The TQM Journal

Kaizen philosophy: The keys of the permanent suggestion systems analyzed from
the workers’ perspective
Juan A. Marin-Garcia, Amable Juarez-Tarraga, Cristina Santandreu-Mascarell,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Juan A. Marin-Garcia, Amable Juarez-Tarraga, Cristina Santandreu-Mascarell, (2018) "Kaizen
philosophy: The keys of the permanent suggestion systems analyzed from the workers’ perspective",
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

The TQM Journal, Vol. 30 Issue: 4, pp.296-320, https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2017-0176

Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2017-0176
Downloaded on: 03 May 2019, At: 01:28 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 95 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1337 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2018),"Three-dimensional sustainability of Kaizen", The TQM Journal, Vol. 30 Iss 4 pp. 391-408 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2017-0179">https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2017-0179</a>
(2018),"Kaizen, a continuous improvement practice in organizations: A comparative study in
companies from Mexico and Ecuador", The TQM Journal, Vol. 30 Iss 4 pp. 255-268 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/TQM-07-2017-0085">https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-07-2017-0085</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:233789 []
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.
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

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

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm

TQM
30,4 Kaizen philosophy
The keys of the permanent suggestion systems
analyzed from the workers’ perspective
296 Juan A. Marin-Garcia, Amable Juarez-Tarraga and
Cristina Santandreu-Mascarell
Received 23 December 2017 Department of Business Organization, Reengineering,
Revised 13 February 2018
Accepted 15 February 2018 Organization and Logistics Management Business (ROGLE – DOE),
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to perform a context analysis about a specific Kaizen program,
suggestion systems in permanent teams, and identified the barriers and facilitators that companies encounter
while implementing them from the workers’ perspective.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors applied an inductive method, the Grounded Theory,
to develop a specific context theory using the information that emerged from a convenience sample of
182 workers in several countries.
Findings – The facilitators and barriers identified for the workers in the field study are aligned with those
identified in previous studies, generally obtained using information provided by managers. The methodology
enabled us to identify the relationships between them and their level of relevance.
Research limitations/implications – The main limitations were linked with the source of the data as the
authors worked with a convenience sample and only analyzed the information provided by the workers.
Practical implications – The identified facilitators, their relationships and their relevance, contribute to
understand the functioning phenomena of suggestion systems in permanent teams to facilitate organizations
using this continuous improvement program more effectively.
Originality/value – The originality of this study, apart from identifying facilitators from the workers’
perspective, is that the used method enabled us to identify the relationships between them and know how the
operators perceived their relevance.
Keywords Continuous improvement, Barriers, Kaizen, Team effectiveness, Facilitators, Grounded theory,
Suggestions systems in permanent teams
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The current environment, in which many industrial firms operate, is characterized by fierce
competition with an increasingly predominant role of new technologies that develop toward
Industry 4.0, based on the establishment of smart factories, smart products and smart
services embedded in an Internet of things and of services (Sandengen et al., 2016).
In this context, continuous improvement (CI) is a weapon that maintains and improves
competitiveness through using knowledge and involving firms’ workers (García-Lorenzo and
Prado, 2003; Terziovski and Sohal, 2000; Van Dijk and Van Den Ende, 2002; Wood, 2003).
CI is referred to in the areas of literature with terms such as Kaizen, coined by Imai
(1986), and describes this philosophy as follows: “At the workplace, Kaizen means
continuous improvement, involving everyone, including managers and workers alike.”
To follow this Kaizen process in a particular department and across a given company,
it must be taken into account that this process should be economic (it should require less
effort than the benefits it brings) and be cumulative in that each made improvement opens
The TQM Journal up the possibility of successive improvements, while taking full advantage of the new level
Vol. 30 No. 4, 2018
pp. 296-320
of performance ( Jaca García et al., 2010; Jurburg et al., 2016; Oropesa-Vento et al., 2015).
© Emerald Publishing Limited In our study, we ran a context analysis about a specific Kaizen program,
1754-2731
DOI 10.1108/TQM-12-2017-0176 suggestion systems in permanent teams, and identified the barriers and facilitators that
 companies encounter during their implementation, analyzed from the Grounded Theory Kaizen
(GT) perspective. philosophy
By doing so, we aimed to provide a response to the following questions:
• What elements are activated when implementing suggestion systems into permanent
teams in a convenience sample in different countries in a Kaizen environment?
• Are these elements related?
297
• Is there a gap between theory and reality?
As the increasingly complex demands that comprise the production and service provision
environment present new challenges for researchers and managers to study improvement
and team effectiveness (Alcover et al., 2011; Mathieu et al., 2008), the response to these
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

questions will contribute to our understanding of the functioning phenomena of suggestion

systems in permanent teams. Moreover, in today’s competitive environment, organizations
must increasingly understand how to use suggestion work teams effectively if they expect
to obtain advantages that outweigh their costs (Hackman and Coutu, 2009). By considering
the right issues and facilitators and barriers, organizations will better understand how to
plan and manage them to end up in better conditions to make the expected improvement.

Theoretical framework
What is Kaizen?
From the Western perspectives of Kaizen, understood as CI, it can be seen as the corporate
capability that forms part of either total quality management (TQM) or some other kind of
improvement and innovation program (Bessant, 2003; Bessant and Caffyn, 1997). It is not a
static concept, but one that evolves through several levels (pre-CI, structured, goal-oriented,
proactive, CI capability), and specific behavior patterns emerge from each one while
successfully implementing CI (Bessant, 2003).
Undoubtedly, the addition of value to products and/or services is in the action of Kaizen.
Creative solutions and low-cost applications normally start from the base, and Kaizen
centers on identifying problems, their root causes, the solutions that must be implemented,
and the change in standards and operational methods required to ensure that the problem
does not occur again (Vonk, 2005).
Ideas/suggestions for improvement are the output of many difficulties in a highly
competitive and globalized environment. Thus, the elements that made Kaizen successful in
the Toyota Production System are still valid, and are more relevant today than in the 1970s
and 1980s in a competitive environment where speed and efficiency are crucial. Therefore,
companies can obtain significant competitive advantages by successfully implementing
Kaizen (Oropesa-Vento et al., 2015).
According to Suárez-Barraza and Miguel-Dávila (2008), “Kaizen is a management
philosophy that generates changes or small incremental improvements in the working
method (or work processes) that make it possible to reduce waste and consequently improve
work performance, thus leading the organisation to a spiral of incremental improvement.”
This management approach is rooted in a series of governing principles that guide the
behavior of people when they apply the ensemble of their techniques and tools to improve
their daily work (Berger, 1997; Imai, 1986).
Kaizen is, however, complex, interrelated and context dependent (García et al., 2014; Taylor
and Taylor, 2008). Many existing studies agree that adopting and implementing Kaizen are
not always straightforward due to the importance of organizational capabilities (Aoki, 2008;
Brunet and New, 2003), and it is particularly hard to sustain in the long term (Bessant and
Caffyn, 1997; Jaca García et al., 2010; Jurburg et al., 2016; Suárez-Barraza and Lingham, 2008).
In line with this, Suárez-Barraza and Miguel-Dávila (2011) considered four levels of application
 TQM for sustainability when implementing CI programs, made up of their evolution stages:
30,4 preceding (management through classic/bureaucratic models); initial (the discovery and
display of the CI of processes); intermediate (institutionalization of the CI of processes) and
subsequent (strategic link and the CI integrated with the management system).
The wide variety of tools, techniques and classification criteria identified in the literature
for applying Kaizen in companies, regardless of the analysis perspective employed
298 (Garcia-Sabater and Marin-Garcia, 2009; Marin-Garcia et al., 2012), evidences its complexity.
For example, Lillrank et al. (2001) identified four dimensions when designing tools that
address the implementation of Kaizen programs: if activities are carried out by individuals or by
groups; in the case of groups, if groups are mono-functional or multifunctional, and if they are
comprised by members at the same level or if there are hierarchies within the group; if activities
are parallel or are integrated into workers’ day-to-day lives; and lastly, if the structure is
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

permanent or dismantled at the end of specific projects. The Berger’s (1997) classification
mentions two dimensions: individual or group tasks and a parallel structure or one that is
integrated into daily work. According to Suárez-Barraza and Miguel-Dávila (2008), the Western
aspect of Kaizen presents four practical applications: Kaizen blitz, Gemba-Kaizen workshops,
office Kaizen and Kaizen teian (suggestion systems). Kaizen teian is the backbone of our research
in its teamwork aspect, and operates according to three main principles: first, a participation
system, in which employees participate voluntarily to improve their work; second, developing
skills where it is the management’s responsibility to train employees at all times, and it is the
employees’ responsibility to learn through practice; and third, creating a driving force, made up
of top management policies, managers’ participation, developing objectives and reward
mechanisms, preferentially not financial one ( Japan Human Relations Association, 1992).
Although individual tools in Kaizen teian, such as individual suggestion systems
(Prado, 2001; Rapp and Eklund, 2002; Schuring and Luijten, 2001), can be used, it is relevant
that they only obtain results comparable to groups if they are exceptionally well managed
(Rapp and Eklund, 2007). In individual suggestion systems, workers provide their suggestions
in a suggestions box (Marin-Garcia, Pardo del Val, and Bonavía Martín, 2008; Van Dijk and
Van Den Ende, 2002) by filling in a form, either on paper or electronically. Traditionally, once
workers have presented the idea, they break away from the process and responsibility shifts
to a Committee responsible for selecting winning ideas, deciding the amount of the prize, and
the people or groups to be responsible for implementing the approved ideas (Schuring and
Luijten, 2001).

Kaizen teams
If using teams, these tools include suggestion systems in parallel and permanent groups, as
well as quality circles or other similar ones (Garcia Lorenzo and Prado Prado, 2001; Grütter,
2002). The multifunctional or self-regulated work teams that incorporate continuous
innovation activities into their responsibilities (Kerrin and Oliver, 2002; Rapp and Eklund,
2002); ad hoc groups of a pre-set duration (Garcia Lorenzo and Prado Prado, 2001; Grütter,
2002; Kerrin and Oliver, 2002; Prado, 2001; Rapp and Eklund, 2007). Other tools based on
using groups are Kaizen Blitz, Gemba-Kaizen workshops, Kaizen Office, Lean-Kaizen,
Six Sigma and right through to those based on staff suggestion schemes, such as Kaizen
teian or broader approaches like TQM (Suárez-Barraza et al., 2012). Below a few descriptions
of some of the most significant tools in the Kaizen teams field are provided in the below list,
which aim to introduce the tool that is the subject of our study, suggestion systems in
permanent teams.
Significant tools in the Kaizen teams field:
• quality circles;
• improvement teams;
 • suggestion systems in permanent teams; Kaizen
• ad hoc groups; philosophy
• Kaizen blitz;
• Kaizen event; and
• self-regulated work teams.
299
Quality circles: they are formed by a small group of workers who participle voluntarily and
meet periodically to identify, analyze and propose alternative solutions to the problems
related to their area of work. These groups have autonomy only to propose ideas, which are
then evaluated by a Committee of managers that decides which ideas should be
implemented. Normally the people in the group take charge of implementing the ideas.
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

Meetings are usually scheduled in working hours and no direct rewards are offered for
belonging to these groups. Nevertheless, ideas are usually rewarded depending on their
usefulness for the firm. These prizes are awarded to the group for it to decide how to
distribute them or spend them (Kerrin and Oliver, 2002; Lawler III et al., 1992; Rapp and
Eklund, 2007; Sillince et al., 1996).
Improvement teams: these teams differ from quality circles in which members may not
participate voluntarily, but are chosen by the management, and they usually belong to
different areas of work or hierarchy levels. This composition favors complementary points
of view and the discussion of problems that affect different areas. Furthermore, these
structures are not usually as stable as quality circles as regards their duration and team
membership (García-Lorenzo and Carlos Prado, 2003; Lawler III et al., 2001).
Suggestion systems in permanent teams: in the Kaizen teian area, it is considered that
this type of groups has evolved from suggestion boxes (Marin-Garcia, Pardo del Val, and
Bonavia Martin, 2008), and these two programs play a pivotal role for those organizations
that wish to be more innovative (Buech et al., 2010) to survive in a context in which
innovation is compulsory (Amabile, 2012; Gressgård, 2011). In the next section, we describe
this tool in detail, which is the central point of our research.
Ad hoc groups (task forces, short-term project teams, etc.). They are created specifically
to take care of a very specific issue or problem, and are sometimes created in the Kaizen
events or improvement workshops context. Generally, these teams are interfunctional and
last a defined duration. A commissioned task is not usually frequent and, upon finishing it,
the group is dismantled (García-Lorenzo and Prado, 2003).
Kaizen Blitz (Chakravorty and Franza, 2012) and Kaizen event (Van Aken et al., 2010) are
short-term (e.g. 3-5 days) improvement methods. They are generally based on the ideas or
proposals put forward by managers, technicians or consultants (Marin-Garcia, Pardo del Val,
and Bonavia Martin, 2008) rather than involving all a company’s staff members
(Terziovski and Sohal, 2000). This cross-functional team usually focuses on large
improvements in a few targeted areas (Bessant et al., 2001; Farris et al., 2009).
A Kaizen event is “a focused and structured improvement project, using a dedicated
cross-functional team to improve a targeted work area, with specific goals, in an
accelerated timeframe” (Letens et al., 2006). Kaizen events are often associated with lean
production (Marin-Garcia et al., 2009). Published practitioner accounts suggest that they
can result in substantial improvements to technical system outcomes, such as lead time,
work-in-process inventory, and productivity, and in social system outcomes, such as
employee knowledge, skills and attitudes aligned with CI (Farris et al., 2009).Kaizen events
also appear to rely more often on a top-down approach for improvement strategy
implementation. Here the scope of individual Kaizen events is selected by management,
while other methods, such as quality circles, may rely on a bottom-up approach
(Melnyk et al., 1998).
 TQM Melnyk et al. (1998) described seven characteristics that distinguish Kaizen events from
30,4 other process improvement approaches. First, a Kaizen event is a self-contained short-term
intervention (typically three to five days) with a clearly defined finite life. Second, the scope
of a Kaizen event focuses on part of a specific value stream. Third, Kaizen events are low
capital interventions. Events generally have little or no budget for capital equipment, thus
the focus lies on improving existing processes, rather than implementing solutions that
300 require investing in new technology. Fourth, Kaizen events are team based, comprised of
employees from the targeted work area and support functions including, for example,
engineering, purchasing and production control. Kaizen events use employee knowledge to
develop better solutions, and are hypothesized to increase ownership. Fifth, Kaizen events
are action-oriented. Kaizen teams are often given the authority to implement solutions as
they are developed, without requiring further direct approval from management.
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

Sixth, most Kaizen event goals are measurable. Common metrics includes productivity,
work-in-process, floor space, throughput, lead times, set-up times, part travel times, percent
on-time delivery, defect rates, throughput and product design measures, such as price,
product line diversity, etc. Seventh, Kaizen events are designed to create a cycle of CI.
By using Kaizen events at multiple points in time, cycles of performance improvement are
created in a given process.
Self-regulated work teams: the workers group is responsible for an identifiable part of the
product or service. Members make decisions about task allocation, working methods, etc.
They are normally formed by multi-faceted people who perform very interconnected tasks
with skilled and varied work. The team may be responsible for support services
(maintenance, quality control or the supply of materials). It sometimes plays staff
management roles (hiring, dismissals, payment and training). There is less autonomy in
work teams and there is a manager figure. With the more autonomous groups, the manager
figure disappears and is transformed into a facilitator role, and the majority of decisions are
made by the workers group (Kerrin and Oliver, 2002).
These tools have been gradually introduced into companies and have been used in
different ways by applying distinct indicators to assess their performance ( Juarez-Tarraga
et al., 2016; Marin-Garcia, 2013b); for instance, the programs that first appeared in firms were
suggestion systems, followed by quality circles, and later improvement teams were introduced
(García-Lorenzo and Prado, 2003; Marin-Garcia, Bonavia Martin, and Miralles, 2008). In a study
of Spanish firms with more than 25 workers, the degree to which these systems are used clearly
inclines toward improvement teams (present in 74 percent of firms) and suggestions systems
(present in 64 percent of firms), whereas quality circles are becoming less common (30 percent
of firms) (García-Lorenzo and Prado, 2003). This situation is not exclusive to Spain, and the
maintenance of the popularity of suggestions systems, alongside the progressive substitution
of quality circles by improvement teams, is also seen in Australia (Terziovski and Sohal, 2000)
or the USA (Lawler et al., 2001).
It is important to point out that the level of use of these tools varies extensively
depending on the organizational culture or country. In Europe, the highest levels of
participation and team delegation are found in Sweden and Holland, followed by France,
Ireland and the UK as European averages. Denmark and Germany are below this average,
and Spain, Portugal and Italy come in last place (Benders and Huijgen, 2001; García-Arca
and Prado-Prado, 2007; García-Lorenzo and Prado, 2003; Marin-Garcia, Bonavia Martin, and
Miralles, 2008). It is even possible for level of use to differ in the functional areas of one same
company (Sloan and Sloan, 2011).
However, successful team building is not easy because teams themselves may not have
the skills or knowledge to create an environment in which they can develop. Some authors
have developed different models to understand the complex nature of team’s experience,
to measure and map out significant aspects, and to create concrete action steps for
 their own development. Some examples are Team-Directed Learning and Development Kaizen
Inventory (Suárez-Barraza and Lingham, 2008), in which organizations must be able to philosophy
provide teams with the knowledge and skill to engage in team-directed learning and
development. Such teams can generate even better performance for the organization.
Other authors have focused their analysis on the role that experts play in Kaizen teams
and how to get the most from their knowledge, in order to be able to visualize
opportunities and to clarify phenomena; that is, educating, facilitating, questioning and 301
building teacher-apprentice relationships (Suárez-Barraza and Sandoval-Arzaga, 2010).
From a systemic and holistic approach, when improvement groups are heterogeneous,
multidisciplinary and properly trained, it helps human resources and Kaizen groups easily
and naturally detect opportunity areas and consequently, their work capabilities are
enhanced, and quality of operations and products is improved. However, reaching such a
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

level of autonomy demands empowerment, which is only possible once groups

demonstrate outstanding problem-solving abilities (Stone, 2010).

Suggestion systems in permanent teams

These types of groups, according to the Kaizen teian aim, are based on the premise that
there are important reservoirs of ideas in companies that may remain hidden if such
systems are lacking (Leach et al., 2006). Suggestion systems allow the ideas and creative
capacity of all members in any organization to be captured, to increase performance, and not
just ideas from a few identified smart staff (Fairbank and Williams, 2001). If a useful system
is lacking, employees’ creative ideas can be lost. With this kind of high involvement work
programs (HIWP), employees with new ideas get the chance to submit a suggestion and to
receive feedback for it (Fairbank and Williams, 2001). Thus, by providing suggestion
systems, organizations benefit directly from their employees’ innovativeness (Buech et al.,
2010). By applying this program, the group of employees meets periodically to identify
and suggest improvements about their work (productivity, product or service quality and
working conditions). Operators receive training about team problem-solving techniques and
they simply need to offer suggestions. These proposals are assessed by the company’s
management, which decides if they are to be implemented or not. Sometimes, operators may
receive financial compensation for presented suggestions.
A successful suggestion system starts with a culture committed to building
collaboration, teamwork and worker empowerment by focusing people on CI
(Letens et al., 2006). Worker empowerment works only in companies where tasks and
methods have been clearly defined, creating a work plan, scheduling every task and clearly
assigning them to group members. This helps to have a clear view of who is responsible for
what. However, this means that roles within the group have been previously and clearly
established. This way, all group members are committed to their roles within the
hierarchical structure of the group (Stone, 2010). For empowerment to be effective, people
need to be properly trained, equipped and supported. Personal initiative must be
encouraged within clearly defined boundaries (Van Dijk and Van Den Ende, 2002).

Enablers and inhibitors

By measuring the sustainability of CI, research has tended to emphasize critical success
factors to measure its impact on a company’s economic and competitive benefits.
As the sustainability of Kaizen is measured by attributes or parameters that generate
information, it requires all the participants to get involved and be committed to focus on
common customer satisfaction goals to be effective, which allows them to be more
competitive. Therefore, it is essential to have clear and standardized attributes that enable
the organization to know what factors have a stronger impact on certain benefits, some of
which are discussed below, identified as enablers and inhibitors.
 TQM These enablers and inhibitors are elements or characteristics in an organization which,
30,4 due to their existence or absence in the company, act as catalysts by allowing Kaizen to
develop or, on the contrary, restrain, or even cause, CI to be limited in the company
(Marin-Garcia et al., 2010).
Several versions of key enablers or critical successful factors for Kaizen have been
identified by previous researchers, with a relevant “panorama” about what worries and
302 what is being researched in the academic sector about this subject (Fryer et al., 2007;
Garcia-Sabater et al., 2012; García et al., 2014; Lillrank et al., 2001; Marin-Garcia et al., 2010;
Rivera-Mojica and Rivera-Mojica, 2014).
For instance, Fryer et al. (2007) identified six key enablers to adopt Kaizen in
manufacturing organizations: strong and committed leadership from a senior management
team, communication, learning and training, quality culture, customer management and
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

quality data. According to Lillrank (1995) and Wittenberg (1994), the key enablers for
improvement implementations can be grouped into hardware factors, software factors and
personnel (Humanware) factors.
When examining the classification of Lillrank (1995), the hardware factor provides
improvement implementations with appropriate and enough measureable hard facts,
which includes enablers to bring major improvements to the shop floor and
production facilities, and then enhance performance to meet higher requirements.
The software factor indicates company rules and routines. Its enablers embrace shop floor
procedures, policies and institutional arrangements for improvement implementations,
including aspects such as open communication network, the use of incentive rewards,
a feedback scheme, or the improvement culture. Personnel factor enablers refer to
employees at all levels as Kaizen requires a high value of humanware’s involvement
and participation, and personnel is the critical factor for success, specifically as top
managers, line managers and shop floor personnel play a key role in successful
improvement implementation.
The study by Marin-Garcia et al. (2010) identifies seven key categories of facilitators that
integrate and extend the categories of enablers proposed by different authors: leadership
management, organizational culture, strategies and objectives, information and metrics,
selection of projects, process/protocol and resources and organization. In a subsequent
research, Garcia-Sabater and Marin-Garcia (2011) have tried to identify and characterize the
enablers and inhibitors through interviews with middle management groups and
individuals responsible for CI in companies located in Spain (see below list).
Enablers identified by Garcia-Sabater and Marin-Garcia (2011):
• management of process;
• motivation of the workers;
• involvement of direction and strategy;
• management of leadership;
• objective setting and the necessity to measure; and
• cultural aspects.
In the research run by Suárez-Barraza and Miguel-Dávila (2011) about the guiding
principles of Kaizen in multinational companies in Mexico, they identified several
facilitators and barriers in the cases analyzed: active and committed leadership by
the CEO of the plant, operative managers involved, there is a person responsible for the
Kaizen effort (improvement agent), training workshops, measuring the results before
and after Kaizen works, employee participation, and finally, standardization and
process measurement.
 The critical input and process factor for sustaining outcomes in Kaizen events identified Kaizen
by Glover et al. (2011) and the factors associated with sustainability of CI by Jaca García philosophy
et al. (2010) are summarized in the following lists.
Kaizen event outcome drivers identified by Glover et al. (2011):
• management support;
• goal difficulty;
303
• team autonomy;
• goal clarity;
• internal processes;
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

• work area routineness;

• team Kaizen experience; and
• team leader experience.
Factors associated with sustainability identified in the literature:
• use of an appropriate methodology;
• presence of a facilitator to support the program;
• commitment and support from the managers;
• assign specific resources to the improvement programs: economic, time, environment, etc.;
• stability (absence of changes, conflicts, resistance to change);
• involvement or commitment of the participants;
• teamwork;
• communication of the results to the rest of the organization;
• participation;
• adequate training;
• establishment of objectives (aligned with the general objectives);
• obtaining and implementing results; and
• existence of indicators associated with the results obtained.
Finally, in the literature review by Rivera-Mojica and Rivera-Mojica (2014), they identified
different elements that contribute to the successful implementation of Kaizen (see below list),
prioritized by relevance levels.
Elements that contribute to the successful implementation of Kaizen (Rivera-Mojica and
Rivera-Mojica, 2014):
• commitment and motivation of the team;
• support from top management;
• assigned resources;
• leadership;
• developing a culture of CI;
• set goals for improvement programs;
• using an appropriate methodology;
 TQM • standardization and process measurement;
30,4 • organization of support equipment;
• presence of a facilitator to support the program;
• interdepartmental communication;
• conflict between improvement approach and the existing culture;
304
• employee attitude;
• interdepartmental cooperation;
• follow the PDCA cycle;
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

• training;
• heterogeneity of the improvement teams;
• evaluation system;
• skills and experience;
• establish policies, objectives and structure; and
• clarify common goals and ideas of managers.
Although several researchers have contributed to this field, the fact is that the increasingly
complex demands that comprise the production and service provision environment present
new challenges for researchers and managers. Hence the relevance to review the extent
to which the approaches in the academic sector remain valid in companies. Our study aims to
provide as much information about human resources or operations as possible to managers to
correctly plan the implementation of these programs as ineffective teams cause organizations
to waste resources, fall short of performance objectives, rework designs and extend time to
market (Ross et al., 2008). So team members must learn to overcome or avoid if they are
to succeed in achieving a synergy: the added advantage of working in teams over and above
the outputs from individuals who work alone (Kozlowski Steve and Bell Bradford, 2013).

Methodology
We applied an inductive method, the GT, to develop a context-specific theory using the
information that emerged from the data collected in the study.
The GT was defined by Glaser and Strauss (1967) as a method to “discover theories using
data analysis.” This implies the existence of a reality that is “there” and that the researcher
needs to find. According to Charmaz, (2000), prior knowledge of researchers, their research
question, the way in which the method is approached, their baggage as researchers (personal,
philosophical, theoretical, methodological) ultimately influence the results of the study.
In order to analyze the qualitative data by applying the GT, categories of meaning were
identified and integrated using the data. Categories are groups of “cases” (events, processes,
etc.) that share central characteristics. After the categorization, the next step was to code the
categories. To that end, an attempt was made to make the names assigned to the categories
to correspond to the words or phrases used by the study participants themselves (categories
or codes were not established using prior theoretical formulations). Coding was carried out
independently by two researchers to minimize any possible “contamination” of their prior
knowledge. Following this initial independent coding, differences were compared in an
attempt to “capture” all the existing codes. Finally, after locating all the descriptive
categories, facilitators in our case, connections were made among them, and the extent to
which the obtained results aligned with those put forward by former studies was analyzed.
 In order to carry out the research, we used a non-probability convenience sample of 182 Kaizen
interviews with employees. The semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face, and philosophy
in both Spanish and English.
The semi-structured interview script was created by Marin-Garcia (2013a), who
conducted previous work in this field (Marin-Garcia, 2002; Marin-Garcia and Conci, 2013).
It is important to point out that this script includes some close-ended questions and several
open-ended questions. In this paper, only the open-ended questions were subsequently 305
analyzed with qualitative analysis software. Such questioning enabled us to obtain evoked
responses, which we considered highly relevant for the interests of our study, compared to
the results that can be obtained with closed questionnaires, while evoked responses allow
conclusions to be drawn that are not predetermined by the researcher, but by the
interviewee (Atieno, 2009; Robinson, 2014).
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

There are many reasons why researchers generally use non-probability sample methods,
but the main one is that probability-based sampling is excessively costly. With a
non-probability method, it is not possible to make generalizations (inferential estimations
about the population), as there is no certainty as to the taken sample being representative
because not all the subjects in the population had the same probability of being chosen.
Hence this type of method is used to reduce costs, or because the priority is easy access to
the sample, or its willingness to cooperate (Wu Suen et al., 2014). Ultimately, this was a
qualitative sampling procedure in which the main researcher selected the participants as
they were willing and available to participate (Palinkas et al., 2015).
In our case, the sample was obtained over a three-year period by the semi-structured
open-ended interviews conducted by the students in the “participative management” class
in a master’s degree in management research. During the course, the students received more
than 40 hours of specific training with the interview’s content. They were taught how to
conduct research interviews, and they finally gave an extensive questionnaire about
different HIWP and the satisfaction of company employees and managers with their closest
circle. As the students came from different countries, the sample also contained data from
different countries and company types.
The responses from the part of script used to evaluate permanent suggestions teams
(Table I) were collected and written by the interviewer to be later analyzed.
The analysis of which facilitators and barriers are identified by worker interviewees is
addressed with the following questions:
V-04-10, V-04-11, V-O4-12 and V-04-13
Our study evaluated the perceptions of the facilities and barriers held by the operators
who participated in the permanent suggestions teams with questions about: the aspects
they liked and did not like of the permanent suggestions teams (questions v-04-10 and
v-04-11); those who did not participate (question v-04-13); those who did not have permanent
suggestions teams in their company, and were asked why they would like the program
to be implemented.
Qualitative analysis software was used to carry out the analysis of the conducted
surveys (Qualitative Data Analysis Miner (QDA miner) by Provalis Research Comp.)
(Lewis and Maas, 2007) to organize, search and code data into categories and codes to study
the patterns among codes.
After the QDA miner software had categorized and coded the data, in order to analyze
the responses obtained in the field study carried out, and to draw up a network between
facilitators, we devised a map of relations using atlas.ti, with the functionality that
this software related with visualizing the non-semantic linkages between different
project elements.
Below we provide the descriptive data about the convenience sample used to carry out
our study (Tables II and III) to characterize them in the most complete way possible.
 TQM Semi-structured interview script
Suggestion systems or troubleshooting systems in permanent teams Sistemas de sugerencias en grupo permanente (círculos de
30,4 (quality circles, innovation teams, etc.). The teamwork meets calidad, grupos de mejora...): El grupo de los empleados se reúne
periodically to identify and suggest improvements to worker-related periódicamente con el fin de identificar y sugerir mejoras a
problems (productivity, product or service quality, or working problemasrelacionadoscon el trabajo de los operarios
conditions). Employees are trained in team problem-solving (productividad, la calidad del producto o servicio o las
techniques and only have the power to propose suggestions. These condiciones de trabajo). Los operarios reciben formación
proposals are evaluated by the company’s management to decide if sobre técnicas de solución de problemas en grupo y sólo
they are implemented or not. Sometimes, the workers can receive tienen poder para proponer sugerencias. Estas propuestas
306 economic rewards associated with the suggestions presented serán evaluadas por la dirección de la empresa para decidir
si se implantan o no. A veces, los operarios pueden recibir
recompensas económicas asociadas a las sugerencias
presentadas

V.04.01.- Do they exist in the company? V.04.01.- ¿existen en la empresa?

Yes Sí
No (if you answered “No”, go on with V-04-12) No (Si contestan No, pasan a la V04-12)
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

V-04-02.- Do YOU participate in any?: V-04-02.- ¿Participa USTED en alguno?:

Yes Sí
No (if you answered “No”, go on with V-04-12) No (Si contestan No, pasan a la V04-12)
V-04-03.- How many people do participate in this team?: V-04-03.- Cuántas personas participan en ése grupo:
V-04-04.- Who are the components: V-04-04.- Cómo son los componentes:
All from the same unit Todos de la misma unidad
From different units/levels of hierarchy De diferentes Unidades/niveles Jerárquicos
V-04-05.- Describe briefly the training you have received V-04-05.- Breve descripción de la formación que ha
from the company to participate in this system: recibido de la empresa para participar en este sistema:
V-04-06.- How many hours per week are devoted by YOU for V-04-06.- Horas semanales aproximadas dedicadas por
these teams: USTED a estos grupos:
_______hours/week (estimated average) ____________Promedio de horas por semana aproximado
V-04-07.- How many suggestions does YOUR team present V-04-07.- Cuántas sugerencias presenta SU grupo
annually?: anualmente:
____________suggestions/team in a year __________Aproximado numero de sugerencias del grupo
en un año
V-04-08.- What percentage of the suggestions gets generally V-04-08.- ¿Que porcentaje de las sugerencias presentadas
accepted?: les suelen aceptar?:
0 Ninguna
less than 25% menos del 25%
Between 25% and 50% Entre el 25% y el 50%
More than 50% Más del 50%
V-04-09.- If the participation in these systems is financially V-04-09.- Si se recompensa económicamente la
rewarded, indicate on what these rewards are based on (% of participación en este sistema, indique en que se basan esas
the money that the company earns with your suggestion, recompensas (% de dinero que gana la empresa con
limits, etc.). If they are not financially rewarded, but susugerencia, límites, etc...). Si no se recompensó
otherwise, please indicate how: económicamente, pero sí de otro modo, indique cómo:
V-04-10.- Positive things you like about this system V-04-10.- Cosas positivas que le ve a este sistema:
V-04-11.- Things that you do not like about this system V-04-11.- Cosas que no le gustan de éste sistema:
V-04-12.- (If your company does not have any suggestion V-04-12.- (Si su empresa no tiene sistemas de sugerencias
systems in permanent teams) Would you like them to exist/ en grupos permanentes) ¿le gustaría a usted que
would you like to participate in them?: existieran/participar?:
Table I. No NO
Semi-structured Maybe Quizás
interview script Yes Sí
V-04-13.- Why? V-04-13.- ¿Por qué?

Results and discussion

The data showed that of all the interviewed employees, almost 40 percent worked for
companies with implemented suggestion systems in permanent teams. These data fall in
line with those obtained by other researchers (Clegg et al., 2002; Marin-Garcia, Pardo del
Val, and Bonavia Martin, 2008) for the implementation level of such programs.
Of all those workers whose company has implemented permanent suggestions groups,
around 50 percent participated in them. It is noteworthy that of the 60 percent of
respondents who indicated that these programs were not being used in their company
(Figure 1), a percentage higher than 43 percent stated that they would like them to be
implemented, with workers showing much interest in them being commissioned. This may
 Area Aspect Data
Kaizen
philosophy
Overall data Interviews with workers 182
Countries and interviews per Spain (52%), rest of Europe (18),
country Latin America (22%), others (8%)
Sector (manufacturing or services) 54% manufacturing; 46% services
Data from the companies that HAVE Your company has suggestion 40%
suggestion systems in permanent teams systems in permanent teams 307
The interviewed people who 21%
participate in these groups
Describe the members ( from the 28%: from different units
same unit/department, or from 22%: all from the same unit
different units) 50%: do not know
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

Data from the companies that DO Your company has no 60%

NOT HAVE suggestion systems in suggestion systems in
permanent teams permanent teams
Would you like to have them? 25%: Yes
17%: Maybe Table II.
11%: No Sample – general
6%: No answer descriptors

% Accepted suggestions Cases count Mean number of suggestions that a team presents in 12 months

More than 50% 14 22

25% to 50% 10 15
Less than 25% 8 13 Table III.
None 2 20 Sample. Process
Total 34 18 indicators

Have suggestions systems –

participate in them
Have suggestions systems – don’t
20% 25% participate in them
Don’t have suggestion systems
59% like to have
17%
21% 11% Don’t have suggestion systems
Maybe Figure 1.
6% Sample descriptors
Don’t have suggestion systems No

be related to the management-level effort that managers have to make to ensure the success
of these programs (Kozlowski Steve and Bell Bradford 2013):
• What elements are activated when implementing suggestion systems into permanent
teams in a convenience sample in different countries in a Kaizen environment?
Our analysis focused on identifying the facilitators and barriers perceived by workers while
they participated in permanent suggestion teams. To this end, we analyzed the data in an
attempt to ascertain which factors positively affected employees for them to participate and
submit suggestions ( facilitators). Thus, each identified facilitator could become a barrier,
simply because it was not activated with sufficient intensity (Bateman, 2005).
 TQM After identifying these facilitators, we analyzed if the obtained data were in line with that
30,4 obtained in previous research.
As an initial result, Table IV shows the facilitators identified after taking into account the
responses obtained from the interviews held with the workers of companies by applying the GT.
These results, which emerged from the analyzed information, provided 14 facilitators
that contributed to successfully implement a specific Kaizen teian program: suggestion
308 systems in permanent teams.
In order to compare, validate and further examine the obtained findings, we compared
these findings with those reported by other researchers, which enabled us to complete the
descriptions of the facilitators identified in our study and to make correlations with the
classifications created by other authors (Table V ). This study showed how the perceptions
shown by the workers in our study field aligned with what has been identified in prior
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

studies, where the obtained data mainly came from managers:

• Are these elements related?
The methodology used in the study enabled us to naturally identify the network of
relationships that the interviewees identified between facilitators.
These relationships, which were encoded in the Atlas.ti software (Table VI), produced a
network that enabled us to display (Figure 2) each facilitator’s level of relevance through the
number of relationships identified by other facilitators.
As Figure 2 shows, the relationships are not homogeneous. In some cases, the
relationships are 1 to 1, which is the case of “Self-responsible/self-efficacy”, and of “Culture
that encourages Organizational Citizenship Behavior or extra role behavior”; in other
cases, these relationships increase, as in communication (six relationships), intrinsic
rewards ( five relationships) and “Knowledge management” or “Formalization of the
program” ( four relationships). This led us to suggest that when it came to working and
strengthening facilitators, it was necessary to bear in mind the relationships among them
to suggest that strengthening the facilitators with the most relationships can actually
improve the result.
Although in our work, we have not identified any previous research that prioritizes the
facilitators attending to the relationships between them in our work, other authors also propose
a hierarchy of facilitators. For example, Garcia-Sabater and Marin-Garcia (2009) establish three
groups of facilitators. In the first group, we can find those related to the involvement
of the operators, who are considered by the managers as indispensable facilitators.

No. Code – facilitator Description (words used by the workers in our field study)

1 Good communication (equal voice) (active listening)(share ideas)

2 Assertive behavior (improve myself ) ( feel united to the team)
3 Self-efficacy (efficiency)
4 Knowledge Management (knowledge sharing)
5 Training (learning)
6 Leadership (manager shows interest)
7 Compensation systems (incentives)
8 Intrinsic motivation (motivation)
9 Feedback about suggestions ( feedback)
Table IV. 10 Participating in the implementation (participate)
Facilitators identified 11 Protocol (work model)
by the authors by 12 Enterprise culture (share) (results orientation)
applying the 13 Group composition (including the right people)
grounded theory 14 Sufficient resources (resources) (time)
 Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

Authors code –
No. by field study Facilitator – by previous research Description Previous research

1 Good Successful/good communication Through effective communication channels, the Ahmed (2009), Fryer et al. (2007), Rivera-Mojica and
communication barriers between the shop floor and management are Rivera-Mojica (2014), Suárez-Barraza and
removed Miguel-Dávila (2011)
2 Assertive Proactive personality ; proactivity; Personal disposition toward proactive behavior. Ohly and Fritz (2010)
behavior assertive behavior of members; Proactive behavior is described as self-starting and Pais and Parente (2015), Van Aken et al. (2010),
Commitment of the team change- or future-oriented, and can include actively Rivera-Mojica and Rivera-Mojica (2014)
attacking problems, suggesting improvements, or
taking charge of a long-term issue.
Employees’ proactive personality is increasingly
important for organizations that seek to adapt and
survive in uncertain economic environments
3 Self-efficacy Self-responsible/self-efficacy This reflects the extent to which individuals see Ohly and Fritz (2010)
themselves capable of accomplishing tasks and how
it motivates them to engage in innovative behaviors
4 Knowledge Knowledge management Allows organizations to enhance specific Van Dijk and Van Den Ende (2002), Kesting and
management competencies and to discover innovation Parm Ulhøi (2010)
opportunities
5 Training Training ( formal and informal) Refers to a systematic planned intervention aimed to Rapp and Eklund (2007), Salas et al. (2008),
facilitate the development of job-related KSAs Rivera-Mojica and Rivera-Mojica (2014), Fryer et al.
(2007), Suárez-Barraza and Miguel-Dávila (2011), Jaca
García et al. (2010)
6 Leadership Involvement of the management/ The leader generates the team’s basic action lines, Kozlowski Steve and Bell Bradford (2013), Grütter
Leadership/ management support coordinates its activity and links it to other (2002), Burke et al. (2006)
of the system organizational units, which thus facilitate the team’s
performance
7 Compensation External rewards/ Compensation Are drivers for employees to take risks, think Fairbank and Williams (2001), Grütter (2002), Kerrin
systems systems creatively in new and successful products, and and Oliver (2002), Suárez-Barraza and Miguel-Dávila
process creation added to organizational innovation (2011), Rivera-Mojica and Rivera-Mojica (2014), Fryer
performance. Compensation system motivated et al. (2007), Jaca García et al. (2010), Glover et al.
employees which, in turn, increases organizational (2011)
innovation

(continued )
philosophy
Kaizen

309

Facilitators for
Table V.

research
suggestions systems

authors, and its

identified by the

relation to former
in permanent teams
 Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

30,4

310
TQM

Table V.
Authors code –
No. by field study Facilitator – by previous research Description Previous research

8 Intrinsic Intrinsic rewards/ work Employees must be rewarded with not only tangible, Fairbank and Williams (2001), Garcia-Sabater and
motivation engagement/organizational but also intangible benefits (Ahmed, 2009) Marin-Garcia (2009)
commitment
9 Feedback Evaluation and feedback about Feedback is important because having no feedback Rapp and Eklund (2007), Axtell et al. (2000), Leach
about suggestions/ disseminate the can lead to people feeling ignored and dissatisfied. et al. (2006), Rivera-Mojica and Rivera-Mojica (2014),
suggestions accepted proposals Moreover, providing feedback to employees on their
ideas should demonstrate that the scheme is well run,
which thus facilitates sustained participation
10 Participate in Opportunity to participate in the Implement the accepted proposals quickly. Allow the Schuring and Luijten (2001), Jaca García et al. (2010),
the implementation person who makes the proposal participate in the Suárez-Barraza and Miguel-Dávila (2011)
implementation implementation
11 Protocol Formalization of the program/ Clearly define the objectives that the program aims to Rapp and Eklund (2007), Grütter (2002), Jaca García
protocol/clarity of the objectives attain - Begin with pilot experiences before extending et al. (2010), Suárez-Barraza and Miguel-Dávila (2011),
that the group aims for and them to the entire company Rivera-Mojica and Rivera-Mojica (2014), Glover et al.
commitment to them (2011)
12 Enterprise Culture that encourages Individual behaviors that support the organizational, Alcover et al. (2011)
culture Organizational Citizenship Behavior social, and psychological environment in which the Costa et al., (2015), Garcia-Sabater and Marin-Garcia
or extra role behavior technical core must function (2011), Rivera-Mojica and Rivera-Mojica (2014), Fryer
Contextual performance allows employees to use et al. (2007)
certain behaviors that go beyond their official work
schedule, but enhance organizational effectiveness
13 Group Group/Team Composition. Composition refers to the attributes of team members Endres and Rhoad (2016)
composition Including the right people and their suitable combination to form effective
teams
14 Sufficient Sufficient resources If organizations lack the necessary resources, even Van Dijk and Van Den Ende (2002), Rivera-Mojica
resources the best suggestions received would not be fruitful. and Rivera-Mojica (2014), Jaca García et al. (2010)
Therefore, one of the main influences for successful
implementation is management commitment and
allocated resources
 Code of the relation in
Kaizen
No. Code Relations atlas.ti philosophy
1 Successful/good Good communication is related with 2 (a) 1 is related to 2 (a)
communication Success in communication is essential for 1 forms part of 4 (n)
knowledge management (n) 1 forms part of 9 (s)
Communication is basic to guarantee
feed-back (s) 311
2 Proactive personality/Assertive
behavior of members
3 Self-responsible/self-efficacy
4 Knowledge management Knowledge acquisition reinforces the 4 strengthens 10 ( j)
opportunity to participate ( j)
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

5 Training ( formal and informal) Training reinforces communication (g) 5 strengthens 1 (g)
Training reinforces feedback (h) 5 strengthens 9 (h)
6 Involvement of the All support, help and involvement of 6 makes 2 easier (p)
management/ Leadership/ managers facilitate employees’ proactive 6 makes 3 easier (r)
Management supports the attitude (p) 6 generates 8 (t)
system The involvement and support of managers
facilitates self-responsible and efficacy (r)
Involvement and support generate/
encourage intrinsic reward (t)
7 Extrinsic reward Extrinsic reward and intrinsic reward are 7 needs 14 (d)
complementary (l) 7 is complementary to 8 (l)
8 Intrinsic reward Intrinsic reward is associated with the 8 is associated with 10 ( f )
opportunity to participate ( f)Intrinsic reward 8 makes 2 easier (q)
makes proactive personality easier (q)
9 Disseminate the accepted Disseminate and feedback form part 9 forms part of 4 (u)
proposals/feedback about of 4 (u)
suggestions
10 Opportunity to participate in
the implementation
11 Formalization of the program / Formalization facilitates good resources 11 helps 14 (c)
protocol/ Clarity of objectives distribution (c) 11 strengthens 4 (i)
Formalization and protocols reinforce 11 strengthens 5 (k)
knowledge (i) and training (k) 11 makes 1 easier (o)
good formalization and protocol facilitate
communication and generate success (or)
12 The culture that encourages The culture should include the opportunity 12 is associated with
OCB/ Extra role behavior to participate (e) 10 (e)
13 Group/Team composition Although an express relationship was not As it was not possible to
found a tangential relationship with 1 (b) identify the type of
and 8 (m) is understood relationship:
13 no name 1 (b)
13 no name 8 (m) Table VI.
14 Sufficient resources Having no resources cannot give place Relations identified
to 7 (d) in the field study

Second, the facilitators that favor the introduction of changes in the way of working, such as
the involvement of management, the setting of objectives, the need to measure and dispose of
the necessary resources. Finally, the authors place the facilitators of CI, such as the need for a
promoter of CI and non-confusion with other concepts.
Additionally, the frequency of facilitators occurring in our field study revealed that, from
the operators’ perspective, “Successful/good communication” were the most significant,
with a frequency of 19 percent, followed by “Culture” 16 percent, “Leadership” 13 percent,
“intrinsic motivation” 9 percent, “formalization/protocol” 9 percent and “knowledge
 Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

30,4

312
TQM

Figure 2.

field study
identified in our
The network relations
Disseminate the accepted proposals/Feedback about suggestion Strenght Training (formal and informal) Self responsible/self-efficacy

Is part of Strenght Make easier

Sufficient resources
Is part of
Involvement of the management/Leardership/Management support of the system
Successful/Good communication
Need

Strenght
Is part of
Extrinsic reward
Helps to
Knowledege managment Generate Generate

Is complementary
Strenght

Fromaization of the program/protocol/clarity of the objectives Intrinsic reward

Noname
Strenght

Is related to Make easier

Is associated with

Noname

Opportunity to participate in the implementation

Make easier

Is associated with
Group/team composition

The culture that encourages OCB/extra role behavior

Proactive personality-Assertive behavior of the members
 management” 8 percent. When we combined this information with the relationships that we Kaizen
detected among them (Figure 2), the “communication” facilitator stood out as the most philosophy
relevant one.
In this sense, the relevance of communication has also been pointed out by other
authors (Ahmed, 2009; Fryer et al., 2007; Rivera-Mojica and Rivera-Mojica, 2014;
Suárez-Barraza and Miguel-Dávila, 2011), in the same way that the importance of having a
learning organization and the importance of supporting the development of a CI culture 313
has also been pointed out by Glover et al. (2011). Additionally, the management support of
the system, that according to our research does not have many relationships with other
facilitators (intermediate level, with three relationships), is identified by other authors as
one of the most relevant facilitators to ensure the sustainability of Kaizen programs
(Garcia-Sabater and Marin-Garcia, 2011; Oropesa-Vento et al., 2015; Suárez-Barraza and
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

Miguel-Dávila, 2011).
Such relevance should be proven in future studies to statistically determine its
significance. If confirmed, it could strongly impact the professional field for the selection
processes of managers:
• Is there a gap between theory and reality?
Although there appears to be no gap between our field study and the theory formulated in
former research in facilitator’s terms, our analysis results revealed a gap inother terms.
First with regard to the network of connections between facilitators, we found that no
former study had analyzed this network. This we considered a relevant aspect, mainly for
the professionals of companies to identify the levels to act at more intensely when
implementing permanent suggestions teams, such as a Kaizen tool, because the business
complexity that emerged from the responses analyzed herein generated relationships and
interconnections between facilitators which, if considered, enabled the positive obtained
results to grow exponentially by applying the facilitator if the identified relationships were
taken into account.
It is noteworthy that previous research into the “Training” facilitator, which
appeared less relevant in frequency of occurrence terms, has confirmed a positive
relationship between the training received by teams, and improvements in both objective
performance and assessments from managers ( Jaca García et al., 2010; Salas et al., 2008).
However, our research found that many of the participants in suggestion teams
had received no specific training (33 percent) before implementing the team or while it
was operating.
With regard to the “Compensation systems,” that is assessed in our questionnaire
through the existence of rewards programs, the results show that, from the operators’
perspective, is not a relevant facilitator, but the data revealed by prior studies assign a
major relevance, given that the existence of a recognized and clearly defined awards
systems plays an important role in supporting the development of ongoing improvement
programs (Chiang et al., 2014; Kerrin and Oliver, 2002; Marin-Garcia, Pardo del Val, and
Bonavia Martin, 2008; Marksberry et al., 2014).
Other authors, at different levels, have also manifested the existence of a gap between
theory and reality. For example, Suárez-Barraza and Miguel-Dávila (2011) identify a gap in
the application of Kaizen philosophy (the Do), and this may be the reason why many
companies have not been successful in the process, considering Kaizen as a “simple”
technique ( Jytusu), forgetting or not being clear about its philosophical principles (Do),
possibly because companies must adapt the model according to its own necessities, or
because the system is not fully integrated into the company’s strategy ( Jaca García et al.,
2010). Related to the participation of workers, in many organizations CI is supported by
managers (intermediate and technical managers), and the presence of workers (direct labor)
 TQM is reserved for specific cases ( Jaca García et al., 2010), which is against the principles of
30,4 Kaizen, as it promulgates the participation of workers as a source of ideas, and the need to
participate at all levels of CI.

Conclusions
In attempt to identify the Permanent Suggestion Systems Keys analyzed from the workers’
314 perspective, in this study we applied the GT to a non-probability convenience sample of
182 semi-structured interviews with workers, and we identified the barriers and facilitators
that companies encounter while implementing this type of Kaizen programs from the
workers’ perspective.
The results, which emerged from analyzing workers’ perceptions, provided 14
facilitators that aligned with what has been identified in previous studies, where the
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

obtained data mainly came from managers.

The frequency analysis revealed that, from the operators’ perspective, the most significant
enablers were “Successful/good communication,” with a frequency of 19 percent, followed by
“Culture” 16 percent, “Leadership” 13 percent and “intrinsic motivation” 9 percent. The
methodology used herein enabled us to naturally identify the network of relationships that the
interviewees identified among facilitators. In this network, the top critical enablers were “Good
communication” and “intrinsic rewards,” which were the facilitators with more relationships.
The findings of this study, which should be proven in future research to statistically
determine their significance, have important managerial implications because organizations
can actually improve results by strengthening the top factors that most relationships have.
Presenting the facilitators that are needed and how they are needed (their relationships,
Figure 2), facilitates tasks at the managerial level.
Our research is not without its limitations. It is first necessary to bear in mind that a
convenience sample is not representative of any population because it is the researcher who
selects the people to be interviewed. Therefore, extrapolating results to other samples/
populations involves statistical limitations (Atieno, 2009).
The analysis was carried out only on one part of the overall questionnaire that those
interviewed completed, which could have introduced some kind of bias into the reached
conclusions. For example in the case of training, some participants might not have received
training in these programs, but may have been trained in others. Moreover, if an overall
analysis is not carried out, the synergies that may be created through the combined use of
several programs are not taken into account, which is precisely one of the advantages of the
combined use of HIWP (Huselid and Becker, 1997).
In order to identify the impact of the outlined facilitators and barriers, continuing to work
in the following research lines is considered essential in order to:
• include the evaluation of some kind of result, whether at the team level, such as the
number of suggestions put forward by teams and/or the number of suggestions to be
finally implemented, or at an organizational level by identifying the benefits and
drawbacks that those interviewed expressed as improvements in companies, or even
the individual improvements proposed by workers;
• check if there are differences in the facilitators and barriers identified by operators
and managers;
• confirm the network between the facilitators identified in our inductive analysis by
applying the GT;
• confirm the relevance and priority of the facilitators; and
• analyze if the relevance and priority of the facilitators depend on the type of Kaizen
program used.
 Reference Kaizen
Ahmed, A. (2009), “Staff suggestion scheme (3Ss) within the UAE context”, Education, Business and philosophy
Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 153-167, available at: http://doi.
org/10.1108/17537980910960717
Alcover, C.M., Rico, R. and Gil, F. (2011), “Equipos de trabajo en contextos organizacionales: dinámicas de
cambio, adaptación y aprendizaje en entornos flexibles”, Papeles Del Psicologo, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 7-16.
Amabile, T.M. (2012), “Componential theory of creativity”, Harvard Business School, Vol. 12 No. 96, 315
pp. 1-10.
Aoki, K. (2008), “Transferring Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants in China”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 518-539, available at: http://
doi.org/10.1108/01443570810875340
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

Atieno, O.P. (2009), “An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative
research paradigms”, Problems of Education in the 21st Century, Vol. 13, pp. 13-18.
Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E. and Harrington, E. (2000),
“Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 265-285, available at: http://doi.
org/10.1348/096317900167029
Bateman, N. (2005), “Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement”, International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 261-276, available at: http://doi.org/
10.1108/01443570510581862
Benders, J. and Huijgen, F. (2001), “Measuring group work; findings and lessons from a European
survey”, New Technology, Work & Employment, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 204-217, available at: http://
doi.org/10.1111/1468-005X.00089
Berger, A. (1997), “Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizational designs”,
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 110-117, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/0
9576069710165792
Bessant, J.R. (2003), High-Involvement Innovation: Building and Sustaining Competitive Advantage
Through Continuous Change, Wiley.
Bessant, J. and Caffyn, S. (1997), “High-involvement innovation through continuous improvement”,
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-28, available at: http://doi.
org/10.1504/IJTM.1997.001705
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S. and Gallagher, M. (2001), “An evolutionary model of continuous improvement
behaviour”, Technovation, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 67-77, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-
4972(00)00023-7
Brunet, A.P. and New, S. (2003), “Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1426-1446, available at: http://doi.org/
10.1108/01443570310506704
Buech, V.I.D., Michel, A. and Sonntag, K. (2010), “Suggestion systems in organizations: what motivates
employees to submit suggestions?”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 507-525, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/14601061011086311
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. and Halpin, S.M. (2006), “What type of
leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 288-307, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.007
Chakravorty, S.S. and Franza, R.M. (2012), “Kaizen blitz”, Industrial Engineer, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 28-34,
available at: www.iise.org/IEMagazine/Details.aspx?id=30154
Charmaz, K. (2000), “Constructivist and objectivist grounded theory”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.
(Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 509-535.
Chiang, Y.-H., Shih, H.-A. and Hsu, C.-C. (2014), “High commitment work system, transactive memory
system, and new product performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 631-640,
available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.01.022
 TQM Clegg, C.W., Wall, T.D., Pepper, K., Stride, C., Woods, D., Morrison, D. and Kogi, K. (2002),
30,4 “An international survey of the use and effectiveness of modern manufacturing practices”,
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 171-191, available at: http://
doi.org/10.1002/hfm.10006
Costa, P.L., Passos, A.M. and Barata, M.C. (2015), “Multilevel influences of team viability perceptions”,
Team Performance Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 19-36, available at: http://doi.org/http://dx.
doi.org/10.1108/TPM-07-2014-0042
316
Endres, M.L. and Rhoad, K.T. (2016), “What makes a high performer share knowledge?”,
Team Performance Management, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6, pp. 269-283, available at: http://doi.org/10.110
8/TPM-05-2016-0022
Fairbank, J. and Williams, S. (2001), “Motivating creativity and enhancing innovation through
employee suggestion system technology”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 2,
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

pp. 68-74, available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00204

Farris, J.A., Van Aken, E.M., Doolen, T.L. and Worley, J. (2009), “Critical success factors for human
resource outcomes in Kaizen events: an empirical study”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 117 No. 1, pp. 42-65, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.08.051
Fryer, K.J., Antony, J. and Douglas, A. (2007), “Critical success factors of continuous improvement in
the public sector: a literature review and some key findings”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 497-517, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/09544780710817900
Garcia Lorenzo, A. and Prado Prado, J.C. (2001), “Los sistemas de participación del personal en España.
diferencias en función del tamaño,certificación ISO 9000 y sector de actividad de las compañías”,
Alta Dirección, No. 220, pp. 81-94.
García-Arca, J. and Prado-Prado, J.C. (2007), “The implementation of new technologies through a
participative approach”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 386-396,
available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00450.x
García, J.L., Maldonado, A.A., Alvarado, A. and Rivera, D.G. (2014), “Human critical success factors for
kaizen and its impacts in industrial performance”, International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 70 Nos 9/12, pp. 2187-2198, available at: http://doi.org/10.1007/
s00170-013-5445-4
García-Lorenzo, A. and Carlos Prado, J. (2003), “Employee participation systems in Spain. Past, present
and future”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 15-24,
available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/14783360309704
García-Lorenzo, A. and Prado, J. (2003), “Employee participation systems in Spain. past, present and
future”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 15-24, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1080/14783360309704
Garcia-Sabater, J.J. and Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2009), “Enablers and inhibitors for sustainability of
continuous improvement: a study in the automotive industry suppliers in the Valencia region”,
Intangible Capital, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 183-209, available at: http://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2009.v5n2.
p183-209
Garcia-Sabater, J.J. and Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2011), “Can we still talk about continuous improvement?
Rethinking enablers and inhibitors for successful implementation”, International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 28-42, available at: http://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.20
11.041678
Garcia-Sabater, J.J., Marin-Garcia, J.A. and Perello-Marin, M.R. (2012), “Is implementation of continuous
improvement possible? An evolutionary model of enablers and inhibitors”, Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-112, available at: http://
doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20262
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine deGruyter, New York, NY.
Glover, W.J., Farris, J.A., Van Aken, E.M. and Doolen, T.L. (2011), “Critical success factors for the
sustaining of kaizen event human resource outcomes: An empirical study”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 132 No. 2, pp. 197-213, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.005.
 Gressgård, L.J. (2011), “Virtual team collaboration and innovation in organizations”, Team Kaizen
Performance Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 102-119, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/1352 philosophy
7591111114738
Grütter, A. (2002), “Work team performance over time: three case studies of South African
manufacturers”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 641-657, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00031-1
Hackman, J.R. and Coutu, D. (2009), “Why teams don’t work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87 No. 5, 317
pp. 98-105, available at: http://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.40619980709
Huselid, M.A. and Becker, B.E. (1997), “The impact high performance work systems, implementation,
effectiveness, and alignment with strategy on shareholder wealth”, Academy of Management
Proceedings, pp. 144-148, available at: http://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.1997.4981101
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen: They Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, McGraw-Hill Higher Education,
New York, NY.
Jaca García, C., Mateo Dueñas, R., Tanco Rainusso, M., Viles Diez, E. and Santos García, J. (2010),
“Sustainability of continuous improvement systems in industry: survey of BAC and Navarre”,
Intangible Capital, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 51-77, available at: http://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2010.v6n1.p51-77
Japan Human Relations Association (1992), Kaizen Teian 1: Developing Systems for Continuous
Improvement through Employee Suggestions, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Juarez-Tarraga, A., Marin-Garcia, J.A. and Santandreu-Mascarell, C. (2016), “High involvement
work programs (HIWP) measurement model validation and its capacity to predict
perceived performance”, Intangible Capital, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 1308-1400, available at: http://
doi.org/10.3926/ic.837
Jurburg, D., Viles, E., Tanco, M., Mateo, R. and Lleó, A. (2016), “Measure to succeed: how to improve
employee participation in continuous improvement”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 1059-1077, available at: http://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2074
Kerrin, M. and Oliver, N. (2002), “Collective and individual improvement activities: the role of reward
systems”, Personnel Review, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 320-337, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/00
483480210422732
Kesting, P. and Parm Ulhøi, J. (2010), “Employee driven innovation: extending the license to foster
innovation”, Management Decision, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 65-84, available at: http://doi.org/10.110
8/00251741011014463
Kozlowski Steve, W.J. and Bell Bradford, S. (2013), “Work groups and teams in organizations: review
update”, Handbook of Psychology, doi: 10.1002/0471264385.wei1214.
Lawler, E.E. III, Mohrman, S.A. and Benson, G. (2001), Organizing for High Performance: Employee
Involvement, TQM, Reengineering, and Knowledge Management in the Fortune 1000, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Lawler, E.E. III, Mohrman, S.A. and Ledford, G.E. (1992), Employee Involvement and Total Quality
Management: Practices and Results in Fortune 1000 Companies, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Leach, D.J., Stride, C.B. and Wood, S.J. (2006), “The effectiveness of idea capture schemes”, International
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 325-350, available at: http://doi.org/10.
1142/S1363919606001521
Letens, G., Farris, J.A. and Van Aken, E.M. (2006), “Development and application of a framework for the
design and assessment of a kaizen event program”, 27th Annual National Conference of the
American Society for Engineering Management 2006 – Managing Change: Managing People and
Technology in a Rapidly Changing World, ASEM, pp. 298-307.
Lewis, R.B. and Maas, S.M. (2007), “QDA miner 2.0: mixed-model qualitative data analysis
software”, Field Methods, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 87-108, available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/1525822
X06296589
Lillrank, P. (1995), “The transfer of management innovations from Japan”, Organization Studies, Vol. 16
No. 6, pp. 971-989, available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/017084069501600603
 TQM Lillrank, P., Shani, A.B. and Lindberg, P. (2001), “Continuous improvement: exploring alternative
30,4 organizational designs”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 41-55, available at: http://
doi.org/10.1080/09544120020010084
Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2002), “La gestión participativa en las grandes empresas industriales españolas:
grado de uso, resultados obtenidos y comparación internacional”, ProQuest Information and
Learning, seccion UMI (Publication No. 3025050).
318 Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2013a), “Questionnaire to measure the degree of use of HIWP (high involvement work
practices)”, available at: http://jamg.blogs.upv.es/questionnaires/eeqspop/ (accessed July 27, 2017).
Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2013b), “What do we know about the relationship between high involvement work
practices and performance?”, Working Papers on Operations Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 1-15,
available at: http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/wpom.v4i2.1552
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

Marin-Garcia, J.A. and Conci, G. (2013), “Validación de un cuestionario para medir el grado de uso de las
prácticas de alta implicación de los trabajadores”, Intangible Capital, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 854-882,
available at: http://doi.org/10.3926/ic.417
Marin-Garcia, J.A., Bautista, Y. and Garcia-Sabater, J.J. (2010), “Implantación de la innovación continua
en la gestión de operaciones: una revisión de la literatura”, Revista Innovar, Vol. 20 No. 38,
pp. 77-94.
Marin-Garcia, J.A., Bonavia Martin, T. and Miralles, C. (2008), “The use of employee participation in the
USA and Spanish companies”, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering
Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-80, available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2008.10671037
Marin-Garcia, J.A., Garcia-Sabater, J.J. and Bautista Poveda, Y. (2012), “Etapas en la evolución de la
mejora continua. ¿Como viven las empresas este proceso? Estudio de un caso”, Economia
Industrial, No. 384, pp. 153-163, available at: http://doi.org/10.3926/ic.425
Marin-Garcia, J.A., Garcia-Sabater, J.J. and Bonavia Martin, T. (2009), “The impact of Kaizen events on
improving the performance of automotive components’ first-tier suppliers”, International Journal
of Automotive Technology and Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 362-376.
Marin-Garcia, J.A., Pardo del Val, M. and Bonavia Martin, T. (2008), “Longitudinal study of the results
of continuous improvement in an industrial company”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 14
Nos 1/2, pp. 56-69, available at: http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527590810860203
Marin-Garcia, J.A., Pardo del Val, M. and Bonavía Martín, T. (2008), “La mejora continua como
innovación incremental: el caso de una empresa industrial española”, Economía Industrial,
No. 368, pp. 155-167.
Marksberry, P., Church, J. and Schmidt, M. (2014), “The employee suggestion system: a new approach
using latent semantic analysis”, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 29-39, available at: http://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20351
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L. (2008), “Team effectiveness 1997-2007: a review of
recent advancements and a glimpse into the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 410-476, available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061
Melnyk, S. A., Calantone, R.J., Montabon, F.L. and Smith, R.T. (1998), “Short-term action in pursuit of
long-term improvements: introducing Kaizen events”, Production and Inventory Management
Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 69-76.
Ohly, S. and Fritz, C. (2010), “Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive
behavior: a multi-level study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 543-565,
available at: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.633
Oropesa-Vento, M., García-Alcaraz, J.L., Rivera, L. and Manotas, D.F. (2015), “Effects of management
commitment and organization of work teams on the benefits of Kaizen: planning stage”, Dyna,
Vol. 82 No. 191, pp. 76-84, available at: http://doi.org/10.15446/dyna.v82n191.51157
Pais, C.A. and Parente, C. (2015), “Representations of team work among organizations with a social
entrepreneurship profile a multiple case-study”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 21
Nos 1/2, pp. 65-84, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-07-2014-0042
 Palinkas, L.A., Horwitz, S.M., Green, C.A., Duan, N. and Hoagwood, K. (2015), “Purposeful sampling for Kaizen
qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research”, philosophy
Administration and Policy in Mental Health, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 533-544, available at: http://doi.
org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
Prado, J.C. (2001), “Beyond quality circles and improvement teams”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12
No. 6, pp. 789-798, available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/09544120120075379
Rapp, C. and Eklund, J. (2002), “Sustainable development of improvement activities - the long-term 319
operation of a suggestion scheme in a Swedish company”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13
No. 7, pp. 945-969, available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/0954412022000017049
Rapp, C. and Eklund, J. (2007), “Sustainable development of a suggestion system: factors influencing
improvement activities in a confectionary company”, Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 79-94, available at: http://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20064
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

Rivera-Mojica, D. and Rivera-Mojica, L. (2014), “Critical success factors for Kaizen implementation”,
in García-Alcaraz, J., Maldonado-Macías, A. and Cortes-Robles, G. (Eds), Lean Manufacturing in
the Developing World, Springer, Cham, pp. 157-178, available at: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-04951-9_8
Robinson, O.C. (2014), “Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: a theoretical and practical
guide a theoretical and practical guide”, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 25-41, available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2013.801543
Ross, T.M., Jones, E.C. and Adams, S.G. (2008), “Can team effectiveness be predicted?”, Team Performance
Management, Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 248-268, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/13527590810898518
Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Goodwin, G.F. and Halpin, S.M.
(2008), “Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis”, Human Factors,
Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 903-933, available at: http://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X375009
Sandengen, O.C., Estensen, L.A., Rodseth, H. and Schjolberg, P. (2016), “High performance
manufacturing – an innovative contribution towards industry 4.0”, Proceedings of the 6th
International Workshop of Advanced Manufacturing and Automation, Vol. 24, Iwama, pp. 14-20.
Schuring, R. and Luijten, H. (2001), “Reinventing suggestion systems for continuous improvement”,
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 359-372, available at: http://
doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2001.002969
Sillince, J.A.A., Sykes, G.M.H. and Singh, D.P. (1996), “Implementation, problems, success and longevity
of quality circle programmes”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 88-111, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/01443579610114112
Sloan, K. and Sloan, T. (2011), “Dispersion of continuous improvement and its impact on continuous
improvement”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 55 Nos 1/2, pp. 43-55,
available at: http://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2011.041679
Stone, K.B. (2010), “Kaizen teams: integrated HRD practices for successful team building”, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 61-77, available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/152
3422310365333
Suárez-Barraza, M.F. and Lingham, T. (2008), “Kaizen within Kaizen teams: continuous and Process
improvements in a Spanish municipality”, The Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 21,
available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/15982688200800001
Suárez-Barraza, M.F. and Miguel-Dávila, J.A. (2008), “Encontrando al Kaizen: un análisis teórico de la mejora
continua”, Pecvnia: Revista de La Facultad de Ciencias Económicas Y Empresariales, Universidad de
León, Vol. 7 No. 2008, pp. 285-311, available at: http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.18002/pec.v0i7.696
Suárez-Barraza, M.F. and Miguel-Dávila, J.Á. (2011), “Implementación del Kaizen en méxico: un estudio
exploratorio de una aproximación gerencial japonesa en el contexto latinoamericano”, Innovar,
Vol. 21 No. 41, pp. 19-37.
Suárez-Barraza, M.F. and Sandoval-Arzaga, F. (2010), “Experts within kaizen teams: how to get the
most from their knowledge”, Development and Learning in Organizations: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 10-13, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/14777281011056703
 TQM Suárez-Barraza, M.F., Ramis-Pujol, J. and Estrada-Robles, M. (2012), “Applying Gemba-Kaizen in a
30,4 multinational food company: a process innovation framework”, International Journal of
Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 27-50, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/
17566691211219715
Taylor, M. and Taylor, A. (2008), “Operations management research in the automotive sector: some
contemporary issues and future directions”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 480-489, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/01443570810875322
320 Terziovski, M. and Sohal, A.S. (2000), “Adoption of continuous improvement and innovation strategies
in Australian manufacturing firms”, Technovation, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 539-550, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(99)00173-X
Van Aken, E.M., Farris, J.A., Glover, W.J. and Letens, G. (2010), “A framework for designing, managing,
and improving Kaizen event programs”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)

Management, Vol. 59 No. 7, pp. 641-667, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/17410401011075648

Van Dijk, C. and Van Den Ende, J. (2002), “Suggestion systems: transferring employee creativity into
practicable ideas”, R&D Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 387-395, available at: http://doi.org/10.
1111/1467-9310.00270
Vonk, J. (2005), “Process improvement in business permits through Kaizen”, Spectrum, Vol. 78 No. 2,
pp. 33-34.
Wittenberg, G. (1994), “Kaizen-the many ways of getting better”, Assembly Automation, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 12-17, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004213
Wood, A. (2003), “Managing employees’ ideas from where do ideas come?”, Journal for Quality &
Participation, Vol. 26 No. 2, p. 22.
Wu Suen, L.J., Huang, H.M. and Lee, H.H. (2014), “A comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling”, Journal of Nursing, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 105-111, available at: http://doi.org/
10.6224/JN.61.3.105

Corresponding author
Juan A. Marin-Garcia can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
 This article has been cited by:

1. Suárez BarrazaManuel F., Manuel F. Suárez Barraza, Rodríguez GonzálezFrancisco G., Francisco
G. Rodríguez González, Miguel DávilaJose-A., Jose-A. Miguel Dávila. 2018. Introduction to the
special issue on Kaizen: an ancient operation innovation strategy for organizations of the XXI
century. The TQM Journal 30:4, 250-254. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Linnéuniversitetet, Universitetsbiblioteket At 01:28 03 May 2019 (PT)