You are on page 1of 20

International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: 0020-7543 (Print) 1366-588X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

The relationship between continuous


improvement and rapid improvement
sustainability
Wiljeana J. Glover, Jennifer A. Farris & Eileen M. Van Aken
To cite this article: Wiljeana J. Glover, Jennifer A. Farris & Eileen M. Van Aken
(2015) The relationship between continuous improvement and rapid improvement
sustainability, International Journal of Production Research, 53:13, 4068-4086, DOI:
10.1080/00207543.2014.991841
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.991841

Published online: 18 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 389

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
Download by: [University of Liverpool]

Date: 23 March 2016, At: 23:50

International Journal of Production Research, 2015


Vol. 53, No. 13, 40684086, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.991841

The relationship between continuous improvement and rapid improvement sustainability


Wiljeana J. Glovera*, Jennifer A. Farrisb and Eileen M. Van Akenc
a

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

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

(Received 30 August 2013; accepted 19 November 2014)


While rapid improvement efforts, e.g. Kaizen events, and continuous improvement efforts, i.e. kaizen, remain popular
approaches to operational excellence, it is rare that organisations fully sustain change from these initiatives. The impact
of both Kaizen events and kaizen may be substantially lower, if not entirely eliminated, after signicant time has elapsed
from initial implementation of changes. In this paper, we examine how having a continuous improvement culture can
support rapid improvement sustainability via an examination of the impact of Kaizen events several months after implementation. Employing a dynamic capabilities perspective and using the institutionalisation of planned change framework,
we empirically examine this relationship via a eld study of 65 Kaizen events in eight manufacturing organisations. In
short, we nd that the extent to which work area employees exhibit peer learning, as well as awareness and responsibility both inside and outside of their work area, and the extent to which changes are accepted are signicantly related to
the perceived impact of Kaizen events several months after implementation. This research adds to current understanding
of Kaizen events and kaizen, providing evidence to guide the use of Kaizen events and to inform areas for future
research.
Keywords: lean production; teams; performance improvement sustainability; quality management; manufacturing
companies; dynamic capabilities; institutionalising change

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

*Corresponding author. Email: wjglover@babson.edu


2014 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

International Journal of Production Research

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

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

4070

W.J. Glover et al.

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

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses.


Source: Adapted from Cummings and Worley (1997).

International Journal of Production Research

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.

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

H1b. Learning and stewardship is positively related to impact on area post-implementation.

2.2 Post-event characteristics and impact on area post-implementation


Post-event characteristics, institutionalising change, improvement culture, performance review, avoiding blame and
accepting changes, describe the socialisation of and commitment to the improvement from the Kaizen event, as well as
the allocation of rewards based on the pursuit of behaviours that support the change and the processes used to measure
the degree of institutionalisation, feedback information and corrective actions, i.e. sensing and recalibration (Cummings
and Worley 1997; Goodman and Dean 1982).
Institutionalising change is dened as a bundle of activities conducted to complete the implementation of changes
and actions identied in the Kaizen event and to incorporate changes into the ongoing, everyday activities of the organisation (Jacobs 2002). Done, Voss, and Rytter (2011) propose that post-event planning for further ongoing follow-up
activities leads to long-term improvement and sustained change. Improvement culture is dened as the encouragement
of organisational change through managements support of the use of both Kaizen events and continuous improvement
activities among work area employees and Kaizen event team members. Anand et al. (2009) suggest that development
of a constant change culture supports the continuous improvement capability, and Oxtoby, McGuiness, and Morgan
(2002) suggest that such a culture also assists in sustaining change. Avoiding blame is the extent to which blame and
negativity are avoided when goals are not achieved or results are different than the established goals. This construct
relates to the extent to which rewards are allocated to support the institutionalisation of change (Cummings and Worley
1997), albeit the concepts have a reverse conceptual relationship. Accepting changes describes the extent to which work
area management and employees accept changes made as a result of the Kaizen event, employees follow the new work
methods as a result of the Kaizen event, and employees are held accountable for following the new work methods as a
result of the Kaizen event. Teece (2007) suggests that organisational cultures should be shaped to accept changes, or
otherwise changes will be met with anxiety and desired continuity may not be sustained. Performance review is dened
as the extent to which the organisation measures and evaluates the results of the Kaizen event. Kaye and Anderson
(1999) identied the establishment of performance measurement and feedback systems as a key criterion for continuous
improvement. Thus, we hypothesise the following:
H2. Post-event characteristics are positively related impact on area post-implementation.
H2a. Institutionalising change is positively related to impact on area post-implementation.
H2b. Improvement culture is positively related to impact on area post-implementation.
H2c. Performance review is positively related to impact on area post-implementation.
H2d. Avoiding blame is positively related to impact on area post-implementation.
H2e. Accepting changes is positively related to impact on area post-implementation.

2.3 The mediating role of post-event characteristics


The institutionalisation of planned change framework is designed to be a mediating model such that the institutionalisation processes are proposed to at least partially mediate the relationship of the organisational characteristics (Cummings
and Worley 1997; Goodman, Bazerman, and Conlon 1980; Goodman and Dean 1982; Jacobs 2002). This is in part due

4072

W.J. Glover et al.

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.

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

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

Table 1. Characteristics of the organizations studied.

5.00

4 (4)

Almost 100%
manufacturing

Data not available

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

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

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

International Journal of Production Research


4073

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

4074

W.J. Glover et al.

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.

Impact on area post-implementation


Institutionalising change
Improvement culture
Performance review
Avoiding blame
Accepting changes
Learning and stewardship
Experimentation and continuous
improvement
Mean
Standard deviation

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

**Indicates statistical signicance at <= 0.01.


*Indicates statistical signicance at <= 0.05.

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

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

International Journal of Production Research

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

W.J. Glover et al.

Table 3. Regression model for impact on area post-implementation.

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

OLS R2 = 0.506, OLS Ra2 = 0.498

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

GEE R2 = 0.512, GEE Ra2 = 0.504, = 0.043

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.

Table 4 presents the results of the mediation analysis.


In the rst step of the mediation analysis, accepting changes was found to have a signicant relationship with learning and stewardship and experimentation and continuous improvement. For step 2 (Path b), the impact of accepting
changes on impact on area post-implementation while controlling for the predictor (X) was signicant for learning and
stewardship and experimentation and continuous at the = 0.05/3 = 0.0167 level. Thus, mediation analysis results for
learning and stewardship and experimentation and continuous improvement were consistent with the mediation hypothesis that learning and stewardship and experimentation and continuous improvement impacts impact on area post-implementation indirectly through accepting changes.
Path c was not signicant for learning and stewardship or experimentation and continuous improvement at the
adjusted alpha value, which is consistent with a full mediation effect that learning and stewardship and experimentation
and continuous improvement signicantly affects impact on area post-implementation, but only indirectly through
accepting changes.
For step 3, accepting changes was regressed simultaneously on learning and stewardship and experimentation and
continuous improvement. Learning and stewardship was signicant in this regression (p < 0.05), thus, providing further
support for its inclusion in the mediation hypothesis. However, experimentation and continuous improvement was not
signicant, suggesting that it should not be included as a mediating variable in the nal model, as it is no longer signicant when considered simultaneously with learning and stewardship. Finally, impact on area post-implementation was
regressed on learning and stewardship. In considering the direct effects of the input variables on the outcome, learning
and stewardship had a signicant direct effect at the 0.05 level, further supporting its inclusion in the model
( = 0.5294, p = 0.009). In summary, only learning and stewardship is presented as a fully mediated variable in the nal
model of impact on area post-implementation. This specically refers to H3b in the detailed hypothesis list above, thus,
H3b was supported.

*Indicates statistical signicance at <= 0.05.

Step 1: y = Accepting Changes, separate regression


Coef. (a)
Learning and Stewardship
0.884
Experimentation and Continuous Improvement
0.553
Step 2: y = Impact on Area Post-Implementation, separate regression
Coef. (b)
Accepting Changes
0.712
Experimentation and Continuous Improvement
Accepting Changes
0.745
Learning and Stewardship
Step 3: y = Accepting Changes, simultaneous regression
Coef. (a)
Learning and Stewardship
0.794
Experimentation and Continuous Improvement
0.080
Step 4: y = Impact on Area Post-Implementation, separate regression
Coef.
Learning and Stewardship
0.529
Mediation Analysis Results for Accepting Changes and Impact on Area PostImplementation
Learning and Stewardship

Table 4. Post-hoc mediation analysis results for impact on area post-implementation.

<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

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

Full

Partial or Full

0.172

0.138

0.138
0.207

SE

Coef. (c)

0.2269

0.3182

p-value

International Journal of Production Research


4077

4078

W.J. Glover et al.

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

5. Discussion and conclusions


5.1 Implications for theory
Changes as a result of Kaizen events have been reported to immediately improve performance, including increased productivity, reduced cycle time and decreased WIP (Laraia, Moody, and Hall 1999). The extent to which such changes
have a lasting impact on the work area is a criterion of change institutionalisation (Buller and McEvoy 1989). Knowledge transfer theorists also emphasise that persistence and sustained change are hallmarks of achieving a retentive
capability within an organisation (Szulanski 1996). These theoretical underpinnings are evident in our measurement of
the dependent variable, impact on area post-implementation, nine to 18 months after the Kaizen event.
To the authors knowledge, this research uses the largest sample size at the Kaizen event-level to date (n = 65) to
study the relationship between kaizen characteristics, post-event characteristics, and perceived impact on area postimplementation. Our respondents reported moderate levels of impact on area post-implementation (average = 4.55/6.00).
This nding supports the multi-case study research of previous scholars, e.g. Done, Voss, and Rytter (2011) that found
that at least half of the Kaizen events studied had at least satisfactory level of improvement, indicating that there was
at least some basis for sustaining and continuing long-term improvement.
Accepting changes was a direct, positive predictor of impact on area post-implementation. Research suggests that
perceptions and activities related to accepting changes, including having an open-minded workforce (Bateman and
Rich 2003; Garca, Rivera, and Iniesta 2013) and the reinforcement of change from management (Kaye and Anderson
1999), may support sustainable improvements, which provides general support for this nding. The nding suggests that
sustained impact of a Kaizen event is related to a key routine of successful continuous improvement implementation,
leading the way, or the ability of management to lead direct and support the sustaining of continuous improvement
behaviours via their acceptance of Kaizen event changes (Bessant, Caffyn, and Gallagher 2001). Also, the rst followup task in the Bateman and Rich (2003) model of improvement sustainability is maintaining the new procedure. This
task is similar to the component of accepting changes that refers to the extent to which work area employees follow the
new work methods as a result of the Kaizen event.
Theoretically, the signicance of accepting changes to predict impact on area post-implementation further supports
the critical role of institutionalisation processes, particularly the commitment to change, on sustaining change
(Cummings and Worley 1997; Goodman and Dean 1982). Teece (2007) argues that building loyalty and commitment
via leadership demonstration and recognition of non-economic factors, value and culture is a micro-foundation of the
dynamic capabilities necessary to sustain superior enterprise performance. Similarly, our nding suggests that both management and the workforce play a role in adopting improvements into their work area, thus building their dynamic capability of continuous improvement and modifying their operational capabilities. Thus, in answer to the central line of
inquiry for this paper, the ability to impact a work area from a Kaizen event after signicant time has lapsed, since initial implementation is at least in part explained by the extent to which management and the workforce are accepting of
change.
Through mediation analysis, we found that learning and stewardship was positively indirectly related to impact on
area post-implementation through accepting changes, suggesting that higher perceptions of accepting changes appear to
be evident in work areas that encourage learning and stewardship among their employees. This nding supports the institutionalisation mediation model (Cummings and Worley 1997; Goodman and Dean 1982), such that a post-event characteristic mediated the relationship between a kaizen characteristic and impact on area post-implementation. This also
provides support for explaining the relationship between Kaizen events and kaizen. Organisational learning is considered
one of the underlying theories of the dynamic capabilities perspective (Zollo 2002), and thus, a critical component of
building continuous improvement capabilities (Anand et al. 2009). Furthermore, researchers note that a learning-oriented
workforce may be more open-minded about the way work is performed (Baker and Sinkula 1999), and may have
increased feelings of ownership over the changes that are implemented in their work area (Oxtoby, McGuiness, and
Morgan 2002). Thus, Kaizen events also appear to enable kaizen, at least in part, by the extent to which work area
employees learn and collaborate with one another within their work area and have a shared sense of responsibility outside of their work area.
5.2 Implications for management
Through this study, our intent is that managers may better understand the extent to which Kaizen events are able to make a
lasting measurable improvement on performance and what factors may inuence impact on area post-implementation. The
signicant relationship between accepting changes and impact on area post-implementation implies that managers
may increase the impact of a Kaizen event on the targeted work area through such practices as having employee training on

International Journal of Production Research

4079

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

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.

5.3 Limitations and future research


It is interesting to review the variables that were not found to be signicant in the research model. For instance, the kaizen characteristic experimentation and continuous improvement did not directly predict impact on area post-implementation. This suggests that having this characteristic in a work area may not contribute substantially towards promoting
behaviours related to accepting changes and sustaining the results of a Kaizen event. Other post-event characteristics, institutionalising change, improvement culture, performance review and avoiding blame were also not found to have an
effect on impact on area post-implementation. In other words, activities such as planning and executing follow-up activities after the Kaizen event, regular continuous improvement, measuring performance for continuous improvement and
avoiding negativity do not necessarily explain why some work areas would achieve high impact on area post-implementation, while others would not.
There were also several limitations to this study. First, while this study does account for some organisation-level
effects through the use of GEE, it should be noted that GEE does not remove all organisation-level effects. In particular,
GEE does not account for different regression slopes across organisations, e.g. if there is a different relationship between
a certain X and Y in a certain organisation. HLM is a technique which can account for this type of effect. In future
research, a larger sample size could be collected to allow for HLM. It should also be noted our all of our items were
expected to vary at the Kaizen event or work area level, rather than the organisation level, and worded accordingly. For
example, an item for institutionalising change was Training work area employees in new work methods and processes
from the Kaizen event. One can see how, within the same organisation, more training could be provided for one Kaizen
event vs. another. Items for learning and stewardship or improvement culture asked specically about work area
management or work area employees.
The performance variable in question, impact on area post-implementation, is a perceptual measure as opposed to
an objective measure, presenting another limitation of the research. While objective results for each Kaizen event were
collected immediately after the Kaizen event and 918 months after the event, respondents reporting of these objective
results were so varied (e.g. 56% decrease in lead time and yes, the 5S results have been sustained) that comparison
between the objective measures yielded a statistical model with limited predictive power (Glover et al. 2013); future
research should consider other approaches to objectively measuring improvement performance over time. The mixed
respondent positions and mixed-methods data collection approach are also potential limitations that were discussed in
the methodology section.
Finally, the study sample was limited in terms of the number and type of participating organisations, which may
impact generalisability. All participating organisations were manufacturing organisations, so it is possible that the ndings may be affected by industry type and cannot be generalised to other industries. Further research could consider a
larger sample size of events from a broader range of industries.

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

W.J. Glover et al.

Funding
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [grant number DMI-0451512].

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

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.

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

International Journal of Production Research

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.

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

4082

W.J. Glover et al.

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.

International Journal of Production Research

4083

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

Appendix 1. Summary of study variables, factor analysis and reliability analysis

Variable

Items

Experimentation and
continuous
improvement
(adapted from
Doolen, Hacker, and
Van Aken 2008;
Groesbeck 2001)

EXPER2: Work area


employees try out new
things by applying
them in practice.
EXPER3: Work area
employees test new
ideas to help
themselves learn.
KCI2: Work area
employees understand
how continuous
improvement can be
applied to Work area.
KCI4: Work area
employees believe they
have a role in
continuous
improvement in Work
area.
EP1: Work area
employees understand
how their work ts
into the bigger
picture of the
organization.
EP3: Work area
employees understand
how their work relates
to that of other parts of
the organization.
INT2: Work area
employees ask each
other for help when
they need assistance.
INT3: Work area
employees freely share
information with one
another.
STEW1: Work area
employees feel a
shared sense of
responsibility for the
work they do.
STEW2: Work area
employees feel a sense
of accountability for
the work they do.
STEW3: Work area
employees want to do
what is best for the
organization.
IChange1: Formal
documentation of
follow-up action items
(e.g. through a Kaizen

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

W.J. Glover et al.

Appendix 1. (Continued)

Variable

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

Goldacker 2005;
Miller 2004;
Magdum and
Whitman 2007;
Mann 2005; Patil
2003; Powell and
Hoekzema 2008)

Avoiding blame (new


measure based on
Kaye and Anderson
1999)

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)

International Journal of Production Research

4085

Appendix 1. (Continued)

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

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

W.J. Glover et al.

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 23:50 23 March 2016

Appendix 1. (Continued)

Variable

Items

Impact on Area Post


Implementation
(Farris 2006)

IMA1: The Kaizen


event has had a
positive effect on the
work area
IMA2: The work area
has improved
measurably as a result
of the Kaizen event
IMA3: The Kaizen
event has improved the
performance of the
work area

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

You might also like