material damage in %-4.83 %, Number of Customer NA
complaints-55.7 %; Number of new suggestions-100; Absenteeism-40.70 %
Monetary Saved money– 13, 950, 853 ETB, Cost of saving in production - > 100 %, Saved money – 57, 981, 619.19 ETB, Sales volume- 31.53 %, market share –
result sales volume- NA, market share – NA, profit level-NA NA, profit level-NA
Challenges Problems relating to sustaining Kaizen activities, drivers, and maintaining Problems relating to sustaining Kaizen activities, drivers, and maintaining
substantial improvements in general substantial improvements in general
philosophy
Kaizen
Application of

Table 1.
IJQRM H, E and F have also achieved considerable improvements of 69.70%, 66.70 and 33.33%
respectively on minimization of accidents that happened on employees. But, still
improvement is needed on company F to reduce the number of accidents on employees
especially production operators. Besides, the production volume improvements are also given
in Figure 6.
Figure 6 illustrates that the improvement of production volume of companies is different.
Accordingly, the production volume improvement of company E is 60%, which is better than
the other chemical companies of H, C and G. Still company H has achieved considerable
improvement relative to C and G. In addition to this, companies C and G are expected to
improve their production volume per day by practicing the Kaizen philosophy as per the
nature of its activities. Even though some of the companies were not able to measure the
productivity, labor and machine productivity result is presented by E, G and H.
Figure 7 illustrates that company H has recorded better labor productivity achievement,
which is 50% than Company G 40%. Moreover, it was difficult to compare the other chemical
company’s – C, E and F labor productivity achievement, since there was no recorded data in
the company’s annual technical report. Similarly, the achievement of machine productivity of
two companies – F and G, based on their technical report, is also presented in Figure 8.
Figure 8 illustrates that company G is also better on achieving machine productivity with
12.30% than Company F, which has recorded 8%. Similar to labor productivity data
recording problem, here also companies C, E and H were unable to record this relevant data
based on their annual technical report and presentation documents. At the end, the graphical
representation of the recorded defect rate of companies C, E and H is also developed and
presented as shown in Figure 9.

10000000 Company saved money 8347417

8000000
Unit 6000000
Figure 3. in 4000000 3058000
birr 1628083 917353
Money saved at 2000000
chemical companies 0
(the researcher) C E F G
Catagory of companies

Figure 4. Free space in square meter

Free space gained in G = 52.6

square meter at
chemical companies E = 780
(the researcher) C = 2000

Compan’s accident rate

H 69.70%

Catagory F 33.33%
of companies E 66.70%
Figure 5. C 73.33%
Accident rate of
chemical companies 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00%
(the researcher)
Accident rate
 Figure 9 illustrates that company C has recorded better achievement (70%) on Application of
improvement of the reduction of deferent defect types existing on the production of Kaizen
different categories of cement (Posolana and Ordinary Cement). Whereas companies H and E
have also achieved considerable improvements (60 and 40% respectively) on the reduction of
philosophy
defects found on different paints and glasses (bottling) respectively. In general, the
aforementioned quantitative improvements were achieved due to the successful
implementation of Kaizen philosophy practices, particularly, the identified drivers defined
in subsection 4.4. In addition to the earlier achieved quantitative results, the qualitative
results gained by practice of basic Kaizen on company C, E, F, and G are increased safety

Production volume improvement

80.00%
60%
% of 60.00% 37.20%
40.00% 19.64% Figure 6.
production
20.00% 4% Production volume per
volume
0.00%
day of chemical
companies (the
C E G H researcher)
Catagory of companies

Chemical companies Labor Productivity

60%
50% 50%
40%
Rate of LP

40%
30%
20%
10% Figure 7.
Labor productivity of
0% chemical companies
G H
(the researcher)
Catagory of Companies

Machine Productivity
14%
12.30%
12%
10%
Rate of MP

8%
8%
6%
4%
Figure 8.
2% Rate of machine
0% productivity of
F G chemical companies
(the researcher)
Catagory of Companies

Company’s defect rate

Figure 9.
H = 60% C = 70%
Defect rate of chemical
companies (the
E = 40%
researcher)
IJQRM awareness, establishing corporate culture and teamwork, able to create Kaizen culture
(evaluation, minutes, reporting, QCC members ranking); QCC builds ability for solving
problems; QCC member’s creativity and generating new improvement ideas is improved.;
Employees’ working morale is improved; Workplace is well organized; Rewarding system is
established and best performers are rewarded. However, these improvements are not
maintained and sustained yet due to the identified barriers shown in Figure 11.
4.2.2 Preliminary analysis of chemical companies’ intermediate-level Kaizen philosophy
practice effectiveness. Chemical companies implementing intermediate-level Kaizen have also
achieved quantitative improvements. For example, company B has improved the production
volume per year by 34% compared with company A by 20.36%. The other intermediate-level
Kaizen practice measures improved by company A were machine operating time in hours per
year by 20.51%; machine productivity ton per hour by 10.13%; raw material supply capacity
by 17.16%. In addition to these, company A solved two problems. One of the selected
problems was (theme-1) to improve raw material productivity of old-line belt conveyer. Based
on the company report, the capacity of old line improved by 43 % and deviates from target by
þ6%; wastes of old line were reduced by 85% and deviate from target by þ5%. The second
was (theme-3) cement mill machine productivity improvement, actual output (tons/h)
improved by 54% but deviates from target by 11%; actual machine productivity improved
by 49% but deviates from target by 7%; actual mill machine availability (h/year) improved
by 11% but deviates from target by 11%. Companies B and D have also saved more than
54, 216, 598 ETB and 3, 765, 021.19 ETB respectively by conducting Kaizen philosophy
practices including improvement activities, maintenance management practices and
modifications. However, there was no any detailed description regarding the improvement
activities, maintenance management and modification activities taken to save this amount of
Ethiopian Birr. Moreover, companies B and D also improved the productivity tones per hour
by 2.53 and 3.01% respectively. However, the two companies could not identify the type of the
productivity whether it is labor or machine productivity. Similarly, these two companies (B

Company trainees and KPTs

6000 4980
Number of 4000
2000 230 675
Figure 10. trainees 0
Trained management Employees Kaizen promotion
Management
and employees (A–H) teams
members
(the researcher)
Level of trainees

Identified Basic Kaizen Plan

(Preparat
Philosophy Activities ion &
(Table 1) Design) Quantitative
Results
Act
(Monetary &
Do
Basic Kaizen
(Sustaini
PDCA (Impleme
Non-monetary)
ng & Re-
Philosophy Tools planning) ntation) (Table 1)
(Table 1)
Figure 11.
Framework of basic- Check Qualitative
level Kaizen Basic Kaizen Philosophy
(Stablizat
ion)
Results (Table 1)
philosophy practice Drivers (Table 1)
(the researcher)
and D) have also improved their sales volume by 31.8 and 31.26% respectively based on their Application of
annual technical report, presentation documents and EKI, chemical directorate 2018 annual Kaizen
report. Besides the aforementioned all quantitative results, companies A, B and D have also
gained qualitative results. These are improved analytical skill; improved use of QC tools;
philosophy
improved data recording system; improved establishing standards; improved team working;
improved communication skill; improved Kaizen knowledge; improved leadership skill;
improved consultation, research and training skill. Still, these improvements are not
maintained and scaled-up to other departments. Based on the earlier SWOT analysis, three
standpoints are found in understanding the application of Kaizen philosophy for enhancing
Ethiopian chemical manufacturing company’s performance. These viewpoints are the
understanding of the framework of Kaizen practice with respect to the levels of company’s
practices; circumstance of successfully practiced drivers during Kaizen philosophy
implementation; circumstance of the existing challenges on sustaining Kaizen practices
and maintaining monetary and nonmonetary improvements. For this reason, this study
comes with understanding of barriers that hinder the sustainability and maintainability.
Moreover, as stated earlier, this study also comes with the understanding of way forward to
solve the challenges based on the findings and discussions.

4.3 Discussion on the framework of Kaizen practice (level) on chemical companies

This section focuses on levels, activities and tools considered in each level of Kaizen
implementation in Ethiopian chemical manufacturing companies. As it is stated earlier, this
time the selected chemical companies are implementing first (basic), second (intermediate)
level of Kaizen implementation programs according to the strategy of EKI. Hence, the
discussion and interpretation of the findings on Kaizen philosophy practice with the context
of chemical companies are presented separately based on their levels
4.3.1 The framework of basic-level practice of Kaizen in chemical companies. The
companies and EKI’s annual reports, presentation power points, magazines, proceedings
reviewed and informal discussions by telephone with respective companies Kaizen experts
were conducted. Accordingly, in response to RQ1, it was found that the first-level Kaizen
implementation steps for each of the chemical industries were the same. The steps followed to
practice the Kaizen philosophy at this level are categorized into four main phases (Table 1).
These phases are Plan (Preparation and Designing); Do (Implementation); Check
(Stabilization) and Act (Sustaining and Replanning). The first is plan phase. This phase
includes both preparation and designing of Kaizen activities to get enough time and relating
to basic-level Kaizen philosophy training. Before conducting Kaizen-related trainings,
trainers should identify the existed gaps on knowledge and skill of Kaizen expertise,
arranged facilities and nominated trainees. With this in mind, the following activities were
accomplished by EKI and companies in this phase. Top managements were invited and
attended on seminars and workshops organized by EKI; each industry signed an agreement
with the EKI; EKI respective consultants tried to customize the training materials with
respect to companies by conducting diagnosis; respective departments and trainees were
nominated; Management members and employees separately took 2 and 5 days Kaizen
philosophy training, which was given to this level respectively. The training materials
conducted were focused on overview of Kaizen philosophy, 3Mus (Muda, Mura and Muri), 5S
and Kaizen promotion team (customized of Japanese QCC). Above 230 top and middle-level
managements and 4,980 employees were trained and 675 KPTs formed as per the report of
companies. When the particular chemical industries were studied, they were assigned Kaizen
officers and organized kaizen promotion teams (i.e. 675) based on Figure 10; companies
studied the current situation of 5S; prepared an action plan and hold kick-off to start the
implementation with the participation of management members, employees and respective
IJQRM EKI consultants. One key point found during the study was almost all the Kaizen promotion
team leaders and respective facilitators gained technical training regarding the application of
5S formats. But, the researcher reminds, enough time should be given for planning Kaizen
activities in such a way that it is should be SMART – Specific (activity or task should be
specified), Measurable (outcome or process must be measurable), Assignment (responsibility
must be given), Resources (optimum budget must be allotted), Time (anticipated duration
must also put with respect to Kaizen activities) since these activities were not considered on
their action plan.
Figure 10 illustrates that the companies were able to receive the required knowledge and
skill on Kaizen. The companies also allocated appropriate resources of budget for the practice
and closely working with institutions.
The second phase is Do or implementation phase. As different authors agreed, this phase
is the heart of Kaizen implementation. Even though, this phase relies on the quality of
planning phase. Companies should practice Kaizen activities with respect to the action plan.
In this phase industries tried to practice the kaizen activities based on the action plan with the
practice of daily management and holding meetings. Particularly, pillars of kaizen. 5S was
well implemented (in sorting: unwanted items are removed; in set in order: products,
equipment and tools were properly arranged; in shining: machineries, equipment and tools
were properly inspected and cleaned; in standardize: the first 3S’s were practiced as a culture
through development of rules (C, F and G); to sustain: employees were kept rules and tried to
maintain standardsand continue to advance. However, all companies faced big challenge to
do this); Workplace and operations were standardized (leveling and standardized operations
were done (C, F and G); Wastes were identified and eliminated by developing strategies to
prevent; In general Kaizen philosophy was established in the companies through practice of
committed leadership, organizing Kaizen promotion teams, Solving problems using soft tools
of brainstorming, 5 Whys and 5W2H and techniques during the period of implementation.
However, sustaining became a worry for them as per the review of their reports.
The third phase is Check or Stabilization or monitoring and evaluation phase. Here,
companies should be repeatedly supported by EKI consultants to gain the necessary
consultancy service and on-time feedback. Besides this, companies should establish and
practice performance evaluation system including measuring the results. When reviewed the
reports of companies, all companies measured and checked the results even though there was
a problem on recording all the required indicators of Kaizen activities. Moreover, KPTs were
also evaluated and ranked based on the designed company’s evaluation criteria.
The fourth phase is act or sustaining and replanning. Here, the core task is that companies
should establish and practice intensive care programs, rewarding systems, benchmarking of
best practice, conducting training on standardization of new achievements and preparation
of exit plan and replanning the next actions either to solve problems or applied new Kaizen
philosophy tool or technique. When reviewed the reports of companies, all companies were
established and practiced rewarding systems and benchmarking by best practicing on
outshine activities from other role models. At the end, even though the companies followed
similar implementation approach to implement kaizen strategy, application, knowledge and
performance of the implementation vary from company to company. This study develops the
framework used for practicing basic-level Kaizen philosophy as shown in Figure 11.
4.3.2 Framework of intermediate-level practice of Kaizen in chemical companies. This level
of Kaizen implementation practice requires successful Kaizen implementation in basic level
based the companies’ graduation criteria set by EKI. The project is supported by JICA
Ethiopia, both financially and technically. Companies A, B and D are chemical industries that
have completed this project. The focus of intermediate-level Kaizen is on solving quality and
productivity-related problems by using advanced statistical tools and systems. Problem-
solving eight steps (QC Story formula: theme selection, diagnosing, target setting, activity
planning, cause analysis, execution countermeasures, comprehending results, Application of
standardization) and task achievement technique are used for solving and achieving Kaizen
company’s problems and targets. Based on the progress sharing and final report of these
companies, the practice of intermediate-level Kaizen is presented as follows. In general, in
philosophy
response to RQ1, the problem-solving approach the particular companies followed was the
PDCA cycle in consideration the Plan (Preparation and Designing), Do (Implementation),
Check (Stabilization), Act (Sustaining and replanning) phases (Table 1 above), which includes
detail activities of each phase.
In the first phase of Plan (Preparation and Designing), managements were fully informed,
signed an agreement and highlighted (6 h training) regarding the project; policy developed
through cross SWOT analysis and deployed; themes were selected using selection matrix and
check sheet; respective cross-functional teams and members were selected based on the
selection criteria; 70 management and 63 CFT members were taken for two weeks of training
(TQM, TPM, TPS, Industrial Engineering tools, QC story, seven QC tools). In addition, seven
CFTs from three companies were organized. CFTs studied the current conditions in depth
using pare to diagram, histogram, flow chart and process mapping; achievable targets were
set using line and bar graphs; appropriate schedule was developed using Gantt charts; and
this phase progress was shared to EKI and JICA. In the second phase of Do (Implementation),
the cause analysis was conducted using brainstorming, fish bone, scatter diagram, why–why
analysis and the KJ method, critical root causes were selected using developed criteria’s
(frequency, effect, detection); possible countermeasures were listed via brainstorming, best
solutions were selected using developed criteria’s (feasibility, cost and simplicity);
countermeasure implementation action plan was developed and based on the plan they
were executed; this phase progress was shared among CFTs, JICA, EKI and company
management members. In the third phase of Check (Stabilization): comprehending the results
through measuring and evaluation of the improvements were performed using checklists and
bar graphs. Here, the companies were checking the achievements of KPIs by comparing with
the targets. In some of theme’s key performance indicators, targets were not achieved even
though there were improvements relative to the initial result, which was measured in the
diagnosis particularly in company A. The detail is given on the effect of Kaizen
implementation section. Since theme-3 was not achieved, the company management and
respective CFTs had taken corrective action by identifying the wet-blanket lists in short
meetings. Meanwhile, CFTs revised their activity plans, targets, cause analysis and proposed
new countermeasures. At the end, they implemented best solutions again. These activities
were shared to respective parts similar to the aforementioned phases and the implementation
was on progress. In the last phase of Act (Sustaining and Re-planning): the CFTs were
standardized for those themes achieved by KPIs using the control charts (theme-1). Progress
of the report was presented to EKI, JICA, company management and CFT members. Final
technical report was prepared and submitted to company, EKI and JICA. There was also a
closing ceremony where CFTs were rewarded. Training regarding the achieved themes
standard was given to employees with the focus of improvements and counter measures.
Moreover, the company Kaizen office had taken the responsibility to scale up and replan new
activities targeted on solving other new problems or themes by conducting company policy
management review. However, there was big problem to perform these issues in companies
A, B and D. At the end, similar to the basic level, the framework used for practicing
intermediate level of Kaizen philosophy is developed as shown in Figure 12.

4.4 Discussion on the circumstance of Kaizen philosophy drivers in chemical companies

In order to successfully implement Kaizen philosophy, it is important for identifying and
exploring the circumstance of drivers. This helps the companies to give an attention during
IJQRM the period of implementation. Hailu et al. (2020), Lina and Ullah (2019), Todorovic et al. (2019),
Hailu et al. (2017b) also agreed with this ideas. The studies discovered: leadership, strategy,
people, process, problem solving, partner and resource as success factors. While successful
chemical industries (A, C, F, G and H) were able to practice these success factors. In response
to RQ2, the success factors that were employed during the implementation period on these
companies (based on their annual reports and presentations) were:
Leadership (top management fulfilled encouraging facilities, managers provided on time
feedback, employees were motivated to bring new improvement ideas, process follow-up
system was developed after implementation, the impact of Kaizen practices was measured
and evaluated, different awareness creation activities and trainings were held to develop
employee’s capacity, employees’ improvement ideas were collected and evaluated then
announced, new improvement ideas were implemented, the impact of implementation of new
improvement ideas was also examined and evaluated, facilitators were benchmarking best
practices of other best companies, Kaizen philosophy was implemented based on the
implementation manual, top management also working closely with institutions such as EKI
and Chemical and Construction Industry Input Development Institute (CCIIDI); employees
were motivated, rewarded and benefited by establishing salary increment strategies,
employees were given authority of independence on their work, there were healthy
relationships among employees and managers, sport competitions were conducted,
ceremonies were celebrated in and outside the company).
People (training and development center was established, managers and employees
received regular training in Kaizen skills and strategies including problem-solving, specific
working skill training was also given to employees, employees participated in continuous
improvement via organizing in both QCC teams (A–H) and cross-functional teams (A, B and
D), suggestion systems were installed and created new ideas, systems for direct responses to
employees’ suggestions and improvement ideas were developed and implemented, systems
to enable employees were developed and implemented, rewards (bonus and incentive) were
given to best performers; in employees involvement teamwork is fundamentally based on it,
employees are knowledgeable of other teammates’ job duties and functions; managers are
successively clarifying and communicating each team member’s job duties and functions,
duties and functions are effectively delegated among team members, the company actively
identified and addressed obstacles to teamwork, the intermediate-level companies created
cross-functional teams with different job functions, the companies used job rotations to create
multifunctional workers).
Strategy (all the companies were able to develop strategic plan; companies A, B and D were
exercising policy management and developed different policies and strategies with respect to
their company mission and vision, these companies also identified themes to be solved; the

Plan
Intermediate Level (Preparat
Kaizen Philosophy ion &
Design) Quantitative
Activities Results
Act
(Monetary &
Do
(Sustaini
PDCA Non-monetary)
Intermediate Level ng & Re-
(Impleme
planning)
ntation) (Table 1)
Kaizen Philosophy
Figure 12. Tools (Table 1)
Framework for
practice of Check Qualitative
(Stablizat
intermediate-level Results (Table 1)
Intermediate Level ion)
Kaizen philosophy (the
Kaizen Philosophy
researcher)
Drivers (Table 1)
companies deployed the identified policies, strategies and themes to departments where Application of
cross-functional team members came from, the companies also established and conducted Kaizen
progress-sharing sessions (where general manager, management members, EKI, JICA
experts and cross-functional team members are invited), periodic evaluation of projects was
philosophy
also conducted by companies, JICA and EKI.
Problem-solving approach utilization (as stated earlier, particularly in the degree of Kaizen
implementation, cross-functional teams were able to use the eight steps of problem-solving
approach by fitting each step with the PDCA phase of the Deming wheel and the 2WH
questions (what, why and how). Fitting what? With clarifying the problem (theme selection),
break down the problem (understanding current situation) and target setting; why?
Determine root causes and how? Develop countermeasures; they categorized these under
planning cycle. See countermeasures through under do, confirm results and process under
check and standardize process-sustain the gain is under act cycle of Deming wheel. Moreover,
the teams also used required seven QC tools (check sheet, pare to diagram, flow chart, cause
and effect, scatter diagram, histogram and control chart), 5 whys, KJ method with respective
to each problem-solving step. Besides, teams were also able to use each 5S activity to
eradicate the wastes.
Partnership (companies are cooperatively working with EKI and JICA by creating long-
term relationships regarding conducting training, consultancy, research and long-term
education; best performers were promoted and given chance of master’s program (Abe’s
initiative) to improve their educational capacity, which were prepared by JICA and EKI.
Resource (every employee of the company was able to receive the updated information
through Kaizen boards and leaflets, the companies allocate appropriate budgets based on the
request of teams, they utilized free spaces of buildings for extra work, the companies modified
and repaired materials and machineries equipment, the companies also hired Kaizen experts
who have required skills. Moreover, the corresponding chemical industries were able to
identify the motivators, in the process and at the end of the implementation as found in their
final presentations discussion. Accordingly, the motivators that influenced the industry
owners and top managements to decide the implementation of Kaizen philosophy were: the
focus given by the Ethiopian government; the economic benefits gaining from the practice
(cost effectiveness, improved quality products, sales growth and profitability); the
uncomplicatedness of the kaizen philosophy when starting the implementation;
considering policy management and leadership issues; participating on Kaizen annual
workshops and seminars; knowledge and skill of best company’s use of Kaizen activities.
Similarly, the identified drivers result is also supported by previous research works
conducted by Hailu et al. (2020, 2018b, 2017b), Kumar (2019), Todorovic et al. (2019), Lina and
Ullah (2019), Khanna et al. (2017a, b), Amrutkar and Kamalja (2017).

4.5 The circumstance of Kaizen practice barriers in chemical companies

Barriers are activities that are obstacles to achieve goals. Recent study conducted by Lina and
Ullah (2019) recognized that there are reasons behind failure of Kaizen philosophy practice.
Preceding studies Hailu et al. (2017b, 2015) also agreed on the harsh labor–management
relation and unhealthy working environment is the key for cultivation of barriers. According
to the companies’ report, presentation and discussion, it was observed that companies are
facing big challenge on sustaining and maintaining substantial improvements due to various
reasons. These reasons were internal (from the company side) and external challenges (from
supportive institution, government and environment side). However, challenges are varying
from companies to companies. Some of the barriers identified for companies C, E, F, G, H were
the drivers for other companies A, B, D. This study reminds not to confuse by the barriers and
drivers. Accordingly, in response to RQ2, internal challenges from the company side were:
IJQRM Relative to leadership: inconsistent progress sharing; discouraging Kaizen structure and
experts salary (A–H) and not organizing Kaizen office and experts (E and H); inconsistent
training program; inconsistent monitoring and evaluation; there is no regular rewarding
schedule and existing inconsistent rewarding system; inconsistent commitment; companies
are giving priority to the production and not provide enough time for implementation; limited
allocation of financial resources; when there is change of top managements and new
management is established, they follow their own strategy and they ignore the
implementation. Relative to people were: inconsistent participation; weak team
development; inconsistent commitment; employees were not motivated to generate new
ideas during their weekly meeting and not used the suggestion scheme, sometimes employees
were refuse to go along with program to change at the beginning and during the
implementation period; not having clear understanding and know-how on Kaizen theory and
practice; unproductive working culture of employees. Relative to process: poor utilization of
statistical tools; long time purchasing; there is no regular monitoring and employees
supporting system; weak cooperation of supporting processes; poor quality of products
during production; inconsistent data (gain and loss) recording.
Relative to resource: weak knowledge-based information management; employees are not
using information technology for simplification of the implementation; weak information
sharing. Relative to strategy: (external challenges) level-based implementation strategy
designed by the supportive institution (companies are forced to pass through levels – basic
and intermediate. Solution implementation is not based on the existing problems, which
companies faced; the frequency of consultancy service provided by the institution is very low;
implementation period designed by the institution is not considering the size of companies
and techniques applied; the institution was not delivered appropriate feedback at the right
time; rotation of consultants per company; inadequate execution period; insufficient
consultancy service; (internal challenge) no periodical review of policies and strategies on
the companies. Relative to partner: no strong linkage with universities; no technical
cooperation from international institutions; poor quality of raw materials; not involved
suppliers in quality initiatives; no evaluation of suppliers. Relative to problem-solving: since
one company has three cross-functional teams. These themes do not have the same status of
practicing the quality control story. In company A, one team failed and in company D also a
theme was not successful. The main reasons for these were not utilizing the problem-solving
approach as per the QC story formula of eight steps. Even, there was a problem on selecting
the theme. The respective companies were overambitious. They did not consider the cross-
functional team members’ knowledge and skill on using tools and techniques. Moreover, the
identified countermeasures were also beyond the company’s capacity and it needs more
budget. Besides this, the external challenges identified were: due to political instability
existing on areas where the companies positioned, they could not fully practice, companies
are unable to get enough consultancy service; government could not facilitate financial
supports; some of the companies are forced to cease the implementation due to shortage of
foreign currency as a result they could not import raw materials for running the production
and practice. Therefore, the summary of the barriers is given in Figure 13.

4.6 Way forward

Based on the earlier findings, chemical manufacturing companies practicing both levels of
Kaizen have a remarkable record of achievement of both quantitative (monetary and
nonmonetary) and qualitative results. However, the companies were not able to sustain and
maintain improvements. Moreover, the contribution of these effects on each company
development remains minimal as companies need to be competitive and contribute more for
the industrialization. To ensure sustainable Kaizen practice and maintain substantial
 Process Barriers Partner Barriers
People Barriers Application of
Weak team
Kaizen
Inconsistent data
No linkage
with universities
development philosophy
Poor utilization of statistical recording
Inconsistent Inconsistent
process control tools
commitment participation
Poor quality
of raw materials Technical cooperation
Weak cooperation
of supporting processes Cease practice
Not involved in Insufficient (political instability)
quality initiatives know-how
Poor quality of products
during production No evaluation
Long purchasing
time of suppliers
Problem Poor utilization of QC story
Solving Sustaining
Barriers and
Maintaining
Inappropriate theme Weak ICT infrastructure Inconsistent progress Problem
selection
Weak Gov.Financial Rotation of management
Inconsistent commitment
Inadequate Execution Period support Discouraging Kaizen
Insufficient Structure and Salary
Rotation of consultants per
company consultancy Inconsistent rewarding
service Weak information
Enforced level of
sharing Inconsistent monitoring Figure 13.
implementation No periodic and evaluation Causes for sustaining
review of policies Weak Knowledge based
strategy
info management Inconsistent training program Kaizen philosophy
practice (the
Strategy Barriers
Resource Barriers Leadership Barriers
researcher)

improvements that result in economic and social development for the country in the current
competitive world, establishing and successfully implementing world-class management
systems to the Ethiopian chemical manufacturing companies is critically important. Even if
the companies are implementing Kaizen with the support of EKI and JICA-Ethiopia, but some
of the social and technical factors including the external challenges are scarcely incorporated
in the plan of action. Based on the examination of companies (A–H) strategic plan, and policy
and strategy documents of companies (A, B, D), this plan lacks synchronization and
structured implementation system to bring companies excellence in Ethiopia. Therefore in
this part, the proposed solutions and the actions with respect to social and technical factors
are presented that should be taken to achieve promising Kaizen practice convey in Ethiopia
that lead to the development of industrialization with the emphasis of chemical companies.
Relating to social factor of leadership: the training development program should be
coherent and based on the existing gap assessment of employees; the management including
top and middle ought to conduct monitoring and evaluation of performances with regular
schedule; full commitment and inspiring rewarding should to be found; Kaizen office must be
organized in department level with best experts salary; management should not be rotated
during the period of Kaizen project execution; In all phases of execution periodical progress
sharing ought to be conducted. Relating to social factor of people: companies A–H should
build their employees and teams in know-how (knowledge and skill) of Kaizen expertise;
employees should always commit and participate on improvement works.
Relating to technical factor of partner: companies should strengthen their technical
cooperations and development by creating strong linkage and closely working with
international organizations and higher institutes; companies ought to ensure coordinated
participation of the suppliers and stakeholders in quality improvement initiatives; companies
should also build long-term agreement with suppliers on periodic evaluation of the quality of
raw materials. Relating to technical factor of process: companies should organize and
strengthen supporting processes including purchasing, research and development center;
IJQRM companies must record achievable and losses during production and Kaizen practice;
employees should receive enough training on utilization of statistical tools to control the
process and reduce defected products.
Relating to technical factor of strategy: the management should always review policies
and strategies based on the performance evaluation result; they should also give enough
implementation period based on the developed time frame and receive consultancy service
from stakeholders-EKI, CCIIDI and JICA. The stakeholders should also assign consultants to
follow on a regular basis without changing. The execution strategy should be based the
existing problems of the companies with Kaizen activities including: diagnosing (consultant
allocation, gap assessment, document preparation, presentation); training (training program,
conducting training, training feedback); consultancy service (action plan, awareness,
conducting consultancy, monthly progress sharing, measuring performance result,
consultancy feedback); technical report (recording data monthly; organizing, accepting and
including feedback, finalizing the report, presentation to company and EKI). Relating to
technical factor resource: companies should strengthen the information communication
technology; updated and timely information should be given to employees through
information technology and Kaizen board. At the end, the government should support the
companies by facilitating the foreign currency and solving the existing political instability in
their surroundings.

5. Conclusion
The exploratory empirical investigation performed on chemical companies has come about
with major findings as discussed in previous sections. Based on these findings, the following
conclusions are drawn. The study developed general perspective regarding the status of
Kaizen practice on case companies using SWOT analysis. This empirical investigative study
gives adequate understanding on practice of Kaizen using structured framework; practice of
Kaizen drivers (social and technical factors); the effect attained after implementation; barriers
experienced during practice of Kaizen and way forward for tackling challenges relating to
sustaining and maintaining improvements. Hence, the research findings indicate that
practice of Kaizen on chemical companies brings on achieving quantitative (monetary and
nonmonetary) and qualitative results.
However, the result varies from company to company. The average attained
improvements of productivity, production volume, machine productivity and sales volume
are 2.77 %, 28.69 %, 10.14 % and 31.53 % respectively, among others. Likewise, from all
companies a total of ETB 71, 932, 472.19 was saved by practice of Kaizen activities. In
response to RQ1, in Ethiopian chemical companies Kaizen philosophy was implemented in a
level based strategy. In both levels, companies applied four main phases (Table 1): Plan
(Preparation and Designing); Do (Implementation); Check (Stabilization) and Act (Sustaining
and Replanning). In response to RQ2, the aforementioned Kaizen results are achieved through
applying structured framework and practice of different drivers of social factors (leadership
and people) and technical factors (strategy, resource, partner, process and problem solving
technique) as identified in this study. However, this analytical study finding also confirmed
that even though companies were achieving considerable results, they could not sustain the
Kaizen activities and maintain the attained substantial improvements. The main reason for
this was companies unable to practice some of the Kaizen activities identified as barriers
during implementation as presented on the cause and effect diagram of this study. For this
reason, all companies are highly recommended that they should able to practice Kaizen based
on the identified structured framework, sustaining the existing Kaizen activities and
exterminate barriers by fully practicing drivers of social and technical factors with respective
to proposed solutions.
6. Implications of the research Application of
6.1 Theoretical implications Kaizen
This research contributes to the existing Kaizen philosophy literature by providing
information about its implementation phases including main activities, drivers, tools and
philosophy
techniques and barriers, which have different impact on industries’ performance applying
it to the Ethiopian chemical manufacturing companies. Thus, the study identified
implementation framework for basic and intermediate level of Kaizen practice (see
subsection 4.3.1. and 4.3.2.); seven Kaizen practice drivers (see subsection 4.4); tools and
techniques (see subsection 4.3.1. and 4.3.2.); barriers (see Figure 13). Moreover, the study
also provided way forward (see subsection 4.6) for the case companies to remove the
challenges.

6.2 Practical implications

In relation to practical implications, this study identified Kaizen implementation framework
for manufacturing industries to enhance performance. The framework encompassed Kaizen
main activities, tools and techniques, drivers and Kaizen practice phases for both levels.
Thus, to get the full potential effect of the Kaizen practices, which could enhance the
industries performance relating to quantitative results (monetary and nonmonetary), and
qualitative results, manufacturing industries should holistically implement first basic Kaizen
practices and after successful completion of this level, manufacturing industries should also
implement the identified intermediate-level Kaizen practices rather than on a piecemeal basis.
Moreover, creating awareness and providing training to all employees regarding to the
framework, empowering the employees to use the full potential of their knowledge and skill
and facilitating employees to involve in all aspects of Kaizen practices through organizing
QCCs and cross-functional teams in a teamwork basis. During the practice of the framework,
following the problem-solving approach is central through utilization of quality control story.
Moreover, companies should also select appropriate Kaizen tools and techniques based on
their current situation. In this respect, level-based Kaizen implementation should not be
obligation and companies should practice proper Kaizen tools and techniques that are fitting
to solve the themes/problems existing in the shop floor.

6.3 Managerial implications

In relation to managerial implications, this study contributes to a better understanding on the
potential effects Kaizen practices can have in improving performance; hence, it may serve as a
guideline for the company managers. Based on the results of this research, some suggestions
are made for company managers. The exploratory empirical findings indicate that Kaizen
practices have an impact on company’s performance. This means that managers should give
weight to different Kaizen practices, in particular drivers, related to leadership; development
and deployment of policies and strategies to all departments; effective management of
company people; encourage partnerships; managing and control the process; managing the
existing resources; and following the problem-solving approach. Moreover, managers should
also give weight to eliminate the identified barriers based on their company problems.
In general, it is important to note that industries’ performance can be achieved by the
implementation of a framework that is based on Kaizen practices. Therefore, managers
should focus on Kaizen practices as per the circumference of discussed framework to
ascertain as a company’s framework, which is in line with the modern view Hailu et al. (2020,
2018b, 2017b), Kumar (2019), Todorovic et al. (2019), Lina and Ullah (2019), Khanna et al.
(2017a, b), Amrutkar and Kamalja (2017), suggesting that Kaizen practices can impact
performance.
IJQRM 7. Limitations and future research
The limitations of the present study provide directions for future research as follows. First,
relevant secondary data have been collected just from eight chemical manufacturing
companies and examined only the practice and effect of Kaizen practice. Due to constraint of
resources, it was targeted only on eight companies. However, there are more than 55 chemical
companies that practiced Kaizen till this study conducted. Hence, researchers for future can
focus on the rest of chemical companies and other manufacturing sectors too (textile,
garment, leather, metal, agro processing) and service sectors with the same topic to find better
findings and contribute to academicians, practitioners and government including EKI for
practicing on other industries. Moreover, future studies could survey companies from similar
sectors and others with large population data using triangulation methods such as interviews
and direct observation in addition. Future studies can also survey and examine the potential
effects of Kaizen practices on company’s performance (business and operational
performance) using self-administered questionnaire.

References
Abate, Y.A. and Mengesha, T. (2020), “Factors affecting the successful implementation of Kaizen in
Ethiopia”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 50-56.
Abdulmouti, H. (2018), “Benefits of Kaizen to business excellence: evidence from a case study”,
Industrial Engineering Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.4172/2169-0316.1000251.
Abera, A. (2015), “Kaizen implementation in Ethiopia: evidence in literature”, Journal for Studies in
Management and Planning, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 1-11.
Admasu, A. (2015), “Kaizen implementation in Ethiopia: evidence in literature”, Journal for Studies in
Management and Planning, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 2-5.


Alvarado-Ram
ırez, K., Pumisacho-Alvaro, J.A., Miguel-D
avila, J.A. and Su
arez-Barraza, M.F. (2018),
“Kaizen, a continuous improvement practice in organizations: a comparative study in
companies from Mexico and Ecuador”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 255-268, doi: 10.
1108/TQM-07-2017-0085.


Alvarez-Garc
ıa, J., Dur
an-S
anchez, A. and Del R
ıo-Rama, M.C. (2018), “Systematic bibliometric
analysis on Kaizen in scientific journal”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 356-370.
Amrutkar, K.P. and Kamalja, K.K. (2017), “An overview of various importance measures of reliability
system”, International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 150-171.
Ashmore, C. (2001), “Kaizen and the art of motorcycle manufacture”, Manufacturing Engineer, Vol. 80
No. 5, pp. 220-222.
Baye, H.Y. and Raju, R.S. (2016), “The extent of TQM practices in Ethiopian manufacturing
firms: an empirical evaluation”, International Journal of Applied Research, Vol. 2 No. 5,
pp. 238-244.
Berger, A. (1997), “Continuous improvement and Kaizen: standardizations and organizational
designs”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 110-117.
Beshah, B. and Kitaw, D. (2014), “Quality management practice in Ethiopia”, African Journal of
Business Management, Vol. 8 No. 17, pp. 689-699.
Bessant, J. and Caffyn, S. (1997), “High Innovation through continuous improvement”, International
Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-28.
Bessant, J. (2003), High Involvement Innovation, Wiley, Chichester.
Bou-Llusar, J.C., Escrig-Tena, A.B., Roca-Puig, V. and Beltran-Martın, I. (2008), “An empirical
assessment of the EFQM excellence model: evaluation as a TQM framework relative to the
MBNQA model”, Journal of Operations Management, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2008.04.001.
Brunet, A.P. (2000), Kaizen: From Understanding to Action, Institution of Electrical Engineers, Application of
London, pp. 1-45.
Kaizen
Brunet, A.P. and New, S. (2003), “Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1426-46.
philosophy
Carnerud, D., Jaca, C. and B€ackstr€am, I. (2018), “Kaizen and continuous improvement – trends and
patterns over 30 years”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 371-390, doi: 10.1108/TQM-03-
2018-0037.
Calvo-Mora, A., Ruiz-Moreno, C., Pic
on-Berjoyo, A. and Cauzo-Bottala, L. (2014), “Mediation effect of
TQM technical factors in excellence management systems”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 67, pp. 769-774.
Chen, J.K. (2018), “A novel Kaizen technique for service quality: case study in education organization”,
The TQM Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 269-280.
Cheser, R. (1994), “Kaizen is more than continuous improvement”, Quality Progress, Vol. 27,
pp. 23-25.
Cheser, R. (1998), “The effect of Japanese Kaizen on employee motivation in US manufacturing”,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 197-217.
Chiarini, A., Baccarani, C. and Mascherpa, V. (2018), “Lean production, Toyota production system and
Kaizen philosophy: a conceptual analysis from the perspective of zen buddhism”, The TQM
Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 425-438, doi: 10.1108/TQM-12-2017-0178.
Chung, C.H. (2018), “The Kaizen wheel-an integrated philosophical foundation for total continuous
improvement”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 409-424.
Desta, A. (2011), “A conceptual framework for assessing the transferability of the Japanese Kaizen
management techniques to manufacturing plants in Ethiopia”, Asian Journal of Business and
Management Sciences, pp. 09-19.
Desta, A. (2014), “Analysis of Kaizen implementation in northern Ethiopia’s manufacturing
industries”, International Journal of Business and Commerce, Vol. 3 No. 8, pp. 39-57.
Elgar, T. and Smith, C. (1994), Global Japanization: The Transnational Transformation for the Labour
Process, Routledge, London.
Fonseca, L.M. and Dominguez, J.P. (2018), “The best of both worlds? Use of Kaizen and other
continuous improvement methodologies within Portuguese ISO 9001 certified organizations”,
The TQM Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 321-334.
Fujimoto, T. (1999), The Evolution of a Manufacturing System at Toyota, Press, OxfordNew
York, NY.
Gonz
alez-Aleu, F., Van Aken, E., Cross, J. and Glover, W. (2018), “Continuous improvement project
within Kaizen: critical success factors in hospitals”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 335-355.
Gonzalez-Aleu, F. and Van Aken, E.M. (2016), “Systematic literature review of critical success factors
for continuous improvement projects”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 214-232, doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-06-2015-0025.
Goshime, Y., Kitaw, D. and Jilcha, K. (2018), “Lean manufacturing as a vehicle for improving
productivity and customer satisfaction: a literature review on metals and engineering
industries”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma. doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-06-2017-0063.
Hailu, H., Kedir, A., Bassa, G. and Jilcha, K. (2015), Critical Success Factors for Sustainable Kaizen
Implementation in Manufacturing Industry in Ethiopia, Master’s Thesis of Ethiopian Institute
Technology- Mekelle, Tigray, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23058.96968.
Hailu, H., Tabuchi, H., Ezawa, H. and Jilcha, K. (2017a), “Reduction of excessive trimming and reject
leather by integration of 7 QC tools and QC story formula: the case report of sheba leather
PLC”, Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.4172/2169-0316.
1000223.
IJQRM Hailu, H., Kedir, A., Bassa, G. and Jilcha, K. (2017b), “Critical success factors model developing for
sustainable Kaizen implementation in manufacturing industry in Ethiopia”, Management
Science Letters, Vol. 7, pp. 585-600.
Hailu, H., Tabuchi, H., Ezawa, H., Jilcha, K. and Hailu, T. (2018a), “Minimization of long delivery time
of shoes by integration of 7 quality control tools and quality control story formula: the case
of sheba leather P.L.C”, International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 10 No. 05,
pp. 68879-68895.
Hailu, H., Mengstu, S. and Hailu, T. (2018b), “An integrated continuous improvement model of TPM,
TPS and TQM for boosting profitability of manufacturing industries: an innovative model and
guideline”, Management Science Letters, Vol. 8, pp. 33-50.
Hailu, H., Tadesse, F., Tsegay, K., Jilcha, K. and Hailu, T. (2020), “Relationship between Kaizen
philosophy and organizational performance empirical investigation: a case of Ethiopian
manufacturing industries”, European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 735-751.
Hamel, G. (2009), Kaizen Event Field Book: Foundation, Framework, and Standard Work for Effective
Events, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, New York, NY.
Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen-The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, Random House, New York, NY.
Imai, M. (1989), Kaizen, la clave de la ventaja competitiva japonesa, (in Spanish), CECSA, Me
xico.
Imai, M. (1997), Gemba Kaizen, Mcgraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Imai, M. (2007), Mejorar la calidad es la mejor forma de reducir los costes, (in Spanish), Interview in the
Business Newspaper La Gaceta, Barcelona, p. 36.
Jaca, C., Ormazabal, M., Viles, E. and Santos, J. (2018), “Environmental comfort based (ECB)
methodology as a tool for preparing Kaizen application in a catering service company”, The
TQM Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 281-295.
Jalu, G. (2015), “Achievement of quality, productivity for market through Kaizen implementation in
Ethiopia”, Arabian Journal of Bussiness and Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 170, pp. 1-8.
Janji
c, V., Bogi
cevi
c, J. and Krsti
c, B. (2019), “Kaizen as a global business philosophy for continuous
improvement of business performance”, ekonomika, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 13-25.
Jong, C.Y., Sim, A.K.S. and Lew, T.Y. (2019), “The relationship between TQM and project performance:
empirical evidence from Malaysian construction industry”, Cogent Business and Management,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-31.
Khanna, A., Gautam, P. and Jaggi, C.K. (2017a), “Inventory modeling for deteriorating imperfect
quality items with selling price dependent demand and shortage backordering under credit
financing”, International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 110-124.
Khanna, A., Kishore, A. and Jaggi, C.K. (2017b), “Inventory modeling for imperfect production process
with inspection errors, sales return, and imperfect rework process”, International Journal of
Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 242-258.
Kumar, R. (2019), “Kaizen a tool for continuous quality improvement in Indian manufacturing
organization”, International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 452-459.
Lillrank, P. and Kano, N. (1989), Continuous Improvement: Quality Control Circles in Japanese Industry,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Lina, L.R. and Ullah, H. (2019), “The concept and implementation of Kaizen in an organization”, Global
Journal of Management and Business Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 9-17.
Malloch, H. (1997), “Strategic and HRM aspects of Kaizen: a case study”, New Technology, Work and
Employment, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 108-22.
Mar
ın-Garc
ıa, J., Ju
arez-Tarraga, A. and Santandreu-Mascarell, C. (2018), “Kaizen philosophy: the keys
of the permanent suggestion systems”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 296-320.
M
endez, J. and Vila-Alonso, M. (2018), “Three-dimensional sustainability of Kaizen”, The TQM Application of
Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 391-408, doi: 10.1108/TQM-12-2017-0179.
Kaizen
Mizuno, S. (1988), Company Wide Quality Control, Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.
philosophy
Montabon, F. (2005), “Using Kaizen events for back office processes: recruitment of frontline
supervisor co-ops”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 10,
pp. 1139-1147.
Nemoto, M. (1987), Total Quality Control in Toyota and Toyoda Gosei, Seminario en CHU-SAN-REN,
Nagoya.
Nesra, S. (2012), “The role of Ethiopian government in Kaizen implementation as a modern
management tool for quality and productivity”, 4th International Conference Leadership
Institute with the Collaboration of University of Green which.
Newitt, D.J. (1996), “Beyond BPR and TQM – managing through processes: is Kaizen enough?”,
Proceedings Industrial Engineering, Institution of Electric Engineers, London, pp. 1-38.
Prajogo, D. and Sohal, A. (2004), “The multidimensionality of TQM practices in determining quality
and innovation performance: an empirical examination”, Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 6,
pp. 443-453.
Psomas, E., Vouzas, F. and Kafetzopoulos, D. (2014), “Quality management benefits through the soft
and hard aspect of TQM in food companies”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 431-444.
Rawashdeh, A.M. (2018), “The effect of TQM on firm performance: empirical study in Jordanian
private airlines”, Modern Applied Science, Vol. 12 No. 9, pp. 140-148.
Sakaiya, T. (1995), What Is Japan? Editorial Andr
es Bello, Nagoya.
Shafiq, M., Lasrado, F. and Hafeez, K. (2019), “The effect of TQM on organizational performance:
empirical evidence from the textile sector of a developing country using SEM”, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 30 Nos 1-2, pp. 31-52.
Singh, J. and Singh, H. (2009), “Kaizen philosophy: a review of literature”, The IUP Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 51-72.
Su
arez-Barraza, M.F. and Miguel-Davila, J.A. (2020), “Kaizen–kata, a problem-solving approach to
public service health care in Mexico: a multiple-case study”, International
Journal of Environmental Research, Public Health, Vol. 17, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.3390/
ijerph17093297.
Su
arez-Barraza, M.F., Ramis-Pujol, J. and Kerbache, L. (2011), “Thoughts on Kaizen and its evolution.
‘Three different perspectives and guiding principles’”, International Journal and Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 288-308.
Su
arez-Barraza, M.F., Rodr
ıguez-Gonz
alez, F.G. and Miguel-D
avila, J.-A. (2018), “The special issue on
Kaizen: an ancient operation innovation strategy for organizations of the XXI century”, The
TQM Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 250-254, doi: 10.1108/TQM-06-2018-180.
Tiwari, P. (2017), “Assessment of the practices and challenges of Kaizen implementation in micro and
small enterprises: the case of manufacturing enterprises”, International Journal of Engineering
and Management Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 313-322.
Todorovic, M., Jovanovic, D. and Janji
c, V. (2019), “Key success factors and benefits of
Kaizen implementation”, Engineering Management Journal. doi: 10.1080/10429247.2019.
1664274.
Van Aken, E., Farris, J., Glover, W. and Ferres, C. (2010), “A framework for designing, managing, and
improving Kaizen event programs”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 59 No. 7, pp. 641-667.
Waheed, A, Zulfigar, M. and Rafi, W. (2010), “Diffusion of Japanese management practices in the
developing countries: a case of Pakistan”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 315-337.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking, Simon and Schuster, New York.
IJQRM Further reading
Bellgran, M., Kudve, M. and Hanna, R. (2019), “Cost driven Kaizen in pharmaceutical production -
creating positive engagement for environmental improvements”, CIRP Conference on
Manufacturing Systems Vol. 81, pp. 1219-1224.
Gidey, E., Jilcha, K., Beshah, B. and Kitaw, D. (2014), “The plan-do-check-act cycle of value addition”,
Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, p. 124.
Goyal, A., Agrawal, R., Chokhani, R.K. and Saha, C. (2019), “Waste reduction through Kaizen
approach: a case study of a company in India”, Waste Management and Research, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 102-107.
Olson, W. (2006), Systems Thinking, Sustainability Science and Engineering: Defining Principles,
Elsevier: Technology and Engineering.
Watson, M. (1986), The Deming Management Method, Perigee Books.

Corresponding author
Haftu Hailu Berhe can be contacted at: bhaftuh@gmail.com

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

View publication stats