IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eaiere/v14y2017i1d10.1007_s40844-017-0067-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting the existing notion of continuous improvement (Kaizen): literature review and field research of Toyota from a perspective of innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Shumpei Iwao

    (University of Tokyo)

Abstract

Continuous improvement (Kaizen) has been identified as a crucial factor for strengthening firms’ competitiveness in the automotive industry as well as others, and many scholars view it as detailed below. In the existing literature, from a perspective of innovation, Kaizen has often been conceived of as an accumulation of similarly small, mutually independent, incremental process innovations that are conducted by workers, work-teams, and their leaders. However, few empirical case studies examine the relevance of this conventional notion of Kaizen. Do Kaizen activities contribute only to similarly small, incremental process innovations? Does Kaizen only consist of various mutually independent innovations? Is Kaizen always achieved by workers and work-teams rather than by engineers? This paper attempts to observe those continuous improvements conducted in a certain factory for a certain period. Through longitudinal observations, this paper shows via seven case studies that (1) Kaizen consists of a series of innovations with various scales and that these scales could also be estimated by the “scope of coordination” in addition to existing scale indicators, such as the investment amount, and outcomes, such as the cost reduction effect. Additionally, (2) Kaizen sometimes induces small changes in product design and affects organizational activities of production design as a small-scale product innovation. Furthermore, (3) Kaizen activities sometimes influence other Kaizen activities. With regard to these characteristics of Kaizen, this paper implies that (4) Kaizen management needs organizational design. For example, in Toyota’s case, not only work-teams but also product/process design engineers contribute to Kaizen, and shop-floor engineers play a vital role in coordinating between shop-floors and engineering departments on the basis of the “staff-in-line structure” of organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Shumpei Iwao, 2017. "Revisiting the existing notion of continuous improvement (Kaizen): literature review and field research of Toyota from a perspective of innovation," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 29-59, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eaiere:v:14:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40844-017-0067-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40844-017-0067-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40844-017-0067-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40844-017-0067-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Koike, Kazuo, 1998. "NUMMI and Its Prototype Plant in Japan: A Comparative Study of Human Resource Development at the Workshop Level," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 49-74, March.
    2. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines: a review of the literature," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(4), pages 643-678, August.
    3. Choi, Ty, 1995. "Conceptualizing continuous improvement: Implications for organizational change," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 607-624, December.
    4. Paul S. Adler & Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine, 1999. "Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 43-68, February.
    5. Markus C. Becker, 2005. "The concept of routines: some clarifications," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 29(2), pages 249-262, March.
    6. Maurizio Zollo & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 339-351, June.
    7. Robert H. Hayes & Kim B. Clark, 1985. "Explaining Observed Productivity Differentials Between Plants: Implications for Operations Research," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 15(6), pages 3-14, December.
    8. Martha S. Feldman, 2000. "Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(6), pages 611-629, December.
    9. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines : a review of the literature," Post-Print hal-00279010, HAL.
    10. Sidney G. Winter, 2003. "Understanding dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(10), pages 991-995, October.
    11. Fujimoto, Takahiro, 1999. "The Evolution of Manufacturing Systems at Toyota," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195123203.
    12. Markus C. Becker, 2005. "The concept of routines : some clarifications," Post-Print hal-00279160, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Honorine Harlé & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil & Tony Bourlier & Yann Veslin, 2023. "What Does The Factory’s Suggestion Box Reveal? An analysis of the design capabilities of a train maintenance center from its idea management system," Post-Print hal-03807883, HAL.
    2. Nelson, John P., 2023. "Differential “progressibility” in human know-how: A conceptual overview," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    3. Drahoš Vaněček & Martin Pech & Michael Rost, 2018. "Innovation and Lean Production," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 66(2), pages 595-603.
    4. Honorine Harlé & Sophie Hooge & Pascal Le Masson & Kevin Levillain & Thierry Ménard & Benoit Weil & Guillaume Bulin, 2022. "Innovative design on the shop floor of the Saint-Nazaire Airbus factory," Post-Print hal-03807823, HAL.
    5. Thanh-Lam Nguyen, 2019. "STEAM-ME: A Novel Model for Successful Kaizen Implementation and Sustainable Performance of SMEs in Vietnam," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-23, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arie Y. Lewin & Silvia Massini & Carine Peeters, 2011. "Microfoundations of Internal and External Absorptive Capacity Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 81-98, February.
    2. Ugo Rizzo & Daniela Freddi & Laura Ramaciotti, 2015. "The Impact of New Scientific Knowledge on Firms’ Routines and Capabilities: The Case of Mechatronics," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(06), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Robert Charles Sheldon & Eric Michael Laviolette & Fabien Geuser, 2020. "Explaining the process and effects of new routine introduction with a notion of micro-level entrepreneurship," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 609-642, July.
    4. Schmidt, Heiko M. & Santamaria-Alvarez, Sandra Milena, 2022. "Routines in International Business: A semi-systematic review of the concept," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2).
    5. Burr, Wolfgang & Frohwein, Torsten, 2012. "Regelbrüche in Organisationen," Research Papers on Innovation, Services and Technology 1/2012, University of Stuttgart, Institute of Business Administration, Department I - Institute of Research & Development and Innovation Management.
    6. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Post-Print halshs-03718851, HAL.
    7. van Rijnsoever & Marius Meeus & Roger Donders, 2012. "The effects of economic status and recent experience on innovative behavior under environmental variability: an experimental approach," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 12-01, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Jan 2012.
    8. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Meeus, Marius T.H. & Donders, A. Rogier T., 2012. "The effects of economic status and recent experience on innovative behavior under environmental variability: An experimental approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 833-847.
    9. Davies, Andrew & Frederiksen, Lars & Cacciatori, Eugenia & Hartmann, Andreas, 2018. "The long and winding road: Routine creation and replication in multi-site organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1403-1417.
    10. Paul Peigné, 2013. "Routines during an organizational change: a study on dynamics and its effects," Post-Print hal-00876163, HAL.
    11. Andrea Furlan & Roberto Grandinetti, 2018. "Can routines be inherited? A microfoundational approach to spinoffs," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0217, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    12. Becker, Markus C. & Zirpoli, Francesco, 2008. "Applying organizational routines in analyzing the behavior of organizations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 128-148, April.
    13. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1119-1154, September.
    14. Gopesh Anand & John Gray & Enno Siemsen, 2012. "Decay, Shock, and Renewal: Operational Routines and Process Entropy in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1700-1716, December.
    15. Schriber, Svante & Löwstedt, Jan, 2015. "Tangible resources and the development of organizational capabilities," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 54-68.
    16. Aura Parmentier Cajaiba & Giovany Cajaiba Santana, 2014. "Routines and Networks: Strengthening a Missed Link," GREDEG Working Papers 2014-41, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    17. Fabio Blanco-Mesa & Omar Vinchira & Yesica Cuy, 2023. "Forgotten Factors in Knowledge Conversion and Routines: A Fuzzy Analysis of Employee Knowledge Management in Exporting Companies in Boyacá," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-35, January.
    18. Erik Lundmark & Alf Westelius, 2014. "Entrepreneurship as Elixir and Mutagen," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(3), pages 575-600, May.
    19. Cohendet Patrick & Llerena Patrick & Simon Laurent, 2014. "The Routinization of Creativity: Lessons from the Case of a Video-game Creative Powerhouse," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 234(2-3), pages 120-141, April.
    20. Peter Abell & Teppo Felin & Nicolai Foss, 2008. "Building micro-foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 489-502.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Process innovation; Large/small innovation; Routine dynamics; Lean manufacturing; Dynamic capabilities;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M0 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - General
    • M1 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration
    • M2 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eaiere:v:14:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40844-017-0067-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.