Kaizen practices and performance improvement in Zambian manufacturing companies

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of Kaizen practices and operational performance.

Table 1. Summary of respondent demographics

Length of Service of Respondents	n	%
Less than two years	4	12.90
Two to five years	12	38.7
Six to ten years	7	22.6
More than ten years	8	25.8
Number of Employees in Respondent Companies
Less than 50 employees	9	29
Between 51 and 100 employees	8	25.8
Between 101 and 150 employees	5	16.1
Between 151 and 200 employees	3	9.7
More than 200 employees	6	19.4
Sectoral Representation of Respondent Companies
Food and beverages	9	29
Textile, and leather industries	3	9.7
Chemical, rubber and plastics products	5	16.1
Basic metal products	5	16.1
Fabricated metal products	4	12.9
Others	5	16.1

Table 2. Means of responses to challenge of Kaizen implementation

Mean	Mean
Financial constraints	2.71
Lack of management support or leadership	2.16
Ineffective training	2.55
Employee attitude (e.g commitment)	3.19
Ineffective kaizen performance measures	2.43
Insufficient participation by workers	2.71
Ineffective communication systems	2.26
Organisation Structure	2.42
Misconceptions about kaizen	2.52
Others	2.03

Table 3. Scale items: Descriptive statistics, factor analysis and Cronbach’s (Coefficient) alpha

Construct (Coefficient α)	Factor	Mean	Standard Deviation	Factor Loadings
5S α = .859	5S1: Sorting 5S2: Order 5S3: Cleanliness 5S4: Standardization 5S5: Self-discipline	3.96 4.09 4.19 3.93 3.90	.94 .87 .70 1.09 .94	.891 .917 .625 .867 .686
Kaizen Evens α = .781	Kaizen Event1: Short term interventions Kaizen Event2: Improving existing processes Kaizen Event3: Target work area by the team	3.58 4.00 4.03	.95 .77 .94	.826 .888 .805
5Whys α = .835	5Whys1: Problem identified 5Whys2: Asking five times on problem 5Whys2: Problem root cause found	3.83 3.41 3.80	1.12 1.33 1.10	.899 .796 .923
Suggestion System α = .800	Suggestion1: Specific system used e.g., box Suggestion2: Employees know hierarchy Suggestion3: Immediate feedback provided	3.51 3.80 3.64	1.45 1.04 1.17	.801 .848 .914
Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) α = .808	TPM1: Routine maintenance done TPM2: Self-equipment maintenance TPM3: Effective equipment use	3.87 3.64 3.84	1.15 1.14 .93	.896 .786 .879
Total Quality Management (TQM) α = .800	TQM1: Uses number of practices TQM2: Interacts with customers TQM3: Involves all employees	3.68 4.13 4.06	1.04 .88 .81	.818 .831 .892
Just-in-Time (JIT) α = .755	JIT1: Products delivered on time JIT2: Holds enough raw material JIT3: Holds enough products	3.77 3.84 3.87	1.17 1.13 1.15	.665 .818 .871
Productivity α = .793	Productivity1: Reduced idle time Productivity2: Ensured health and Safety Productivity3: Reduced costs	3.61 4.16 3.71	.84 .82 .86	.896 .815 .813
Quality α = .851	Quality1: Free from defects Quality2: Reduced customer complaints Quality3: Sticking to set standards	3.90 4.03 4.35	.83 .795 .84	.850 .751 .835
Speed α = .836	Speed1: Improved production flow Speed2: Reduced inventory Speed3: Reduced future uncertainty	3.90 3.58 3.55	1.01 .92 .92	.886 .885 .832
Flexibility α = .538	Flexibility1: Product produced in different ways Flexibility2: Speeded-up response to customer needs Flexibility3: Customers’ dependability on company products	3.26 4.03 4.26	1.26 .875 .815	.564 .930 .712
Overall Equipment Effectiveness α = .825	OEEffectiveness1: Equipment availability OEEffectiveness1: Improved performance efficiency OEEffectiveness1: Improved quality of product	4.06 3.84 4.26	.93 .90 .68	.889 .893 .804

Table 4. Test for construct discriminant validity

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
Scale Reliability	.859	.781	.835	.800	.808	.793	.755	.793	.851	.836	.825
Construct shared variance
5S	1
Kaizen Events	.595	1
5 Whys	.616	.643	1
Suggestion System	.683	.620	.729	1
Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)	.742	.563	.618	.732	1
Total Quality Management (TQM)	.759	.560	.723	.712	.727	1
Just-In-Time (JIT)	.607	.439	.601	.437	.561	.677	1
Productivity	.468	.583	.612	.484	.454	.627	.598	1
Quality	.511	.596	.577	.469	.533	.433	.420	.569	1
Speed	.536	.361	.487	.484	.641	.595	.683	.500	.459	1
Overall Equipment Effectiveness	.542	.566	.544	.599	.535	.423	.456	.527	.681	.590	1

Figure 2. Histograms testing for normality assumption.

Table 5. Mean of responses on extent of Kaizen practices implementation

Kaizen Practice	Mean	Std Dev
5S	4.01	0.74
Kaizen Events	3.90	0.75
5Whys	3.70	1.04
Suggestions Systems	3.62	1.04
Total Productive Maintenance	3.72	0.92
Total Quality Management	3.96	0.77
Just—In-Time	3.78	0.94

Table 6. Examination of direct effects

		Productivity		Quality		Speed		Overall Equipment Effectiveness
Independent Variable	Hypothesis (Result)	Std β	t	Std β	t	Std β	t	Std β	t
Step 1: Control variables
Firm size (SIZE)		0.329	1.877*	0.234	1.298	0.320	1.818	0.073	0.396
R-Squared			0.11		0.06		0.10	0.01
Model Fit		F = 3.524		F = 1.686		F = 3.306*		F = 0.157
Step 2: Main Effects
Firm size (SIZE)		0.107	0.716	0.083	0.509	0.172	1.062	−0.083	−0.509
5S		−0.151	−0.663	0.264	1.065	0.238	0.957	0.349	1.402
Kaizen Event	3a 3b 3e (Support)	0.360	1.999*	0.438	2.235**	−0.042	−0.215	0.405	2.058**
Total Quality Management	7a (Support)	0.509	2.259**	−0.037	−0.151	0.386	1.571	−0.044	−1.78
R-Squared			0.49		0.40		0.40	0.39
Model Fit	Hypothesis	F = 6.320***		F = 4.316***		F = 4.276***		F = 4.22***

***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10.