Danelle Rowley
Problem-Solving Critique
1/22/2009
A Critique of the Kaizen Problem-Solving Tool
A. Kaizen for Continuous Improvement
Kaizen is a Japanese management method that has been used since the 1950’s. It is a combination of the words “kai,” meaning change, and “zen,” meaning good. The method of Kaizen applied to a management situation promotes continuous improvement and the elimination of “muda,” or waste. Toyota is one of the main companies known for employing Kaizen on the production lines in the Toyota Production System, or TPS. Kaizen has also been compared to the Theory of Constraints (TOC), Lean Manufacturing, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Continuous Improvement Process (CIP, or CI). Kaizen is being applied to new situations, such as the teaching and medical professions. In the graduate business school study by Emiliani (2005, p.41), Kaizen is described as being a bottom-up tool that can be used to bring about good change and reduce waste without initiating large-scale disruptions. I chose to critique the method of Kaizen because of my interest in the teaching profession and its possibilities to help continuously improve teaching outcomes.
B. Kaizen as a Way to Improve Higher Education
The missions of many schools tend to boast that they are high quality, they promote excellence, and are constantly improving themselves to better serve their students. Accrediting agencies like The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) also check graduate business school degree programs to ensure that they fulfill specific standards. However, many of these standards focus more on the school’s mission, curriculum, and faculty qualifications, and less on other things that are still of value to students (Emiliani, 2005, p.38). These overlooked standards could be processes like course registration, adding/dropping courses, plan of study, transfer credit, issuing final grades, dispute resolution, obtaining and using student feedback, etc. The AASCB does not even define what it means by “continuous improvement,” leaving the interpretation vague at best. While these graduate schools may focus on passing accreditation, the customers – students – may be left out of the equation.
Kaizen focuses on the activities that create value to the customer. In his article, Emiliani (ibid, p.38) goes on to quote one of the main mantras used in Kaizen as “continuous, incremental improvement of an activity to eliminate waste, unevenness, and unreasonableness (called muda, mura, and muri in Japanese) and create more value.” Unfortunately, many schools do not consciously realize the importance of eliminating waste and creating more value. When a school has problems or is running over-budget, usually the reaction a school leader will take is to increase tuition fees, cut programs, and/or lay people off. This is not a change for the better, and it will not improve a student’s perception of a school’s management process. Emiliani also gives the example of a manager justifying his cuts by saying “we looked at the numbers,” when it should be “we looked at the process” to understand and eliminate costs that customers do not value (ibid p.39).
C. Approach of Using Kaizen in the EMP
In the study of which Emiliani took part, conducted at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Executive Master’s Program (EMP) at the School of Business, the “customers” – students – are very discerning and expect a lot from their investment in this business Master’s program (ibid, p.40). Many of the students are “high potential,” have at least 10-20 years of business experience, at least six years of management experience, and need company sponsorship to enter the program. The EMP is a part-time program and will prepare the participants for more senior leadership positions. The curriculum consists of ten courses that focus on new product development, management decision-making, implementation, etc. The program includes international trips to visit global Fortune 500 businesses.
The reasons that Kaizen was picked as an improvement tool over other programs like TQM or re-engineering are due to the facts that these other programs can take a long time to implement; using these programs can be complex and confusing; many employees may resist changes; senior management may be uninterested; and that a big shake-up was not necessarily the goal. With Kaizen, the primary objective is “rapid improvement of a specific degree program,” and not an actual change to the “entire organization’s value-creating activities” (ibid, p.40). This change would be a more small-scale, bottom-up opportunity by involving the professors more than the senior management.
The Kaizen specialists outlined the responsibilities of management and other employees. Senior management would be committed in the process and involved in close-out meetings, every employee was informed of the benefits of participating in Kaizen, Kaizen would be independent of the formal administrative performance evaluation for professors, and that the Kaizen specialists would also need to gather data outside of the classroom for a more holistic approach. Senior management enthusiastically approved to this outlined plan.
The actual Kaizen process lasted for two days, although in the industrial profession Kaizen can last to four or five days. The Kaizen specialists participated in on-the-job learning and examined and critically thought about the processes being performed, looking for ways to eliminate waste and create more value for the end-use customers. Problems in a process were identified, measured, and corrected. Most of the improvements were rapid, being made during the Kaizen activity. Since everyone was observed, involved, and included, the Kaizen also “engaged people at all levels of an organization and promoted teamwork” (ibid, p.41). There were five different recording forms involved in the Kaizen activity: Pre-Kaizen self-assessments (to define status quo), an activity sheet (to define the future state), a target sheet (to measure improvement), a daily record (to summarize accomplishments), and a 30-day follow-up chart (to document follow-up activities). These records helped document the process improvements and made the changes more permanent.
D. Outcome of Using Kaizen
The Kaizen went smoothly and was viewed very favorably by the senior management, professors, staff, and students. Some of the big improvements that came from the Kaizen were processes that the professors could improve. For some of the improvements, professors were encouraged to “eliminate ambiguity in syllabi related to grading criteria and assignments, to eliminate variation in duplicate teaching materials, such as the same case study used in two courses, and for each class for the professor to state orally and in writing the learning objectives” (ibid, p.44). Content utility and technology needed to be updated with real business settings and new technologies. Learning opportunities needed to be expanded and student participation needed to be increased. Rather than students being graded solely on a mid-term and a final, professors were encouraged to change the format to 4-12 graded assignments.
At the conclusion of the Kaizen, the participants were asked to share their insights. Many reported that the changes made were “better aligned with student expectations” (ibid, p.45). This tied in with one of the objectives of Kaizen, creating more value for the customer. Faculty, staff, and alumni were also able to interact in ways they had not done before, and there was a great sense of camaraderie.
A problem that arose during the Kaizen was that a few professors felt threatened when senior managers were team members and sat in on classes (ibid, p.45). With better communication to faculty about the objectives of Kaizen, this problem may be diminished or eliminated. Another problem came at the close-out meetings where people were briefed on the changes initiated (ibid, p.46). In some cases, the attendance of these meetings was low, which could be perceived as a lack of interest.
E. Evaluation of Kaizen
When evaluating this specific example of Kaizen in a Master’s business program, it achieved its goals in eliminating waste and creating more value for the student. One reason why it was a success is that the professors and much of the staff were on board from the beginning. Senior management was also enthusiastic with the process and participating in the Kaizen. This could be due to the fact that Emiliani, one of the professors at the school, suggested the use of Kaizen and the faculty appreciated his opinion. Emiliani (ibid, p. 46) also points out that the “faculty generally have low regard for administrators, so their ideas are routinely viewed with skepticism.” Further, administrators may tend to “explain the need for improvement and benefits of participation poorly” (ibid, p.46), making it hard for professors and staff to get “on board” with the new changes.
Specifically, the improvements that came around from this Kaizen are improvements that many public schools have already been making in accordance with state standards, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and the Constructivist Theory of Learning. Learning objectives are explicitly stated, both written and orally, at the beginning of each class period. Standards are explicitly stated and plans are designed around them. Teachers include specific rubrics and grading criteria to make it easier for students to complete assignments. Teachers have also moved away from grading purely by mid-terms and finals, and have moved to project-based learning and assessments to give learning a more real-world feel. Some of these improvements would be redundant; however, the public school system could benefit from using Kaizen to continuously improve its activities.
Evaluating Kaizen in general, it can be a very useful tool in bringing about good change and continuous improvement. Since it is more concerned with eliminating waste and creating more value, it does not necessarily overhaul systems already in place and can be implemented on a smaller-scale, and even from the bottom-up. It can still run into the same problems as other systems – if employees or administration are not interested in improving processes, Kaizen will not work as intended. Participants must be willing to make change and critically evaluate the status quo. Also, for Kaizen to work properly, senior management must communicate goals effectively, as well as let participants know that there is a no-blame policy in effect.
F. Applying Kaizen to Various Management Situations
Kaizen can be used in many management situations, due to the fact that any employee can use and benefit from the idea of continuous improvement through eliminating waste and creating more value for the customer. Minimal disruptions occur through the use of Kaizen, and it can be used from the bottom-up. Kaizen has been successfully applied to the auto industry at Toyota, and is also being applied to the teaching and medical professions with good results. One specific situation that could benefit from Kaizen could be while an employee is serving a customer, identifying redundancies or things that could be viewed as waste, and refining the process and using the new changes with the next customer, and so on. Another situation could be in HR meetings where managers are evaluating processes already in place, identifying what part of the process is valuable for the customer, and what part may be a hindrance or wasteful, and updating accordingly and getting others involved and on-board with the changes. In a scholastic environment, I would like to apply Kaizen to the way I prepare and present a lesson plan, how I handle grading assignments and papers, and how I use my time inside and outside of school. There are always ways to do a process better, and by being mindful and looking for continuous ways to improve, I can have more time in the long-run to do other valuable things.
References
Emiliani, M. L. (2005). Using “Kaizen” to Improve Graduate Business School Degree Programs. Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 13, 37-52
Monday, February 9, 2009
Love / Hate Group Work
Author: Danelle Rowley
Posted date: Monday, February 9, 2009 4:06:31 PM EST
Last modified date: Monday, February 9, 2009 4:06:31 PM EST
Total views: 2 Your views: 2
It's so funny to me, everytime I hear that we have to do a group project in a class, I think, "Oh no!" And I feel a little queasy in my stomach. But then as I'm working with the group, things seem to be coming together and I always have a really good experience, and I make new friends in the class. So the best thing you can do when you have to do group work is think of the worst thing that can happen, and you'll always be pleasantly surprised! LOL, or just come into the group with low expectations. I seriously don't endorse that, but there's still that trepidation that accompanies group assignments.
What can you do to make sure that everyone in the group carries their own weight (how have you dealt with social loafing in the past)?
In the past, I didn't always deal with social loafing the best. I just picked up the slack because I wanted the good grade and tried not to get paired with the same person again. Now I try to communicate, but always in a respectful, non-threatening sort of way, and try to motivate people to contribute to the group. This doesn't always work, but at least I tried.
It's good to break up assignments so that everyone is included, respond to everyone's comments, agree on a timeline, and keep refining the project or paper until it's ready to turn in and everyone's happy and satisfied. And communicate communicate communicate! And follow up.
I realized that I had a few group conflicts in some of my groups at Drexel. In one group, a member was not communicating with us at all. I think that she checked into the board once at the beginning of the group, but never again. I tried to e-mail her, I even got her number from the professor and called her phone but didn't get an answer. I was afraid something had happened to her. During this time, I was reporting to the group about the status of this student in our group, making sure they knew what was going on. The professor also tried to contact her. Finally the professor e-mailed me to say that the student had responded, and that she had had her baby early and needed a C-section, so she was bedridden in the hospital for awhile. I also got an email from the student. She tried to get back into the group and the swing of things, but it turned out that she had missed too much school to make up so she ended up dropping out of our group and those classes. Luckily we had parted on good terms and she ended up being in one of my classes the next term and we even worked in a group later and had a great experience.
Ironically, in the same group (we started out with 5 members), another member began to participate less and less, after this other group member with the baby. I e-mailed her about a deadline she had missed, and she told me that her grandfather had passed away. The group work progressed, and she still was not contributing, but she was still in the course. I didn't e-mail the professor about it, because I did not feel like it was my perrogative - the student herself should communicate her personal life to the teacher. If she needed grief counseling, she should seek it out. I worked with the other group members and basically I told them that since she hadn't been contributing on the majority of the assignment that I was not going to assess her well in our group assessment. They came to the same conclusion. We three group members finished strong and were happy with our project. (We made an interactive PowerPoint presentation for fifth grade geography where we addressed state standards through using Google Earth and USGS.gov.) I didn't even put this group member's name on the final project, as our professor instructed us to do in case we did have a group member who didn't contribute. I don't know what happened to this student. I hope that things came out okay for her, but it almost felt like she was making up an excuse for not doing her work. I feel this way because she failed to communicate. Maybe she was really struggling, but I had no way of knowing. I think this was the first bad group member assessment I had ever given, and so far, the only bad assessment.
What should you do when one member of the group is dominating the rest of the group?
I haven't had this problem yet at Drexel. Everyone is very good about sharing the work and not taking over. (Uh oh, unless I'M the one that is taking over the group!) This is tricky, I would say to just be assertive, to state explicitly what you want in the project, compromise, but make sure you get to do some work. I think that the worst thing you can do (but we often to it) is to just sit and fume in silence, but not ever say that you don't feel like your voice is being heard or valued. Of course, once again don't put people on the defensive. Try to use the nicest language you can and don't call out specific individuals, unless you've exhausted all other routes.
What have you done in the past to resolve conflict during a group project exercise?
There was this very conflicting group that I was a part of during my undergrad, it was in my intro to modern physics course, and it was two other ladies and one guy. The guy had a brilliant mind, but he was the most cantakerous soul. He was sitting by us, and we had just formed a group and decided he was sitting by himself and we should include him in our group. We asked him if he wanted to be in our group, and he rudely said, and I quote, "Well are you going to write a good paper?" We were all taken back, and we almost wanted to say, okay, never mind, find your own group. We were all pretty motivated women, so it was kind of a shocking thing for him to say to us. Basically he needed to work on his people skills. We still formed a group with him, although each of us butted heads with him at some point. I guess we were all still pretty patient. We did a lot of good research, and he practically played devil's advocate on everything we proposed, but it helped us form strong arguments and good organization in the paper, and we ended up writing the best paper in the class (On the Anti-Matter Plume in the Milky Way Galaxy, if you are interested). So in this case, this huge, daily group struggle ended up producing good results. He also had more respect for us. But I was stressed out for weeks on end. I'd rather produce a pretty good project that fulfills the teacher's criteria and not be stressing out.
Posted date: Monday, February 9, 2009 4:06:31 PM EST
Last modified date: Monday, February 9, 2009 4:06:31 PM EST
Total views: 2 Your views: 2
It's so funny to me, everytime I hear that we have to do a group project in a class, I think, "Oh no!" And I feel a little queasy in my stomach. But then as I'm working with the group, things seem to be coming together and I always have a really good experience, and I make new friends in the class. So the best thing you can do when you have to do group work is think of the worst thing that can happen, and you'll always be pleasantly surprised! LOL, or just come into the group with low expectations. I seriously don't endorse that, but there's still that trepidation that accompanies group assignments.
What can you do to make sure that everyone in the group carries their own weight (how have you dealt with social loafing in the past)?
In the past, I didn't always deal with social loafing the best. I just picked up the slack because I wanted the good grade and tried not to get paired with the same person again. Now I try to communicate, but always in a respectful, non-threatening sort of way, and try to motivate people to contribute to the group. This doesn't always work, but at least I tried.
It's good to break up assignments so that everyone is included, respond to everyone's comments, agree on a timeline, and keep refining the project or paper until it's ready to turn in and everyone's happy and satisfied. And communicate communicate communicate! And follow up.
I realized that I had a few group conflicts in some of my groups at Drexel. In one group, a member was not communicating with us at all. I think that she checked into the board once at the beginning of the group, but never again. I tried to e-mail her, I even got her number from the professor and called her phone but didn't get an answer. I was afraid something had happened to her. During this time, I was reporting to the group about the status of this student in our group, making sure they knew what was going on. The professor also tried to contact her. Finally the professor e-mailed me to say that the student had responded, and that she had had her baby early and needed a C-section, so she was bedridden in the hospital for awhile. I also got an email from the student. She tried to get back into the group and the swing of things, but it turned out that she had missed too much school to make up so she ended up dropping out of our group and those classes. Luckily we had parted on good terms and she ended up being in one of my classes the next term and we even worked in a group later and had a great experience.
Ironically, in the same group (we started out with 5 members), another member began to participate less and less, after this other group member with the baby. I e-mailed her about a deadline she had missed, and she told me that her grandfather had passed away. The group work progressed, and she still was not contributing, but she was still in the course. I didn't e-mail the professor about it, because I did not feel like it was my perrogative - the student herself should communicate her personal life to the teacher. If she needed grief counseling, she should seek it out. I worked with the other group members and basically I told them that since she hadn't been contributing on the majority of the assignment that I was not going to assess her well in our group assessment. They came to the same conclusion. We three group members finished strong and were happy with our project. (We made an interactive PowerPoint presentation for fifth grade geography where we addressed state standards through using Google Earth and USGS.gov.) I didn't even put this group member's name on the final project, as our professor instructed us to do in case we did have a group member who didn't contribute. I don't know what happened to this student. I hope that things came out okay for her, but it almost felt like she was making up an excuse for not doing her work. I feel this way because she failed to communicate. Maybe she was really struggling, but I had no way of knowing. I think this was the first bad group member assessment I had ever given, and so far, the only bad assessment.
What should you do when one member of the group is dominating the rest of the group?
I haven't had this problem yet at Drexel. Everyone is very good about sharing the work and not taking over. (Uh oh, unless I'M the one that is taking over the group!) This is tricky, I would say to just be assertive, to state explicitly what you want in the project, compromise, but make sure you get to do some work. I think that the worst thing you can do (but we often to it) is to just sit and fume in silence, but not ever say that you don't feel like your voice is being heard or valued. Of course, once again don't put people on the defensive. Try to use the nicest language you can and don't call out specific individuals, unless you've exhausted all other routes.
What have you done in the past to resolve conflict during a group project exercise?
There was this very conflicting group that I was a part of during my undergrad, it was in my intro to modern physics course, and it was two other ladies and one guy. The guy had a brilliant mind, but he was the most cantakerous soul. He was sitting by us, and we had just formed a group and decided he was sitting by himself and we should include him in our group. We asked him if he wanted to be in our group, and he rudely said, and I quote, "Well are you going to write a good paper?" We were all taken back, and we almost wanted to say, okay, never mind, find your own group. We were all pretty motivated women, so it was kind of a shocking thing for him to say to us. Basically he needed to work on his people skills. We still formed a group with him, although each of us butted heads with him at some point. I guess we were all still pretty patient. We did a lot of good research, and he practically played devil's advocate on everything we proposed, but it helped us form strong arguments and good organization in the paper, and we ended up writing the best paper in the class (On the Anti-Matter Plume in the Milky Way Galaxy, if you are interested). So in this case, this huge, daily group struggle ended up producing good results. He also had more respect for us. But I was stressed out for weeks on end. I'd rather produce a pretty good project that fulfills the teacher's criteria and not be stressing out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
