International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences

Applying Gemba-Kaizen in a multinational food company: a process innovation

framework
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza Juan Ramis-Pujol Mariana Estrada-Robles
Article information:
To cite this document:
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza Juan Ramis-Pujol Mariana Estrada-Robles, (2012),"Applying Gemba-Kaizen in a
multinational food company: a process innovation framework", International Journal of Quality and Service
Sciences, Vol. 4 Iss 1 pp. 27 - 50
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17566691211219715
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 31 January 2016, At: 03:39 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 58 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 710 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza, Juan Ramis-Pujol, (2010),"Implementation of Lean-Kaizen in the human
resource service process: A case study in a Mexican public service organisation", Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 21 Iss 3 pp. 388-410 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410381011024359
Gao Shang, Low Sui Pheng, (2013),"Understanding the application of Kaizen methods in construction firms
in China", Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 18-33 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JTMC-03-2013-0018
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza, Juan Ramis-Pujol, Laoucine Kerbache, (2011),"Thoughts on kaizen and its
evolution: Three different perspectives and guiding principles", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol.
2 Iss 4 pp. 288-308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20401461111189407

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:540409 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1756-669X.htm

Gemba-Kaizen in
Applying Gemba-Kaizen in a a multinational
multinational food company: company
a process innovation framework
27
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza
EGADE Business School, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico
Juan Ramis-Pujol
Department of Operations Management and Innovation,
ESADE – Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain, and
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

Mariana Estrada-Robles
Graduate School of Administration, Tecnológico 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 significant
research information available on implementing management systems in a sequential manner, there is
little information available relating to the application of this approach to provide a single and highly
effective methodology for process innovation in the context of the Gemba-Kaizen approach in
multinational companies. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to develop and apply a process
innovation framework in terms of methodology for multinational companies. The research question
that governs the study is: How is the Gemba-Kaizen approach applied in an organisational context
such as that of a multinational food company in Mexico?
Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory case study was conducted. One multinational
food company (chocolate) which has been established in Mexico for at least 19 years was selected. The
paper chronicles the design and application of a process innovation framework in the context of the
Gemba-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 of
the 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 on
the results of comparing theory and fieldwork: this provides a glimpse into the relationship of the
Gemba-Kaizen approach with other improvement methodologies, known as Process Redesign, in the
organisation analysed.
Practical implications – Derived to describe the case study on how to apply the Gemba-Kaizen
approach through process innovation methodology, the paper may prove to be of value to practitioners
and managers involved in the field. Similarly, a section on managerial implications has also been
included.
Originality/value – The paper contributes to the limited existing literature on the Gemba-Kaizen
system and subsequently disseminates this information in order to provide impetus, guidance and
support towards increasing the development of companies, in an attempt to move the Mexico
manufacturing (food) sector towards world-class manufacturing performance.
International Journal of Quality and
Keywords Mexico, Multinational companies, Food industry, Process management, Service Sciences
Vol. 4 No. 1, 2012
Continuous improvement, Gemba-Kaizen, Framework pp. 27-50
Paper type Research paper q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1756-669X
DOI 10.1108/17566691211219715
 IJQSS 1. Introduction
The Japanese management philosophy known as Kaizen ( ) was introduced as a
4,1 new, creative operating strategy to improve the competitiveness of twenty-first century
companies (Imai, 2006). When Masaaki Imai published his first book in 1986, The Key to
Japan’s Competitive Success, the term Kaizen began to receive attention from
management experts and scholars around the world. A decade after publication of his
28 first book, Imai expanded the scope of Kaizen in another book in 1997 – a contribution
which laid further stress on “The Japanese way” in Kaizen strategy and in particular the
importance of the workplace (where real action occurs) in continuous improvement.
Even “total quality management” and “lean thinking”, which has received focused
attention in the literature in recent years, was deeply rooted in the Japanese
management and thus viewed as an integral element in the Gemba-Kaizen approach
(Klefsjo, 1997; Al Smadi, 2009).
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

Over the decade from 2000 to 2010, several authors focused on the importance of
innovating through Gemba-Kaizen processes to reap substantial quantitative and
qualitative benefits in terms of time and money, cutting stock costs and what the
Japanese term muda (“waste”) (Ohno, 2007). Neese (2007) indicates that keeping
up effort in Gemba-Kaizen may help in achieving significant improvements to work
processes, including better supply chain flows. In Strategic Direction (2004), the most
important study of the decade was that by Brunet and New (2003), who concluded that
Kaizen can be adapted to each company’s special circumstances and create a virtuous
circle in its processes and management. Lastly, Suárez-Barraza and Ramis-Pujol (2010)
highlighted the importance of using Gemba-Kaizen for process innovation and for
saving 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 explain
Gemba-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 the
Kaizen Blitz[1] approach (Laraia et al., 1999). Accordingly, there is little empirical evidence
for understanding Gemba-Kaizen’s “philosophy” or core proposal when it comes to
fostering implementation of process innovation methods. This also applies to short-term
improvements (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 process
innovation 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 “office
management” when it comes to innovating processes?
RQ1.2. Is there any relationship between the effort put into implementing
Gemba-Kaizen and process innovation methods in a multinational food
company?
To answer the main research question and the two sub-questions, we first carried out a
literature 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 multinational
in Mexico. The next step was to carry out an exploratory qualitative study based
 on a food multinational that had set up in Valle de Toluca, Mexico in 1998. The paper was Gemba-Kaizen in
structured as follows: a multinational
.
An introduction. company
.
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 food
29
multinational, including qualitative empirical evidence.
.
Conclusions, management implications and the benefits of applying
Gemba-Kaizen.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

2. Literature review
2.1 Gemba-Kaizen definition and implications
Imai (1997) observes that “gemba” ( ) means “where things happen” and in a business
context might be translated as “the shop floor”[2]. In fact, Imai (1997) provides an example
in his book, indicating that the reporters covering the Kobe earthquake in 1995 did so from
the “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 the
term 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;
Suárez-Barraza et al., 2009b). For Ohno (2007, p. 120) it is the only place where costs can be
cut, 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 idea
of the Japanese management system and the Kaizen or continuous improvement concept;
because Kaizen activities are implemented through the identification and elimination of
waste 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 best
be 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 leave
their 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. The
lessons learnt by managers can then be applied to improving and enhancing work
processes cheaply and through the application of common sense.
Other authors use the term “Genchi-Genbutsu” which incorporates the “gembu” or
workplace element and adds the idea of “going to the workplace and understanding the
situation through direct observation” (Liker, 2004). Put simply, Gemba-Kaizen is based
on watching staff every moment of the day with a view to making improvements to
work processes (Imai, 1997; Al Smadi, 2009; Suárez-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 management
through first-hand, on-the-job application of the problem-solving principles
using hands-on activity and coaching.
 IJQSS It differs from problem-solving activity conducted by production workers (“Team
4,1 Members” in Toyota’s language) because Jishuken involves only management teams to
identify the problems and implement counter-measures (Marskberry et al., 2010).

2.2 Background to process innovation methodologies

Innovation is becoming a crucial issue for organizational learning in this new century
30 (Dahlgaard-Park and Dahlgaard, 2010). Operational or process innovation is the
starting 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 have
described different approaches and perspectives, whose core idea might be simply
stated as the systematic analysis of flows and processes with a view to improving
them. Notwithstanding this variety, some authors have tried to group these approaches
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

by their common features in order to facilitate independent analysis. These groupings

help identify the techniques, methodologies and tools involved. They also allow one to
make comparisons of the application of each approach and the level of improvement
sought. Each of these approaches can be identified and analysed as a function of
various 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 a

view to boosting customer satisfaction and organisational efficiency and efficacy
(Harrington, 1991). This is all carried out through review and continuous learning of the
best practices, which lead to radial redesign of a company’s obsolete and inefficient
processes and thus to better performance (Harrington, 1995). Other contemporary authors
such as Davenport and Short (1990, p. 24) defined it as: “the analysis and design of
workflows and processes within and between organizations”. Years later, Davenport (1993,
p. 14), re-christened his methodology “business process redesign”, defining it as: “the critical
analysis and radical redesign of existing business processes to achieve breakthrough
improvements in performance measures”. In the literature, these authors are considered to
be 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 innovation
methods and resources for companies (Tinnila, 1995). Table I provides a summary.
Nevertheless, such process innovation methodologies are hardly applied in Latin
American countries. In reviewing the literature on Latin America, only a handful of
references were found on the subject (Andreu et al., 1996; Araujo et al., 1998; Salgueiro,
1999; Simón et al., 2004; Suárez-Barraza, 2010). The first was Salgueiro (1999) of the
Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENC) (Spanish Standards
Authority), which contains a methodology for documenting processes and creating
standardised 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

Authors
Harrington (1991, 1995)
Lee and Chuah (2001)
Gardner (2001)
Suárez-Barraza et al. (2009b)
Davenport (1993)
Davenport and Short (1990)
Short and Venkatraman (1992)
Process innovation
the literature
methodologies found in
Table I.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)
Methodology name
Business process improvement (BPI)
SUPER methodology for BPI
Continuous process improvement
Business process innovation
Business process redesign
Steps
Stage 1. Organising for quality. Define critical processes, select process
owners, train staff and establish measures
Stage 2. Understand the process. Produce flow diagrams, measure and
analyse efficiency and cycle times
Stage 3. Rationalise processes. Find improvements and draw up a plan
Stage 4. Implement, measure and monitor
Stage 5. Continuous Improvement. Implement BPI
1. Choose the process
2. Understand the process
3. Measure the process
4. Execute the process
5. Assess improvements
Stage 1. Gather data and information on process performance
Stage 2. Set process target
Stage 3. Assign responsibility and align strategic objectives
Stage 4. Monitor performance and manage the operation
1. Develop business vision
2. Identify the features of key processes
3. Understand and measure the performance of existing processes
4. Discover success factors and implementation barriers
1. Develop the business vision and process objectives
2. Identify the processes to be redesigned
3. Understand and measure the performance of existing processes
4. Design and build a process prototype and implement improvements
(continued)
company
a multinational
31
Gemba-Kaizen in

Table I.
Authors
Elzinga et al. (1995)
Zairi (1997)
Guha et al. (1997)
Alänge and Steiber (2009)
Source: Design by the authors
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)
Methodology name
Business process management
Business process change
4,1
32
IJQSS
Steps
1. Preparation. Define key implementation factors
2. Select the process
3. Describe and document the process
4. Process quantification
5. Selection of improvement opportunities
6. Improvement implementation
Phase 1. Changing the environment. Find the relationship between
strategic initiatives, learning ability, information technology and
organizational culture
Phase 2. Management of PCBs. Managing processes and managing
change
Phase 3. Impact of PCBs in organizational performance. Improve
processes, quality of life for employees and customer satisfaction
 approach bears little on innovation and process redesign. These authors indicate that the Gemba-Kaizen in
application of process innovation yields in less radical changes than that posited by the a multinational
orthodox process re-engineering model (Hammer and Champy, 1993) given that it allows
incremental innovation and process redesign to co-exist. company
On the same lines, Suárez-Barraza (2010) provides a practical, global vision of
process innovation. Following Deming’s (1986) premise, the author notes that what
cannot be measured cannot be improved. One of the findings in his work on Latin 33
America is that it is vital “to understand processes before measuring them and, later
innovating them”, employing direct observation in the workplace to these ends. He
defines 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 their
achievements” (Suárez-Barraza, 2010, p. 54). Table II summarises his methodology.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

2.3 Gemba-Kaizen applied in multinational companies

Recently, Aoki (2008) studied certain multinationals and how they had successfully
transferred the parent company’s Kaizen techniques in the workplace to their
subsidiaries abroad. The authors studied China and noted how Kaizen application
required: the elimination of waste; operational discipline; standardisation of processes;
formal and informal communication channels. Basu and Miroshnik (1999) studied the
human resources strategy in multinationals such as Nissan and Toyota in their UK
operations and concluded that although they did not achieve implementation of all the
basic elements of Japanese management systems (Kaizen and Lean Manufacturing) in
Britain, they successfully internally implemented many Kaizen elements in their
respective car plants there. Finally, Elsey and Fujiwara (2000) confirmed that
successful Kaizen transfer depended largely on exchanging instructors on the subject
and 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 becoming
widely adopted in Brazil’s farm machinery industry and that early-adopters had
improved 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 not
specify how many of the firms were multinationals. Lastly, Landa-Aceves (2009) studied
the implementation of Kaizen Blitz in “free-port” companies along Mexico’s border with
the 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 on
Gemba-Kaizen application in Mexico, one can identify some elements that either foster or
hinder successful implementation of this Japanese management philosophy.
Two studies by Suárez-Barraza and Ramis-Pujol (2010) focused on the application
of Gemba-Kaizen to Mexican multinational firms (one public, the rest privately-owned).
The first, by Suárez-Barraza and Ramis-Pujol (2010), explained the importance of
applying a Gemba-Kaizen process innovation approach to a service provided by a
public company and demonstrated shorter, better-performing processes. The second,
by Villarreal et al. (2011), was a case study of a British multinational textile company
with a factory in Cadereita, Mexico. It showed how the application of Gemba-Kaizen
and process innovation improved plant performance, raised quality by 66.28 per cent,
and cut raw material use from 3,000 WIP to 480.

(2010)
Table II.
Summary of
innovation methodology
Suárez-Barraza’s process
No. Stage
1 Understanding
2 Selection
3 Documentation/
mapping
4 Measurement
5 Analysis
6 Innovation/
redesign
7 Evaluation and
standardisation
Source: Suárez-Barraza (2010)
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)
4,1
34
IJQSS
Steps Orientation Tools
1. Systematically schematise a company’s work to understand processes Systemic organisation Systems diagram
and their interrelationships (system thinking)
2. Determine the best level of analysis for attaining the optimum level of
process innovation (macro- or micro-processes)
1. Determine the client’s needs and key requirements for process selection Process and client Process selection table
2. Select and decide the priority process for innovation in the light of the
chosen variables
1. Document the existing process Process Block diagram flow
2. Identify the process flows, its limits, initial indicators of activities that diagram with participants
do not add value, and internal client-supplier relations
1. Gather and measure process innovation indicators (number of Process and Table of indicators
activities, time cycle, operational efficiency) for things as they stand maintenance
2. Establish process performance indicators and measure these after
redesign
3. Establish measurement indicators based on client requirements (client
satisfaction indicators)
1. Identify and prioritise opportunities for measuring wasteful elements Process and Analysis of activities that
in the process maintenance do not add value
1. Draw up and implement an innovation plan Daily improvement Innovation plan
2. Redesign the process, streamlining it as far as possible
1. Evaluate the results of innovations and their impact on process Daily improvement Evaluation sheet of a well-
performance, ascertaining at what redesign stage a well-defined defined process
process is at Operating standards
2. Standardise critical process activities
3. Disseminate the lessons learnt and the new standards
 Although studies are beginning to emerge in the literature on the application of Gemba-Kaizen in
Gemba-Kaizen in multinationals in Mexico and Latin America, there is a dearth of a multinational
empirical literature on the subject. Much of the scholarly literature centres on research
studies in Japan, China and the USA (Basu and Miroshnik, 1999; Brunet and New, 2003; company
Aoki, 2008). There is also a great deal of academic and practitioner literature on
successful cases of Gemba-Kaizen application (chiefly as a technique) – mainly in the
USA and focusing on Kaizen or Kaizen Blitz events (Laraia et al., 1999). Gemba-Kaizen 35
has thus been little-studied from the academic angle and there is still a great deal to
understand in the highly specific context of multinational companies operating in
Mexico and the rest of Latin America.

3. Methodology
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

Bearing the foregoing comments and this paper’s explanatory nature in mind, there is
a clear need to:
.
delve into Gemba-Kaizen drivers; and
.
establish the relationship between the approach and the context of
a 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 research
on 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 the
industrial cluster of Toluca, Mexico for 19 years and it was selected following the
theoretical sample criteria (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). The case chosen thus had great
scope 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 cases
but in an in-depth study in each case (Pettigrew, 1997, p. 342). Accordingly, such a case
should lead one to create robust theories given that the emerging propositions are linked
to 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 aim
was 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. During
these visits, documentation was gathered on the application of the Gemba-Kaizen process
innovation methodology for subsequent analysis. This documentation included; training
manuals; web sites; formats; registry sheets; systems diagrams; flow charts; added value
tables. Lastly, an interview protocol and a database on the case study were drawn up to
make the study more reliable (Pettigrew, 1997). The main contact was the production
manager, he focused on a process to which the innovation methodology was applied. The
 IJQSS plant manager and six production line workers directly involved in the process innovation
4,1 were interviewed separately. A total of eight interviews were held in August and December
2010. These interviews strictly followed the research protocol but some flexibility was
adopted regarding certain responses that bore particularly on the subject. Each interview
was transcribed within 48 h of being held and was exhaustive in terms of clarity and data
saturation. Everything that arose during the analysis was clarified with the contact person
36 through mail and by telephone. Our data analysis sought to both ensure the validity of the
construct through the use of multiple sources of evidence and carefully-planned
data-gathering. We also sought to increase the external validity of the research by making
multiple comparisons with other case studies (Yin, 1994).

4. Introduction to the multinational food company

This food and nutrition company is a world-renowned multinational and is present in six
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

continents. 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 has
13 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 in
consonance with specific market needs, the firm is split into strategic business units
(SBUs), namely: lactic products; coffees; water; chocolates; sweets; frozen products; ice
cream; nutrition; cereals; culinary products; pet snacks. This study focused on the
chocolates and sweets SBU. The factory for this SBU is sited in Toluca, some 40 min by
car 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, which
then had three plants. Production of the acquired firm’s chocolates began then, making
the multinational parent company into one of the leading firms in the chocolate market. In
1998, the original competitor factory’s plants stopped operating and manufacture of all
the products was transferred to the Toluca factory. The multinational’s chocolates and
sweets division is currently one of the three leaders in its market, together with Hershey’s
and Mars. It sells around 75 SKUs, some made in Mexico and others imported. It also
makes some 20 SKUs for export to the USA and Central America.
Some years ago, the multinational went through a rough patch given that its operations
management was top-heavy and complex. Its bureaucratic nature made decision-making
slow, which pushed up its costs and hurt its market share. That is why the multinational
decided to certify its factory processes to the ISO 9000 norm. In theory, this meant
introducing a quality management system defining all manufacturing processes,
including those at the Toluca plant. However, despite the effort put into improving work
processes, the adoption of the ISO norm looked good on “paper” (documental issue) but
meant nothing on the ground. A small coterie of specialists had documented the plant’s
processes 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 flow
diagrams 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 involved
and thought it would be “a piece of cake”. What we forgot is that the action is on the shop
floor 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 training
in the principles of Gemba-Kaizen. Once the training programme had ended, the engineer
 supervisor of SBU set up a Kaizen improvement team with a group of production line Gemba-Kaizen in
workers. The production line manufactured chocolate and covered 45 SKUs. The Kaizen a multinational
improvement team comprised the line supervisor and eight multi-tasking workers. They
began innovating chocolate manufacture using the Suárez-Barraza (2010) methodology, company
which is based on workplace realities. The following section discusses the application of
the methodology to the process in question.
37
5. Applying Gemba-Kaizen in a multinational food company
As noted in the literature section, the Suárez-Barraza (2010) methodology comprises seven
steps whose purpose is to thoroughly innovate and/or redesign a given process adopting
an approach that is wholly workplace-oriented. The following section shows how the food
multinational in general and the chocolate production line applied the methodology.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

5.1 Understanding the process

Stage 1 in understanding the process innovation methodology revealed all the
interdependencies in the firm’s existing process system. This enabled the company to
grasp how its key aim, clients, outputs (products), inputs (raw materials), suppliers,
business-critical and business-support processes were linked. The Kaizen
improvement 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 core
business – the chocolates and sweets SBU. The diagram shows: the products –
chocolates and sweets and their approximately 45 SKUs, and the firm’s wholesale
clients, supermarkets and end consumers, among others. Suppliers and the raw
materials 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 core
process. 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 2
shows the second-level systems diagram or micro-processes.

First-level Systems Diagram

CLIENTS
Strategic Unit: Chocolates and Sweets • Retailers
• Supermarkets
SUPPLIERS Critical Processes • Wholesale
• Supplier of first, • Government
second, and third Demand Research and Demand • Final Consumer
Manufacturing Distribution Sales
Forecasting development Planning
tiers

INPUTS Manufacturing, Distribution and Sales of OUTPUTS

• Raw Chocolates
chocolates and sweets and Sweets
Materials
• Semi- (aprox. 45
elaborates SKU´s)
products Support Processes
• Assembling
Material Information Human Technical Corporative Figure 1.
Finance Legal
• Promotional
Technology Resource Issues Communication Process of Actors First-level systems
• International
Material
employees diagram of the chocolates
• Plant’s employees and sweets SBU
• Shareholders
 IJQSS SUPPLIERS
• Adquistion
Second-level Systems diagram
4,1 Department
• Forescating Critical Processes
INTERNAL
Demand
Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing CLIENT
• External Procurement
Planning of Chocolates of Sweets Distribution
Suppliers

38
OUTPUTS
INPUTS Chocolates
• Raw
Manufacturing
and Sweets
Materials (aprox. 45
• Semi- SKU´s)
elaborates
Figure 2. products Support Processes
• Assembling
Second-level diagram Material
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

of the chocolates and Industrial Human Quality Administrative Industrial

Engineering
Security Resource Assurance Process Engineering
sweets SBU

5.2 Process selection

Using the Kaizen team’s second-level systems diagram of the aforesaid firm, we
identified likely processes for innovation in: the manufacture of chocolates and sweets;
the supply process, given its complexity; opportunities that line workers had observed
in the workplace. The selection criteria proposed by Harrington (1991) were adopted in
identifying 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 a
selection matrix with a scale of one to ten, with “0” indicating no application of a given
criterion and “10” full application of the criterion. Each of the candidate processes for
redesign was rated accordingly. Table III shows the results.
The process selected – the chocolate manufacturing process – was the one that
scored highest.

Sweets
Supply Chocolate manufacture
Selection criteria process manufacture process process

Client dissatisfaction with process result 8 7 9

Control over process operation 9 9 9
Willingness to change 7 10 6
Support for a possible improvement project 4 8 5
Benefits obtained from the improvement 9 10 10
Table III. Likelihood of success 6 8 7
Selection matrix – Relevance for company and staff 5 9 7
candidate processes Consideration of clients’ demands and needs 4 7 7
for redesign Total 52 68 60
 5.3 Mapping the process Gemba-Kaizen in
Once the Kaizen improvement team had selected the process, it then went on to a multinational
“document it (Step 3) and draw up a process map.” The reason for applying Step 3 lay
in the need to understand the detailed operations in the workplace. The two criteria company
that the Kaizen improvement team bore in mind during this step were:
(1) Documentation of the present situation. It is important to document the situation
as it really is and not as an ideal. For this purpose, the Kaizen improvement 39
team must go to the workplace to document the process through direct
observation. The aim here is to quickly and accurately visualise all waste
emerging 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
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

“internal client-supplier relations”.

In this respect, the block diagram is the first step in applying a diagram description
tool. Its purpose is to make a general description of the sequence of a given
process. The block diagram drawn up by the Kaizen improvement team is shown
in Figure 3.
Once the Kaizen improvement team had drawn up the block diagram, it used the
tool to map the process in detail through flow diagrams. The symbols used to
document processes follow American National Standard Institute (ANSI), which is
unique to process innovation and redesign. The standard’s purpose is not to produce a
process manual. Accordingly, the ANSI symbols serve to “flag” potentially wasteful
activities. An example is given below (first page of the diagram), mapping the existing
chocolates manufacturing process (Figure 4).

5.4 Process measurement

Process measurement is the next step in the methodology. In fact, measuring the
existing process gave the Kaizen improvement team a benchmark when implementing
innovation and redesign actions. The indicators to be borne in mind in attempting to
grasp how the process worked before innovating and redesigning it are:
(1) The number of activities making up the process. Each of the process activities
mapped 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 diagram
and participants to map the process, one can establish how many actors there
are in the process. The total number of participants was seven people, split
between three areas:

.
Programming area:
– Programming.
.
Manufacturing area:
– Manufacturing co-ordinator.
– Line technicians.
 IJQSS START
4,1

Establish production program

40
Work groups sand shift planning

Make a plan of working process

stocks and boot scripts
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

Request of order of production

Request inputs of warehouse

Produce semi-elaborate products

Manufacturing final products

Distributionts steps
Figure 3.
Block diagram showing
the manufacturing process END

– Moulding operator.
– Materials control operator.
– Packaging operator.
.
Storage area:
– Goods lift operator.

(3) Process cycle times. The process cycle time spans from process commencement
to completion. The Kaizen improvement team measured it, following all the
flows in three samples:
 START
12 Review semi-
elaborated MUDA 17
23
32 Inspection
of moulding
Gemba-Kaizen in
1
Demand planner
stock

NO
Are the process
orders correct? 33
operating
conditions
a multinational
MUDA 1 Meeting to review
production program
MUDA 9
13
Shift Supervisor

Calculation of stock
YES
Moulding operator

Quality control document

company
scope
2
Review 24 Transfer to
MUDA 2 production production line
program MUDA 18 with operator MUDA 21 34
14
Correct
MUDA 10 moulding

41
3 operating
Is there enough
stock? 25 Shift Supervisor NO conditions?
NO MUDA 22
15

4 Notify the moulding

35
MUDA 3 MUDA 19 operator and control
Request of YES Moulding YES
Program NO 16 material operator that
MUDA 11 stock the orders are ready operator
approval by
Production MUDA 12
Go to Demand Fix operating
Coordinator
2 Planner conditions
Moulding Operator
26
STARTS 17 36
YES Working process Machine procedures on
Moulding
of chocolate Demand Planner and
5 Production coordinator operator
products Shift Supervisor
Subprocess MUDA 20 27
Meeting with Human Quality control
MUDA 4 Resources to evaluate staff Meeting to request
process orders document
capacity MUDA 13
Is there enough
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

3 stock in tank? 37
MUDA 23
NO
18 Demand Planner Transfer mass from
6 ENDS
tempering machine to
MUDA 5 Working process
MUDA 14 Creation process orders moulding depositor
of chocolate
NO YES
Is there enough products
personnel? Subprocess 38
19 Transfer mass from
28 tank to tempering Moulding Operator
MUDA 15
machine
Vent moulding line
7 YES
20 Shift Supervisor
MUDA 6 Production coordinator
back to office 29 Moulding Operator 39
MUDA 16 Tank filling
Elaboration of Heat the mass
Schedule document

8 10
Shift supervisor 40 Moulding Operator
21
Print Shift 30 Mass heating
MUDA 7
document supervisor Inject chocolate in moulds
View process orders in
9 IT system
Data capture in
payroll MUDA 18
Hand in to 31 41 Inspection of
HR (support injection
process) MUDA 8 11 22 Check YES
NO operating
Attention to process Chocolate mass
conditions
production orders in ideal state for
Human line activities process?
Resources
1 Support
Continues to activity 142
process

Limits (starting or
ending activities) Inspection Delay

Electronic Notation
Process-activity
transport

Transport- Figure 4.
Flow lines Connector
movement Flow diagrams showing
the existing chocolates
Decision Document Storage manufacturing process

Average process cycle time ¼ 12 days

5.5 Process analysis

The next step was to sift through the information to identify parts of the process that
posed problems or revealed waste. Table IV shows the analysis of each existing
activity revealed by the process map.
As Table IV shows, 50 per cent of the activities in the chocolates manufacturing
process 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 jobs
that merely hindered process flow. Table V summarises the chocolates manufacturing
process.
 IJQSS
Chocolate manufacture process
4,1 Activity type Flowchart symbol Count

Transport 8

42 Decisions 13

Inspection 13

Internal documents 9
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

Delay –

Activities that do not add value 25

Table IV. Electronic transport 3

Analysis of the
chocolates manufacturing
process Total 71

5.6 Process redesign

Once the Kaizen team had finished its analysis, it proposed a set of improvements
in redesigning the process. The improvement measures included: the creation of operating
standards; the scrapping of bureaucratic activities (unnecessary meetings, staff movements,
superfluous quality control); training staff in new operations standards; identifying waste in
the process; balancing work loads based on a new task time. The measures taken are given
in 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 the
process, allowing them to consult such information without having to move
from one area to another.
. Train staff in the handling and effective use of all information system
applications so that they can work at full capacity.
.
Draw up process standards to make activities clearer, more robust and
stable whilst ensuring full visibility of the process.
. Train staff in using and monitoring standards to avoid errors and wasteful
use of resources.
 Gemba-Kaizen in
Number Activity Classification MUDA type
a multinational
1 Meeting to review production program Activity Activity that does not add company
value
2 Review production program Inspection Unnecesary inspection
4 Program approval by production coordinator Decision Unnecesary decision
5 Meeting with human resources to evaluate Activity Activity that does not add 43
staff capacity value
6 Is there enough personnel? Decision Unnecesary decision
7 Elaboration of schedule document Document Unnecesary document
8 Print document Activity Unnecesary copy
9 Hand into HR (support process) Transport Unnecesary worker
movement
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

13 Calculation of stock scope Activity Activity that does not add

value
15 Is there enough stock? Decision Unnecesary decision
16 Send e-mail stock request Electronic Unnecesary transfer
transfer
17 Go to demand planner Transport Activity that does not add
value
18 Meeting to request process orders Activity Activity that does not add
value
19 Creation process orders Activity Activity that does not add
value
20 Shift supervisor back to office Transport Unnecesary worker
movement
23 Are the process orders correct? Decision Unnecesary decision
24 Transfer to production line with operator Transport Unnecesary worker
movement
25 Notify the moulding operator and control Activity Activity that does not add
material operator that the orders are ready value
27 Is there enough stock in tank? Decision Unnecesary decision
31 Chocolate mass in ideal state for process? Decision Unnecesary decision
34 Correct moulding operating conditions? Decision Unnecesary decision Table V.
35 Fix operating conditions Activity Activity that does not add Summary of waste
value in the chocolates
36 Quality control document Document Unnecesary document manufacturing process

.
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
 IJQSS an average of 12 days before the improvements to 7.07 days – 41 per cent
4,1 faster.

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

6. Conclusions and managerial aspects of using a Gemba-Kaizen process

innovation framework
There are various benefits in using methodological approaches such as Gemba-Kaizen
for process innovation, as is shown by the experience of the multinational food
company in this case. Let us consider the question: what differences are there between
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

traditional office management and management based on Gemba-Kaizen when it

comes to process innovation? The answer is that the Kaizen improvement team yielded
greater benefits because it was based in the workplace and could directly observe all
the activities representing waste in the manufacturing of chocolates. The spotlight was

START

15 min
PLANNING OFFICER 2 STEPS
Electronic delivery of the production program in SAP
System. Accompanied by an automatic launch of orders
to process according to the capacity and task time
standardized line.

60 min
COORDINADTOR OF MANUFACTURE 2 STEPS
Set up templates of production according to an
electronic interface that allows you to see the
availability of staff.Automatic capture of labour at the
time that the Coordinator of manufacture will end fill
their production staff

30 min
SUPPORT PRODUCTION LINE TECHNICIAN 3 STEPS

Inspect the stock of semi-manufactured, consultation

process orders in the system that were automatically
released and releases the order process

7 days 3hrs 1 hour

MODEL OPERATOR 28 STEPS. RAW MATERIAL OPERATOR 6STEP.
TRANSPORT OPERATOR 8 STEPS
Boot sequence begins and temperate
according to production programme and Check the order of process, verifies and Receives material need, located in the
to the standard line. Performs throughout receives packaging material and delivers it cellar and pay according to the task time
the process of transformation of in packaging machines. line.
chocolate until it is delivered in packaging
machine.

6.5days
PACKAGING OPERATOR 33 STEPS.
Receive material on your machine, installs it and adjust the
Figure 5. parameters of the machine to deliver the product involved
Block diagram of the and stocked distribution.
redesigned process for the
manufacture of chocolates END
 put on waste that had hitherto lain hidden, confirming Imai (1997) and Ohno’s (2007) Gemba-Kaizen in
findings. When the company’s plant manager asked why the production process a multinational
averaged 12 days before the chocolates were ready for delivery, the answer was always
an endless stream of complaints and mutual recriminations by the sections involved. In company
other words, it was impossible to visualise the process from the boardroom and
identify 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 its 45
manager, the importance of Gemba-Kaizen through detailed process mapping and
analysis of the waste found.
From this point on, specific improvement objectives could be set using
this combination of methodologies to create a virtuous circle of ongoing
improvements in plant operation. Managers in other areas of the company also
learnt a great deal from the experience and are now focusing on process innovation
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

using Gemba-Kaizen for this purpose. Five management implications emerge from this
case:
(1) The introduction of a management approach based on Gemba-Kaizen allows
identification 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 processes
and activities like nobody else is vital to achieving active employee
participation, continuous improvement and process redesign. This ensures
that staff take a more pro-active vision of problem-solving and identify all
activities that do not add value.
(4) The process-based focus enabled the multinational food company in question to
adopt horizontal management centred on the workplace, where the beginning
and end of the process were visualised and the needs of both internal and
external clients could be established. Process innovation helped the company
propose improvements to the way things were done, eliminate waste
and understand the sequence of critical plant processes. Based on the
evidence 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 any
relationship between the effort put into implementing Gemba-Kaizen and process
innovation methods in a multinational food company? Answering according to the
evidence it is that the application of a Gemba-Kaizen-based innovation methodology
allowed the multinational company to develop a single, integrated methodology for
innovate their processes. Accordingly, one can conclude that there is a link between
both methodological approaches in this particular case study. Nevertheless, this finding
confirms 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 put
forward a theoretical framework (Figure 6) that captures the nature of this link.
 IJQSS Gemba-Kaizen
Approach
4,1

46 Participation
Leader
(Gemba-Kaizen
(Improvement
Teams)
Understanding Agent)

Evaluate/ Selection
Standardize
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

Process
Redesing Innovation Mapping
Innovation

Measure Gemba
Management
Support with Analysis
Information
Clear action of
Management
Top
Managers
Figure 6.
Process innovation
framework within the
Gemba-Kaizen approach
Source: Design own

It is important to note that the data obtained from this case provides
a snapshot of the phenomena studied but cannot be used to establish causal
relationships.
As in all research based on a case study, this paper has its limitations. The most
obvious one is that all the findings are based on a case study. Another difficulty is to
objectively handle the vast quantity of data produced by the fieldwork, making it hard
to evaluate the relationships that may exist within the studied phenomenon
(Eisenhardt, 1989). Last but not least, there was no direct evaluation of the impact
the application of the Gemba-Kaizen approach on the company’s performance. These
limitations notwithstanding, our research contributes to the existing literature through
an empirical study that reveals methodological relationships and their specific
application. Clearly, the study may be extended to other industrial sectors or services
to corroborate the framework identified.

Notes
1. “Blitz” being German for “lightning”.
2. “Workplace” has been substituted for “gemba” throughout save in the purely linguistic
discussion of the Japanese word and in the term “Gemba-Kaizen”.
 3. For English-speaking readers, this is clearly quite a different context, which one might Gemba-Kaizen in
render as “ground zero” or “the scene of destruction”.
a multinational
company
References
Ablanedo-Rosas, H., Alidaee, B., Moreno, J.C. and Urbina, J. (2010), “Quality improvement
supported by the 5S, an empirical case study of Mexican organisations”, International 47
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 Nos 23/24, pp. 7063-87.
Alänge, 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 and
Service Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 280-93.
Al Smadi, S. (2009), “Kaizen strategy and the drive for competitiveness: challenges and
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

opportunities”, 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 in
China”, International Journal of Operation & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 6,
pp. 518-39.
Araujo, A., Churruca, E. and Landeta, J. (1998), “La reingenierı́a de procesos: ¿Una nueva y
milagrosa técnica de gestión?”, Harvard Deusto Busines Review, No. 83, pp. 83-93
(in Spanish).
Basu, D. and Miroshnik, V. (1999), “Strategic human resource management of Japanese
multinationals: a case study of Japanese multinational companies in the UK”, The Journal
of Management Development, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 714-32.
Brunet, A.P. and New, S. (2003), “Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1426-46.
Childe, S.J., Maull, R.S. and Bennet, J. (1994), “Frameworks for understanding business process
re-engineering”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14
No. 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 of
Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 153-74.
Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information
Technology, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. (1990), “The new industrial engineering: information
technology 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 on
information systems development”, Business Process, Delft University of Technology,
Delft, pp. 1-22.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities and
challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
 IJQSS Elsey, B. and Fujiwara, T. (2000), “Kaizen and technology transfer instructors as work based
learning facilitators in overseas transplants: a case study”, Journal of Workplace Learning,
4,1 Vol. 12 No. 8, pp. 333-42.
Elzinga, J., Horak, T., Lee, C. and Bruner, C. (1995), “Business process management: survey
and methodology”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 119-28.
48 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 machinery
sector 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 and
organizational performance: exploring an antecedent model”, Journal of Management
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

Information 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 Business
Revolution, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Harrington, H.J. (1991), Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total
Quality, Productivity and Competitiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Harrington, H.J. (1995), “Continuous versus breakthrough improvement finding the
right 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 Kaizen
Course, Barcelona, Spain, 3rd ed.
Klefsjo, B. (1997), “A review of the book ‘Gemba Kaizen: the common-sense approach to business
management’”, Quality Progress, Vol. 30 No. 11, p. 123.
Landa-Aceves, J.A. (2009), “Factores de éxito y permanencia en eventos Kaizen:
aplicación en la industrial maquiladora al norte de México”, Sinnco, No. 3, pp. 1-20
(in Spanish).
Laraia, A.C., Moody, P. and Hall, R. (1999), The Kaizen Blitz: Accelerating Breakthroughs in
Productivity 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 Manufacturing
Technology 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, Productivity
Press, Portland, OR.
 Ohno, T. (2007), Workplace Management, JMA Management Center, Tokyo. Gemba-Kaizen in
Osono, E., Shimizu, N. and Takeuchi, H. (2008), Extreme Toyota, Radical Contradictions that a multinational
Drive Success at the World’s Best Manufacturer, Wiley, Tokyo.
company
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. 49
Salgueiro, A. (1999), Cómo Mejorar los Procesos y la Productividad, AENOR, Asociación
Española de Normalización y Certificación, 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.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

Simón, K., Olazaran, M., Igeregi, I. and Sierra, F. (2004), “El papel de las consultoras en las
introducción de nuevos conceptos de gestión. Reingenierı́a de procesos en la CAV”,
Conference Proceeding del Cuarto Congreso de Economı́a de Navarra, pp. 565-84
(in Spanish).
Strategic Direction (2004), “Kaizen at Nippon: behind the theory”, Strategic Direction, Vol. 20
No. 5, pp. 23-5.
Suárez-Barraza, M.F. (2010), Innovación de Procesos, Toluca, Estado de México, Ágora Medios
(in Spanish).
Suárez-Barraza, M.F. and Ramis-Pujol, J. (2010), “Implementation of Lean-Kaizen in the human
resource service process: a case study in a Mexican public service organization”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 388-410.
Suárez-Barraza, M.F., Ramis-Pujol, J. and Tort-Martorell, X. (2009a), “Continuous process
improvement: conclusions and recommendations”, International Journal of Quality and
Service Science, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 96-112.
Suárez-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: alternative
approaches 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., Rodrı́guez, J.C., Chereti, Y., LLanas, V. and Martı́n, B. (2011), “A Kaizen approach
for improving performance: an application”, Papers Internos de la Universidad de
Monterrey (UDEM), México, pp. 1-7.
Voss, C., Sikriktsis, N. and Frohlic, M. (2002), “Case research in operations
management”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 195-219.
Yin, R. (1994), Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zairi, M. (1997), “Business process management: a boundaryless
approach to modern competitiveness”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 64-80.
 IJQSS Further reading
4,1 Rohleder, T. and Silver, E. (1997), “A tutorial on business process improvement”, Journal of
Operations 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.
50
Corresponding author
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza can be contacted at: manuelfrancisco.suarez@itesm.mx
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Amit Kumar Arya, Suraj Choudhary. 2015. Assessing the application of Kaizen principles in Indian small-
scale industry. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 6:4, 369-396. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Hani Shafeek. 2014. Continuous improvement of maintenance process for the cement industry – a case
study. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 20:4, 333-376. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza, Tricia Smith. 2014. The Kaizen approach within process innovation: findings
from a multiple case study in Ibero-American countries. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence
25, 1002-1025. [CrossRef]
4. Amit Kumar Arya, Sanjiv Kumar Jain. 2014. Impacts of Kaizen in a small-scale industry of India: a case
study. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 5:1, 22-44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Kodo Yokozawa, Harm-Jan Steenhuis. 2013. The influence of national level factors on international kaizen
transfer. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 24:7, 1051-1075. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:39 31 January 2016 (PT)

6. Wiljeana Glover, Jennifer Farris, Eileen Van Aken, Toni Doolen. 2013. Kaizen Event Result Sustainability
for Lean Enterprise Transformation. Journal of Enterprise Transformation 3, 136-160. [CrossRef]