Asian Journal on Quality

Emerald Article: An exploratory study of 5S: a multiple case study of

multinational organizations in Mexico
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza, Juan Ramis-Pujol

Article information:
To cite this document: Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza, Juan Ramis-Pujol, (2012),"An exploratory study of 5S: a multiple case study of
multinational organizations in Mexico", Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 13 Iss: 1 pp. 77 - 99
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15982681211237842
Downloaded on: 25-10-2012
References: This document contains references to 100 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Rod Gapp, Ron Fisher, Kaoru Kobayashi, (2008),"Implementing 5S within a Japanese context: an integrated management system",
Management Decision, Vol. 46 Iss: 4 pp. 565 - 579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740810865067

Alberto Bayo-Moriones, Alejandro Bello-Pintado, Javier Merino-Díaz de Cerio, (2010),"5S use in manufacturing plants: contextual
factors and impact on operating performance", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27 Iss: 2 pp. 217 -
230
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656711011014320

Dario Pranckevicius, Deisell M. Diaz, Howard Gitlow, (2008),"A lean six sigma case study: an application of the "5s" techniques",
Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 5 Iss: 1 pp. 63 - 79
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/97279810880001268

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by MONASH UNIVERSITY

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1598-2688.htm

An exploratory
An exploratory study of 5S: study of 5S
a multiple case study of
multinational organizations
in Mexico 77
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza
EGADE Business School, México, Tecnológico de Monterrey,
Monterrey, Mexico, and
Juan Ramis-Pujol
Operations Management and Innovation Department,
ESADE – Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – Derived from work conducted on the topics of Lean-thinking and Lean-Kaizen some
management practices or techniques, such as the 5Ss, have recently become important in this
research. The reason for this is that more and more of the companies that apply Lean-thinking and
Lean-Kaizen are using the 5Ss as an essential step in their implementation. Therefore, this paper
aims to explore the implementation of the 5Ss in multinational organisations in Mexico empirically,
in order to analyse and compare them against the respective theoretical frameworks. The research
question that governs the study is: “How are the 5Ss implemented in an organisational context
such as that of a multinational company in Mexico?”
Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory multiple case study was conducted. Three
multinational companies, which have been established in Mexico for at least 20 years, were selected.
Two of these companies were from the automotive sector (suppliers) and the third was a company
manufacturing hygiene and cleaning products. Four methods were used to gather data: direct
observation, participative observation, documentary analysis, and semi-structured interviews.
Findings – Based on cross analysis findings, a group of reasons was found for applying the
5Ss in the multinational organisations analysed, along with a group of drivers and inhibitors
responsible for enhancing or blocking the successful implementation of the 5Ss. Finally, a conceptual
framework was also established, based on the results of comparing theory and fieldwork: this provides
a glimpse into the relationship of the 5Ss with other improvement programmes, known as
Lean-thinking or Lean-Kaizen, in the organisations analysed. In particular, the framework show
the importance between do (way: philosophy) and jyutsu (techniques) during the implantation process
of 5Ss.
Practical implications – Derived to describe three case studies on how to implement the 5Ss within
a programme or model for the Lean-thinking or Lean-Kaizen approach, it may prove to be of value to
practitioners and managers involved in the field. Similarly, a section on managerial implications has
also been included.
Originality/value – The study contributes to the limited existing literature on the 5Ss through
research that seeks to understand how this technique is implemented in a context of multinational
organisations, particularly emphasising the main drivers and inhibitors that enhance or block it
during the implementation process. It also includes a theoretical framework that can demonstrate the
relationship of the 5Ss with the Lean-thinking and Lean-Kaizen programmes in this context:
In particular for Latin America and Mexico, where virtually no academic studies of this type have
Asian Journal on Quality
been conducted. Vol. 13 No. 1, 2012
Keywords Lean thinking, Multinational organizations, Multinational companies, Kaizen, 5S, pp. 77-99
Continuous improvement, Lean production, Mexico r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1598-2688
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/15982681211237842
AJQ 1. Introduction
13,1 In Japan, 5S was first used in the manufacturing sector in the mid 1950s (Gapp et al.,
2008). The Toyota Production System (TPS) is a well-known example of its application
throughout this period, from its beginnings as 3S (seiri, seiton and seiso) to its evolution
into today’s 5S (seiri, seiton, seiso, seiketsu and shitsuke) (Sawada, 1995; Ohno, 1988).
Ohno (1988) states that promoting and implementing 5S is an essential element
78 of the TPS for ensuring automation (jidoka) and in-plant visual control. In this
respect, Pil and Fujimoto (2007) refer to 5S as part of the DNA of the TPS. Its rendering
and meaning in Japanese and English, together with a typical example, can be
seen in Table I. This technique has been applied in Japanese organizations for
several years (Ho and Cicmil, 1996), forming an integral part of other Japanese
approaches to improvement, in addition to the TPS, such as Kaizen (change for the
better), me-de-miru kanri (visual control) and recently Lean thinking (Kodama, 1959;
Imai, 1986; Monden, 1998; Suárez-Barraza, 2007; Schonberger, 2007; Bicheno and
Holweg, 2009).
Takashi Osada (1989, 1991), the author who developed the framework for applying
5S in organizations in the early 1980s, states that in order to understand 5S it is
necessary to understand how this technique is integrated into people’s everyday
routine in Japan. The importance of 5S lies in the fact that it can help to reduce costs by
maximizing process efficiency, effectiveness and performance through the
establishment and maintenance of a high-quality, clean working environment
(Hirano, 1995; Ho, 1999; Liker, 2004; Liker and Hoseus, 2008): what in the west has
come to be known as “housekeeping” (Becker, 2001; Ahmed et al., 2005; da Silveira,
2006). For this reason, according to the literature some multinational organizations
engaged in manufacturing and services in Europe, the USA and Asia have adopted 5S

English
Japanese English Japanese meaning meaning Typical example

Seiri Structure To clearly separate necessary Organization Discarding any material that
things from unnecessary ones is not of use (cardboard,
and abandon the latter boxes, etc.)
Seiton Systematize To neatly arrange and Neatness Keeping shelves and filing
identify things for ease of use cabinets tidy and organized
Seiso Sanitize To always clean up: to Cleaning Establishing specific
maintain tidiness and individual responsibility for
cleanliness corrective and preventive
cleanliness
Seiketsu Standardize To constantly maintain the Standardization Setting standards and
three Ss mentioned above maintenance plans for the
(seiri, seiton, seiso). Includes above three Ss. Also as a
the individual well-being and plan or program for physical
physical cleanliness of each well-being (exercise, etc.)
person
Shitsuke Self- To have workers make a habit Discipline Executing the standards set
discipline of always conforming to rules in a disciplined fashion on a
day-to-day basis
Table I.
Summary of 5S Sources: Adapted from Ho (1999), Sawada (1995) and Monden (1998)
as part of their Lean, Kaizen and/or Lean-Kaizen programs for the simple purpose of An exploratory
creating a working environment based on the values of organization, order, cleanliness study of 5S
and discipline (Ho et al., 1995; O’hEocha, 2000; Pheng, 2001; Pheng and Khoo, 2001;
Warwood and Knowles, 2004; Liker, 2004; Premil Kumar et al., 2007; Kumar Khana,
2009).
However, there are very few references on the subject of 5S implementation in
multinational corporations in the Latin American context, and specifically in Mexico 79
(Suárez-Barraza, 2008; Ablanedo-Rosas et al., 2010). Recently, the paper by Ablanedo-
Rosas et al. (2010) shed some light on 5S implementation in Mexico and concludes that
a common response among 20 manufacturing and service organizations surveyed in a
business cluster in the state of Hidalgo, Mexico, indicate that 5S plays a leading role in
sustaining other quality and improvement practices or approaches, but that there are
still many areas that provide an opportunity to enhance its successful implementation.
In this connection, the western (UK and USA) literature has highlighted that 5S has
been under-used, under-institutionalized, poorly implemented and/or misinterpreted
when applied in isolation or as merely a minor part of a more general Lean thinking or
Kaizen program in some organizations in the USA, the UK and even Asia (India in
particular) (Ho et al., 1995; Becker, 2001; Douglas, 2002; Kulak et al., 2005; Gapp et al.,
2008; Kobayashi et al., 2008; Hough, 2008; Kumar Khana, 2009). Other authors in turn
claim that the application of 5S in the west, specifically the UK and the USA, has been
regarded as just another technique and/or tool, rather than from a more holistic
perspective or in a broader context of philosophical theory (Suárez-Barraza, 2007;
Gapp et al., 2008; Kobayashi et al., 2008). For this reason, the main purpose of this study
is to empirically explore 5S implementation in multinational organizations in Mexico
with the aim of analyzing and comparing it with theoretical frameworks on the subject.
More specifically, we seek to answer the main research question of the study, namely:
How does 5S implementation take place in an organizational context such as
a multinational corporation in Mexico? This is achieved through three specific
sub-questions:

RQ1.1. Why do multinational organizations in Mexico need to implement 5S? In

other words, what are its main drivers?

RQ1.2. What sort of inhibitors can arise in 5S implementation in multinational

organizations in Mexico?

RQ1.3. Is there any relationship between the 5S implementation effort and the
general Lean thinking and Kaizen programs and/or projects of each
multinational organization?

With a view to answering this research question and its sub-questions, first of all we
conducted a literature review on 5S and related topics. We then went on to perform an
exploratory multiple case study based on three multinational organizations operating
in Mexico for at least 20 years. Finally, the structure of the paper is as follows. After the
introduction, Section 2 provides the review of the literature on 5S. Section 3 describes
the research methodology. Section 4 presents the results of the research (the cross-case
analysis), including the qualitative empirical evidence. To finish, there is a section of
conclusions from the viewpoint of the study, in which we consider some managerial
implications.
AJQ 2. Literature review
13,1 2.1 Background to 5S management
Part of the Japanese academic and practitioner literature holds that 5S is not only useful for
improving the working environment but also that they raise process and product quality
standards, reduce and optimize lead time, and also, of course, reduce operating costs and
enhance process performance (Nemoto, 1987; Hirano, 1995; Sawada, 1995; Monden, 1998;
80 Liker, 2004; Liker and Hoseus, 2008). Thus, when certain Toyota Motor Corporation plants
sought to achieve their quality, cost, productivity, worker morale, safety and delivery goals
in the early 1950s (1950–1955), this probably marked the beginning of the application of
the first two Ss (seiri and seiton) of the final five Ss (Ohno, 1988; Bamber et al., 2000; Hino,
2006). Other researchers note that these first Ss have formed part of Japanese culture since
the times of the Samurais, and thus their implementation after the Second World War in
Toyota plants was the result of a retrieval of behavior inherited from the Bushido code or
way of the samurai: order, cleanliness and discipline (both physically and mentally)
(Sawada, 1995; Pheng, 1997). Other authors argue that this philosophical root in the
Bushido code may be traceable to principles such as Shintoism, Buddhism and
Confucianism (De Mente, 1994); Shintoism emphasizes the importance of cleanliness of
mind, and using other people for personal benefit is considered unclean).
Yasuhiro Monden (1998, p. 202) states that in order to start operating the TPS it is
necessary to establish as fundamental requirements seiri (organization) and seiton
(neatness); i.e. the first two Ss are the basis for initiating a process of standardization and
elimination of muda (a Japanese term meaning “waste”) in any organization. Nevertheless,
it should be stressed that care and quality assurance of process and product alike has
always been, and still is, one of the main focusses of 5S (Sawada, 1995; Shih and Gurnani,
1997; Bamber et al., 2000; Liker and Hoseus, 2008). Schonberger (2007) confirms that 5S is
one element of the TPS that forms part of Japanese Production Management.
According to the study conducted in 1999 by the Japan Industrial Safety and Health
Association (JISHA), the next two Ss – seiso (cleaning) and seiketsu (standardization) –
began to be integrated later on, between 1956 and 1972. The term shitsuke (discipline)
was included in the 1980s and 1990s (JISHA, 1999); according to Nishibori (1985), this S
is the most important element of all, as those who practice it constantly are capable of
training other employees by providing an example with their superior behavior of
order and discipline. Around the same time, a sixth S was incorporated in certain cases:
that of safety, in addition to those already mentioned (JISHA, 1999; Main et al., 2008).
Recently, 5S has even started to expand into forming part of environmental
management systems (Tice et al., 2005; Bicheno and Holweg, 2009).
From a different perspective, it could be said that the path followed by Japanese
organizations from 2S to 5S or 6S was the result of maturity in the implementation of
each element, or of the emphasis placed on the strategic objectives of each organization
depending on its sector (Nemoto, 1987; Nakamura, 1992; Zelinski, 2005). Thus, to date
5S has gradually progressed toward its incorporation alongside the management
trends of recent years such as total quality management (TQM), Lean thinking, total
productive maintenance (TPM), Kaizen, and even ISO 9000 and Six Sigma (Ho, 1999;
Warwood and Knowles, 2004; Premil Kumar et al., 2007; Suárez-Barraza, 2007; Van
Iwaarden, 2008; Bicheno and Holweg, 2009).

2.2 Historical roots: what is 5S?

As we mentioned in the introduction, 5S is a technique used to establish and maintain a
quality environment in an organization (Ho and Cicmil, 1996; Hough, 1998). The
original Japanese concept has socio-historical and philosophical roots (Sawada, 1995; An exploratory
Gapp et al., 2008; Kobayashi et al., 2008). Some authors have seen it as a fundamental study of 5S
part of life in Japan in schools and the home (De Mente, 1994).
For years, in Japan there have been several practices that incorporate the elements
do (way: philosophy) or jyutsu (technique) in their name. Thus we have, for example,
judo (philosophy) and jujyutsu (Japanese combat technique without weapons), which
seek to train body and mind through discipline (Sugiura and Gillespie, 2002). 81
According to some authors, this creed can be applied to Japanese management,
including 5S, thus involving an element of “management philosophy” and also an
element of “management technique” (Osada, 1989; Sawada, 1995; Kobayashi, 2005;
Hino, 2006; Gapp et al., 2008; Suárez-Barraza et al., 2008; Kobayashi et al., 2008). In this
way, we find organizations that apply 5S to their do (way of life) and also to their jyutsu
(management technique). Examples of this include Matsuchita (Gapp et al., 2008,
p. 568), Toyota (Sawada, 1995; Hino, 2006; Suárez-Barraza et al., 2008; Aoki, 2008) and
Honda (Sawada, 1995). The reason for using this philosophical approach is to ensure
that systematization, personal well-being and discipline form part of the individuals
who apply the 5S technique (jyutsu) so that it can be seen as an integral part of their
day-to-day activities, both in their work and in their workplace environment. Osada
(1989) discusses the importance of this duality in his work in Japanese, but he does not
reflect it fully in the English-language edition of 1991.
On a different note, practically in the same period as Osada, Hirano (1995, 1996)
provides a detailed and more practitioner description of 5S from a Japanese perspective,
indicating that seiri refers to a clear distinction between what is needed on the workfloor
and what is not. And for obvious reasons, what is not needed is discarded; it is thrown
away or recycled. Thus, in seiri it is necessary to establish a set of criteria on frequency
of use in order to be able to organize such items, from those that will not be used
(red cards) to those that will be used in a non-immediate future (yellow cards) (Sawada,
1995; Hirano, 1995; Ho and Cicmil, 1996; Monden, 1998; Kanta Patra et al., 2005).
In turn, seiton refers to the idea that “each item has a place and only one place.”
Naturally, the item concerned here is the one that is left after the sorting involved in the
seiri stage. For this reason, the place of each item must be clearly identified for
straightforward everyday use, by means of visual control (easy location for use). After
use, it must be returned to its previously appointed place (Sawada, 1995; Hirano, 1995;
Ho and Cicmil, 1996; Monden, 1998; Kanta Patra et al., 2005). Third, from the moment
seiri is applied, it is necessary for all those involved in a particular workfloor to carry
out corrective cleaning of that workfloor, i.e. seiso. In Japan, cleaning forms part of
everyday life. The Japanese believe that cleaning a physical area at the same time
generates a cleaning of one’s mind. One example of this is the fact that there are no
street cleaners in residential areas in that country (Ho and Cicmil, 1996; Suárez-
Barraza, 2007). Likewise, the second main premise of seiso is preventive cleaning;
ultimately, the aim is to not get the workfloor dirty, or get it dirty as little as possible.
Preventive cleaning helps sustain improvements, keeps equipment and machinery in
good condition and even motivates employees to operate better on the workfloor
(Sawada, 1995; Kanta Patra et al., 2005).
Lastly, seiketsu refers to the systematization and/or standardization of the work
undertaken in the other three Ss. In other words, all the changes and improvements
made so far, including new good practice, must be maintained on the workfloor.
In practice, some authors recommend drawing up maintenance plans and standard
operating procedures (Osada, 1991; Hirano, 1995; Sawada, 1995; Ho and Cicmil, 1996;
AJQ Monden, 1998; Kanta Patra et al., 2005). Another aspect of seiketsu is the
13,1 systematization of personal well-being; while workers perform and maintain the
activities of the other three Ss, the intention is that their personal activity should
synchronize with the practice of 5S, through exercise, good food and other practices
(Osada, 1991; Sawada, 1995; Hirano, 1995). This is precisely the moment that shitsuke
appears. This last S focusses more on the person, by developing the habit of
82 improvement and change through worker self-discipline. Shitsuke should encourage
everyday action to improve the workfloor, either through teamwork or as an individual
member of that team. Disciplined teamwork can reduce the tensions and stress of day-
to-day activities, orienting each team member toward an organized, tidy, clean way of
thinking: 5S (Sawada, 1995; Hirano, 1995; Ho and Cicmil, 1996; Monden, 1998). The
conceptual diagram below summarizes these ideas (Figure 1).
In reference to Figure 1, Kobayashi et al. (2008, p. 250) hold that the models proposed
by Osada (1991) and Hirano (1995) function according to the plan, do, check, act
(PDCA) cycle (Deming, 1994) and Kaizen philosophy (Imai, 1986), in which seiketsu acts
as a bond between discipline and the three operational Ss (seiri, seiton, seiso).

2.3 Benefits, drivers and inhibitors of 5S: a literature perspective

The practitioner literature on the subject provides several descriptive case studies
reporting beneficial effects of 5S implementation in a variety of organizations, some of
them multinational corporations (Becker, 2001; Chapman, 2005; Van Patten, 2006;
Filipusic, 2007; Sharrock, 2007; Moore, 2007; Main et al., 2008). Other studies of an
academic nature go beyond analyzing the possible benefits from a practitioner
perspective, also analyzing how these benefits can become drivers for achieving a
successful implementation of 5S. In addition, they draw attention to a series of inhibitors
or barriers that may hinder the 5S effort in its application (Ho and Cicmil, 1996; Ho, 1999;
O’hEocha, 2000; Warwood and Knowles, 2004; Premil Kumar et al., 2007; Suárez-Barraza,
2007; Suárez-Barraza et al., 2009). Table II presents the papers found in the literature.

2.4 Link between 5S and world-class manufacturing and improvement strategies

Equally, several authors have attempted to establish a link between 5S and the various
management approaches associated with world-class manufacturing and improvement

Seiri
(organization)

Seiketsu Shitsuke Seiton

(standardization) (discipline) (neatness)

Seiso
(cleaning)
Figure 1.
The 5S
Sources: Osada (1991) and Sawada (1995)
Benefits
Employee participation and
learning (Hubbard, 1999; Ilg,
2007; Main et al., 2008)
Active participation through
teamwork (Becker, 2001;
Filipusic, 2007; Van Patten, 2006)
Better housekeeping (Eckhardt,
2001; Cooney, 2002; Van Patten,
2006; Moore, 2007; Ilg, 2007;
Main et al., 2008; Hough, 2008)
Visual workplace (Becker, 2001;
Chapman, 2005; Ilg, 2007)
Safety and work environment
(Becker, 2001; Chapman, 2005)
Waste, time and cost reduction
(Becker, 2001; Main et al., 2008)
Safer storage of materials (Ilg,
2007; Hough, 2008)
Smoother workflow (Monden,
1998; Warwood and Knowles,
2004)
Improved quality, efficiency and
productivity (Chapman, 2005;
Sharrock, 2007)
Customer awareness
(Sharrock, 2007; Ilg, 2007)
Store accuracy and productivity
(Sharrock, 2007; Moore, 2007)
Fast retrieval of items
(Sharrock, 2007)
Pollution prevention
(Becker, 2001)
Less searching and better
utilization of space (Chapman,
2005; Hough, 2008)
Fewer mistakes and decreased
walking and motion (Chapman,
2005; Ilg, 2007)
Personal safety (Filipusic, 2007)
Communication improvement
(Van Patten, 2006; Ilg, 2007)
Source: Design by own
Drivers
High staff involvement and
commitment (Ho and Cicmil,
1996; Ho, 1999; Warwood and
Knowles, 2004;
Ablanedo-Rosas et al., 2010)
Basic elements of Lean-Kaizen
application (Imai, 1997; Ho and
Fung, 1994, 1995; Hubbard,
1999)
Teamwork (Ho, 1999; Warwood
and Knowles, 2004)
Discipline spirit (Monden, 1998;
Pheng and Khoo, 2001;
Suárez-Barraza, 2007;
Aoki, 2008)
Process measurement approach
(Monden, 1998; Suárez-Barraza,
2007; Aoki, 2008)
Waste and problem-solving
approach (Monden, 1998;
O’hEocha, 2000; Suárez-Barraza,
2007; Aoki, 2008)
Leadership of middle managers
and informal leaders
(Bullington, 2003; Suárez-
Barraza, 2007, Ilg, 2007)
Clear and formal communication
channel (Ho, 1999; Aoki, 2008)
Active and intensive training
(Hubbard, 1999; Suárez-Barraza
et al., 2009; Ablanedo-Rosas
et al., 2010)
Barriers
An exploratory
study of 5S
Lack of planning (Warwood and
Knowles, 2004)
Failures in implementation due
to an orthodox approach
(Suárez-Barraza et al., 2009)
Insensitive consultancies
83
(Suárez-Barraza, 2007)
Limited resources (O’hEocha,
2000; Warwood and Knowles,
2004)
Lack of clarity in the purpose of
5S (Chapman, 2005)
Poor communications
(O’hEocha, 2000; Warwood and
Knowles, 2004; Ablanedo-Rosas
et al., 2010)
Lack of space (O’hEocha, 2000)
Lack of recognition and
feedback (O’hEocha, 2000;
Warwood and Knowles, 2004)
Employee attitudes and low
morale (O’hEocha, 2000;
Warwood and Knowles, 2004)
Personality clashes at shop
floor (O’hEocha, 2000; Warwood
and Knowles, 2004)
Perceived loss of control of
management (O’hEocha, 2000;
Warwood and Knowles, 2004)
Lack of institutionalization
(Premil Kumar et al., 2007)
Sustainability of the 5S effort
(Ablanedo-Rosas et al., 2010)
Lack of design to track,
measure and evaluate the 5S
implementation
(Ablanedo-Rosas et al., 2010)
Table II.
Benefits, drivers and
inhibitors of 5S

strategies (Ansari and Modarress, 2007; O’hEocha, 2000; Yamashina, 2000; Warwood
and Knowles, 2004; Liker and Hoseus, 2008). Other authors have seen it as an
elementary factor for generating organization, order, cleanliness and standardization in
health-related programs in hospitals and clinics (Withanachchi et al., 2007; Gabow,
2008). It has even been seen as a basic element for implementing Lean-Kaizen in
private and public service organizations (Suárez-Barraza, 2008; Suárez-Barraza et al.,
2009).
AJQ The Japanese literature defends 5S as a basic requirement for establishing any
13,1 production system based on the pull system and/or just in time (Gapp et al., 2008,
p. 573). In this respect, Imai (1997, 2006), the author who brought the term Kaizen
(continuous improvement) into the managerial world, argues that 5S is a fundamental
prerequisite for Lean thinking (and also for the elimination of muda and
standardization); his proposal is schematized in his conceptual framework known as
84 the “house of gemba.” For Imai (1997), 5S is primary for continuous improvement. Ho
and Fung (1994, 1995) with their TQMEX model share this idea, stating that 5S is the
first step of a model of excellence and TQM. Osada (1991) establishes it as the baseline
of TQM. Others have visualized 5S as the starting point or cornerstone of Lean
thinking programs, efforts and projects (extension of the TPS and Kaizen) (Pavnaskar
et al., 2003; Hines et al., 2004; Bicheno and Holweg, 2009).
On the other hand, in the western literature, Bamber et al. (2000), Kanta Patra et al.
(2005), Shamsuddin et al. (2005) and Ahuja and Khamba (2008) regard 5S as the prelude
to or a part of TPM. Ho and Fung (1995) with their TQMEX model and Bamber et al.
(2000) identify it as the first stage of an integrated management system or an
excellence model. In turn, another group of authors consider that 5S encompasses the
concept of standards, through statements such as: “5S is the foundation for
constructing international standards into management systems” and “continues this
standard with actions,” in some detailed analyses relating it directly to the ISO 9000
standards (Pheng, 2001; Zutshi and Sohal, 2005) and environmental standards
(O’hEocha, 2000). In fact, according to research by Premil Kumar et al. (2007, p. 485), 5S
is suitable for intervening in a variety of different world-class manufacturing and
improvement strategies, including the ISO family. On the basis of this latter work, we
present Table III summarizing the literature that links 5S to these world-class
manufacturing and improvement strategies.
We share the same research framework approach as Imai (1997) and Ho and Fung
(1994, 1995). Indeed, ours is an empirical study, as is that of Ho and Fung (1994, 1995).
However, the main difference between our study and theirs lies, of course, in the fact
that we focus specifically on gaining insight into 5S implementation, whereas Ho and
Fung (1994, 1995) focus on the interconnection between several management practices
related to quality and excellence, one of which was 5S. Another major difference is that
our study took the methodological approach of an exploratory multiple case study,
which provided us with a broad field of analysis (i.e. data collection was not restricted
by rigid questionnaires) and thus enabled us to access and study in detail specifically
how 5S was implemented in this context. Our research framework is shown in
Figure 2. First, we will attempt to explore the reasons why multinational organizations
need to implement 5S (drivers) (boxes on left in Figure 2). Similarly, we attempt to
identify the main inhibitors blocking the 5S implementation (boxes on right). And
lastly, we seek to analyze whether there is a possible relationship between 5S and the
Lean-Kaizen programs of these organizations (the two-way gray arrows).

3. Methodology
As indicated in the introduction, there is a lack of empirical literature on the subject of
5S in a context such as Latin America, and Mexico in particular, even within academic
case studies (Suárez-Barraza, 2008; Ablanedo-Rosas et al., 2010). Much of the academic
literature focusses on research done either in Japan or in the USA and the UK (Monden,
1998; Warwood and Knowles, 2004; Gapp et al., 2008; Kobayashi et al., 2008). Likewise,
there is a large practitioner literature that reports, in the form of “successful” case
 World-class manufacturing and
An exploratory
improvement strategies and study of 5S
Aspect practice Literature evidence

5S as the foundation of Total quality management Osada (1991), Ho and Fung (1994,
TQM (TQM) 1995), Hirano (1995, 1996),
Total quality control (TQC) or Sawada (1995), Ho and Cicmil
company-wide quality control (1996), Monden (1998), Ho (1999),
85
(CWQC) Nwabueze (2001), Premil Kumar
et al. (2007), Ablanedo-Rosas
et al. (2010)
5S with quality circles or Quality circles or improvement Sawada (1995), Ho (1999), Pheng
improvement teams teams as part of a company-wide and Khoo (2001)
quality control or TQM program
5S as the basis of the Toyota Toyota Production System (TPS) Sawada (1995), Monden (1998),
Production System (TPS) or just in time (JIT) Hines et al. (2004), Liker (2004),
and/or Lean thinking Lean thinking Chapman (2005), Herron and
Braiden (2006), Schonberger
(2007), Pil and Fujimoto (2007),
Main et al. (2008), Liker and
Hoseus (2008), Bicheno and
Holweg (2009), Julien and
Tjahjono (2009)
5S as the cornerstone of Kaizen as management Imai (1997, 2006), Laraia et al.
Kaizen philosophy (1999), Suárez-Barraza (2007),
Kaizen as improvement events Farris (2009)
(Kaizen blitz)
5S as the prelude to TPM Total productive maintenance Bamber et al. (2000), Warwood
and Knowles (2004), Kanta Patra
et al. (2005), Shamsuddin et al.
(2005), Ahuja and Khamba (2008)
5S to integrate suppliers Development and integration Bullington (2003)
of suppliers
5S as a link to and basic ISO 9000 family, version 2000 Ho and Fung (1994, 1995),
program for ISO 9000 Ho (1997, 1999), Pheng (2001),
Warwood and Knowles (2004),
Zutshi and Sohal (2005), Premil
Kumar et al. (2007), Gapp et al.
(2008)
5S as the base standard for ISO 14000 family Ho (1999), O’hEocha (2000),
organization, order and Warwood and Knowles (2004),
cleanliness in Bicheno (2004), Ahmed et al.
environmental standards (2005), Gapp et al. (2008)
5S in health programs and AS 4801:2000 Occupational Withanachichi et al. (2004),
standards Health and Safety Management Massey and William (2005),
NHS English Health System Withanachchi et al. (2007),
Gabow (2008)
5S as a basic element for Lean-Kaizen in service Suárez-Barraza (2008),
implementing Lean-Kaizen organizations Suárez-Barraza et al. (2009)
in service organizations Table III.
5S as part of Six Sigma or Application of 5S is taken into Van Iwaarden (2008) Link between 5S
Lean Six Sigma account in Six Sigma Thomas et al. (2009) and world-class
manufacturing and
(continued) improvement strategies
AJQ World-class manufacturing and
13,1 improvement strategies and
Aspect practice Literature evidence

5S as the first stage Integrated management Ho and Fung (1994, 1995),

of an integrated system (IMS) Bamber et al. (2000), Becker
management system Excellence models (2001), Premil Kumar
86 or an excellence et al. (2007)
model

Table III. Source: Design by own

Lean-Kaizen programs
(techniques: standardization, elimination of muda,
Driver 1 total productive maintenance-TPM, Inhibitors 1
pull system, etc.)

Driver 2 Inhibitors 2
Seiri
(organization)

Driver 3 Inhibitors 3
Seiketsu Seiton
Shitsuke
(standardization) (neatness)
(discipline)

Seiso
(cleaning) Inhibitors n
Driver n
Figure 2.
Research framework
Base platform for Lean-Kaizen programs

studies, on experiences in the implementation of 5S (as a technique), mainly in

the USA. Thus, 5S implementation has received little attention from an academic
perspective, and more still, there is a great deal left to learn in such a specific context as
a multinational corporation operating in Latin America and Mexico.
Bearing in mind the above context, and considering that our paper is of an
exploratory nature, since there is a clear need to obtain in-depth base data on drivers
(the reasons for 5S implementation), inhibitors, and the relationship between 5S and
Lean-Kaizen programs, we adopted the case study methodology (Eisenhardt, 1989;
Yin, 1994). The case study method is very useful when the research seeks to answer
“how” and “why” type questions (Yin, 1994). It has also been suggested that this
methodology is quite appropriate for application to the field of operations management
research (Voss et al., 2002).
In this research, given the nature of the methodology and the research questions
posed, three case studies were selected corresponding to three multinational
organizations that operate and have been well established in the industrial cluster at
Toluca, Mexico, for over 20 years, following the criterion of theoretical sampling
(Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). Thus, three case studies were
selected that had ample potential to contribute toward the understanding and An exploratory
development of theory. Pettigrew (1997) states that the importance of the selection in study of 5S
this type of sampling lies not so much in the number of cases as in the in-depth study of
each of them (Pettigrew, 1997, p. 342). Therefore, the selection of multiple cases (three
here) leads us to create robust theories, as the emerging propositions are more closely
related to the great variety of empirical evidence that is compiled (Eisenhardt and
Graebner, 2007). 87
The process of selecting the cases was as follows. First, we selected the database of
the industrial cluster of the Tecnológico de Monterrey at Toluca (some 81 records). Out
of this, we selected only those that had multinational operations, had been well
established in the Toluca Valley for at least 20 years, and of course had some sort of
“well-established” Lean, Lean-Kaizen or process and product quality improvement
program. Thus, the original database was narrowed down to 18. Out of these 18, eight
had incorrect data about the application of a Lean, Lean-Kaizen or process and product
quality improvement program or effort. Of the remaining ten, only three had applied 5S
constantly for at least five years, the time necessary to be able to observe its
implementation (Bateman, 2005; Suárez-Barraza and Ramis-Pujol, 2008). Table IV
shows the profile of the multinational corporations studied.
In order to maintain the consistency of the data, three data collection methods were
used: first, direct observation; second, documentary analysis; and finally, semi-
structured interviews (Yin, 1994). In the direct observation at least tour visits were made
to each company selected. The purpose was to observe the workplaces in which 5S was
being or had been applied. During this stage, photographs were taken to record the 5S
events before and after; this was extremely important as evidence and for the reporting
of the study (Buchanan, 2001). Subsequently, during these visits documentary material
was collected about 5S implementation for analysis. This material included training
manuals, web sites, formats, record sheets, red cards and results sheets, among others.
Lastly, in order to increase the reliability of the case study we devised an interview
protocol and a case study database (Pettigrew, 1997). In each company we interviewed
the main contact persons (see Table IV), i.e. the CEO and the head of the Lean or quality

Number
of Informant Production Improvement Level of 5S
Sector Firm employees position Product system approach implementation

Case 1 Manufacturer 204 CEO and Rubber- JIT (pull) and Lean-Kaizen Implemented
Automotive (supplier) Lean and 5S metal car some approach six years ago
(head office: Established Manager parts production
Sweden) for 19 years line push
Case 2 Manufacturer 1,800 Lean Mechanical Pull system Lean Implemented
Automotive (supplier) Manager and parts for and some approach five years ago
(head office: Established one gasoline production
Germany) for 22 years Production pumps line push
Line Chief
Case 3 Manufacturer 740 Plant Hygiene Push system, Lean-Kaizen Implementation
Hygiene and Established Manager and and starting approach in progress for
cleaning for 21 years Quality sanitary up for last three years
(head office: Control Chief cleaning migration Table IV.
USA) products Profile of case studies
AJQ control program. Interviews with top management tend to be more reliable sources than
13,1 interviews with lower ranks (Philips, 1981). In addition, we interviewed one line chief
per company and three employees who had taken and/or were taking a direct part in the
5S implementation. A total of 17 interviews were conducted in May and June 2009,
strictly following the research protocol (see Appendix) but giving a certain amount of
flexibility to some important responses on the topic (see Table V). Each interview was
88 transcribed no more than 48 hours after it was conducted, and was exhaustive with
regard to clarity and data saturation, as any points arising during the process of
analysis were discussed with the contact person by e-mail or over the telephone.
Finally, the analysis of our data was intended to ensure construct validity at all
times through the use of multiple sources of evidence and to establish a planned data
collection chain. In order to increase the quality of the study, we have employed Yin’s
(1994, pp. 32-8) strategies to address the concerns of construct validity, external
validity and reliability. Construct validity was pursued by following the procedures of
multiple informants and intermediate reviews (case study first draft) by study
companies, and iterating constructs with prior literature. Internal validity was
addressed by matching the proposed patterns to the empirical data. External validity
was enhanced with a multiple case design selecting cases from different operational
contexts. Reliability was addressed by using an explicated case study protocol and
building electronic case study database.

4. Cross-case analysis
4.1 Drivers
A 5S driver is any organizational element that can help to foster the implementation
and sustainability of a 5S effort in an organization. On the basis of our data collection
methods we were able to identify a number of drivers, as presented in Table VI.
Taking into account the literature and the empirical evidence available, some of the
drivers identified confirm the studies conducted by other authors. For example, strong
commitment from management, the use of work teams, training and clear
communication of the effort are all drivers that are corroborated in the literature
(Ho and Cicmil, 1996; Ho and Fung, 1994, 1995; Imai, 1997; Ho, 1999; Warwood and

Case 1: Case 2: Case 3: hygiene

Informants automotive automotive and cleaning

CEO and top managers level

CEO 1
Top manager (Lean) 1 1
Middle managers and operative level
Lean/Kaizen plan manager 1
Plant manager 1
Quality control chief 1
Production line chief 1
Operators (all of them has been worked in 5S efforts in 3
their productions lines) 3 3
Table V. Kaizen leader’s team 1
Case selected and
interviews Total 7 5 5
 Case 1: Case 2: Case 3: hygiene
An exploratory
Driver automotive automotive and cleaning study of 5S
Management show strong commitment and provide an
example

Participative leadership from middle management 89

Application of 5S through work teams

Intense workshop-type training

Learning by doing (high staff participation in problem

solving and elimination of muda)

Previous implementation of standardization,

environmental safety and total productive maintenance
(TPM)

Strategic link (forms part of an organizational policy and

present in the strategic plan)

Seiketsu (systematization) and shitsuke (discipline) are

implemented and institutionalized

Clear communication and dissemination of how 5S is

going to be implemented

Detailed guide or scheme of how 5S is going to be

implemented, evaluated and institutionalized

Notes: , strong presence; , partial presence; , weak presence Table VI.

5S drivers

Knowles, 2004; Ablanedo-Rosas et al., 2010). Nevertheless, as can be observed in

Table VI, some of these drivers have only a partial presence, and this has had a
somewhat negative effect on 5S implementation process in these organizations. This is
seen in cases 2 and 3 with regard to commitment from top management, leadership
from middle management and active training.
On the basis of the empirical evidence, three drivers emerged in this research in the
context of multinational organizations in Mexico: first, the strategic link of the 5S effort;
second, implementation and institutionalization of seiketsu (systematization or
standardization) and shitsuke (self-discipline); and finally, having a detailed guide to
how 5S is going to be implemented, evaluated and institutionalized. Table VI also
reveals that all three cases studied possess a weak presence of the implementation of the
two Ss that are concerned with systematization and discipline, elements that seem to
have a strengthening effect on the success of 5S implementation in these organizations
AJQ (Aoki, 2008; Gapp et al., 2008; Kobayashi et al., 2008). Furthermore, as is shown in
13,1 Table VI, both cases 2 and 3 register only a partial presence of the strategic link, as
although the Lean program represents a strategic policy for the multinational, 5S is
seen as merely a methodology or a “formality” to be observed, thus losing its strategic
importance (Osada, 1991; Ho and Cicmil, 1996). The same is true of the implementation
guide, which exists for the Lean program but not specifically and in detail for 5S.
90
4.2 Inhibitors
An inhibitor is any element that hinders the implementation and sustainability of a 5S
effort in an organization. Table VII shows the inhibitors that we succeeded in
identifying in the study.
The inhibitors that appeared in the field study are specific to the context studied
and go beyond those reported in the literature (O’hEocha, 2000; Warwood and
Knowles, 2004; Chapman, 2005; Ablanedo-Rosas et al., 2010). One essential aspect to be
observed was that strong or partial presence of these inhibitors had a notable influence
on “successful” (i.e. beneficial for both company and workers) 5S implementation. Two
inhibitors that showed a strong presence in all three cases analyzed were the
application of 5S as isolated events and the lack of a philosophical vision of 5S. In the
former, 5S was implemented in a particular period of time in one year of work and then
forgotten, which underscores that implementation only concerned seiri (organization),
seiton (neatness) and seiso (cleanliness). This was so despite the fact that in all three
cases 5S implementation was considered within the institutional production system
originating from the multinational’s head office.
With regard to the latter aspect, it was observed in all three cases that 5S was
implemented without following the philosophical principles that Osada (1991)

Case 1: Case 2: Case 3: hygiene

Inhibitors automotive automotive and cleaning

Development of isolated events without a strategic link

Lack of a philosophical vision and guiding principles of 5S

Orthodox application (housekeeping and visual factory
vision) of 5S, generating bureaucratization of the
improvement

Lack of an implementation, evaluation and standardization

scheme for the effort

Lack of application of plan, do, check, act (PDCA) in the

implementation of 5S

Lack of clarity of the purpose of 5S implementation

Table VII.
Notes: , strong presence; , partial presence; , weak presence
5S inhibitors
defended in connection with an integral application encompassing the personal and An exploratory
family aspect as well as that of the workplace. As a result, in all three multinationals 5S study of 5S
was seen as a “technique” or “tool” serving “just” to ensure clean and tidy workfloors.
One possible reason for this is the orthodox application of 5S from a western
housekeeping and visual factory perspective (Becker, 2001; da Silveira, 2006) observed
with a strong presence in case 2 and partial presence in cases 1 and 3. In the cases
analyzed, this western approach may have affected the “original” approach proposed 91
by Osada (1991) for 5S implementation.

4.3 Possible relationship

Finally, in an attempt to answer the last of the sub-questions posed in our research
framework (Is there any relationship between the 5S implementation effort and the
general Lean thinking and Kaizen programs and/or projects of each multinational
organization?), we structure the results of the cross-case analysis once again in Table VIII.
As can be seen in Table VIII, according to the empirical evidence, all three cases
studied show a relationship between 5S and the Lean-Kaizen programs of the
multinational’s head office. In simple terms, 5S is considered for its implementation
within the Lean-Kaizen programs or specific production systems of each multinational.
This finding confirms those of the literature on the subject, which depicts 5S as a
preliminary requirement for TQM, TPM, standardization, Lean and Lean-Kaizen
(Osada, 1991; Ho and Fung, 1994, 1995; Ho, 1999; Imai, 1997; Liker and Hoseus, 2008;
Ahuja and Khamba, 2008). Table VIII also shows us that in all three cases analyzed 5S
is approached as the base platform for Lean-Kaizen programs, corroborating previous
studies (Ho and Fung, 1994, 1995; Ho, 1999; Imai, 1997; Warwood and Knowles, 2004;
Liker and Hoseus, 2008).
However, where we do present relevant findings in this research about the
relationship between 5S and Lean-Kaizen programs is regarding the implementation of
5S following its philosophical principles (do) and its dimension as a technique (jyutsu).
Two of the three cases analyzed (cases 2 and 3) do not consider the philosophical
principles (do) at the time of implementing 5S, and only apply it as a simple Lean
technique. Case 1 yielded partial evidence; to some extent the company showed more
sensitivity to the importance of the philosophical principles (do) of 5S, by attempting to
transfer the implementation effort as a technique to the creation of the habit of
improvement in workers’ personal and family life (Suárez-Barraza and Ramis-Pujol,
2005; Gapp et al., 2008; Kobayashi et al., 2008). However, as the company lacks a clear
in-depth perspective of the philosophy or way (do) that underlies 5S, it has failed to
take root and become institutionalized, the link between do (philosophy or way) and

Relationship established between 5S and a Case 1: Case 2: Case 3: hygiene

Lean-Kaizen program automotive automotive and cleaning

Relationship exists X X X
5S is seen as the base platform for other techniques X X X
related to Lean-Kaizen
5S is implemented following its philosophical principles X (partial) Table VIII.
or way (do) and its dimension as a technique ( jyutsu) Relationship between 5S
and a Lean-Kaizen
Notes: X, exist relationship between 5’s and Lean-Kaizen program program
AJQ jyutsu (technique) thus being broken (see thunderbolts in Figure 3). This finding
13,1 indicates that, at least in the context studied, Mexico seems to be following in the
footsteps of the UK and USA: 5S is regarded as a mere technique, its philosophical
principles or way (do) being either forgotten or left unclear, unlike in Japan (Magaña-
Campos and Aspinwall, 2003; Chapman, 2005; Kobayashi et al., 2008; Ablanedo-Rosas
et al., 2010).
92 Lastly, the lack of implementation of seiketsu (systematization or standardization)
and shitsuke (self-discipline), elemental parts of the 5S philosophy or way (do), in the
three cases studied can also be linked, according to the evidence, to the lack of 5S
implementation following Deming’s PDCA cycle and Kaizen philosophy (Imai, 1986;
Suárez-Barraza, 2007; Kobayashi et al., 2008), which has caused effort maintenance and
monitoring failures in all three cases (see thunderbolts in Figure 3). This confirms the
results of the research conducted in the state of Hidalgo, Mexico, by Ablanedo-Rosas
et al. (2010). Thus, in all three cases there was empirical evidence to the effect that once
the third S (seiso or cleaning) has been implemented, having passed through seiri
(organization) and seiton (neatness), the other two Ss (seiketsu or standardization and
shitsuke or self-discipline) are left unconcluded, forgotten and/or never put into
practice. Consequently, in all three cases, after an average of two months had passed, a
return was noted to the slack tidiness and cleanliness conditions in evidence on the
workfloor prior to applying 5S (see Figure 3): the framework explains our findings in
this last section.

5. Conclusions and managerial implications

In the present study we have investigated 5S implementation in a particular
organizational context: multinational corporations in Mexico. As a first contribution to
the literature, we have identified the main reasons for its implementation (drivers) in
this type of organization. Indeed, during the empirical work it was possible to identify
that 5S is implemented owing to the strategic Lean-Kaizen program of the
multinational’s head office. A number of drivers that are necessary for the successful
and sustained 5S implementation were partially present, namely: the strategic link of
the 5S effort; implementation and institutionalization of seiketsu (systematization or

Literature review framework Case study framework

Do Do
(philosophy or way) (philosophy or way)

Jyutsu (technique) Plan Act Jyutsu (technique)

Act Plan
Seiri Seiri
(organization) (organization)

Seiketsu Shitsuke Seiton Seiketsu Shitsuke Seiton

(standardization) (discipline) (neatness) (standardization) (discipline) (neatness)

Seiso Seiso
(cleaning) Do (cleaning) Do
Check
Figure 3. Check
Finding 5S frameworks
standardization) and shitsuke (self-discipline); and having a detailed implementation An exploratory
guide. study of 5S
As a second contribution, several inhibitors were identified in the empirical study.
Two of those that appeared (application of 5S as an isolated event and lack of a
philosophical vision) highlighted negative effects on 5S implementation in all three
cases studied. In this respect, it was possible to observe that these multinational
corporations are strongly influenced by the more practitioner, visual factory-oriented 93
western model of 5S (Becker, 2001; da Silveira, 2006), which according to Kobayashi et
al. (2008) originated from the proposal made by Hirano (1995). This shows the clear
need to apply the philosophical dimension or way (do) to 5S implementation, and
confirms for Mexico the trend in the literature dealing with organizations in the USA
and UK (Ho and Cicmil, 1996; Gapp et al., 2008; Kobayashi et al., 2008), whether or not
they are multinational organizations.
Furthermore, it is corroborated that 5S continues to be a necessary platform for
other Lean-Kaizen programs, and also that it has a direct relationship with them.
However, if the foundations (5S) are not strongly consolidated in the organization, all
subsequent techniques such as TPM, standardization, the pull system and others may
suffer effectiveness and sustainability problems over time.
The third and last contribution rests on the underlying framework (Figure 3) that
arose out of the theoretical part and the comparison of this framework with the
empirical evidence of the three case studies. The lack of a balanced implementation of
do (philosophy or way) and jyutsu (technique), together with the failure to apply
Deming’s PDCA cycle throughout the process, may block the entire deployment of
the potential benefits 5S can provide for an organization. On the basis of the
framework, the following propositions were established owing to the exploratory
nature of the study:

P1. 5S represents a strong and solid base platform for the long-run implementation
of any systematized Lean-Kaizen effort.

P1a. In order to succeed in establishing a strong and solid base platform with 5S for
Lean-Kaizen programs, a series of drivers must exist (Table VI) and a series of
inhibitors must be minimized (Table VII).

P2. 5S implementation must show an even balance between do (philosophy or way)

and jyutsu (technique).

P2a. The two dimensions of 5S, do (philosophy or way) and jyutsu (technique), have
a bearing on the proper implementation of seiketsu (systematize or
standardization) and shitsuke (self-discipline).

P3. 5S is a virtuous cycle for the organization, and must follow the PDCA cycle
constantly.

Like all exploratory research based on case studies, this paper has some limitations.
First, although it was done using theoretical sampling, the small number of case
studies selected restricts the generalization of the theory. Another impediment is how
to objectively handle the great amount of data generated during the fieldwork (despite
the database), which makes it difficult to assess all the relationships that might exist in
AJQ the phenomenon studied (Eisenhardt, 1989). Lastly, owing to the very nature of the
13,1 study, the impact of 5S, both on the Lean-Kaizen program and on the performance of
the organization, was not evaluated directly. Despite these limitations, our study
contributes to the existing literature through an empirical work on the chief reasons
why organizations need to implement 5S as part of a Lean-Kaizen program.
The managerial implications of this paper may be informative and insightful for
94 operations professionals involved in improvement efforts. Managers and professionals
are provided with a list of drivers and inhibitors and some arguments by way of
warning (in the explanation of the framework) that may serve them as a guide when
implementing 5S as a part of their Lean-Kaizen program in a context such as a
multinational corporation. The study may of course be extended to other industrial or
service sectors corroborating and ratifying these preliminary lists of drivers and
inhibitors and also the framework identified.

References
Ablanedo-Rosas, H., Alidaee, B., Moreno, J.C. and Urbina, J. (2010), “Quality improvement
supported by the 5S, an empirical case study of Mexican organisations”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 Nos 23/24, pp. 7063-87.
Ahmed, S., Hassan, M.H. and Taha, Z. (2005), “TPM can go beyond maintenance: excerpt from
a case implementation”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 19-42.
Ahuja, I.P.S. and Khamba, J.S. (2008), “Total productive maintenance: literature review and
directions”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 7,
pp. 709-56.
Ansari, A. and Modarress, B. (2007), “World-class strategies for safety: a Boeing approach”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 389-98.
Aoki, K. (2008), “Transferring Japanese Kaizen to overseas plants in China”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 518-39.
Bamber, C.J., Sharp, J.M. and Hides, M.T. (2000), “Developing management systems towards
integrated manufacturing: a case study perspective”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems,
Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 454-61.
Bateman, N. (2005), “Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 261-76.
Becker, J. (2001), “Implementing 5S: to promote safety & housekeeping”, Professional Safety,
Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 29-34.
Bicheno, J. (2004), The New Lean Toolbox: Towards Fast, Flexible Flow, 3rd ed., Picsie Books,
Buckingham.
Bicheno, J. and Holweg, M. (2009), The Lean Toolbox, 4th ed., Picsie Books, Buckingham.
Buchanan, D.A. (2001), “The role of photography in organizational research: a reengineering case
illustration”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 151-64.
Bullington, K. (2003), “5S for suppliers”, Quality Progress, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 56-9.
Chapman, C. (2005), “Clean house with Lean 5S”, Quality Progress, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 27-32.
Cooney, R. (2002), “Is ‘lean’ a universal production system? Batch production in the automotive
industry”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 10,
pp. 1130-47.
da Silveira, G.J.C. (2006), “Effects of simplicity and discipline on operational flexibility: an An exploratory
empirical re-examination of the rigid flexibility model”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 932-47. study of 5S
De Mente, B.L. (1994), Japanese Etiquette & Ethics in Business, NTC Business Books,
Lincolnwood, IL.
Deming, W.E. (1994), The New Economics: For Industry, Government, Education, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA. 95
Douglas, A. (2002), “Improving manufacturing performance”, Quality Congress. ASQ’S Annual
Quality Congress Proceedings, Vol. 56, pp. 725-32.
Eckhardt, B. (2001), “The 5-S housekeeping program aids production”, Concrete Products,
Vol. 104 No. 11, pp. 56-7.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities and
challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Farris, J.A. (2009), “Critical success factors for human resource outcomes in Kaizen events:
an empirical study”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 117 No. 1,
pp. 42-65.
Filipusic, D. (2007), “5S for families”, Quality Progress, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 66-7.
Gabow, P.A. (2008), “Denver health uses 5S to deliver quality, safety, efficiency”, Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 44-8.
Gapp, R., Fisher, R. and Kobayashi, K. (2008), “Implementing 5S within a Japanese context:
an integrated management system”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 4,
pp. 565-79.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Aldine De Gruyter, New York, NY.
Herron, C. and Braiden, P.M. (2006), “A methodology for developing sustainable quantifiable
productivity improvement in manufacturing companies”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 143-53.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean
thinking”, International Journal of Operation & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 994-1011.
Hino, S. (2006), Inside the Mind of Toyota, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Hirano, H. (1995), 5 Pillars of the Visual Workplace: The Sourcebook for 5’S Implementation,
Productivity Press, Tokyo.
Hirano, H. (1996), 5S for Operators: 5 Pillars of the Visual Workplace (5S Shido Manual),
Productivity Press, Tokyo.
Ho, S. (1997), 5-S: The Key to Improve your Quality and Productivity, Hong Kong Government
Industry Department Workbook, HK Baptist University, Hong Kong.
Ho, S. (1999), “5-S practice: the first step towards total quality management”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 345-56.
Ho, S. and Cicmil, S. (1996), “Japanese 5-S practice”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 45-53.
Ho, S. and Fung, C.K. (1994), “Developing a TQM excellence model”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 6
No. 6, pp. 24-30.
Ho, S. and Fung, C.K. (1995), “Developing a TQM excellence model: part 2”, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 24-32.
AJQ Ho, S., Cicmil, S. and Fung, C.K. (1995), “The Japanese 5-S practice and TQM training”, Training
for Quality, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 19-24.
13,1
Hough, D. (2008), “5S implementation methodologies”, Management Decision, No. Summer,
pp. 44-6.
Hough, R. (1998), “5’S: implementation methodology”, Management Service, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 44-8.
96 Hubbard, R. (1999), “Case study on the 5S program: the five pillars of the visual workplace”,
Hospital Material Management Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 24-8.
Ilg, V. (2007), “Swiss precision”, Industrial Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 50-1.
Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen – The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, Random House, New York, NY.
Imai, M. (1997), Gemba Kaizen, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Imai, M. (2006), “What is total flow management under kaizen focus?”, Three Day Conference
Lecture, Barcelona, 4-6 December.
Japan Industrial Safety and Health Association (JISHA) (1999), “Survey on relationship between
productivity and occupational safety and health (interim report)”, available at:
www.jicosh.gr.jp/english/osh/jisha-nsc/chusaibo.html (accessed April 9, 2010).
Julien, D.M. and Tjahjono, B. (2009), “Lean thinking implementation at a safari park”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 321-35.
Kanta Patra, N., Kumar Tripathy, J. and Choudhary, B.K. (2005), “Implementing the office total
productive maintenance (‘office TPM’) program: a library case study”, Library Review,
Vol. 54 No. 7, pp. 415-24.
Kobayashi, K. (2005), “What is 5S? A content analysis of Japanese management approach”,
unpublished Master’s thesis, Griffith University, Southport.
Kobayashi, K., Fischer, R. and Gapp, R. (2008), “Business improvement strategy or useful tool?
Analysis of the application of the 5S concept in Japan, the UK and the US”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 245-62.
Kodama, R. (1959), “Medmiru Kaizen dokuhon”, Nikkan Kogyo Shinbunsha, Tokyo.
Kulak, O., Durmusoglu, M.B. and Tufekci, S. (2005), “A complete cellular manufacturing system
design methodology based on axiomatic design principles”, Computers & Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 765-87.
Kumar Khana, V. (2009), “5-S and TQM status in Indian organizations”, The TQM Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 486-501.
Laraia, A.C., Moody, P. and Hall, R. (1999), The Kaizen Blitz: Accelerating Breakthroughs in
Productivity and Performance, Routledge, Adel, IA.
Liker, J. (2004), The Toyota Way, Simon & Schuster Inc, New York, NY.
Liker, J. and Hoseus, M. (2008), The Toyota Culture: The Heart and Soul of the Toyota Way,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Magaña-Campos, J. and Aspinwall, E. (2003), “Comparative study of Western and Japanese
improvement systems”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 423-36.
Main, B., Tabutiz, M. and Wood, W. (2008), “You cannot get Lean without safety”, Professional
Safety, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 38-42.
Massey, L. and William, S. (2005), “CANDO: implementing change in an NHS trust”,
The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 18 Nos 4/5, pp. 330-49.
Monden, Y. (1998), Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approached to Just in Time,
Engineering & Management Press, Norcross, GA.
Moore, R. (2007), “Laying the right”, IET Manufacturing Engineer, Vol. 11 Nos 4/5, pp. 40-5.
Nakamura, H. (1992), “Restructuring operations through the MAF production improvement An exploratory
system”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 13-17.
study of 5S
Nemoto, M. (1987), Total Quality Control for Management: Strategies and Techniques from
Toyota and Toyoda Gosei, Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Cliff, NJ.
Nishibori, E. (1985), “Morale must come out from the bottom of heart”, 5S Technique, Kojokanri,
Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 92-116.
Nwabueze, U. (2001), “Chief executives – hear thyselves: leadership requirements for 97
5-S/TQM implementation in healthcare”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 16 No. 7,
pp. 406-10.
O’hEocha, M. (2000), “A study of the influence of company culture, communications and
employee attitudes on the use of 5Ss for environmental management at Cooke Brothers
Ltd”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 321-30.
Ohno, T. (1988), in Dillon, A.P. (Ed.), Workplace Management, Productivity Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Osada, T. (1989), 5S-Tezukuri no manajiment shuho (5S-Handmade Management Technique),
Japan Plant Maintenance, Tokyo.
Osada, T. (1991), The 5S’s: Five Keys to a Total Quality Environment, Asian Productivity
Organisation, Tokyo.
Pavnaskar, S.J., Gershenson, J.K. and Jambekar, A.B. (2003), “Classification scheme for lean
manufacturing tools”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 13,
pp. 3075-90.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1997), “What is a processual analysis?”, Scandinavian Journal of Management,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 337-48.
Pheng, L.S. (1997), “A book of five rings: the samurai way to achieving construction quality”,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 159-64.
Pheng, L.S. (2001), “Towards TQM integrating Japanese 5S principles with ISO 9001:2000
requirements”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 334-40.
Pheng, L.S. and Khoo, S.D. (2001), “Team performance management: enhancement through
Japanese 5-S principles”, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7
Nos 7/8, pp. 105-11.
Philips, J. (1981), “Assessing measurement error in key informant reports: a methodological note
on organizational analysis in marketing”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 395-415.
Pil, F.K. and Fujimoto, T. (2007), “Lean and reflective production: the dynamic nature of
production models”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 16, pp. 3741-61.
Premil Kumar, S., Sudhahar, C., Dickson, J., Senthil, V. and Devadasan, S.R. (2007), “Performance
analysis of 5-S teams using quality circle financial accounting system”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 483-96.
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2003), Qualitative Research Practice, Sage Publications, London.
Sawada, N. (1995), “The Kaizen in Toyota production system”, CHU-SAN-REN Quality Control
Course, Nagoya, pp. 1-38.
Sharrock, R. (2007), “Rub maker revitalizes”, Industrial Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 50-1.
Schonberger, R.J. (2007), “Japanese production management: an evolution – with mixed success”,
Journal of Operation Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 403-19.
Shamsuddin, A., Masjuki, H.J. and Taha, Z. (2005), “TPM can go beyond maintenance: excerpt
from a case implementation”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 19-42.
AJQ Shih, L.C. and Gurnani, H. (1997), “Global quality management programmes: how to make their
implementation more effective and less culture dependent”, Total Quality Management,
13,1 Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 15-31.
Suárez-Barraza, M.F. (2007), El KAIZEN: La filosofı́a de Mejora Continua e Innovación
Incremental detrás de la Administración por Calidad Total, Editorial Panorama, México,
DF (in Spanish).
98 Suárez-Barraza, M.F. (2008), Las Cápsulas de Mejora. Una metodologı´a práctica y rápida para
mejorar la competitividad de las Pymes, Editorial Grupo Gasca-SISCO, México, DF
(in Spanish).
Suárez-Barraza, M.F. and Ramis-Pujol, J. (2005), “Continuous improvement under Alfred Schutz’s
approach of scientific interpretation and the common sense of human action”, Proceedings
of the Quality Management and Organizational Development, Palermo, Sicily, 29 June.
Suárez-Barraza, M.F. and Ramis-Pujol, J. (2008), “Aplicación y evolución de la Mejora Continua de
Procesos en la Administración Pública”, Journal Globalization, Competitiveness &
Governability GCG Georgetown University – Universia, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 74-86 (in Spanish).
Suárez-Barraza, M.F., Bou, E. and Cataldo, C. (2008), “Finding standards, routines and non-
routines in Toyota production system (TPS): standardization without standardization?”,
Lean Manufacturing Journal-Reliable Plant Magazine, Vol. 5 (September), pp. 1-32.
Suárez-Barraza, M.F., Smith, T. and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2009), “Lean-Kaizen public service: an
empirical approach in Spanish local governments”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 143-67.
Thomas, A., Barton, R. and Chuke-Okafor, C. (2009), “Applying Lean Six Sigma in a small
engineering company – a model for change”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology of
Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 113-29.
Tice, J., Ahouse, L. and Larson, T. (2005), “Lean production and EMSs: aligning environmental
management with business priorities”, Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 1-12.
Van Iwaarden, J. (2008), “The Six Sigma improvement approach: a transaction comparison”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 23, pp. 6739-58.
Van Patten, J. (2006), “A second look at 5S”, Quality Progress, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 55-9.
Voss, C., Sikriktsis, N. and Frohlic, M. (2002), “Case research in operations management”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 195-219.
Warwood, S.F. and Knowles, G. (2004), “An investigation into Japanese 5-S practice in UK
industry”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 347-53.
Withanachichi, N., Karandagoda, W. and Handa, Y. (2004), “A performance improvement
programme at a public hospital in Sri Lanka: an introduction”, Journal of Health
Organization and Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 361-9.
Withanachchi, N., Handa, Y., Karandagoda, K.K.W., Pathirage, P.P., Tennakoon, N.C.K. and
Pullaperuma, D.S.P. (2007), “TQM emphasizing 5-S principles: a breakthrough for chronic
managerial constraints at public hospitals in developing countries”, International Journal
of Public Sector Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 168-77.
Yamashina, H. (2000), “Challenge to world-class manufacturing”, International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 132-43.
Yin, R. (1994), Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zelinski, P.C. (2005), “If 5S is good, try 13S next”, Modern Machine Shop, Vol. 77 No. 9, pp. 12-13.
Zutshi, A. and Sohal, A.S. (2005), “Integrated management system: the experiences of three
Australian organisations”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology of Management, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 211-22.
Appendix. Overview of the interview guide An exploratory
study of 5S
(1) background information of the respondent of company and relationship with the
application with Lean-Kaizen programs and 5S;
(2) description of the internal operational implementation related to the 5S and Lean-Kaizen
programs;
99
(3) scale and scope of the 5S efforts;
(4) description of the implementation of the each S of the 5S efforts (How they did it?);
(5) description of the implementation of the Lean-Kaizen program and their link with 5S
techniques (how they did it?);
(6) main problems and benefits of the 5S implementations;
(7) lessons learned in the 5S efforts; and
(8) perceived success or fails of the 5S application.

Corresponding author
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza can be contacted at: Manuelfrancisco.suarez@itesm.mx

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints