Kaizen Event process factors for operational performance improvement: an archival study

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of differences in various Kaizen instruments.

Instrument	Focus	Scope	Duration	Approach to problem solving	Implementation
Kaizen Kata	Develop a culture of continuous improvement through daily routines	Ongoing improvements in all areas of the organisation	Ongoing	Structured routines and experimentation	On a daily basis, by all employees
Kaizen Blitz	Quickly addressing and improving a specific area	Well-defined problem within targeted area or process point	1 hour to 5 days	Achieve visible results in a short time frame	Planned and scheduled sessions with a specific goal
Kaizen Events*	Targeted improvement areas	Complex organisational challenge/ broader processes	1 hour to multiple weeks	Significant sustainable improvements	Planned and scheduled sessions with a specific goal
Kaikaku	Breakthrough improvement in performance	Innovation/ Radical change	Depending on the challenge (months)	Transformative changes and strategic alignment	Planned and scheduled sessions with a specific goal

* The focus of this study is on Kaizen Events.

Table 2. Possible Kaizen Event process factors related to Kaizen Event goal achievement.

Theme	Process factor
Commitment to change	1. KE group is aware of the problem
	2. KE group is committed to solve the problem
	3. Line management is involved in creating a sense of urgency
	4. Line manager champions idea implementation
	5. Management is interested in the KE results
Goal-setting	6. The problem indicator is specified in the first KE phase
	7. The target is quantified
Sensemaking	8. A root cause is quantified in relation to the problem indicator
	9. Countermeasures are quantified in relation to the problem indicator

Figure 1. Overview of the research design.

Table 3. Overview of the Kaizen Events analysed in Study 1.

KE	Type of organisation	Nr. of files available	KE initiator	Nr. of KE participants	KE duration (in months)	KE reduction target
1	Production	29	Executive board	18	9	Costs
2	Sales	9	Executive board	14	3	Lead time
3	Infrastructure	12	Manager	10	2	Lead time
4	Infrastructure	31	Manager	8	8	Lead time
5	Production	21	Executive board	11	3	Cost
6	Energy	3	Consultant	8	3	Time
7	Energy	10	Line manager	8	6	Time
8	Infra	20	Interim manager	24	1	Work load
9	Production	18	CEO	14	8	Cost
10	University	7	Manager	8	6	Lead time

Table 4. Overview of Kaizen Event process factors.

Factor	Operationalisation^a
1. KE group problem awareness	The problem is explained in the kick off presentation Problem-supportive facts and figures are mentioned in the kick off presentation
2. KE group problem-solving commitment	The invited participants attended follow-up KE sessions, as evidenced by meeting attendants lists The KE participant identified and documented ideas to solve the problem The KE team members took up actions and delivered the results in the estimated time planned. Follow-up meetings could be scheduled on a short notice as evidenced by the dates of the workshops (no procrastination)
3. Line management is involved in creating a sense of urgency	The KE meeting agenda identifies that a line manager will present the sense of urgency to the KE team Sense of urgency slides are prepared by the line manager The workshop action plans indicate that the problem would be presented by a manager, not by a consultant
4. Line manager champions idea implementation	The names of the line manager and employees who are responsible for the actions are mentioned in the action plan The line manager reports the progress to the stakeholders, as evidenced by the author’s name of the presentations
5. Management is interested in the KE results	Meetings are scheduled to update top management An A3, specifically with management updates, is made available for the management
6. A problem indicator is specified in the first KE phase	A specific problem indicator is found in the early stage KE documents
7. A target is quantified	The difference between current and desired performance is specified in the documentation
8. The root cause is quantified in relation to the problem indicator	The impact of a root cause is identified, e.g., the costs of the root cause such as number of non-productive hours or waiting time, and can be found in root-cause analysis documents
9. The countermeasure is quantified in relation to the problem indicator	The expected impact of the countermeasure is identified, e.g., the improvement area defined in the value stream map or financial benefits are calculated before implementation of the countermeasure, as evidenced by documents linked to the idea brainstorming phase and/or in implementations plans

^a One or more of the listed elements should be visible in the KE documents.

Table 5. Factors present in the Kaizen Event archival documentation.

Factor nr.	KE 1	KE 2	KE 3	KE 4	KE 5	KE 6	KE 7	KE 8	KE 9	KE 10
1. KE group problem awareness	+	+	+	+	+	–	+	–	–	–
2. The KE group is committed to solve the problem	+	–	–	+	+	–	+	–	+	+
3. Line management is involved in creating a sense of urgency	+	+	+	+	+	–	+	–	+	+
4. Line manager champions idea implementation	+	+	–	+	+	–	+	–	+	+
5. Management is interested in the KE results	+	–	–	+	+	–	+	–	+	–
6. A problem indicator is specified in the first KE phase	+	–	–	+	+	+	+	–	+	+
7. A target is quantified	+	–	–	+	+	–	+	–	+	+
8. The root cause is quantified in relation to the problem indicator	+	–	–	+	+	+	+	–	+	+
9. The countermeasure is quantified in relation to the problem indicator	+	–	–	+	+	–	+	–	+	+
Nr. of process factors fully present	9	3	2	9	9	1	9	0	8	7
Operational performance improvement	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	1

Note: + = present in the documents; - = not present.

Table 6. A3 coding scheme of the core Kaizen Event process factors.

Factor	Operationalization
1. The KE group is committed to solve the problem	Participants’ names show up in follow-up actions KE group members’ picture(s)
2. Line manager champions idea implementation	Names are noted Line managers’ names are mentioned as the action plan instigators
3. A problem indicator is specified in the first KE phase	The problem indicator is specified, e.g. via a graph or a value stream with measures
4. Countermeasures are quantified in relation to the problem indicator	The expected impact of a countermeasure is mentioned on the A3 Impact of the countermeasure is reported visually, e.g. the impact of countermeasure is noted on a photo of the value stream map, used to analyse the problem

Table 7. The four kaizen event process factors correlated with operational performance improvement..

Variable	1.	2.	3.	4.
1. KE group problem-solving commitment	–
2. Line manager champions idea implementation	.71**	–
3. A problem indicator is specified in the first KE phase	.56**	.62**	–
4. The countermeasure is quantified in relation to the problem indicator	.64**	.71**	.84**	–
5. Operational performance improvement	.56**	.71**	.84**	.79**

** p < .01 (2-tailed).

Table 8. Factors present in the analysed A3s.

	Operational performance improvement
	No	Yes
Number of KEs	22	47
1. KE group problem-solving commitment	8	35
2. Line manager champions idea implementation	8	39
3. Problem indicator is specified in the first KE phase	1	43
4. Countermeasure is quantified in relation to the problem indicator	3	44

Figure 2. Conceptual model of Kaizen Event process factors in relation to operational performance improvement, mapped onto the Kaizen Event phases.