Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Technology, Operations, and Information Management Division, Babson College, Babson Park, MA, USA; bDepartment of Industrial
Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA; cGrado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
1. Introduction
Achieving and sustaining effective improvement efforts continues to be a cornerstone for successful organisations and
a focus of academic inquiry in the production research community (e.g. Hung, Ro, and Liker 2009; van Iwaarden
et al. 2008). In particular, lean production has received signicant attention to date (Chen, Li, and Shady 2010;
Hung, Ro, and Liker 2009; Modarress, Ansari, and Lockwood 2005; Shah and Ward 2007; Sugimori et al. 1977;
Wan and Chen 2008). One improvement mechanism associated with lean production is the Kaizen event. A Kaizen
event is a focused and structured improvement project, using a dedicated cross-functional team to improve a targeted
work area, with specic goals, in an accelerated timeframe (Farris et al. 2008, 10). Kaizen events are also known as
kaizen bursts (e.g. Anand et al. 2009), kaizen blitzes (e.g. Cuscela 1998; Done, Voss, and Rytter 2011), kaikaku
(Browning and Heath 2009) and rapid improvement workshops (e.g. Done, Voss, and Rytter 2011; Martin et al.
2009).
Kaizen events are related to, but distinct from, the lean principle of kaizen (Shah and Ward 2007). Literally
translated as change for the better (Emiliani 2006), the western translation of kaizen is continuous improvement (thus,
we use the two terms interchangeably in this paper), and refers to a systematic effort to seek out and apply new ways
of doing work, i.e. actively and repeatedly making process improvements (Anand et al. 2009, 444). In practice, a
Kaizen event can be viewed as a technique or tool to implement the philosophical principle of kaizen (Shah and
Ward 2007).
The consideration of Kaizen events and kaizen in tandem draws an apparent paradox, i.e. implied discontinuity vs.
continuous improvement (Schonberger 2007). The principle of kaizen typically focuses on a smooth, uninterrupted ow
of incremental improvements truly continuous improvement while Kaizen events (at least seemingly) focus on periods of rapid change followed by periods of relative stasis. Despite this potential contradiction, scholars suggest that the
use of Kaizen events for jolts of immediate improvement combined with other factors that support the principle of
kaizen may be an ideal approach to achieve sustained change in an organisation (Anand et al. 2009; Brunet and New
4069
2003; Chen, Li, and Shady 2010; Glover et al. 2013; Hung, Ro, and Liker 2009; Schonberger 2007). However, as has
been found with other improvement approaches, e.g. (Schonberger 2007), the growing popularity of Kaizen events and
kaizen appears to have outpaced the empirical research and theory testing to fully understand their use and impact on
work areas and organisations. In particular, it can be difcult for many organisations to sustain results after Kaizen
events (Bateman 2005; Done, Voss, and Rytter 2011; Friedli 2000), such that the impact of both Kaizen events and
kaizen may be lower after signicant time, e.g. one year has elapsed from the initial implementation (Burch 2008;
Laraia, Moody, and Hall 1999).
While there have been previous studies that explore Kaizen event sustainability, most studies of Kaizen event sustainability use single case studies (Doolen et al. 2008; Magdum and Whitman 2007; Patil 2003). Those that include
multiple Kaizen events primarily use qualitative data and call for further quantitative study and theory testing (Bateman
2005; Done, Voss, and Rytter 2011; Patil 2003). The few quantitative studies have smaller samples (Burch 2008) or
focus on human-oriented outcomes as opposed to operationally oriented outcomes (Glover et al. 2011). Furthermore,
most of the continuous improvement literature tends to focus on an improvement programme as a whole (Glover et al.
2013), rather than the inuence of individual change interventions, e.g. Kaizen events.
We take a dynamic capabilities perspective to explain how continuous improvement culture supports the sustainability of Kaizen events after implementation. Evolving from the resource-based view of the rm, dynamic capabilities are
the rms strategically responsive, identiable processes that integrate, build, recongure, gain, and release internal and
external resources and competences to address rapidly changing environments or ecosystems (Eisenhardt and Martin
2000; Helfat and Winter 2011; Szulanski 1996; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997). Kaizen culture serves as a dynamic
capability when it provides a comprehensive infrastructure that enables an organisation to coordinate its resources
towards systematically improving processes and sustaining improvement outcomes (Anand et al. 2009; Bessant, Caffyn,
and Gallagher 2001; Bessant and Francis 1999; Oxtoby, McGuiness, and Morgan 2002; Teece and Pisano 1994).
Scholars suggest that Kaizen events may serve as a supportive mechanism in conjunction with a kaizen culture to
further drive an organisations sustained improvement efforts (Anand et al. 2009; Brunet and New 2003); however, there
has been limited empirical study of this concept.
The objective of this research, therefore, is to identify the critical success factors for sustaining impact on a work
area after a Kaizen event, taking into consideration how the kaizen or continuous improvement orientation of the work
area inuences the sustained impact over time. In short, we expect that conducting Kaizen events within the context of
a work area culture that employs the dynamic capability, kaizen, will increase the likelihood that the Kaizen event will
have sustained impact. Specically, we examine how kaizen culture characteristics of the target work area and the postKaizen event sustaining mechanisms after implementation (i.e. 918 months after the Kaizen event) inuence the perceived impact of Kaizen events after implementation, i.e. impact on area post-implementation.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents background on the combined use of Kaizen
events and kaizen and our theoretical framework, which applies the dynamic capabilities perspective, and in particular,
the institutionalisation of organisational change framework. Meanwhile, Section 3 describes the research methodology,
Section 4 presents the analyses and Section 5 discusses the ndings and conclusions. Using data from a eld study of
65 Kaizen events across eight manufacturing organisations, we test our hypothesised relationships to identify the factors
that are the most signicant predictors of impact on area post-implementation. Implications to inform our theoretical
understanding of how continuous improvement culture can support rapid improvement and recommendations for
organisations using rapid improvement projects are presented. Finally, limitations of our study and areas for future
research are presented.
2. Theoretical framework
Organisational change in general, and continuous improvement in particular, is a key dynamic capability (Oxtoby,
McGuiness, and Morgan 2002). Continuous improvement creates novel problem-solving patterns and routines, which
are expected to produce incremental or radical changes in a systematic and predictable fashion (Nelson and Winter
1982; Schreyoegg and Kliesch-Eberl 2007). Teece and Pisano (1994) note that continuous improvement as a part of lean
production serves as a dynamic capability because it requires distinctive shop oor practices and processes, as well as
distinctive higher order managerial processes, making the required coherence of organisational processes very high
for success and making replication of the model very difcult because it requires systemic changes throughout the
organisation.
In light of this, we adapt the organisational change model known as the institutionalisation of planned change
framework to provide theoretical support for our inquiry. The implementation of new programmes or behaviour, e.g. via
Kaizen events, often achieves some initial success, but high degrees of change institutionalisation are generally difcult
4070
to achieve (Goodman and Dean 1982; Szulanski 1996); i.e. lasting change is usually the exception rather than the rule
(Doolen et al. 2008, 3637). Thus, Goodman, Bazerman, and Conlon (1980) and later works (e.g. Cummings and
Worley 1997) suggest that institutionalisation, including the extent to which the new change is performed across the
workforce, is dependent upon (1) structure of the change, e.g. goal specicity and internal support for the change, (2)
the organisational characteristics, i.e. existing values, norms, character, and skills of the workforce, and (3) institutionalisation processes, including socialisation of commitment to, reward allocation for, diffusion of, and sensing and recalibration of the change.
Regarding the structure of the change, previous studies of Kaizen event sustainability failed to nd the structural
aspects of the Kaizen event, e.g. goal clarity and management support, inuenced the sustainability of Kaizen events,
e.g. (Bateman 2005; Bateman and Rich 2003; Glover et al. 2011). As described by Bateman and Rich (2003), Kaizen
events that meet the highest or lowest levels of sustainable performance tend to achieve some improvement during the
Kaizen event. This suggests that these structural characteristics may play a greater role in the achievement of immediate
outcomes than on sustaining those outcomes. Thus, we exclude this category in our theoretical development and focus
our hypotheses on two sets of characteristics that may be critically associated with a Kaizen events impact on area
post-implementation, or the extent to which the implemented change has a lasting impact on the work area (Buller and
McEvoy 1989). These characteristics are (1) kaizen characteristics of the target work area and (2) post-event characteristics. Figure 1 illustrates the adapted framework and the following describes the theoretical support for each tested
hypothesis indicated in the framework.
2.1 Kaizen characteristics and impact on area post-implementation
To capture existing characteristics that exhibit the culture, behaviours, values and norms of the work area and organisation per the institutionalisation of planned change framework (Goodman and Dean 1982), we identied two kaizen characteristics: experimentation and continuous improvement, and learning and stewardship.
Experimentation and continuous improvement relate to the extent to which the individuals have knowledge of continuous improvement and apply new ideas to help themselves learn. This variable relates to recent ndings of the importance of balancing innovation and improvement (Anand et al. 2009). Research has suggested that an awareness and
understanding of continuous improvement knowledge may be important to the sustainability of improvement, e.g. (Kaye
and Anderson 1999). Also, active experimentation with new ideas (Upton 1996) has been found to be a key component
of knowledge development, which may inuence impact on area post-implementation. Learning and stewardship
4071
includes the collective responsibility of a group of work area employees, which may relate to their commitment to
improvement, which may in turn inuence improvement outcome sustainability, e.g. (Mann 2005). Learning and stewardship also describes the extent to which work area employees understand how their work relates to that of other work
areas, which may support awareness and communication across work areas, which in turn may support continued
improvement after a Kaizen event (Tennessen and Tonkin 2008).
Thus, we hypothesise the following:
H1. Kaizen characteristics are signicantly related to impact on area post-implementation.
H1a. Experimentation and continuous improvement is positively related to impact on area post-implementation.
4072
to the temporal nature of the phenomenon, i.e. institutionalisation processes occur after the focal organisation is selected.
This also suggests that a lack of institutionalisation is due to the combined effects of organisation characteristics and the
institutionalisation processes; thus, the model suggests that to ensure long-term success, the institutionalisation processes
require as much or more attention as the other parts of the framework (Jacobs 2002). We adapt and test this framework
such that post-event characteristics mediate the relationship between kaizen characteristics and impact on area postimplementation as expressed in the following hypothesis:
H3. Post-Event characteristics at least partially mediate the relationship of Kaizen and Work Area characteristics and impact on
area post-implementation.
3. Methods
3.1 Sample selection
We used a multi-site, cross-sectional eld study design, with randomisation at the event level, but not the organisation
level. We used non-random selection at the organisation level due to the need for access to data from multiple events
within each organisation, as well as other organisation-level data, which would require top management buy-in and
longer term commitment to the study. As incentive to participate, organisations were provided with a description of the
study benets to the Kaizen event body of knowledge, as well as the promise of research reports describing ndings
within and across participating organisations. The characteristics of the eight participating organisations are summarised
in Table 1.
Despite the non-random nature of the organisational selection, we applied several boundary conditions and event
sampling selection criteria were applied to increase the reliability and validity of study results (Yin 1994). The boundary
conditions used to select organisations were: the organisation manufactures products of some type, had been conducting
Kaizen events for at least one year prior to the start of the study, had been using Kaizen events in a systematic way (vs.
in an ad hoc way) and had been conducting Kaizen events relatively frequently (i.e. at least one per month on average).
That is, all of the eight manufacturing organisations included in this study conducted Kaizen events regularly for at least
one year as a part of their larger improvement programmes, i.e. as part of a lean transformation programme, using a kaizen approach.
Kaizen events were randomly sampled within each organisation. The Kaizen events typically included activities such
as documenting current processes, identifying opportunities for improvement, implementing and evaluating changes, presenting results to management and developing an action plan for future improvements (Melnyk et al. 1998). Four organisations agreed to provide data for all events conducted during the study period; therefore, a census sampling approach
was used in those organisations. The other organisations requested a lower data collection frequency. In these organisations, a systematic sampling procedure was used (Scheaffer, Mendenhall, and Ott 1996). For instance, if the average
number of events per month in the organisation was n, a number k was selected between one and n, such that every kth
event was targeted for study.
The data collection occurred approximately 918 months after each Kaizen event. This time frame was selected
based on previous improvement sustainability studies, e.g. (Doolen et al. 2008; Patil 2003) as shorter time periods were
not believed to be sufcient for assessing long-term outcomes (e.g. implementation efforts were more likely to be still
ongoing) and longer time periods were more likely to encounter cases where work area changes made the sustainability
study no longer relevant.
The researchers successfully collected data from 68 Kaizen events across eight organisations (October 2006April
2009). Two of the 68 cases were removed from the analysis due to incomplete data, and one of the 68 cases was considered inappropriate for inclusion because it was still in implementation phase when the data collection was planned. Thus,
the total sample size for this research is 65 Kaizen events across eight organisations. Table 1 also describes the number of
events studied per organisation, the average number of team members and the average number of days per event.
3.2 Data collection
All data were collected using the 67-item post-event questionnaire that used the Kaizen event or targeted work area as
the referent, and the characteristics measured were hypothesised to represent shared Kaizen event and its associated
work area-level properties. For example, an item for institutionalising change was Individual team members working
on follow-up action items from the Kaizen event. An item for learning and stewardship was Work area employees
understand how their work ts into the bigger picture of the organisation. The items for the variables used in this
study are listed in Appendix 1.
Year founded
No. employees
First Kaizen event
Event rate during
research
% of org.
experiencing
events
% of events in
manufacturing
areas
No. Kaizen events
sampled
(retained)
Avg. # days per
event
Avg. team size
Org. description
1985
700
2000
1 per month
90
75%
manufacturing
5 (4)
4.00
13
100
Almost 100%
manufacturing
19 (19)
5.16
Org. B
Electronic
motor
manufacturer
1946
560
1998
23 per month
Org. A
Secondary wood
product
manufacturer
5.00
4 (4)
Almost 100%
manufacturing
1946
500
1992
2 per month
Org. C
Secondary wood
product
manufacturer
3.31
15 (13)
Data not
available
100
1964
950
2000
68 per month
Org. E
Specialty
equipment
manufacturer
2.43
7 (7)
8085%
manufacturing
20
1913
3500
1995
1 per month
Org. F
Steel
component
manufacturer
17
4.71
7 (7)
70% manufacturing
70
1916
11,000
1993
4 per week
Org. G
Aerospace
engineering and
manufacturer
11
4.80
5 (5)
95%
manufacturing
10
1939
321,000
2004
2 per month
Org. Q
IT
component
manufacturer
13
5.00
6 (6)
60% manufacturing
100
1916
30,000
1998
4 per week
Org. R
Aerospace
engineering and
manufacturer
4074
The post-event information Qqestionnaire was administered either to the facilitator of the Kaizen event or to the
work area manager, based on the availability of the respondent. Because the post-event information questionnaire was
collected 918 months after the Kaizen event, in some cases, the Kaizen event facilitator was no longer available for
various reasons (e.g. too busy, left the organisation). Because both facilitators and work area managers represent management positions that have signicant interactions with the targeted work areas before, during and after the Kaizen
event, we would expect similarities in their views, particularly as most of the variables measures through the post-event
information questionnaire are objectively measurable or related to objectively observable behaviours. Still, it is possible
that opinions of facilitators and work area managers differ systematically across organisation, e.g. facilitators may
always feel that post-event characteristics were conducted to a greater extent than work area managers. Thus, while we
believed that losing an event from the analysis introduced more potential for bias than using a different respondent, the
potential for systematic differences in opinion between facilitator and work area managers is a limitation of the research
as well as an area that should be investigated in future research.
The majority of the post-event information questionnaires were self-administered. If the respondent preferred, one of
the researchers gathered the data via a telephone interview. The collection method was based on the preference and
availability of the respondent. Again, using this mixed collection method could introduce some bias in the data. However, because of the relatively objective nature of the variables, we believe that the benets of being able to collect more
data were preferred over this potential bias.
The questionnaire was developed in accordance with commonly accepted principles for questionnaire and interview
script design (Dillman 2000). The variables were operationalised as multi-item constructs, which, where possible, were
based on previously existing instruments. All close-ended perceptual measures used the same six-point response scale:
1 = not at all, 2 = to a small extent, 3 = to some extent, 4 = to a moderate extent, 5 = to a large extent, and
6 = to a great extent. Table 2 presents the means, standard deviation and correlation matrix for all independent and
dependent variables.
3.3 Validation of measures
Following data collection, we used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Cronbachs alpha (Cronbach 1951) to analyse
the validity and reliability of our multi-item scales. We used EFA, rather than conrmatory factor analysis (CFA)
because of our evaluation of new and signicantly adapted constructs (Shah and Goldstein 2006), as well as our relatively small sample size and the nested nature of our data, which could result in biased statistical test results, although
not biased factor loadings. Future research should use CFA with a larger sample size to further validate the measures
developed in this research.
After eliminating post-event information questionnaires with excessive missing data as discussed above, our data-set
consisted of 65 post-event information questionnaires. Three separate EFA were conducted for kaizen characteristics,
post-event characteristics and the dependent variable, impact on area post-implementation, due to the hypothesised role
of post-event characteristics as a mediator of kaizen characteristics, as well as the small sample size. Using this division,
the n = 65 sample size meets the minimum observation to item ratio of 2 data points per one variable (Kline 2005) for
both EFA.
Table 2. Mean, standard deviation, and correlations for dependent and independent variables of interest.
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1
.322(**) 1
.335(**) .511(**) 1
.237
.514(**) .357(**) 1
.436(**) .192
.298(*)
.198
1
.241
.261(*)
.264(*) .014
.592(***) 1
.356(**) .414(**) .388(**)
.486(**) .367(**)
.055
1
.273(*)
.397(**) .419(**)
.369(**) .477(**)
.289(*) .763(**) 1
4.55
1.038
3.53
1.178
4.32
0.874
3.32
1.233
4.00
1.321
4.78
0.437
4.57
0.709
4.33
0.745
4075
Prior to the EFA, we screened the data for basic distributional assumptions of standard parametric methods (Neter
et al. 1996); overall, the data were non-normal, but this deviation was not severe enough to exclude the use of parametric analysis methods, i.e. no skewness values were greater than 2.0 (DeCarlo 1997).
All the EFA models used principal components extraction with oblique (direct quartimin) rotation, to allow correlation between factors which may be interrelated (Jennrich 2002; Johnson and Wichern 2007). The established heuristic
of extracting all factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Johnson 1998) was used to determine the number of factors.
Individual items were considered to have loaded onto a given factor when the primary loading was 0.500 or greater and
all cross-loadings were less than 0.300 (Kline 1994).
Cronbachs alpha values were calculated on the nal revised scales and were evaluated against the commonly
applied thresholds of 0.700 for established scales (Nunnally 1978) and 0.600 for newly developed scales (DeVellis
1991). All scales had alpha values greater than 0.700 and most scales (nine out of 11) had alpha values of 0.800 or
greater. Appendix 1 includes the mean value, skewness value, smallest primary loading, largest cross-loading, initial
eigenvalue, percentage of variance explained and the Cronbachs alpha values for each construct.
Following the reliability analysis, scale averages were calculated using the revised scales to arrive at the values of the
associated study variables for the Kaizen event. The resultant variables were assessed to determine the statistical moments,
distributional properties and the collinearity of the independent variables in our study. In general, the variables appeared to
be relatively normally distributed. While formal tests of normality were rejected for several variables, they appeared to only
demonstrate mild departures from normality. Finally, the collinearity of the resultant independent variables was assessed
using the variance ination factor (VIF). An individual VIF greater than 10.0 (Neter et al. 1996) or an average VIF greater
than 3.0 generally indicates a problem with multicollinearity. In this research, the maximum observed VIF was 3.09 and the
average VIF was 2.24. Thus, multicollinearity did not appear to be problematic in the data-set. A summary of the results of
the EFA, reliability analysis and multicollinearity analysis is presented in Glover (2009, 2010).
4. Analysis
To test the relationships between variables, we used multiple linear regression to test direct relationships (H1H2) and
mediation analysis to test indirect relationships (H3). Due to the nested structure of our data, we could not assume that
the responses for Kaizen events within a given organisation were uncorrelated (Kenny and Judd 1986). Therefore, we
used generalised estimating equations (GEE) (Liang and Zeger 1986), executed in SAS 9.1.3 using PROC GENMOD,
to account for correlation between Kaizen events within the same organisation, which may bias the estimates of parameter standard errors and associated F-tests (Lawal 2003). The study sample size is 65 Kaizen events as opposed to eight
organisations, because GEE accounts for the interclass correlation and the potentially different averages (intercepts)
across organisations. Ordinary least squares (OLS) estimates were also calculated for comparison purposes, and automated OLS variable selection procedures were used to analyse the robustness of the model generated using GEE. Other
common approaches for analysing nested data include hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) (e.g. Raudenbush and Byrk
2002). However, sample size considerations precluded the use of this technique. In our GEE models, we assumed an
exchangeable correlation matrix, which hypothesises equal correlation of residuals between all Kaizen events within a
given organisation. There was no established hierarchy of variable importance. Therefore, for the model-building process, an exploratory manual backwards selection procedure was used.
Mediation analysis was used to determine whether any input factors, i.e. the kaizen characteristics, had indirect
effects on impact on area post-implementation through the mediating post-event characteristics. A mediator is a variable
that is in a causal sequence between two variables (MacKinnon, Fairchild, and Fritz 2007), and mediation occurs when
an input variable acts indirectly upon an outcome variable through a mediating process variable (Baron and Kenny
1986). GEE was also used to analyse the mediation relationships. A ve-step process was used to perform the mediation
analysis (Kenny 2009); the rst steps are the identication of the potentially mediating variables and the primary mediation analysis testing, while the last two steps were post hoc analyses used to test the robustness of the solution found in
the primary mediation analysis testing. The rst three steps tested three paths to evaluate each mediation hypothesis (the
paths from the potential mediators to the outcome i.e., Step 1 had already been tested in the direct regression).
Therefore, an level of 0.05/3 = 0.0167 was adopted as the signicance level for each path to preserve an overall 0.05
condence level for the test (Kenny 2009).
4.1 Identication of direct and indirect predictors of impact on area post-implementation
All of the selection procedures (OLS and GEE) converged upon a single predictor model (Table 3), where accepting
change GEE = 0.658, p < 0.0001) signicantly predicted approximately 50% of the variance for the impact on area
post-implementation model (GEE Ra2 = 0.504).
4076
Intercept
Accepting changes
GEE
SE GEE
GEE
OLS
SE OLS
OLS
1.373
0.658
0.378
0.073
0.000
<.0001
1.275
0.683
0.421
0.086
0.004
<.0001
The GEE and OLS model parameters are similar. Also, the observed intraclass correlation reported by the GEE procedure was 0.043. Because the observed intraclass correlation was negative, more variation occurs between clusters
(organisations) than within clusters (organisations). However, it should also be noted that the intraclass correlation may
not be signicantly different from zero.
Finally, the residual plots and partial regression plots did not indicate departures from linearity or any other evidence
of model specication errors. All standardised residual values were less than 2.0 (the largest standardised residual had
an absolute value of 1.987), thus presenting no strong evidence of inuential cases. The WaldWolfowitz run test
(Chang 2000) was not signicant (p = 0.276), indicating a random pattern in the residuals. In summary, the null hypothesis for H1 failed to be rejected in that no kaizen characteristics were found to be direct predictors of impact on area
post-implementation. On the other hand, there was partial support for H2e; i.e. impact on area post-implementation was
signicantly predicted by one post-event characteristic, accepting changes.
Again, because accepting changes is a post-event characteristic, the potential role of accepting changes as a mediating variable in the model was explored. Specically, the following hypotheses were tested:
H3. Post-event characteristics partially mediate the relationship of kaizen and work area characteristics and impact on area
post-implementation.
H3a. Accepting changes at least partially mediates the relationship between experimentation and continuous improvement and
impact on area post-implementation.
H3b. Accepting changes at least partially mediates the relationship between learning and stewardship and impact on area postimplementation.
<0.0001*
0.103
SE
p-value
0.224
0.0004*
0.219
0.7144
SE
p-value
0.171
0.009*
Total mediated effect
(a b)
0.6589
p-value
<.0001*
0.0012*
p-value
<0.0001*
S.E.
0.155
0.171
SE
0.091
Full
Partial or Full
0.172
0.138
0.138
0.207
SE
Coef. (c)
0.2269
0.3182
p-value
4078
4079
new work methods; explaining changes to work area management so that they are more likely to accept them (particularly
if the managers were not directly involved in the Kaizen event); and implementing incentives or constructive feedback
mechanisms to encourage employees to be accountable for following those new work methods.
Also, it appears that work area employees who possess increased learning and stewardship are more accepting of
change because they are more aware of the role that their acceptance plays in the larger organisation and wish to be
good stewards by accepting and adhering to changes. Another practical recommendation for managers, based on mediation of learning and stewardship through accepting changes, is to promote internal collaborative knowledge exchange
via assigning time for peers to discuss lessons learned and encouraging collective responsibility among work area
employees via explaining how employee roles and responsibilities inuence operations inside and outside of the work
area.
Acknowledgement
We also gratefully acknowledge the Kaizen event team members, facilitators, and coordinators for their participation.
Disclosure statement
The authors have no nancial interest or benet from the direct applications of this research.
4080
Funding
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [grant number DMI-0451512].
References
Adamson, Bonnie, and Susan Kwolek. 2008. Strategy, Leadership and Change: The North York General Hospital Transformation
Journey. Healthcare Quarterly 11 (3): 5053.
Anand, Gopesh, Peter T. Ward, Mohan V. Tatikonda, and David A. Schilling. 2009. Dynamic Capabilities through Continuous
Improvement Infrastructure. Journal of Operations Management 27 (6): 444461. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.02.002. http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272696309000199.
Baker, W., and J. Sinkula. 1999. The Synergistic Effect of Market Orientation and Learning Orientation on Organizational Performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27 (4): 411427.
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. The ModeratorMediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual,
Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 11731182.
Bateman, Nicola. 2005. Sustainability: The Elusive Element of Process Improvement. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 25 (3): 261276. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/01443570510581862.
Bateman, Nicola, and Nick Rich. 2003. Companies Perceptions of Inhibitors and Enablers for Process Improvement Activities.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management 23 (2): 185199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/014435703104
58447.
Bessant, John, and David Francis. 1999. Developing Strategic Continuous Improvement Capability. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 19 (11): 11061119.
Bessant, John, Sarah Caffyn, and Maeve Gallagher. 2001. An Evolutionary Model of Continuous Improvement Behaviour. Technovation 21 (2): 6777.
Browning, Tyson R., and Ralph D. Heath. 2009. Reconceptualizing the Effects of Lean on Production Costs with Evidence from the
F-22 Program. Journal of Operations Management 27 (1): 2344. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2008.03.009. http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0272696308000211.
Brunet, A. P., and S. New. 2003. Kaizen in Japan: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 23 (12): 14261446.
Buller, Paul F., and Glenn M. McEvoy. 1989. Determinants of the Institutionalization of Planned Organizational Change. Group &
Organization Management 14 (1): 3350. http://ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=
480495&Fmt=7&clientId=8956&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Burch, M. K. 2008. Lean Longevity Kaizen Events and Determinants of Sustainable Improvement. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Chang, Y. 2000. Residual Analysis of the Generalized Linear Models for Longitudinal Data. Statistics in Medicine 19 (10): 1277
1293.
Chen, Joseph C., Ye Li, and Brett D. Shady. 2010. From Value Stream Mapping Toward a Lean/Sigma Continuous Improvement
Process: an Industrial Case Study. International Journal of Production Research 48 (4): 10691086.
Cronbach, L. 1951. Coefcient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychiatrika 16: 297334.
Cummings, T., and C. Worley. 1997. Organizational Development and Change. 6th ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Cuscela, Kristin N. 1998. Kaizen Blitz: Attacks Work Processes at Dana Corp. IIE Solutions 30 (4): 2931. http://ezproxy.lib.vt.
edu:8080/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=28487282&Fmt=7&clientId=8956&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
DeCarlo, L. T. 1997. On the Meaning and Use of Kurtosis. Psychological Methods 2 (3): 292307.
Destefani, Jim. 2005. Lean Propels Turbine Engine Production. Manufacturing Engineering 134 (5): 157165.
DeVellis, R. F. 1991. Scale Development: Theory and Application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
Done, Adrian, Chris Voss, and Niels Gorm Rytter. 2011. Best Practice Interventions: Short-term Impact and Long-term Outcomes.
Journal of Operations Management 29 (5): 500513. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.11.007. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti
cle/pii/S0272696310000926.
Doolen, Toni L., Marla E. Hacker, and Eileen M. Van Aken. 2008. The Impact of Organizational Context on Work Team Effectiveness: A Study of Production Team. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50 (3): 285296.
Doolen, Toni L., Eileen M. Van Aken, Jennifer A. Farris, June M. Worley, and Jeremy Huwe. 2008. Kaizen Events and Organizational Performance: A Field Study. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 57 (8): 637658.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/17410400810916062.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Jeffrey A. Martin. 2000. Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? Strategic Management Journal 21
(1011): 11051121. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4017346&site=ehost-live.
Emiliani, M. L. 2006. Origins of Lean Management In America. Journal of Management History 12 (2): 167184.
4081
Farris, Jennifer A. 2006. An Empirical Investigation of Kaizen Event Effectiveness Outcomes and Critical Success Factors. Ph.D.
diss., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Farris, Jennifer A., Eileen M. Van Aken, Toni L. Doolen, and June M. Worley. 2008. Learning from Less Successful Kaizen Events:
A Case Study. Engineering Management Journal 20 (3): 1020.
Friedli, D. 2000. UK Firms May Suffer from kamikaze Kaizen Strategy. The Engineer, January.
Garca, J. L., D. G. Rivera, and A. A. Iniesta. 2013. Critical Success Factors for Kaizen Implementation in Manufacturing industries
in Mexico. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 68 (1-4): 537545.
Glover, Wiljeana J. 2009. Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of Survey Measures for Kaizen Event Post-event Factors.
Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Management Conference, Springeld, MO.
Glover, Wiljeana J. 2010. Critical Success Factors for Sustaining Kaizen Event Outcomes. Industrial and Systems Engineering.
Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Glover, Wiljeana J., Jennifer A. Farris, Eileen M. Van Aken, and Toni Doolen. 2011. Critical Success Factors for the Sustainability
of Kaizen Event Human Resource Outcomes: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Production Economics 132:
197213.
Glover, Wiljeana J., Jennifer A. Farris, Eileen M. Van Aken, and Toni Doolen. 2013. Kaizen Event Result Sustainability for Lean
Enterprise Transformation. Journal of Enterprise Transformation 3 (3): 136160.
Glover, Wiljeana J., Wen-Hsing Liu, Jennifer A. Farris, and Eileen M. Van Aken. 2013. Characteristics of Established Kaizen Event
Programs: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 33 (9): 11661201.
Goldacker, D. K. 2005. Ofce Accelerated Improvement Workshop Methodology (AIW). Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the IIE Annual Conference and Expo, Orlando, FL, May 2024.
Goodman, Paul S., and James W. Dean. 1982. Creating Long-term Organizational Change. In Change in Organizations: New
Perspectives on Theory, Research, and Practice, edited by Paul S. Goodman, 1st ed., 226279. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Goodman, Paul S., Max Bazerman, and Edward Conlon. 1980. Institutionalization of Planned Organizational Change. In Research
in Organizational Behavior, edited by Barry M. Staw and Larry L. Cummings, 2: 215246. Greenwich, CT: Jay Press.
Groesbeck, Richard L. 2001. An Empirical Study of Group Stewardship and Learning: Implications for Work Group Effectiveness.
Ph.D. diss., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Heard, E. 1997. Rapid-Fire Improvement with Short-Cycle Kaizen. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Production and Inventory Control Society, Washington, DC, October 2629.
Helfat, C. E., and S. G. Winter. 2011. Untangling Dynamic and Operational Capabilities: Strategy for the (N)ever-changing World.
Strategic Management Journal 32 (11): 12431250.
Hung, K., Y. K. Ro, and J. K. Liker. 2009. Further Motivation for Continuous Improvement in Just-In-Time Logistics. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 56 (4): 571583.
van Iwaarden, J., T. van der Wiele, B. Dale, R. Williams, and B. Bertsch. 2008. The Six Sigma Improvement Approach: A Transnational Comparison. International Journal of Production Research 46 (23): 67396758. doi:10.1080/00207540802234050.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207540802234050.
Jacobs, Ronald L. 2002. Institutionalizing Organizational Change through Cascade Training. Journal of European Industrial Training
26 (2/3/4): 177182. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/03090590210422058
Jennrich, Robert. 2002. A Simple General Method for Oblique Rotation. Psychometrika 67 (1): 719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF02294706.
Johnson, Dallas E. 1998. Applied Multivariate Methods for Data Analysts. Pacic Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.
Johnson, Richard Arnold, and Dean W. Wichern. 2007. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kaye, Mike, and Rosalyn Anderson. 1999. Continuous Improvement: the Ten Essential Criteria. International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management 16 (5): 485509.
Kenny, D. A. 2009. Mediation. Accessed March 13, 2010. http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm
Kenny, D. A., and C. M. Judd. 1986. Consequences of Violating the Independence Assumption in Analysis of Variance.
Psychological Bulletin 99 (3): 422431.
Kline, P. 1994. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. London: Routledge.
Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
Laraia, Anthony C., Patricia E. Moody, and Robert W. Hall. 1999. The Kaizen Blitz: Accelerating Breakthroughs in Productivity and
Performance. National Association of Manufacturers Series. New York: Wiley.
Lawal, B. 2003. Categorical Data Analysis with SAS and SPSS Applications. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Liang, K. Y., and S. L. Zeger. 1986. Longitudinal Data Analysis Using Generalized Linear Models. Biometrika 73: 1322.
MacKinnon, D. P., A. J. Fairchild, and M. S. Fritz. 2007. Mediation Analysis. Annual Review of Psychology 58: 593614.
Magdum, V., and L. Whitman. 2007. Sustainability of Kaizen Events. Working Paper. Wichita, KS: Department of Industrial and
Manufacturing Engineering, Wichita State University.
Mann, David. 2005. Creating a Lean Culture: Tools to Sustain Lean Conversions. New York: Productivity Press. http://books.google.
com/books?id=aqffmYejsC0C&dq=Sustaining+Lean+book&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s.
4082
Martin, Karen, and Mike Osterling. 2007. The Kaizen Event Planner. New York: Productivity Press.
Martin, Susan C., Pamela K. Greenhouse, Amy M. Kowinsky, Renee L. McElheny, Connie R. Petras, and David T. Sharbaugh. 2009.
Rapid Improvement Event. Journal of Nursing Care Quality 24 (1): 1724.
Melnyk, Steven A., Roger J. Calantone, Frank L. Montabon, and Richard T. Smith. 1998. Short-term Action in Pursuit of Longterm Improvements: Introducing Kaizen Events. Production and Inventory Management Journal 39 (4): 6976. http://ezproxy.
lib.vt.edu:8080/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=39040536&Fmt=7&clientId=8956&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Miller, B. D. 2004. Achievement Behaviors Within Kaizen Blitz from an Expectancy-value Perspective: An Empirical Study. Ph.D.
diss., University of Houston.
Modarress, B., A. Ansari, and D. L. Lockwood. 2005. Kaizen Costing for Lean Manufacturing: A Case Study. International Journal of Production Research 43: 17511760. doi:10.1080/00207540500034174. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/
tprs/2005/00000043/00000009/art00002M3.
Nelson, R. R., and S. G. Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Neter, J., M. H. Kutner, C. J. Nachtsheim, and W. Wasserman. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. 4th ed. New York: McGrawHill Companies.
Nunnally, J. D. 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oxtoby, Barrie, Tony McGuiness, and Robert Morgan. 2002. Developing Organisational Change Capability. European Management
Journal 20 (3): 310320. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V9T-45HWNPS-7/2/df896cefd3a0bcb89d1d8f4775
d88a9a.
Palmer, V. S. 2001. Inventory Management Kaizen. Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Engineering Management
for Applied Technology-IEEE Computer Society, Austin, TX, August 1617.
Patil, H. 2003. A Standard Framework for Sustaining Kaizen Events. Wichita, KS: Department of Industrial and Manufacturing
Engineering, Wichita State University.
Powell, C., and S. Hoekzema. 2008. 5S at Deceuninck North Americas Monroe Site: Sustaining and Improving the Gains: 5S is the
Foundation for Culture Change and Continuing Improvements. In Sustaining Lean: Case Studies in Transforming Culture,
edited by the Association for Manufacturing Excellence, 5164. New York: Productivity Press.
Raudenbush, A. S., and S. W. Byrk. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. 2nd ed. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Scheaffer, R. L., W. III. Mendenhall, and R. L. Ott. 1996. Elementary Survey Sampling. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Schonberger, Richard J. 2007. Japanese Production Management: An EvolutionWith Mixed Success. Journal of Operations Management 25 (2): 403419. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.003. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272696306000325.
Schreyoegg, G., and M. Kliesch-Eberl. 2007. How Dynamic Can Organizational Capabilities Be? Towards a Dual-Process Model of
Capability Dynamization. Strategic Management Journal 28: 913933.
Shah, Rachna, and Susan Meyer Goldstein. 2006. Use of Structural Equation Modeling in Operations Management Research: Looking Back and Forward. Journal of Operations Management 24 (2): 148169. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2005.05.001. http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272696305000963.
Shah, Rachna, and Peter T. Ward. 2007. Dening and Developing Measures of Lean Production. Journal of Operations Management 25 (4): 785805. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272696307000228.
Sugimori, Y., K. Kusunoki, F. Cho, and S. Uchikawa. 1977. Toyota Production System and Kanban System Materialization of Justin-Time and Respect-for-Human System. International Journal of Production Research 15 (6): 553564. doi:10.1080/
00207547708943149. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207547708943149.
Szulanski, Gabriel. 1996. Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm. Strategic
Management Journal 17: 2743.
Teece, David J. 2007. Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Microfoundations of (Sustainable) Enterprise Performance.
Strategic Management Journal 28: 13191350.
Teece, David J., and Gary Pisano. 1994. The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: An Introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change 3
(3): 537556.
Teece, David J., Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management
Journal 18 (7): 509533.
Tennessen, Jim, and Lea A. P. Tonkin. 2008. Team-centered, Continuing Improvements at General Dynamics Advanced Information
Systems: Teamwork and a Long-term Commitment to Continuous Improvement Make the Difference. In Sustaining Lean,
edited by Association for Manufacturing Excellence, 6574. New York: Productivity Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=
hKU1k9KB6ekC&source=gbs_navlinks_s.
Upton, David M. 1996. Mechanisms for Building and Sustaining Operations Improvement. European Management Journal 14 (3):
215228.
Wan, Hung-da, and F. F. Chen. 2008. A Leanness Measure of Manufacturing Systems for Quantifying Impacts of Lean Initiatives.
International Journal of Production Research 46 (23): 65676584.
Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Zollo, Maurizio. 2002. Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities. Organization Science 13 (3): 339351.
4083
Variable
Items
Experimentation and
continuous
improvement
(adapted from
Doolen, Hacker, and
Van Aken 2008;
Groesbeck 2001)
Learning and
stewardship
(adapted from
Groesbeck 2001)
Institutionalizing
change (new
measure based on
Heard 1997;
Average Skewness
Smallest
primary
loading
Largest
cross
loading
Initial
eigenvalue
Percentage
of variance
explained
(%)
Cronbachs
alpha
4.33
0.09
0.555
0.291
0.98
0.875
4.57
0.67
0.561
0.284
6.56
63
0.930
3.53
0.05
0.641
0.224
8.12
41
0.881
(Continued)
4084
Appendix 1. (Continued)
Variable
Goldacker 2005;
Miller 2004;
Magdum and
Whitman 2007;
Mann 2005; Patil
2003; Powell and
Hoekzema 2008)
Improvement culture
(new measure based
on Oxtoby et al.
2002; Heard 1997;
Palmer 2001;
Bateman 2005)
Items
newspaper) from the
Kaizen event.
IChange2: Individual
team members working
on follow-up action
items from the Kaizen
event.
IChange3: Training
work area employees
in new work methods
and processes from the
Kaizen event.
IChange4: Updating
work method and
process documentation
(e.g. standard work
charts, formal job
descriptions, etc.) for
changes made due to
the Kaizen event.
IChange5: Involving
work area employees
(not on the Kaizen
event team) in followup and completion of
action items from the
event.
PR3: The Kaizen
event team meeting as
a whole to review
progress and/or
develop follow-up
strategies for the
Kaizen event.
ICulture3: Avoiding
blame or negativity
when changes are
made, but results are
different than
expected.
ICulture4: Avoiding
blame or negativity
when team goals are
not achieved.
ICulture6: Work area
management
supporting the use of
Kaizen events in the
organisation.
ICulture7: Work area
management
championing the value
of continuous
improvement.
ICulture8: Work area
management allowing
Average Skewness
Smallest
primary
loading
Largest
cross
loading
Initial
eigenvalue
Percentage
of variance
explained
(%)
Cronbachs
alpha
4.00
0.56
0.928
0.070
1.451
0.947
4.32
0.35
0.693
0.251
1.11
0.796
(Continued)
4085
Appendix 1. (Continued)
Variable
Performance review
(new measure based
on Kaye and
Anderson 1999;
Bateman 2005;
Martin and
Osterling 2007;
Adamson and
Kwolek 2008; Patil
2003; Powell and
Hoekzema 2008;
Palmer 2001;
Goldacker 2005;
Destefani 2005;
Magdum and
Whitman 2007)
Accepting changes
(new measure based
on Cummings and
Worley 1997)
Items
work area employees
time to work on
continuous
improvement
activities.
PR1: Regularly
reviewing performance
data related to Kaizen
event goals.
PR2: Conducting
regular audits on
changes made due to
the Kaizen event.
PR4: Meetings with
higher level
management about
Kaizen event progress
or follow-up.
PR5: Meetings with
Kaizen coordinator or
facilitator about Kaizen
event progress or
follow-up.
PR7: Informing
higher-level
management of issues
with follow-up and
sustaining results from
the Kaizen event.
AcChg2-1: Now, the
management of the
work area accepts the
changes made as a
result of the Kaizen
event.
AcChg3-1: Now, the
management of the
work area holds
employees accountable
for following the new
work methods from the
Kaizen event.
AcChg4-1: Now,
employees in the work
area accept the changes
made as a result of the
Kaizen event.
AcChg5-1: Now,
employees in the work
area follow the new
work methods from the
Kaizen event.
Average Skewness
Smallest
primary
loading
Largest
cross
loading
Initial
eigenvalue
Percentage
of variance
explained
(%)
Cronbachs
alpha
3.32
0.09
0.719
0.255
1.825
0.879
4.79
1.35
0.788
0.204
3.156
16
0.947
(Continued)
4086
Appendix 1. (Continued)
Variable
Items
Average Skewness
4.55
1.15
Smallest
primary
loading
Largest
cross
loading
0.886
0.137
Initial
eigenvalue
Percentage
of variance
explained
(%)
Cronbachs
alpha
1.72
15.65
0.94