Using 'Kaizen' to Improve An Information Organization

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