kaizen work study in a national food market

Applying Gemba-Kaizen in amultinational food company:

a process innovation frameworkManuel F. Suarez-Barraza

EGADE Business School, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico

Juan Ramis-PujolDepartment of Operations Management and Innovation,

ESADE – Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain, and

Mariana Estrada-RoblesGraduate School of Administration, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Toluca, Mexico

Abstract

Purpose – The Gemba-Kaizen approach is a key business process strategy employed by companies(multinationals also) to enhance their manufacturing performance. However, whilst there is significantresearch information available on implementing management systems in a sequential manner, there islittle information available relating to the application of this approach to provide a single and highlyeffective methodology for process innovation in the context of the Gemba-Kaizen approach inmultinational companies. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to develop and apply a processinnovation framework in terms of methodology for multinational companies. The research questionthat governs the study is: How is the Gemba-Kaizen approach applied in an organisational contextsuch as that of a multinational food company in Mexico?

Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory case study was conducted. One multinationalfood company (chocolate) which has been established in Mexico for at least 19 years was selected. Thepaper chronicles the design and application of a process innovation framework in the context of theGemba-Kaizen approach. In total, four methods were used to gather data: direct observation;participative observation; documentary analysis; and semi-structured interviews.

Findings – This paper proposes a process innovation framework using the Gemba-Kaizen approach.The development, refinement and implementation of a process innovation framework in the context ofthe Gemba-Kaizen approach has been achieved, working closely with a multinational food company.Consequently, as a result of the application, a conceptual framework was established, based onthe results of comparing theory and fieldwork: this provides a glimpse into the relationship of theGemba-Kaizen approach with other improvement methodologies, known as Process Redesign, in theorganisation analysed.

Practical implications – Derived to describe the case study on how to apply the Gemba-Kaizenapproach through process innovation methodology, the paper may prove to be of value to practitionersand managers involved in the field. Similarly, a section on managerial implications has also beenincluded.

Originality/value – The paper contributes to the limited existing literature on the Gemba-Kaizensystem and subsequently disseminates this information in order to provide impetus, guidance andsupport towards increasing the development of companies, in an attempt to move the Mexicomanufacturing (food) sector towards world-class manufacturing performance.

Keywords Mexico, Multinational companies, Food industry, Process management,Continuous improvement, Gemba-Kaizen, Framework

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1756-669X.htm

Gemba-Kaizen ina multinational

company

27

International Journal of Quality andService Sciences

Vol. 4 No. 1, 2012pp. 27-50

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1756-669X

DOI 10.1108/17566691211219715

1. IntroductionThe Japanese management philosophy known as Kaizen ( ) was introduced as anew, creative operating strategy to improve the competitiveness of twenty-first centurycompanies (Imai, 2006). When Masaaki Imai published his first book in 1986, The Key toJapan’s Competitive Success, the term Kaizen began to receive attention frommanagement experts and scholars around the world. A decade after publication of hisfirst book, Imai expanded the scope of Kaizen in another book in 1997 – a contributionwhich laid further stress on “The Japanese way” in Kaizen strategy and in particular theimportance of the workplace (where real action occurs) in continuous improvement.

Even “total quality management” and “lean thinking”, which has received focusedattention in the literature in recent years, was deeply rooted in the Japanesemanagement and thus viewed as an integral element in the Gemba-Kaizen approach(Klefsjo, 1997; Al Smadi, 2009).

Over the decade from 2000 to 2010, several authors focused on the importance ofinnovating through Gemba-Kaizen processes to reap substantial quantitative andqualitative benefits in terms of time and money, cutting stock costs and what theJapanese term muda (“waste”) (Ohno, 2007). Neese (2007) indicates that keepingup effort in Gemba-Kaizen may help in achieving significant improvements to workprocesses, including better supply chain flows. In Strategic Direction (2004), the mostimportant study of the decade was that by Brunet and New (2003), who concluded thatKaizen can be adapted to each company’s special circumstances and create a virtuouscircle in its processes and management. Lastly, Suarez-Barraza and Ramis-Pujol (2010)highlighted the importance of using Gemba-Kaizen for process innovation and forsaving time in the work processes found in public company services. Villarreal et al.(2011) made similar findings in connection with a Mexican multinational company.

The foregoing studies provide a sample of the literature that tries to explainGemba-Kaizen from the process innovation angle. Some of these studies, however,describe Gemba-Kaizen only from the standpoint of rapid shop floor activity similar to theKaizen Blitz[1] approach (Laraia et al., 1999). Accordingly, there is little empirical evidencefor understanding Gemba-Kaizen’s “philosophy” or core proposal when it comes tofostering implementation of process innovation methods. This also applies to short-termimprovements (Kaizen Blitz) and Kaizen as a new way of looking at the workplace.

More specifically, the main question we sought to answer in this study was:

RQ1. How was Gemba-Kaizen presented when it came to applying a processinnovation approach to a food multinational in Mexico?

We formulated two sub-questions in our enquiry:

RQ1.1. What differences are there between traditional and Gemba-Kaizen “officemanagement” when it comes to innovating processes?

RQ1.2. Is there any relationship between the effort put into implementingGemba-Kaizen and process innovation methods in a multinational foodcompany?

To answer the main research question and the two sub-questions, we first carried out aliterature review of the Gemba-Kaizen approach and related themes. In that review,we also looked at the application of the Gemba-Kaizen approach to a food multinationalin Mexico. The next step was to carry out an exploratory qualitative study based

IJQSS4,1

28

on a food multinational that had set up in Valle de Toluca, Mexico in 1998. The paper wasstructured as follows:

. An introduction.

. Literature review of the Gemba-Kaizen approach and process innovation.

. A description of the research methodology.

. The research results and the process innovation methodology employed in a foodmultinational, including qualitative empirical evidence.

. Conclusions, management implications and the benefits of applyingGemba-Kaizen.

2. Literature review2.1 Gemba-Kaizen definition and implicationsImai (1997) observes that “gemba” ( ) means “where things happen” and in a businesscontext might be translated as “the shop floor”[2]. In fact, Imai (1997) provides an examplein his book, indicating that the reporters covering the Kobe earthquake in 1995 did so fromthe “gemba”[3]. For Ohno (2007), “gemba” means the place where a company adds value.This is why Ohno (2007) translates “gemba” as “shop floor” or “workplace”, using theterm to embrace the shop floor at Toyota and also the staff who work there.

The shop floor is where the value-adding processes take place (Imai, 1997;Suarez-Barraza et al., 2009b). For Ohno (2007, p. 120) it is the only place where costs can becut, given work processes may involve non-value adding activities (Ohno, 1978; Imai,1986). That is why applying the Gemba approach (Ohno, 2007, p. 125) requires a basic ideaof the Japanese management system and the Kaizen or continuous improvement concept;because Kaizen activities are implemented through the identification and elimination ofwaste at every moment and for everyone in all workplace processes (Imai, 1986, 1997).Therefore, Imai (1997) considers that the application of Kaizen in the workplace can bestbe indicated using the term “Gemba-Kaizen”. In reviewing Imai’s book, some writers –such as Klefsjo (1997) – indicate that Gemba-Kaizen invites company managers to leavetheir offices and desks and work closer to the shop floor so that they can grasp what“coal-face” staff have to contend with, quality issues and/or waste in work processes. Thelessons learnt by managers can then be applied to improving and enhancing workprocesses cheaply and through the application of common sense.

Other authors use the term “Genchi-Genbutsu” which incorporates the “gembu” orworkplace element and adds the idea of “going to the workplace and understanding thesituation through direct observation” (Liker, 2004). Put simply, Gemba-Kaizen is basedon watching staff every moment of the day with a view to making improvements towork processes (Imai, 1997; Al Smadi, 2009; Suarez-Barraza et al., 2009a).

Lastly, other authors have related Gemba-Kaizen with the “Jishuken”process (Toyota’s plan improvement activity) (Imai, 1997; Hallum, 2007; Osono et al.,2008). In fact, Jishuken has two main purposes:

(1) to solve problems in the workplace that need management attention; and

(2) to correct, enrich and deepen understanding of Gemba-Kaizen by managementthrough first-hand, on-the-job application of the problem-solving principlesusing hands-on activity and coaching.


company

29

It differs from problem-solving activity conducted by production workers (“TeamMembers” in Toyota’s language) because Jishuken involves only management teams toidentify the problems and implement counter-measures (Marskberry et al., 2010).

2.2 Background to process innovation methodologiesInnovation is becoming a crucial issue for organizational learning in this new century(Dahlgaard-Park and Dahlgaard, 2010). Operational or process innovation is thestarting point for more complex efforts of innovation inside organizations (Harrington,1995). In this sense, process innovation appears in the literature in many varieties,schemes and modes concerning changes to company processes. Various authors havedescribed different approaches and perspectives, whose core idea might be simplystated as the systematic analysis of flows and processes with a view to improvingthem. Notwithstanding this variety, some authors have tried to group these approachesby their common features in order to facilitate independent analysis. These groupingshelp identify the techniques, methodologies and tools involved. They also allow one tomake comparisons of the application of each approach and the level of improvementsought. Each of these approaches can be identified and analysed as a function ofvarious factors and elements (Childe et al., 1994; MacDonald, 1995), such as:

. the degree of change or type of improvement;

. resources;

. the potential risk;

. the scope of improvement;

. the expectation of results and benefits; and

. time and cost requirements of making improvements.

Process innovation thus seeks improvement to or redesign of business processes with aview to boosting customer satisfaction and organisational efficiency and efficacy(Harrington, 1991). This is all carried out through review and continuous learning of thebest practices, which lead to radial redesign of a company’s obsolete and inefficientprocesses and thus to better performance (Harrington, 1995). Other contemporary authorssuch as Davenport and Short (1990, p. 24) defined it as: “the analysis and design ofworkflows and processes within and between organizations”. Years later, Davenport (1993,p. 14), re-christened his methodology “business process redesign”, defining it as: “the criticalanalysis and radical redesign of existing business processes to achieve breakthroughimprovements in performance measures”. In the literature, these authors are considered tobe the first to contribute theoretical concepts such as process innovation (Dumay, 1998, p. 4).Scholarly and practitioners’ literature on the subject reveals a wide range of innovationmethods and resources for companies (Tinnila, 1995). Table I provides a summary.

Nevertheless, such process innovation methodologies are hardly applied in LatinAmerican countries. In reviewing the literature on Latin America, only a handful ofreferences were found on the subject (Andreu et al., 1996; Araujo et al., 1998; Salgueiro,1999; Simon et al., 2004; Suarez-Barraza, 2010). The first was Salgueiro (1999) of theAsociacion Espanola de Normalizacion y Certificacion (AENC) (Spanish StandardsAuthority), which contains a methodology for documenting processes and creatingstandardised manuals on them. Much of the AENC’s work is based on that of Harrington(1991), who set out process mapping and documentation procedures. However, this

IJQSS4,1

30

Au

thor

sM

eth

odol

ogy

nam

eS

tep

s

Har

rin

gto

n(1

991,

1995

)B

usi

nes

sp

roce

ssim

pro

vem

ent

(BP

I)S

tag

e1.

Org

anis

ing

for

qualit

y.D

efin

ecr

itic

alp

roce

sses

,sel

ect

pro

cess

own

ers,

trai

nst

aff

and

esta

bli

shm

easu

res

Sta

ge

2.U

nder

stand

the

proc

ess.

Pro

du

cefl

owd

iag

ram

s,m

easu

rean

dan

aly

seef

fici

ency

and

cycl

eti

mes

Sta

ge

3.R

ati

onalis

epr

oces

ses.

Fin

dim

pro

vem

ents

and

dra

wu

pa

pla

nS

tag

e4.

Impl

emen

t,m

easu

reand

mon

itor

Sta

ge

5.C

onti

nuou

sIm

prov

emen

t.Im

ple

men

tB

PI

Lee

and

Ch

uah

(200

1)S

UP

ER

met

hod

olog

yfo

rB

PI

1.C

hoo

seth

ep

roce

ss2.

Un

der

stan

dth

ep

roce

ss3.

Mea

sure

the

pro

cess

4.E

xec

ute

the

pro

cess

5.A

sses

sim

pro

vem

ents

Gar

dn

er(2

001)

Con

tin

uou

sp

roce

ssim

pro

vem

ent

Sta

ge

1.G

ath

erd

ata

and

info

rmat

ion

onp

roce

ssp

erfo

rman

ceS

uar

ez-B

arra

zaet

al.

(200

9b)

Sta

ge

2.S

etp

roce

ssta

rget

Sta

ge

3.A

ssig

nre

spon

sib

ilit

yan

dal

ign

stra

teg

icob

ject

ives

Sta

ge

4.M

onit

orp

erfo

rman

cean

dm

anag

eth

eop

erat

ion

Dav

enp

ort

(199

3)B

usi

nes

sp

roce

ssin

nov

atio

n1.

Dev

elop

bu

sin

ess

vis

ion

2.Id

enti

fyth

efe

atu

res

ofk

eyp

roce

sses

3.U

nd

erst

and

and

mea

sure

the

per

form

ance

ofex

isti

ng

pro

cess

es4.

Dis

cov

ersu

cces

sfa

ctor

san

dim

ple

men

tati

onb

arri

ers

Dav

enp

ort

and

Sh

ort

(199

0)B

usi

nes

sp

roce

ssre

des

ign

1.D

evel

opth

eb

usi

nes

sv

isio

nan

dp

roce

ssob

ject

ives

Sh

ort

and

Ven

kat

ram

an(1

992)

2.Id

enti

fyth

ep

roce

sses

tob

ere

des

ign

ed3.

Un

der

stan

dan

dm

easu

reth

ep

erfo

rman

ceof

exis

tin

gp

roce

sses

4.D

esig

nan

db

uil

da

pro

cess

pro

toty

pe

and

imp

lem

ent

imp

rov

emen

ts

(con

tinued

)

Table I.Process innovation

methodologies found inthe literature


company

31

Au

thor

sM

eth

odol

ogy

nam

eS

tep

s

Elz

ing

aet

al.

(199

5)B

usi

nes

sp

roce

ssm

anag

emen

t1.

Pre

par

atio

n.

Defi

ne

key

imp

lem

enta

tion

fact

ors

Zai

ri(1

997)

2.S

elec

tth

ep

roce

ss3.

Des

crib

ean

dd

ocu

men

tth

ep

roce

ss4.

Pro

cess

qu

anti

fica

tion

5.S

elec

tion

ofim

pro

vem

ent

opp

ortu

nit

ies

6.Im

pro

vem

ent

imp

lem

enta

tion

Gu

ha

etal.

(199

7)A

lan

ge

and

Ste

iber

(200

9)B

usi

nes

sp

roce

ssch

ang

eP

has

e1.

Ch

ang

ing

the

env

iron

men

t.F

ind

the

rela

tion

ship

bet

wee

nst

rate

gic

init

iati

ves

,le

arn

ing

abil

ity

,in

form

atio

nte

chn

olog

yan

dor

gan

izat

ion

alcu

ltu

reP

has

e2.

Man

agem

ent

ofP

CB

s.M

anag

ing

pro

cess

esan

dm

anag

ing

chan

ge

Ph

ase

3.Im

pac

tof

PC

Bs

inor

gan

izat

ion

alp

erfo

rman

ce.

Imp

rov

ep

roce

sses

,q

ual

ity

ofli

fefo

rem

plo

yee

san

dcu

stom

ersa

tisf

acti

on

Source:

Des

ign

by

the

auth

ors

Table I.

IJQSS4,1

32

approach bears little on innovation and process redesign. These authors indicate that theapplication of process innovation yields in less radical changes than that posited by theorthodox process re-engineering model (Hammer and Champy, 1993) given that it allowsincremental innovation and process redesign to co-exist.

On the same lines, Suarez-Barraza (2010) provides a practical, global vision ofprocess innovation. Following Deming’s (1986) premise, the author notes that whatcannot be measured cannot be improved. One of the findings in his work on LatinAmerica is that it is vital “to understand processes before measuring them and, laterinnovating them”, employing direct observation in the workplace to these ends. Hedefines his methodology in the following terms: “A Gemba-Kaizen methodology which:continually seeks to discover, redesign, innovate and improve processes in a holistic,integrated fashion; boosts process performance; adds value; gives staff pride in theirachievements” (Suarez-Barraza, 2010, p. 54). Table II summarises his methodology.

2.3 Gemba-Kaizen applied in multinational companiesRecently, Aoki (2008) studied certain multinationals and how they had successfullytransferred the parent company’s Kaizen techniques in the workplace to theirsubsidiaries abroad. The authors studied China and noted how Kaizen applicationrequired: the elimination of waste; operational discipline; standardisation of processes;formal and informal communication channels. Basu and Miroshnik (1999) studied thehuman resources strategy in multinationals such as Nissan and Toyota in their UKoperations and concluded that although they did not achieve implementation of all thebasic elements of Japanese management systems (Kaizen and Lean Manufacturing) inBritain, they successfully internally implemented many Kaizen elements in theirrespective car plants there. Finally, Elsey and Fujiwara (2000) confirmed thatsuccessful Kaizen transfer depended largely on exchanging instructors on the subjectand focusing on workplace learning.

Literature on the subject is sparse in Latin America. In this respect, Forrester et al.(2010) concluded in their quantitative study that Lean-Kaizen techniques were becomingwidely adopted in Brazil’s farm machinery industry and that early-adopters hadimproved their performance and competitiveness. Ablanedo-Rosas et al. (2010)quantitatively studied 20 companies in an industrial cluster in Estado de Hidalgo(Hidalgo State) and the implementation of 5S as an element of Gemba-Kaizen but did notspecify how many of the firms were multinationals. Lastly, Landa-Aceves (2009) studiedthe implementation of Kaizen Blitz in “free-port” companies along Mexico’s border withthe USA but also failed to note how many of the five plants studied were multinationals.Although the literature is silent on the number of multinationals in the two studies onGemba-Kaizen application in Mexico, one can identify some elements that either foster orhinder successful implementation of this Japanese management philosophy.

Two studies by Suarez-Barraza and Ramis-Pujol (2010) focused on the applicationof Gemba-Kaizen to Mexican multinational firms (one public, the rest privately-owned).The first, by Suarez-Barraza and Ramis-Pujol (2010), explained the importance ofapplying a Gemba-Kaizen process innovation approach to a service provided by apublic company and demonstrated shorter, better-performing processes. The second,by Villarreal et al. (2011), was a case study of a British multinational textile companywith a factory in Cadereita, Mexico. It showed how the application of Gemba-Kaizenand process innovation improved plant performance, raised quality by 66.28 per cent,and cut raw material use from 3,000 WIP to 480.


company

33

No.

Sta

ge

Ste

ps

Ori

enta

tion

Too

ls

1U

nd

erst

and

ing

1.S

yst

emat

ical

lysc

hem

atis

ea

com

pan

y’s

wor

kto

un

der

stan

dp

roce

sses

and

thei

rin

terr

elat

ion

ship

sS

yst

emic

org

anis

atio

n(s

yste

mth

inki

ng)

Sy

stem

sd

iag

ram

2.D

eter

min

eth

eb

est

lev

elof

anal

ysi

sfo

rat

tain

ing

the

opti

mu

mle

vel

ofp

roce

ssin

nov

atio

n(m

acro

-or

mic

ro-p

roce

sses

)2

Sel

ecti

on1.

Det

erm

ine

the

clie

nt’

sn

eed

san

dk

eyre

qu

irem

ents

for

pro

cess

sele

ctio

nP

roce

ssan

dcl

ien

tP

roce

ssse

lect

ion

tab

le2.

Sel

ect

and

dec

ide

the

pri

orit

yp

roce

ssfo

rin

nov

atio

nin

the

lig

ht

ofth

ech

osen

var

iab

les

3D

ocu

men

tati

on/

map

pin

g1.

Doc

um

ent

the

exis

tin

gp

roce

ssP

roce

ssB

lock

dia

gra

mfl

owd

iag

ram

wit

hp

arti

cip

ants

2.Id

enti

fyth

ep

roce

ssfl

ows,

its

lim

its,

init

ial

ind

icat

ors

ofac

tiv

itie

sth

atd

on

otad

dv

alu

e,an

din

tern

alcl

ien

t-su

pp

lier

rela

tion

s4

Mea

sure

men

t1.

Gat

her

and

mea

sure

proc

ess

innov

ati

onin

dic

ato

rs(n

um

ber

ofac

tiv

itie

s,ti

me

cycl

e,op

erat

ion

alef

fici

ency

)fo

rth

ing

sas

they

stan

dP

roce

ssan

dm

ain

ten

ance

Tab

leof

ind

icat

ors

2.E

stab

lish

proc

ess

perf

orm

ance

indic

ato

rsand

mea

sure

thes

eaft

erre

des

ign

3.E

stab

lish

mea

sure

men

tin

dic

ator

sb

ased

oncl

ien

tre

qu

irem

ents

(clie

nt

sati

sfact

ion

indic

ato

rs)

5A

nal

ysi

s1.

Iden

tify

and

pri

orit

ise

opp

ortu

nit

ies

for

mea

suri

ng

was

tefu

lel

emen

tsin

the

pro

cess

Pro

cess

and

mai

nte

nan

ceA

nal

ysi

sof

acti

vit

ies

that

do

not

add

val

ue

6In

nov

atio

n/

red

esig

n1.

Dra

wu

pan

dim

ple

men

tan

inn

ovat

ion

pla

nD

aily

imp

rov

emen

tIn

nov

atio

np

lan

2.R

edes

ign

the

pro

cess

,st

ream

lin

ing

itas

far

asp

ossi

ble

7E

val

uat

ion

and

stan

dar

dis

atio

n1.

Ev

alu

ate

the

resu

lts

ofin

nov

atio

ns

and

thei

rim

pac

ton

pro

cess

per

form

ance

,as

cert

ain

ing

atw

hat

red

esig

nst

age

aw

ell-

defi

ned

pro

cess

isat

Dai

lyim

pro

vem

ent

Ev

alu

atio

nsh

eet

ofa

wel

l-d

efin

edp

roce

ssO

per

atin

gst

and

ard

s2.

Sta

nd

ard

ise

crit

ical

pro

cess

acti

vit

ies

3.D

isse

min

ate

the

less

ons

lear

nt

and

the

new

stan

dar

ds

Source:

Su

arez

-Bar

raza

(201

0)

Table II.Summary ofSuarez-Barraza’s processinnovation methodology(2010)

IJQSS4,1

34

Although studies are beginning to emerge in the literature on the application ofGemba-Kaizen in multinationals in Mexico and Latin America, there is a dearth ofempirical literature on the subject. Much of the scholarly literature centres on researchstudies in Japan, China and the USA (Basu and Miroshnik, 1999; Brunet and New, 2003;Aoki, 2008). There is also a great deal of academic and practitioner literature onsuccessful cases of Gemba-Kaizen application (chiefly as a technique) – mainly in theUSA and focusing on Kaizen or Kaizen Blitz events (Laraia et al., 1999). Gemba-Kaizenhas thus been little-studied from the academic angle and there is still a great deal tounderstand in the highly specific context of multinational companies operating inMexico and the rest of Latin America.

3. MethodologyBearing the foregoing comments and this paper’s explanatory nature in mind, there isa clear need to:

. delve into Gemba-Kaizen drivers; and

. establish the relationship between the approach and the context ofa multinational company.

Accordingly, the case study methodology was adopted (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994).This approach is particularly useful when the research needs to answer “how” and“why” questions (Yin, 1994). The methodology is also considered suitable for researchon operational management (Voss et al., 2002).

In this study, given the nature of the methodology and the research questions posed,the case of a multinational food firm was chosen. The firm had been operating in theindustrial cluster of Toluca, Mexico for 19 years and it was selected following thetheoretical sample criteria (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). The case chosen thus had greatscope for contributing to theoretical understanding and development. Pettigrew (1997)notes that the importance of this kind of sample selection lies not in the number of casesbut in an in-depth study in each case (Pettigrew, 1997, p. 342). Accordingly, such a caseshould lead one to create robust theories given that the emerging propositions are linkedto a wide range of the empirical evidence gathered (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).

To ensure data consistency, three data-gathering methods were used:

(1) direct observation;

(2) document analysis; and

(3) semi-structured interviews (Yin, 1994).

For the direct observation, at least five visits were made to each company chosen. The aimwas observe workplaces where the Gemba-Kaizen approach was being or had been applied.During this stage, snapshots were taken to record Gemba-Kaizen events before and after.This is of great importance in providing study evidence and drawing up the report. Duringthese visits, documentation was gathered on the application of the Gemba-Kaizen processinnovation methodology for subsequent analysis. This documentation included; trainingmanuals; web sites; formats; registry sheets; systems diagrams; flow charts; added valuetables. Lastly, an interview protocol and a database on the case study were drawn up tomake the study more reliable (Pettigrew, 1997). The main contact was the productionmanager, he focused on a process to which the innovation methodology was applied. The


company

35

plant manager and six production line workers directly involved in the process innovationwere interviewed separately. A total of eight interviews were held in August and December2010. These interviews strictly followed the research protocol but some flexibility wasadopted regarding certain responses that bore particularly on the subject. Each interviewwas transcribed within 48 h of being held and was exhaustive in terms of clarity and datasaturation. Everything that arose during the analysis was clarified with the contact personthrough mail and by telephone. Our data analysis sought to both ensure the validity of theconstruct through the use of multiple sources of evidence and carefully-planneddata-gathering. We also sought to increase the external validity of the research by makingmultiple comparisons with other case studies (Yin, 1994).

4. Introduction to the multinational food companyThis food and nutrition company is a world-renowned multinational and is present in sixcontinents. It has over 8,500 products, which are made in 480 factories sited in 70 countries.The company has over 253,000 workers worldwide. In Mexico, the company has13 factories in eight states, employing 5,600 staff and providing some 8,500 indirect jobs.

Given the company’s wide range of diverse products and to focus sales strategy inconsonance with specific market needs, the firm is split into strategic business units(SBUs), namely: lactic products; coffees; water; chocolates; sweets; frozen products; icecream; nutrition; cereals; culinary products; pet snacks. This study focused on thechocolates and sweets SBU. The factory for this SBU is sited in Toluca, some 40 min bycar from Mexico City. It began operations in 1992 with some 11 stock-keeping units(SKUs) and in 1995 expanded operations with the purchase of a competitor factory, whichthen had three plants. Production of the acquired firm’s chocolates began then, makingthe multinational parent company into one of the leading firms in the chocolate market. In1998, the original competitor factory’s plants stopped operating and manufacture of allthe products was transferred to the Toluca factory. The multinational’s chocolates andsweets division is currently one of the three leaders in its market, together with Hershey’sand Mars. It sells around 75 SKUs, some made in Mexico and others imported. It alsomakes some 20 SKUs for export to the USA and Central America.

Some years ago, the multinational went through a rough patch given that its operationsmanagement was top-heavy and complex. Its bureaucratic nature made decision-makingslow, which pushed up its costs and hurt its market share. That is why the multinationaldecided to certify its factory processes to the ISO 9000 norm. In theory, this meantintroducing a quality management system defining all manufacturing processes,including those at the Toluca plant. However, despite the effort put into improving workprocesses, the adoption of the ISO norm looked good on “paper” (documental issue) butmeant nothing on the ground. A small coterie of specialists had documented the plant’sprocesses from their desktops, far-removed from the realities of the workplace (the gemba).This proved a fatal flaw when it came to understanding processes because the flowdiagrams reflected a departmental bias. The plant manager commented:

When the ISO norm came in, we believed our operating efficiency would improve.Nevertheless, I think our strategy and approach failed. We underestimated the work involvedand thought it would be “a piece of cake”. What we forgot is that the action is on the shopfloor where people work. I believe that is why we failed (E-003-N-2010).

Given these problems, the company decided to change tack, investing in special trainingin the principles of Gemba-Kaizen. Once the training programme had ended, the engineer

IJQSS4,1

36

supervisor of SBU set up a Kaizen improvement team with a group of production lineworkers. The production line manufactured chocolate and covered 45 SKUs. The Kaizenimprovement team comprised the line supervisor and eight multi-tasking workers. Theybegan innovating chocolate manufacture using the Suarez-Barraza (2010) methodology,which is based on workplace realities. The following section discusses the application ofthe methodology to the process in question.

5. Applying Gemba-Kaizen in a multinational food companyAs noted in the literature section, the Suarez-Barraza (2010) methodology comprises sevensteps whose purpose is to thoroughly innovate and/or redesign a given process adoptingan approach that is wholly workplace-oriented. The following section shows how the foodmultinational in general and the chocolate production line applied the methodology.

5.1 Understanding the processStage 1 in understanding the process innovation methodology revealed all theinterdependencies in the firm’s existing process system. This enabled the company tograsp how its key aim, clients, outputs (products), inputs (raw materials), suppliers,business-critical and business-support processes were linked. The Kaizenimprovement team’s application of this stage is shown in Figure 1.

The systems diagram gives a holistic vision of the company’s processes and its corebusiness – the chocolates and sweets SBU. The diagram shows: the products –chocolates and sweets and their approximately 45 SKUs, and the firm’s wholesaleclients, supermarkets and end consumers, among others. Suppliers and the rawmaterials needed for the core process are also displayed. Critical processes (that is,those having a direct impact on clients and the product) are shown within the coreprocess. Support processes are those supporting the critical ones.

The first-level diagram or macro-processes diagram selected the fourth critical“manufacturing process” shown in the first systems diagram (Figure 1). Figure 2shows the second-level systems diagram or micro-processes.

Figure 1.First-level systems

diagram of the chocolatesand sweets SBU

First-level Systems DiagramStrategic Unit: Chocolates and Sweets

Critical Processes

DemandForecasting

Research anddevelopment

DemandPlanning

Manufacturing Distribution Sales

Manufacturing, Distribution and Sales ofchocolates and sweets

Support Processes

InformationTechnology

HumanResource

TechnicalIssues Finance Legal

CorporativeCommunication

INPUTS• Raw

Materials• Semi-

elaboratesproducts

• AssemblingMaterial

• PromotionalMaterial

SUPPLIERS• Supplier of first,second, and third

tiers

OUTPUTSChocolatesand Sweets(aprox. 45

SKU´s)

CLIENTS• Retailers

• Supermarkets• Wholesale

• Government• Final Consumer

Process of Actors• International

employees• Plant’s employees

• Shareholders


company

37

5.2 Process selectionUsing the Kaizen team’s second-level systems diagram of the aforesaid firm, weidentified likely processes for innovation in: the manufacture of chocolates and sweets;the supply process, given its complexity; opportunities that line workers had observedin the workplace. The selection criteria proposed by Harrington (1991) were adopted inidentifying the process for improvement by the Kaizen team. These criteria were:

. susceptibility to change;

. process performance;

. company impact; and

. client impact.

Once the Kaizen improvement team had analysed these four criteria, it drew up aselection matrix with a scale of one to ten, with “0” indicating no application of a givencriterion and “10” full application of the criterion. Each of the candidate processes forredesign was rated accordingly. Table III shows the results.

The process selected – the chocolate manufacturing process – was the one thatscored highest.

Figure 2.Second-level diagramof the chocolates andsweets SBU

Second-level Systems diagram

Critical Processes

ManufacturingPlanning Procurement

Manufacturingof Chocolates

Manufacturingof Sweets

Manufacturing

Support Processes

IndustrialSecurity

HumanResource

QualityAssurance Engineering

AdministrativeProcess

IndustrialEngineering

INPUTS• Raw

Materials• Semi-

elaboratesproducts

• AssemblingMaterial

SUPPLIERS• AdquistionDepartment

• ForescatingDemand• ExternalSuppliers

OUTPUTSChocolatesand Sweets(aprox. 45

SKU´s)

INTERNALCLIENT

Distribution

Selection criteriaSupplyprocess

Chocolatemanufacture process

Sweetsmanufacture

process

Client dissatisfaction with process result 8 7 9Control over process operation 9 9 9Willingness to change 7 10 6Support for a possible improvement project 4 8 5Benefits obtained from the improvement 9 10 10Likelihood of success 6 8 7Relevance for company and staff 5 9 7Consideration of clients’ demands and needs 4 7 7Total 52 68 60

Table III.Selection matrix –candidate processesfor redesign

IJQSS4,1

38

5.3 Mapping the processOnce the Kaizen improvement team had selected the process, it then went on to“document it (Step 3) and draw up a process map.” The reason for applying Step 3 layin the need to understand the detailed operations in the workplace. The two criteriathat the Kaizen improvement team bore in mind during this step were:

(1) Documentation of the present situation. It is important to document the situationas it really is and not as an ideal. For this purpose, the Kaizen improvementteam must go to the workplace to document the process through directobservation. The aim here is to quickly and accurately visualise all wasteemerging from the process flow.

(2) Identify the process flow, “its limits”, “activities that do not add value”(indications of waste are graphically shown using the cloud symbol) and“internal client-supplier relations”.

In this respect, the block diagram is the first step in applying a diagram descriptiontool. Its purpose is to make a general description of the sequence of a givenprocess. The block diagram drawn up by the Kaizen improvement team is shownin Figure 3.

Once the Kaizen improvement team had drawn up the block diagram, it used thetool to map the process in detail through flow diagrams. The symbols used todocument processes follow American National Standard Institute (ANSI), which isunique to process innovation and redesign. The standard’s purpose is not to produce aprocess manual. Accordingly, the ANSI symbols serve to “flag” potentially wastefulactivities. An example is given below (first page of the diagram), mapping the existingchocolates manufacturing process (Figure 4).

5.4 Process measurementProcess measurement is the next step in the methodology. In fact, measuring theexisting process gave the Kaizen improvement team a benchmark when implementinginnovation and redesign actions. The indicators to be borne in mind in attempting tograsp how the process worked before innovating and redesigning it are:

(1) The number of activities making up the process. Each of the process activitiesmapped are numbered to find their total number:

No: of activities ¼ 142

(2) Number of process participants (people or areas). If one follows the flow diagramand participants to map the process, one can establish how many actors thereare in the process. The total number of participants was seven people, splitbetween three areas:

. Programming area:

– Programming.. Manufacturing area:

– Manufacturing co-ordinator.

– Line technicians.


company

39

– Moulding operator.

– Materials control operator.

– Packaging operator.. Storage area:

– Goods lift operator.

(3) Process cycle times. The process cycle time spans from process commencementto completion. The Kaizen improvement team measured it, following all theflows in three samples:

Figure 3.Block diagram showingthe manufacturing process

START

Establish production program

Work groups sand shift planning

Make a plan of working processstocks and boot scripts

Request of order of production

Request inputs of warehouse

Produce semi-elaborate products

Manufacturing final products

Distributionts steps

END

IJQSS4,1

40

Average process cycle time ¼ 12 days

5.5 Process analysisThe next step was to sift through the information to identify parts of the process thatposed problems or revealed waste. Table IV shows the analysis of each existingactivity revealed by the process map.

As Table IV shows, 50 per cent of the activities in the chocolates manufacturingprocess do not add value (i.e. 71 out of 142) and thus represent waste.Accordingly, the process was full of activities which were unreliably repeated jobsthat merely hindered process flow. Table V summarises the chocolates manufacturingprocess.

Figure 4.Flow diagrams showing

the existing chocolatesmanufacturing process

Programapproval byProductionCoordinator

START

Meeting to reviewproduction program

Demand planner

Reviewproductionprogram

Meeting with HumanResources to evaluate staff

capacity

Production coordinator

Is there enoughpersonnel?

Elaboration ofSchedule document

Production coordinator

Printdocument

Hand in toHR (support

process)

1

Data capture inpayroll

Shiftsupervisor

Attention toproduction

line activities

Review semi-elaborated

stock

Calculation of stockscope

Shift Supervisor

Is there enoughstock?

Go to DemandPlanner

Meeting to requestprocess orders

Demand Planner andShift Supervisor

Creation process orders

Demand Planner

Request ofstock

Shift Supervisorback to office

View process orders inIT system

Shift supervisor

Checkprocessorders

Are the processorders correct?

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

Transfer toproduction linewith operator

Notify the mouldingoperator and control

material operator thatthe orders are ready

Shift Supervisor

Is there enoughstock in tank?

Machine procedures on

Moulding Operator

Transfer mass fromtank to tempering

machine

Heat the mass

Moulding Operator

Mass heating

2

3

Chocolate massin ideal state for

process?

NO

NO

YES

YES

Inspectionof mouldingoperatingconditions

Quality control document

Moulding operator

Correctmouldingoperating

conditions?

Fix operatingconditions

Mouldingoperator

Quality controldocument

Mouldingoperator

Transfer mass fromtempering machine to

moulding depositor

NO

YES

Vent moulding line

Moulding Operator

Tank filling

Inject chocolate in moulds

Moulding Operator

Inspection ofinjectionoperatingconditions

Continues to activity 142

HumanResources

Supportprocess

STARTSWorking process

of chocolateproducts

Subprocess

ENDSWorking process

of chocolateproducts

Subprocess

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

MUDA 1

MUDA 2

MUDA 3

MUDA 4

MUDA 5

MUDA 8

MUDA 9

MUDA 10

MUDA 11

MUDA 13

MUDA 12

MUDA 6

MUDA 7

MUDA 18

MUDA 17

MUDA 20

MUDA 16

MUDA 15

MUDA 19

MUDA 18

MUDA 14

MUDA 21

MUDA 22

MUDA 23

Limits (starting orending activities) Inspection Delay

Process-activityElectronictransport

Notation

Flow linesTransport-movement

Connector

Decision Document Storage


company

41

5.6 Process redesignOnce the Kaizen team had finished its analysis, it proposed a set of improvementsin redesigning the process. The improvement measures included: the creation of operatingstandards; the scrapping of bureaucratic activities (unnecessary meetings, staff movements,superfluous quality control); training staff in new operations standards; identifying waste inthe process; balancing work loads based on a new task time. The measures taken are givenin the Kaizen report below, which sets out the redesign actions taken.

Kaizen report:

(1) Chocolates manufacturing process:. Ensure that information systems, mainly SAP/R3, are more reliable and

automated throughout the process.. Improve inter-stage communication in the information systems to ensure

that the information gathered is available to everyone involved in theprocess, allowing them to consult such information without having to movefrom one area to another.

. Train staff in the handling and effective use of all information systemapplications so that they can work at full capacity.

. Draw up process standards to make activities clearer, more robust andstable whilst ensuring full visibility of the process.

. Train staff in using and monitoring standards to avoid errors and wastefuluse of resources.

Chocolate manufacture processActivity type Flowchart symbol Count

Transport 8

Decisions 13

Inspection 13

Internal documents 9

Delay –

Activities that do not add value 25

Electronic transport 3

Total 71

Table IV.Analysis of thechocolates manufacturingprocess

IJQSS4,1

42

. Implement the 5S programme to order work.

. Standardise task times for activities and processes.

. Train co-ordinators in the measurement of task times, work loads and the

identification of waste in the process.

. Foster the use of e-mails and other electronic means to keep staff informed

and to avoid unnecessary meetings.

(2) Tangible impacts after the improvements:

. After the improvement measures, process activities were slashed from 142 to

71 (50 per cent of activities represented waste). The cycle time was cut from

Number Activity Classification MUDA type

1 Meeting to review production program Activity Activity that does not addvalue

2 Review production program Inspection Unnecesary inspection4 Program approval by production coordinator Decision Unnecesary decision5 Meeting with human resources to evaluate

staff capacityActivity Activity that does not add

value6 Is there enough personnel? Decision Unnecesary decision7 Elaboration of schedule document Document Unnecesary document8 Print document Activity Unnecesary copy9 Hand into HR (support process) Transport Unnecesary worker

movement13 Calculation of stock scope Activity Activity that does not add

value15 Is there enough stock? Decision Unnecesary decision16 Send e-mail stock request Electronic

transferUnnecesary transfer

17 Go to demand planner Transport Activity that does not addvalue

18 Meeting to request process orders Activity Activity that does not addvalue

19 Creation process orders Activity Activity that does not addvalue

20 Shift supervisor back to office Transport Unnecesary workermovement

23 Are the process orders correct? Decision Unnecesary decision24 Transfer to production line with operator Transport Unnecesary worker

movement25 Notify the moulding operator and control

material operator that the orders are readyActivity Activity that does not add

value27 Is there enough stock in tank? Decision Unnecesary decision31 Chocolate mass in ideal state for process? Decision Unnecesary decision34 Correct moulding operating conditions? Decision Unnecesary decision35 Fix operating conditions Activity Activity that does not add

value36 Quality control document Document Unnecesary document

Table V.Summary of waste

in the chocolatesmanufacturing process


company

43

an average of 12 days before the improvements to 7.07 days – 41 per centfaster.

Once the Kaizen improvement team’s actions had all been successfully concluded, theprocess was redesigned using a block diagram, indicating: the participant who wouldcarry out the activity, the time for each activity in the process; the sequence of theredesigned process. The block diagram is shown in Figure 5.

6. Conclusions and managerial aspects of using a Gemba-Kaizen processinnovation frameworkThere are various benefits in using methodological approaches such as Gemba-Kaizenfor process innovation, as is shown by the experience of the multinational foodcompany in this case. Let us consider the question: what differences are there betweentraditional office management and management based on Gemba-Kaizen when itcomes to process innovation? The answer is that the Kaizen improvement team yieldedgreater benefits because it was based in the workplace and could directly observe allthe activities representing waste in the manufacturing of chocolates. The spotlight was

Figure 5.Block diagram of theredesigned process for themanufacture of chocolates

START

Electronic delivery of the production program in SAPSystem. Accompanied by an automatic launch of orders

to process according to the capacity and task timestandardized line.

PLANNING OFFICER15 min

2 STEPS

Set up templates of production according to anelectronic interface that allows you to see the

availability of staff.Automatic capture of labour at thetime that the Coordinator of manufacture will end fill

their production staff

COORDINADTOR OF MANUFACTURE60 min

2 STEPS

Inspect the stock of semi-manufactured, consultationprocess orders in the system that were automatically

released and releases the order process

SUPPORT PRODUCTION LINE TECHNICIAN30 min

3 STEPS

Boot sequence begins and temperateaccording to production programme andto the standard line. Performs throughout

the process of transformation ofchocolate until it is delivered in packaging

machine.

MODEL OPERATOR7 days

28 STEPS.

Check the order of process, verifies andreceives packaging material and delivers it

in packaging machines.

RAW MATERIAL OPERATOR3hrs

6STEP.

Receives material need, located in thecellar and pay according to the task time

line.

TRANSPORT OPERATOR1 hour

8 STEPS

Receive material on your machine, installs it and adjust theparameters of the machine to deliver the product involved

and stocked distribution.

PACKAGING OPERATOR6.5days

33 STEPS.

END

IJQSS4,1

44

put on waste that had hitherto lain hidden, confirming Imai (1997) and Ohno’s (2007)findings. When the company’s plant manager asked why the production processaveraged 12 days before the chocolates were ready for delivery, the answer was alwaysan endless stream of complaints and mutual recriminations by the sections involved. Inother words, it was impossible to visualise the process from the boardroom andidentify the host of activities (50 per cent of the total) that added no value whatsoever.In fact, the Kaizen improvement team showed the rest of the plant, including itsmanager, the importance of Gemba-Kaizen through detailed process mapping andanalysis of the waste found.

From this point on, specific improvement objectives could be set usingthis combination of methodologies to create a virtuous circle of ongoingimprovements in plant operation. Managers in other areas of the company alsolearnt a great deal from the experience and are now focusing on process innovationusing Gemba-Kaizen for this purpose. Five management implications emerge from thiscase:

(1) The introduction of a management approach based on Gemba-Kaizen allowsidentification of what “really” adds value for the company and end clients.

(2) The application of a structured, proven innovation methodology led to rapid,major changes in the firm’s operating processes.

(3) Using staff who work in the gemba (workplace) and know its daily processesand activities like nobody else is vital to achieving active employeeparticipation, continuous improvement and process redesign. This ensuresthat staff take a more pro-active vision of problem-solving and identify allactivities that do not add value.

(4) The process-based focus enabled the multinational food company in question toadopt horizontal management centred on the workplace, where the beginningand end of the process were visualised and the needs of both internal andexternal clients could be established. Process innovation helped the companypropose improvements to the way things were done, eliminate wasteand understand the sequence of critical plant processes. Based on theevidence found in this and other cases, bureaucracy builds up in companies,strangling processes with red tape.

(5) Full support for the improvement effort by top managers of the plant,this finding confirms other studies in the literature (Swartling and Olausson,2011).

It only remains for our second sub-question to be answered, namely: is there anyrelationship between the effort put into implementing Gemba-Kaizen and processinnovation methods in a multinational food company? Answering according to theevidence it is that the application of a Gemba-Kaizen-based innovation methodologyallowed the multinational company to develop a single, integrated methodology forinnovate their processes. Accordingly, one can conclude that there is a link betweenboth methodological approaches in this particular case study. Nevertheless, this findingconfirms what is stated in the literature of the original authors and in recent studies(Imai, 1997; Ohno, 2007; Marskberry et al., 2010). As a result of the field work, we putforward a theoretical framework (Figure 6) that captures the nature of this link.


company

45

It is important to note that the data obtained from this case providesa snapshot of the phenomena studied but cannot be used to establish causalrelationships.

As in all research based on a case study, this paper has its limitations. The mostobvious one is that all the findings are based on a case study. Another difficulty is toobjectively handle the vast quantity of data produced by the fieldwork, making it hardto evaluate the relationships that may exist within the studied phenomenon(Eisenhardt, 1989). Last but not least, there was no direct evaluation of the impactthe application of the Gemba-Kaizen approach on the company’s performance. Theselimitations notwithstanding, our research contributes to the existing literature throughan empirical study that reveals methodological relationships and their specificapplication. Clearly, the study may be extended to other industrial sectors or servicesto corroborate the framework identified.

Notes

1. “Blitz” being German for “lightning”.

2. “Workplace” has been substituted for “gemba” throughout save in the purely linguisticdiscussion of the Japanese word and in the term “Gemba-Kaizen”.

Figure 6.Process innovationframework within theGemba-Kaizen approach

Understanding

Selection

Mapping

Measure

Analysis

RedesingInnovation

Evaluate/Standardize

ProcessInnovation

Gemba-KaizenApproach

Participation(Gemba-Kaizen

Teams)

Leader(Improvement

Agent)

Support withClear action of

TopManagers

GembaManagementInformation

Management

Source: Design own

IJQSS4,1

46

3. For English-speaking readers, this is clearly quite a different context, which one mightrender as “ground zero” or “the scene of destruction”.

References

Ablanedo-Rosas, H., Alidaee, B., Moreno, J.C. and Urbina, J. (2010), “Quality improvementsupported by the 5S, an empirical case study of Mexican organisations”, InternationalJournal of Production Research, Vol. 48 Nos 23/24, pp. 7063-87.

Alange, S. and Steiber, A. (2009), “The board’s role in sustaining major organizational change:an empirical analysis of three change programs”, International Journal of Quality andService Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 280-93.

Al Smadi, S. (2009), “Kaizen strategy and the drive for competitiveness: challenges andopportunities”, Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3,pp. 203-11.

Andreu, R., Ricart, J.E. and Valor, J. (1996), “Innovaciœn de procesos y cambio organizativo”,Harvard Deusto Business Review, No. 70, pp. 24-37.

Aoki, K. (2008), “Transferring Japanese Kaizen activities to overseas plants inChina”, International Journal of Operation & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 6,pp. 518-39.

Araujo, A., Churruca, E. and Landeta, J. (1998), “La reingenierıa de procesos: ¿Una nueva ymilagrosa tecnica de gestion?”, Harvard Deusto Busines Review, No. 83, pp. 83-93(in Spanish).

Basu, D. and Miroshnik, V. (1999), “Strategic human resource management of Japanesemultinationals: a case study of Japanese multinational companies in the UK”, The Journalof Management Development, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 714-32.

Brunet, A.P. and New, S. (2003), “Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1426-46.

Childe, S.J., Maull, R.S. and Bennet, J. (1994), “Frameworks for understanding business processre-engineering”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14No. 12, pp. 22-34.

Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. and Dahlgaard, J.J. (2010), “Organizational learnability and innovability:a system for assessing, diagnosing and improving innovations”, International Journal ofQuality and Service Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 153-74.

Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through InformationTechnology, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.

Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. (1990), “The new industrial engineering: informationtechnology and business process redesign”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4,pp. 11-27.

Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT/CAES, Cambridge, MA.

Dumay, M. (1998), “Business processes: the theoretical impact of process thinking oninformation systems development”, Business Process, Delft University of Technology,Delft, pp. 1-22.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities andchallenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.


company

47

Elsey, B. and Fujiwara, T. (2000), “Kaizen and technology transfer instructors as work basedlearning facilitators in overseas transplants: a case study”, Journal of Workplace Learning,Vol. 12 No. 8, pp. 333-42.

Elzinga, J., Horak, T., Lee, C. and Bruner, C. (1995), “Business process management: surveyand methodology”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 42 No. 2,pp. 119-28.

Forrester, P., Shimizu, U., Soriano-Meier, H., Garza-Reyes, J. and Cruz-Basso, L. (2010),“Lean production, market share and value creation in the agricultural machinerysector in Brazil”, Journal Manufacturing Technology of Management, Vol. 21 No. 7,pp. 853-71.

Gardner, R.A. (2001), “Resolving the process paradox”, Quality Progress, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 51-9.

Guha, S., Grover, V., Kettinger, W. and Teng, T. (1997), “Business process change andorganizational performance: exploring an antecedent model”, Journal of ManagementInformation Systems, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 119-54.

Hallum, M. (2007), “The Japanese connection”, IET Engineering Management, Vol. 17 No. 4.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for BusinessRevolution, Harper Business, New York, NY.

Harrington, H.J. (1991), Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for TotalQuality, Productivity and Competitiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Harrington, H.J. (1995), “Continuous versus breakthrough improvement finding theright answer”, Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3,pp. 31-49.

Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen – The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, Random House, New York, NY.

Imai, M. (1997), Gemba Kaizen, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Imai, M. (2006), “‘What is total flow management” under Kaizen approach?”, Day of KaizenCourse, Barcelona, Spain, 3rd ed.

Klefsjo, B. (1997), “A review of the book ‘Gemba Kaizen: the common-sense approach to businessmanagement’”, Quality Progress, Vol. 30 No. 11, p. 123.

Landa-Aceves, J.A. (2009), “Factores de exito y permanencia en eventos Kaizen:aplicacion en la industrial maquiladora al norte de Mexico”, Sinnco, No. 3, pp. 1-20(in Spanish).

Laraia, A.C., Moody, P. and Hall, R. (1999), The Kaizen Blitz: Accelerating Breakthroughs inProductivity and Performance, Routledge, Iowa, IA.

Lee, K.T. and Chuah, K. (2001), “A SUPER methodology for business process improvement:an industrial case study in Hong Kong/China”, International Journal of Operations& Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 5/6, pp. 687-706.

Liker, J. (2004), The Toyota Way, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

MacDonald, J. (1995), “Together TQM and BPR are winners”, TQM Magazine, Vol. 7 No. 3,pp. 21-5.

Marksberry, P., Badurdeen, F., Gregory, B. and Kreafle, K. (2010), “Management directed kaizen:toyota’s Jishuken process for management development”, Journal ManufacturingTechnology of Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 670-86.

Neese, M. (2007), “A foundation for continuous improvement”, Circuits Assembly, Vol. 18 No. 7,pp. 50-1.

Ohno, T. (1978), The Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-scale Production, ProductivityPress, Portland, OR.

IJQSS4,1

48

Ohno, T. (2007), Workplace Management, JMA Management Center, Tokyo.

Osono, E., Shimizu, N. and Takeuchi, H. (2008), Extreme Toyota, Radical Contradictions that

Drive Success at the World’s Best Manufacturer, Wiley, Tokyo.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1997), “What is a processual analysis?”, Scandinavian Journal of Management,Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 337-48.

Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2003), Qualitative Research Practice, Sage, London.

Salgueiro, A. (1999), Como Mejorar los Procesos y la Productividad, AENOR, AsociacionEspanola de Normalizacion y Certificacion, Madrid (in Spanish).

Short, J.E. and Venkatraman, N. (1992), “Beyond business process redesign:redefining Baxter’s business network”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 1,pp. 7-21.

Simon, K., Olazaran, M., Igeregi, I. and Sierra, F. (2004), “El papel de las consultoras en lasintroduccion de nuevos conceptos de gestion. Reingenierıa de procesos en la CAV”,Conference Proceeding del Cuarto Congreso de Economıa de Navarra, pp. 565-84(in Spanish).

Strategic Direction (2004), “Kaizen at Nippon: behind the theory”, Strategic Direction, Vol. 20No. 5, pp. 23-5.

Suarez-Barraza, M.F. (2010), Innovacion de Procesos, Toluca, Estado de Mexico, Agora Medios(in Spanish).

Suarez-Barraza, M.F. and Ramis-Pujol, J. (2010), “Implementation of Lean-Kaizen in the humanresource service process: a case study in a Mexican public service organization”, Journal of

Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 388-410.

Suarez-Barraza, M.F., Ramis-Pujol, J. and Tort-Martorell, X. (2009a), “Continuous processimprovement: conclusions and recommendations”, International Journal of Quality and

Service Science, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 96-112.

Suarez-Barraza, M.F., Smith, T. and Dahlgaard-Park, S. (2009b), “Lean-Kaizen public service:an empirical approach in Spanish local governments”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2,pp. 143-67.

Swartling, D. and Olausson, D. (2011), “Continuous improvement put into practice: alternativeapproaches to get a successful quality program”, International Journal of Quality and

Service Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 337-51.

Tinnila, M. (1995), “Strategic perspective to business process redesign”, Management Decision,Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 25-34.

Villarreal, B., Rodrıguez, J.C., Chereti, Y., LLanas, V. and Martın, B. (2011), “A Kaizen approachfor improving performance: an application”, Papers Internos de la Universidad de

Monterrey (UDEM), Mexico, pp. 1-7.

Voss, C., Sikriktsis, N. and Frohlic, M. (2002), “Case research in operationsmanagement”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22No. 2, pp. 195-219.

Yin, R. (1994), Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Zairi, M. (1997), “Business process management: a boundarylessapproach to modern competitiveness”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 3No. 1, pp. 64-80.


company

49

Further reading

Rohleder, T. and Silver, E. (1997), “A tutorial on business process improvement”, Journal ofOperations Management, No. 15, pp. 139-54.

Sheridan, J. (1997), “Kaizen Blitz”, Industry Week, Vol. 246 No. 16, pp. 19-27.

Sirkin, H. and Stalk, G. (1990), “Fix the process, not the problem”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 26-33.

Corresponding authorManuel F. Suarez-Barraza can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

IJQSS4,1

50

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

kaizen work study in a national food market

Documents

process innovation methodology

process management

process redesign

amultinational food

key business process

food industry

conceptual framework

processinnovation framework