10 September 2008 Vol. 20 No.

3 Engineering Management Journal

Learning From Less Successful Kaizen Events: A Case Study

Jennifer A. Farris, Texas Tech
Eileen M. Van Aken, Virginia Tech
Toni L. Doolen, Oregon State University
June Worley, Oregon State University
(Sheridan, 1997; Melnyk, Calantone, Montabon, and Smith,
1998; Laraia, Moody, and Hall, 1999); however, despite their
popularity and apparent potential for creating improvement,
there is a lack of systematic research on Kaizen events. Te
majority of current Kaizen event publications are focused on
anecdotal results from companies that have implemented Kaizen
events (Sheridan, 1997; Cuscela, 1998) and untested design
recommendations from individuals and organizations that
facilitate Kaizen events (e.g., Laraia et al., 1999; Vitalo, Butz, and
Vitalo, 2003). Tere is no systematic, empirical evidence on what
sort of Kaizen event designs may be most efective for achieving
and sustaining improvements in business performance or human
resource outcomes.
A particular weakness of the current published accounts
is the lack of attention to less successful events only strongly
successful Kaizen events receive much coverage in the accounts.
Tis is despite the fact that Laraia et al. (1999) suggest that
most companies will have difculty sustaining even half of
the results from a given event. In addition, the organizational
learning literature suggests that understanding less successful
tool applications is a key component of organizational learning
(Sitkin, 1992; Lounamaa and March, 1989; Cole, 1992).
Tis paper describes results from an ongoing research
program focused on identifying determinants of Kaizen event
efectiveness, both in terms of initial event outcomes and the
sustainability of outcomes. In particular, the paper presents
a case study of a less successful Kaizen event studied in the
current research to demonstrate how the event contributed to
organizational learning, and to highlight how the methods and
measures used in the current research allowed triangulation of
multiple data types and sources. Te implications of the case
study event for the current body of knowledge on Kaizen events
are also examined, and, fnally, directions for future research
are described.
Current Research Program
Based on the lack of previous research on Kaizen events, in 2002,
Oregon State University and Virginia Tech began a joint research
efort aimed at understanding Kaizen events. Tis efort is aimed
at measuring the outcomes of Kaizen events (both technical
performance and human resource outcomes), and identifying
what design and context factors relate to the efectiveness of
Kaizen events, both in terms of generating positive initial results
and sustaining event outcomes over time.
Te goal of the research is to sample multiple Kaizen events
in multiple organizations, in order to better understand how these
events (and associated outcomes) vary both within and across
organizations and industry types. A total of six organizations
participated in the frst phase of this research program, which
Refereed management tool manuscript. Accepted by Associate Editor Landaeta. A previous version of this work was presented at the
ASEM 2006 Conference.
Abstract: Tis paper describes results from an ongoing
research program focused on identifying determinants of
Kaizen event efectiveness, both in terms of initial event
outcomes and the sustainability of outcomes. Although
anecdotal published accounts suggest that increasing
numbers of companies are using Kaizen events, and that
these projects can result in substantial improvement in key
business metrics, there is a lack of systematic research on
Kaizen events. A particular weakness of the current published
accounts is the lack of attention to less successful events only
strongly successful applications of Kaizen events receive much
coverage in the accounts; however, the organizational learning
literature suggests that understanding less successful cases is a
key component of organizational learning. We present a case
study from a less successful Kaizen event to demonstrate how
the case study event contributed to organizational learning.
We also present a set of methods and measures that can be
used by practicing engineering managers and engineering
management researchers to evaluate and analyze Kaizen event
performance. Te implications of the case study event for the
current body of knowledge on Kaizen events are also examined,
and, fnally, directions for future research are described.
Keywords: Productivity, Teams, Lean Manufacturing,
Quality Management
EMJ Focus Areas: Strategic and Operations Management,
Program and Project Management, Quality Management
A
Kaizen event is a focused and structured improvement
project, using a dedicated cross-functional team to
improve a targeted work area, with specifc goals, in an
accelerated timeframe (Letens, Farris, and Van Aken, 2006).
During the relatively short timeframe of the event (generally 3
to 5 days), Kaizen event team members apply low-cost problem-
solving tools and techniques to rapidly plan and, ofen, implement
improvements in a target work area. Evidence suggests that
Kaizen events have become increasingly popular in recent years
as a method of rapidly introducing improvements. In particular,
Kaizen events have been associated with the implementation
of lean production (Womack, Roos, and Jones, 1990). In fact
Kaizen events apparently originated with Toyota, which used this
method to train its suppliers in lean production practices during
the 1970s (Sheridan, 1997).
Anecdotal published accounts suggest that some Kaizen
events have resulted in substantial improvements in key business
metrics, as well as in important human resource outcomes
11 September 2008 Vol. 20 No. 3 Engineering Management Journal
contained the case study event described here (a total of 51 events
were studied), and nine organizations are currently participating
in the second phase of the research program. Industry types range
from heavily manufacturing-focused companies (e.g., secondary
wood products manufacturers) to heavily engineering-oriented
companies (e.g., electronic motor manufacturer). Within each
organization, events within diferent organizational process
areas (e.g., manufacturing, engineering, sales, and product
development) are being studied. Te frst phase of this research
focused on initial outcomes of events, while subsequent phases are
focusing on results sustainability. Tis case study was completed
before the frst phase of the larger study was complete, and an
earlier work focused on the analysis of the case study data alone
(Farris, Van Aken, Doolen, and Worley, 2006
2
). In this paper,
we compare the results from the case study to fndings from the
now-complete frst phase of the larger study, to further evaluate
case study fndings; however, it is important to stress that the
contributions of the fndings from the larger data set are entirely
post hoc. Te evaluation of overall event performance and
identifcation of likely contributing factors were completed based
on the case study data alone. Findings from the larger data set, as
included here, are used only as a further test of the robustness of
case study conclusions.
Measures
A Kaizen event is a complex organizational phenomenon, with
the potential of impacting both a technical system (i.e., work area
performance) and a social system (i.e., participating employees
and work area employees). In addition, Kaizen events typically
use a semi-autonomous team (a social system) to apply a specifc
set of technical problem-solving tools. Tus, a complex and varied
set of measures including both technical system measures and
social system measures is necessary in studying Kaizen events.
Exhibit 1 presents the research model developed to study
initial Kaizen event outcomes. (See Farris, Van Aken, Doolen,
and Worley, 2006
1
, for a description of how the factors in the
model were identifed.) For the study of longitudinal outcomes,
additional factors related to the target work area and sustainability
mechanisms will be included. Te variables studied in the research
on initial outcomes are summarized in Exhibit 2.
Te longitudinal study of Kaizen event outcomes investigates
the relationship between technical system outcomes, work area
factors, and follow-up mechanisms. Technical system outcomes
to be studied include perceived success (overall success), impact
on the area, and the percentage of improvement sustained. Work
area factors to be investigated include work area employee learning
behaviors, work area employee stewardship, work area employee
Kaizen capabilities (i.e., task- and problem-solving knowledge,
skills, and abilities gained from Kaizen event participation), work
area employee commitment to Kaizen events, and the history of
Kaizen events in the target work area (both before and afer the
target Kaizen event). Follow-up mechanisms to be investigated
include the amount of resources invested on follow-up (hours),
as well as the specifc mechanism used (e.g., management review
meetings, audits, training on new standard work procedures, etc.)
Methods
Each participating organization frst completes a semi-structured
interview on its Kaizen event program as a whole (i.e., the way
it plans, implements, sustains, and supports Kaizen events). Tis
interview guide contains 35 open-ended questions related to
the Kaizen event program. Ten for each Kaizen event studied
Exhibit 1. Research Model for Initial Outcomes

)NPUT&ACTORS 0ROCESS&ACTORS /UTCOMES

+AIZEN%VENT$ESIGN!NTECEDENTS
s'OAL#LARITY
s'OAL$IFFICULTY
s4EAM!UTONOMY
s4EAM&UNCTIONAL(ETEROGENEITY
s4EAM+AIZEN%XPERIENCE
s4EAM,EADER%XPERIENCE
s%VENT0LANNING0ROCESS
s-ANAGEMENT3UPPORT
s7ORK!REA2OUTINENESS
s!CTION/RIENTATION
s!FFECTIVE#OMMITMENTTO#HANGE
s)NTERNAL0ROCESSES
s4OOL!PPROPRIATENESS
s4OOL1UALITY
s'OAL!CHIEVEMENT
s)MPACTON!REA
s/VERALL0ERCEIVED3UCCESS
3OCIAL3YSTEM/UTCOMES
+AIZEN%VENT0ROCESS&ACTORS
4ECHNICAL3YSTEMS
/UTCOMES
s!TTITUDE
s+AIZEN#APABILITIES
/RGANIZATIONALAND7ORK
!REA!NTECEDENTS
12 September 2008 Vol. 20 No. 3 Engineering Management Journal
within participating organizations, four research instruments
are used to collect data for the study of initial event outcomes
two questionnaires completed by team members (a Kickof
Survey and a Report Out Survey), one log of team activities,
and one questionnaire completed by the event facilitator (an
Event Information Sheet). Tese instruments, their contents,
and administration procedures are summarized in Exhibit 3. In
addition to these instruments, organizational documents (e.g.,
the report out presentation fle, team charter if used, etc.) are
also collected.
Besides the quantitative measures described in Exhibit 3, the
research instruments are designed to collect additional, qualitative
data on the event design, context, process, and outcomes. For
instance, the Report Out Survey contains two open-ended
questions that ask team members to describe the biggest obstacles
to the success of their team and the biggest contributors to the
success of their team, respectively. Te Event Information Sheet
contains additional open-ended questions asking the facilitator to
describe his/her perceptions of the biggest obstacles and biggest
contributors, as well as the event planning process, the kickof
meeting process, team training, and management interaction
with the team during the event.
In addition to the data collected on initial outcomes, a Post-
Event Information Sheet is used to collect longitudinal data on
the sustainability of event results approximately 12 months afer
event completion. Longitudinal data is being collected for the 51
events studied during the frst phase of this research, as well as
for subsequent events studied during additional phases of the
research. Some non-response is expected for a variety of reasons
(e.g., work area no longer exists, etc.). Exhibit 4 describes the
types of data collected in the Post-Event Information Sheet. It
is noted that pilot eforts in studying the sustainability of event
outcomes led to a change in the methodology from the version
presented in previous work (Farris et al., 2006
2
), specifcally
the combination of two instruments and the reduction of the
number of repeated observations. Both changes were designed
to reduce the measurement burden on participating companies
and to increase the likelihood of response, as pilot eforts
suggested that the initial methodology was likely to result in
high non-response.
As can be seen, the current research methodology uses a
mixture of measures, methods, and data sources to provide a
holistic assessment of the event design, context, process, and
outcomes. For instance, technical success is measured through
multiple measures (e.g., goal achievement, overall perceived
success, perceived impact on area) of multiple types (i.e., survey
scales and objective measures) and multiple data sources (i.e.,
data from team members and the event facilitator as well as
Exhibit 2. Variables Studied in Research on Initial Outcomes
Goal Clarity Team perceptions of the clarity of their improvement goals
Goal Difculty Team perceptions of the difculty of their improvement goals
Team Kaizen Experience Average number of previous Kaizen events completed by team members
Team Functional Heterogeneity Diversity of functional expertise within the Kaizen event team
Team Autonomy Amount of control over event activities given to the Kaizen event team
Team Leader Experience Number of previous Kaizen events the team leader has led or co-led
Management Support Team perceptions of the adequacy of resources dedicated to the event
Event Planning Process Total person-hours invested in planning
Work Area Routineness General complexity of the target system, based on the stability of the product mix and degree of
routineness of product fow
Action Orientation Team perceptions of the extent to which their team focused on implementation versus analysis
Afective Commitment to
Change
Team member perceptions of the need for the Kaizen event
Tool Appropriateness Facilitator rating of the appropriateness of the problem-solving tools used by the team during the event
Tool Quality Facilitator rating of the quality of the teams use of these tools
Internal Processes Team member ratings of the internal harmony and coordination of their team.
Goal Achievement Aggregate percentage of major improvement goals met
Perceived Success
(Overall Success)
Stakeholder perceptions of the overall success of the Kaizen event.
Impact on Area Team member perceptions of the impact of the event on the target area
Kaizen Capabilities Perceived incremental gains in employee task- and problem-solving knowledge, skills, and abilities resulting from a
specifc Kaizen event
Attitude Team perceptions of the degree to which members gained afect for events
13 September 2008 Vol. 20 No. 3 Engineering Management Journal
secondary, supporting data from organizational documents).
In addition, the collection of qualitative contextual data can be
used to further explain conclusions drawn from the quantitative
data. For instance, team member and facilitator descriptions of
the biggest contributors and biggest obstacles to team success can
provide rich data useful for understanding the event context.
Case Study
Te case study organization is a manufacturer of large equipment
which is participating in the current research. Te case study
organization has been conducting Kaizen events since 1998 and
conducts events in both manufacturing and non-manufacturing
work areas, with a roughly 70/30% ratio in favor of non-
manufacturing areas. On the whole, the case study organization
Exhibit 3. Study Instruments for Initial Outcomes
Instrument Measures
Person(s)
Completing
Timing Method
Kickof Survey GoalClarity
GoalDifculty
AfectiveCommitmenttoChange
Team
members
First day of event -- end of
the kickof meeting, which
introduces event goals
Group
administration
Team Activities
Log
None directly provides an understanding of
event context and can be compared to Action
Orientation scale results
One team
member
During event end of
each day
Self-administered
Report Out
Survey
Attitude
ImpactonArea
KaizenCapabilities
TeamAutonomy
ManagementSupport
ActionOrientation
InternalProcesses
OverallSuccess(PerceivedSuccess)
Team
members
Last day of event -- end of
the report out meeting,
where the team presents
results to management
Group
administration
Event Information
Sheet
TeamFunctionalHeterogeneity
TeamLeaderExperience
EventPlanningProcess
WorkAreaRoutineness
ToolAppropriateness
ToolQuality
OverallSuccess(PerceivedSuccess)
GoalAchievement
Facilitator One to two weeks after
event
Self-administered
or administered
via phone
interview
Exhibit 4. Study Instruments for Sustainability Study
Instrument Measures Person(s) Completing Timing Method
Post-Event
Information Sheet
Follow-UpInvestment
KaizenEventHistory
OverallSuccess(PerceivedSuccess)
PercentageofImprovementSustained
ImpactonArea
WorkAreaLearning
WorkAreaStewardship
WorkAreaCommitmenttoKaizenEvents
WorkAreaAttitude
WorkAreaKaizenCapabilities
Work Area Manager T2 = 12 months after
event
Self-administered
or administered
via phone
interview
management believes that the Kaizen event program is recognized
as a success within the company. Te results for the specifc event
described in this case study demonstrate how even organizations
with substantial maturity and experience in conducting Kaizen
events experience variation in outcomes across events. Te
study results also demonstrate how the measurement tools and
methods used in this research provide valuable information that
the organization, as well as the researchers, can use to learn from
all of its events (both more and less successful events). Finally, this
case study demonstrates how a less successful case can be useful
for deriving testable propositions regarding the contributing
factors to event success.
As part of the current research, the case study organization
collected data from a manufacturing-focused event, which
14 September 2008 Vol. 20 No. 3 Engineering Management Journal
occurred in February 2006. Te event focused on improving the
quality of the raw material delivered to production, and will be
referred to here as the Raw Material Quality (RMQ) event. Te
event was fve days long and the primary intended outcome was
an action plan for improving raw material quality. None of the
changes suggested during the event would be implemented until
afer the conclusion of the event. In the current research, events
of this type are referred to as non-implementation events.
While the Kaizen event literature and the authors experience
both suggest that many Kaizen events include full or partial
implementation of the teams solution as part of the formal event
activities (i.e. implementation events), the current data set and
some published accounts reveal that some organizations hold
events where implementation of changes is not a part of event
design. In these events, the intended output is a plan for change,
which could be a detailed action plan for implementing changes to
a work area or product or a more general list of action items (e.g.,
from a value stream mapping activity). In the 51 events studied in
the frst phase of this research, 75% (38) were implementation and
25% (13) were non-implementation. It can also be observed from
this that the averages for individual variables in our research are
likely more representative of implementation events, rather than
non-implementation events. Because of this, we note in this paper
how the event compared to the other 12 non-implementation
events in the sample, as well as to the larger data set as a whole.
Te detailed objectives for the RMQ event are summarized
in Exhibit 5. Tere were 11 members on the RMQ event team. All
11 team members completed the Kickof Survey (100% response
rate) and 10 team members completed the Report Out Survey
(91% response rate).
Te objective here is not to present all the data collected
from the event, but rather to highlight how the current research
contributed to a holistic understanding of the event and how
the event process could be improved. Tis is considered both in
terms of the relative levels of the diferent variables measured in
this case study event and the comparison of this event to the other
events studied in the frst phase of the larger research program.
Exhibits 6 and 7 display the boxplots of team member ratings for
the Kickof Survey variables and Report Out Survey variables,
respectively, while Exhibit 8 lists the summary statistics for the
Kickof Survey and Report Out Survey. On the boxplots, the
y-axes denote the response scales for the survey questions. All
survey questions used the same 6-point Likert-type (Likert, 1932)
response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = tend
to disagree, 4 = tend to agree, 5 = agree, and 6 = strongly
agree). Te x-axes denote the diferent survey variables. Te
middle line of each boxplot represents the within-team median
score for that variable, while the box captures 50% of the data,
and the whiskers capture the upper and lower quartiles. Outliers
and extreme outliers are indicated by an open circle and
asterisk, respectively.
As shown in Exhibit 8, we calculated parametric statistics
(mean, standard deviation), as well as nonparametric statistics
(median, range), for the Kickof Survey and Report Out
Survey scales. Along with the majority of researchers utilizing
psychometric data, we subscribe to the measurement paradigm
that considers parametric analysis methods appropriate as long
as the distributional properties of the data support them and the
latent variables being measured can be assumed to be continuous.
An analysis of the distributional properties of the scale-level
data for the larger sample of 51 events studied in this research
suggested that most rated variables were approximately normally
distributed (Farris, 2006), thus supporting the use of parametric
methods. In addition, an examination of the boxplots (Exhibits
6 and Exhibits 7) suggest that the data for the RMQ event were
also approximately normal for many variables (e.g., Afective
Commitment to Change, Kaizen Capabilities), although for other
variables, a skew is noted (e.g., Team Autonomy). Tus, given
our philosophy of measurement and the actual characteristics
of the data, we consider parametric, as well as non-parametric,
statistics to be meaningful for these analyses. However, we note
that the use of parametric statistics with psychometric data is not
completely without controversy, with a minority of social science
researchers, primarily those subscribing to representational
theory (Stevens, 1946, 1951), opposing the use of parametric
statistics with psychometric data under all or most conditions (for
a more detailed review of the topic see Borgatta and Bohrnstedt,
1980; Gaito, 1980; Goldstein and Hersen, 1984; Hand, 1996; Lord,
1953; Michell, 1986; Townsend and Asbhy, 1984; Velleman and
Wilkinson, 1993; Zumbo and Zimmerman, 1993).
Interpreting Team Outcomes
Analysis of the raw technical system outcomesthat is, team
performance versus goalswould suggest that the team was
successful in meeting its objectives (see Exhibit 5); however, the
teams goals were not measurable per seespecially since exact
targets (e.g., decrease product throughput time by 30%) had
not been specifed. Te conclusion at the time of the initial case
study analysis was that this event was highly successful in terms
of objective results. Tis fnding is supported by the data set of
51 events studied in the frst phase of the larger research program,
where these results place this event in the top two-thirds of the
events studied in terms of goal achievement. In addition, this event
was similar to the majority of the other 12 non-implementation
events, where the mean goal achievement was 83%, with a mode
of 100% (9 out of 13 observations) and a minimum of zero.
Survey results would more tentatively support the successfulness
of the eventmost of the team members tentatively agreed that
the event was a technical success. For the Overall Success variable
Exhibit 5. RMQ Event Goals
Goal Result Achieved
1. Standardize the
raw material
inspection
process
throughout
supply chain
1. Action plan developed includes
plans to designate a single
inspection process owner (work
group), create standard inspection
criteria, and develop standard
training.
2. Communicate
incoming quality
requirements to
vendors
2. Action plan developed to
communicate standard criteria to
vendors
3. Reduce raw
material
inventory levels
3. Action plan developed to reduce
inventory by implementing just-in-
time delivery of raw material and a
kanban system for safety stock
4. Decrease product
throughput time
4. Estimated 59% decrease in
throughput time if all changes
implemented
15 September 2008 Vol. 20 No. 3 Engineering Management Journal
(see Exhibits 2 and 7), both the within-team median rating and
the within-team mean rating were between 4 (tend to agree)
and 5 (agree) on the 6-point survey response scale (4.20 and
4.50, respectively). Meanwhile, team member perceptions of the
impact of the RMQ event on the target system (Impact on Area)
were also tentatively positive. Te within-team median for Impact
on Area was 4.00 and the within-team mean (representing the
team-level variable score) was 4.04; however, compared to the
larger data set of 51 events, the RMQ event had the fourth lowest
score for Impact on Area (bottom 8%), while the average Impact
on Area score was 4.94. Even among the 13 non-implementation
events only, the RMQ event had the third lowest score for
Impact on Area, while the average score for non-implementation
events was 4.69. Finally, team member responses to the Attitude
and Kaizen Capabilities scales suggest that the event had
somewhat positively impacted employee afect toward Kaizen
events and employee continuous improvement capabilities (see
Exhibit 7). Both the within-team median and mean scores for
Exhibit 6. Kickof Survey Results
Exhibit 7. Report Out Survey Results

ll l0 l0 N
Aff Cmt to Chg Goal Difficulty Goal Clarity
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
l.0

l0 9 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 N
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
l.0
T
e
a
m

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

S
u
p
p
o
r
t
A
c
t
i
o
n

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
|
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
A
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
K
a
i
z
e
n

C
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
|
m
p
a
c
t

o
n

A
r
e
a
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

S
u
c
c
e
s
s
16 September 2008 Vol. 20 No. 3 Engineering Management Journal
these variables were between 4 (tend to agree) and 5 (agree).
Te within-team median was 4.00 for Attitude and 4.56 for
Kaizen Capabilities, while the within-team mean was 4.20 for
Attitude and 4.39 for Kaizen Capabilities; however, even though
team member responses were on the positive (agree) side of
the survey scale, out of the 51 events studied in the frst phase
of the larger research program, the RMQ event had the second
lowest score (based on within-team means) for Attitude (bottom
4%) and the seventh lowest score for Kaizen Capabilities (bottom
14%). In addition, for the 13 non-implementation events only,
the RMQ event had the lowest score for Attitude and the third
lowest score for Kaizen Capabilities. Te averages across all 51
events in the data set were 5.00 for Attitude and 4.87 for Kaizen
Capabilities; for non-implementation events, the averages were
4.98 and 4.76, respectively. Te error structure of the data set (i.e.,
the 51 teams nested within six organizations) makes the results
of ordinary least squares-based tests for diferences across events
suspect due to violation of independence assumptions; however,
the relative position of the RMQ event in the data set suggests
that this was one of the least successful events in phase one of
the research in terms of human resource impact and perceived
impact on area.
Furthermore, additional sources of data examined in this
research support a much less positive picture of the overall success
of the event than the teams objective performance versus its
goals does. Te facilitator rating for the Overall Success variable
(obtained via the Event Information Sheet) was 1.0 (strongly
disagree). Te RMQ event was one out of only two events in the
phase one data set of 51 events to receive an Overall Success rating
of 1.0 from the facilitator (the other event was an implementation
event). In an open-ended response describing management
interaction with the Kaizen event team, the facilitator said he felt
that the event was a failure, even though he believed the teams
solution was technically sound. Furthermore, the member of
management who was present at the team report out to review
the teams solution rejected the majority of the teams suggestions
outright. Other surrounding factorsespecially lack of buy-in
from a key function that was not represented in the event team
make it almost certain that the improvements identifed in the
event will never be implemented. On the balance, therefore, it
is clear that, except for the potential for sustaining the gains in
employee Attitude and Kaizen Capabilities from participation,
the RMQ event was not ultimately a strong success (i.e., it did not
directly result in changes that were then implemented to improve
organizational performance). Tus, it is clear that the multiple
data sources and measures used in this research provided a more
comprehensive picture of overall event impact and success than
any of the measures would have alone especially if only the raw
technical outcomes were examined, as is common practice in
published Kaizen event accounts. Tis case example highlights
the need for multiple measures of event outcomes (e.g., goal
achievement, human resource outcomes, perceived success) from
multiple sources (e.g., team members, facilitator) to provide a
holistic picture of the event and both its immediate and short-
term results. Afer analyzing the overall impact of the event, and
determining that it was a less successful application, the next
step was to investigate what factors may have contributed to
these results.
Identifying Obstacles to Team Success
In case study research, triangulation is one method commonly
used to draw overall conclusions from case study data. In a case
study context, triangulation describes the situation where data
from multiple sources or multiple data collection methods are
examined to determine to what extent these data lead to the same
conclusions (Yin, 2003). Ofen, one or more data sources being
examined are qualitative in nature and the cross-datum comparison
is also typically made using qualitative analysis methods
(looking for common themes, etc.). Tis form of triangulation is
conceptually similar to, but methodologically distinct from, the
mathematical triangulation used to determine a location of a given
point in land surveying, etc. In the current research, triangulation
was used to evaluate the overall efectiveness of the event. In
addition, triangulation of the data collected on event input and
process factors led to the identifcation of three major factors
that likely contributed to the limited success of the RMQ event,
Exhibit 8. Summary Statistics for Kickof Survey and Report Out Survey Variables
Variable Median Mean Standard Deviation Range
Kickof Goal Clarity 4.00 3.98 0.69 2.25 - 5.00
Survey Goal Difculty 3.88 3.98 0.75 3.00 - 5.50
Commitment to Goals 4.50 4.45 0.59 3.33 - 5.50
Report Attitude 4.25 4.23 0.63 3.00 - 5.00
Out Impact on Area 4.00 3.97 1.06 1.75 - 5.00
Survey Skills 4.25 4.20 0.48 3.00 - 4.75
UnderstandingofCI 4.63 4.45 0.81 2.50 - 5.25
Team Autonomy 4.00 3.88 1.04 1.50 - 4.75
Management Support 4.40 4.22 0.82 2.60 - 5.20
Action Orientation 2.75 2.43 0.85 1.25 - 3.50
Internal Processes 4.80 4.64 0.72 3.00 - 5.60
Overall Success 4.50 4.20 1.32 2.00 - 6.00
17 September 2008 Vol. 20 No. 3 Engineering Management Journal
thus suggesting ways the organization can improve its Kaizen
event process and expanding the current body of knowledge on
Kaizen event efectiveness. Although the identifcation of these
factors is not based on experimentation, the triangulation of data
strengthens the conclusion that these factors likely contributed
to the overall event results. In addition, the factors identifed in
this case study are compared to results from analysis of the larger
phase one data set (i.e., 51 events from six organizations).
First, the method used to communicate the event goals to
the team appears likely to have resulted in lower than optimal
goal clarity. Data provided by the event facilitator (via the Event
Information Sheet) on the kickof meeting process indicate that
the event sponsor completed the goals presentation portion of the
kickof meeting and that he used a one-way, top-down delivery
format. Te sponsors presentation of the goals did not include
any description of the motivation behind the goals (i.e., how the
event was identifed or what the motivating business issues were)
or any interactive discussion of the goals with the team. Tat is,
the team was not invited to discuss the goals with the sponsor or
to ask questions to clarify the sponsors expectations. Tis method
of communicating the goals to the team likely made it more
difcult for the team to achieve improvements (due to confusion
about what improvements were needed), and, more importantly,
put the team at risk for failing to meet sponsor expectations, since
those expectations appear not to have been clear to the team and
the team had no opportunity of asking questions to clarify or
deepen their understanding. Tis apparent lack of understanding
of sponsor expectations at least partly explains why management
ultimately found the teams solutions unacceptable despite
positive objective results (see the previous section). Data
collected using other study measures and sources are consistent
with this interpretation. For instance, the within-team median for
the Kickof Survey variable Goal Clarity was 4.00 (tend to agree)
and the within-team mean (the team-level variable value) was
3.98, indicating a somewhat positive orientation but an overall
lack of confdence by team members about the clarity of the goals.
Furthermore, the majority of RMQ team members (six out of
10 responding team members) reported a Goal Clarity score of
4.00 or lower. Only one team member reported a Goal Clarity
score greater than 4.50. In addition, compared to the larger data
set of 51 events, the RMQ event had the sixth lowest score for
Goal Clarity (bottom 12%), while the average Goal Clarity score
was 4.59. For the 13 non-implementation events only, the RMQ
event had the second lowest score for Goal Clarity, while the
average score for non-implementation events was 4.61. Finally,
open-ended responses to perceptions of the biggest obstacles to
team success (an open-ended question in the Report Out Survey
and the Event Information Sheet) provide further support for the
idea that team goal clarity could have been improved. One team
member stated that the main obstacle to the success of his/her
team was [difculty in] focusing on our main objective and who
would do it. Tus, these results suggest that low levels of goal
clarity may contribute to failure to meet sponsor expectations,
even if the objective results achieved appear positive. Meanwhile,
results from statistical analysis of the larger data set indicate that
low goal clarity also reduces the efectiveness of internal team
dynamics (i.e., Internal Processes), which, in turn, leads to lower
levels of Attitude and Kaizen Capabilities (Farris, Van Aken,
Doolen, and Worley, 2007). Tis is consistent with fndings from
this case study. Although Internal Processes was the highest-rated
Report Out Survey variable for the RMQ event (the within-team
median was 4.80 and the within-team mean was 4.64), the RMQ
event had the ffh lowest score for Internal Processes in the larger
data set (bottom 10%), while the mean for Internal Processes
across all 51 events in the phase one data set was 5.17. For the
13 non-implementation events only, the RMQ event had the
lowest score for Internal Processes, while the mean score for non-
implementation events was 5.25. Tus, case study results suggest
that goal clarity is a key variable in predicting and managing event
success, both in terms of technical system outcomes and human
resource outcomes.
Second, the team was lacking in representation from a key
function, thus likely limiting the appropriateness of the teams
solution and reducing the likelihood of post-event implementation,
due to a lack of input and buy-in from the function. Data from
the Event Information Sheet indicate that a key contributor to
raw material quality was not represented on the team: the group
responsible for actually performing the inspections of the material,
and thus, ultimately responsible for implementing and sustaining
changes. It appears that this may have been due to problems with
resource availability from this group during the scheduled time
for the event. Tis lack of representation ultimately led to doubts
both by members of the team and members of management
over whether the event results were realistic. In describing
management interaction with the team during the event (in the
Event Information Sheet), the facilitator indicated that one of the
criticisms that the member of management reviewing the solution
had was that it did not take into account the realities of the
workplace. In addition, in the descriptions of the biggest obstacles
to team success, one team member listed not being allowed to be
realistic as the biggest obstacle. A second respondent listed lack
of support from the process contributors to the team as one of
the biggest obstacles. Finally, one of the individual items related
to the Management Support variable in the Report Out Survey
is, Our Kaizen event team had enough help from others in our
organization to get our work done. Te within-team median
score for this item was 4.00 and the within-team mean score was
3.60 (between tend to disagree and tend to agree), indicating
that the team thought that support from others in the organization
could have been improved.
Finally, team decision-making authority (team autonomy)
was ultimately limited in this event. Although apparently accorded
the authority to make decisions to improve the work area in the
stated goals of the event, in practice, the teams decision-making
authority was entirely negated by management at the report
out meeting. As described earlier, data provided by the event
facilitator indicate that management ultimately rejected many of
the teams solutions during the report out meeting. Additional
data from the Event Information Sheet indicate that, during this
meeting, the member of management reviewing the solution
directly criticized the teams solution. In addition, the report out
meeting was informal with only a management representative,
rather than a broad spectrum of managers, which would have
more strongly demonstrated support for the event and the teams
decision-making. Furthermore, in the descriptions of the biggest
obstacles to team success, one respondent listed managements
[lack of] willingness to change, as one of the biggest obstacles,
further indicating the fact that management support for the
decisions made during the event (and thereby its willingness to
empower the team to make changes) was not evident. Most Kaizen
event resources suggest setting certain boundary conditions (e.g.,
cost, etc.), and then giving the team a high degree of autonomy
in deciding what solutions to implement, as long as boundary
conditions are met (Oakeson, 1997; Sheridan, 1997; Minton, 1998;
18 September 2008 Vol. 20 No. 3 Engineering Management Journal
Laraia et al., 1999). Finally, although the team median and team
mean score for the Report Out Survey variable Team Autonomy
were tentatively positive (4.33 and 4.12, respectively), the RMQ
event had the fourth lowest Team Autonomy score in the data set
(bottom 8%) and the mean score for team autonomy across all 51
events in the data set was 4.82. For the 13 non-implementation
events only, the RMQ event had the second lowest score for
Team Autonomy, while the mean score for non-implementation
events was 4.81. It has been suggested that the high degree of
autonomy generally accorded to the team may be a key factor in
why Kaizen event programs appear (at least based on anecdotal
evidence) to be more accepted by employees than many previous
improvement programs, such as quality circles. Kaizen teams are
ofen allowed to actually implement changes during the event, so
participating employees can directly see that their efort makes a
diference and that management trusts them to make decisions to
improve the organization. In contrast, in traditional improvement
approaches, such as quality circles, employees are generally only
given the power to suggest changes, which must then be approved
by management prior to implementation (Mohr and Mohr, 1983;
Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Laraia et al., 1999). Te current case
example was designed to be a non-implementation event (i.e.,
planning only), but even in this case, management could have
accorded the team more authority. Failure to allow the teams
solutions to be implemented afer the event demonstrates a lack
of confdence in the teams decisions, and also changes the Kaizen
event model to be more similar in practice to the quality circle
model in both process and results. In fact, Lawler and Morhman
(1985, 1987) argue that this type of management response is
a key factor leading to the demise of U.S. quality circles in the
1980s employees were initially enthusiastic about participating
in quality circles, but soon saw that they had no actual power to
achieve change, as management ofen rejected their suggestions
and decisions. Similarly, work motivation theory suggests that
inequity between perceived inputs (e.g., employee time and
efort) and perceived outcomes (e.g., management acceptance of
a teams solution) could lead to decreased motivation to perform
similar tasks in the future, employee withdrawal and, ultimately,
lower outcomes for future events (Adams, 1965; Aldefer,
1969). Tus, it remains to be investigated how this change to
the prescribed Kaizen event process, if it is replicated across
additional Kaizen events, will ultimately impact the sustainability
of individual event results and the Kaizen event program
as a whole.
Discussion and Future Research
Tis research demonstrates how the detailed examination
of a less successful case provided a valuable opportunity for
organizational learning. Te identifcation of the three factors
presented above, which apparently limited the success of the
specifc RMQ event, provided valuable information for learning
for the case study organization, and may ultimately contribute
to improved efectiveness of the organizations Kaizen event
program as a whole. By identifying three key variables that appear
to impact event success, the case study organization can now seek
to develop mechanisms that can be used to infuence or control
these variables. A few of the mechanisms recommended were:
communicating upfront with sponsors to insure an interactive
presentation of team goals, including the opportunity for the
team to ask questions to clarify sponsor expectations; getting
management agreement to institute a policy of not moving forward
with an event without representation on the team from all key
functions; negotiating with management to more clearly defne
the boundaries of team authority and to develop mechanisms for
more clearly and strongly communicating management support
for the teams decision-making. Te organization has already
implemented some of these corrective mechanisms, with apparent
success. On the next event studied within the organization, the
facilitator of the event indicated that, based on the fndings from
the RMQ event, he ensured that the event sponsor presented the
goals to the team in an interactive format, where team members
were encouraged to ask questions to clarify the goals. Te Goal
Clarity score was noticeably higher for this event, although it is,
of course, impossible to prove that this was solely the result of his
intervention. In general, the case study organization has already
demonstrated that it is proactive in learning from its events. Te
Kaizen event facilitators routinely hold informal sessions where
they share more and less successful elements from their events
with one another. It is likely the organization will continue to seek
to improve Kaizen processes based on examination of both more
and less successful events.
From a research perspective, the case illustrates how
the methods and measures used in the current study allow
triangulation of multiple data types and sources to draw more
robust conclusions. As has been demonstrated, the importance of
all three factors to the event outcomes is supported by two sources
of data (the facilitator and the team) and by both qualitative
and quantitative measures, as well as by results from the larger
research program. In addition, the case study results highlight
the need for additional research on Kaizen event efectiveness
by illustrating how the design and results of Kaizen events can
vary, even within organizations that are experienced in using
Kaizen events. Te results also indicate how even organizations
with signifcant maturity in their Kaizen event programs still
sometimes experience difculty in achieving optimal event
designs. Finally, the case illustrates the importance of research
on the sustainability of event outcomes, and event programs as
a whole, by illustrating a factor (management support for team
decision-making authority), which may ultimately impact the
sustainability of event outcomes and the Kaizen event program
as a whole. Future research should focus on identifying factors
related to the sustainability of outcomes, as well as further testing
of factors associated with initial outcomes. For instance, future
research should continue to investigate the impact of the three
factors identifed in this study to confrm their importance to
Kaizen event efectiveness. Tis research should include additional
case studies of more and less successful events and analysis of
larger, multi-event data sets. As discussed, the larger research
study of 51 events, which was completed afer an earlier version
of this paper was published (Farris et al., 2006
2
), has already
confrmed the importance of goal clarity and team autonomy
to initial outcomes. Te importance of adequacy of functional
representation (i.e., whether or not all key functions were
represented on the team) has not been specifcally investigated
in the larger study, although cross-functional heterogeneity is a
variable in the larger research. Perhaps additional case studies of
less successful events could be used to determine whether or not
this factor is a common theme in less successful Kaizen events
and whether or not its impact should be investigated statistically
in the future.
Finally, for the practicing engineering manager who may
be responsible for sponsoring Kaizen events, conducting Kaizen
events, participating in Kaizen events, or overseeing employees
who dothis research highlights three variables that should be
19 September 2008 Vol. 20 No. 3 Engineering Management Journal
considered in event design, as well as the consequences of not
carefully managing these variables. For instance, engineering
managers sponsoring Kaizen events might be tempted to solely
reserve decision-making authority while relegating the team to
an advisory role. Tis research, and related literature, suggests
that the manager would be better of chartering the creation of a
competent team with full functional representation, giving them
clear goals (allowing them to clarify these goals, if necessary),
specifying important boundaries, and then abiding by whatever
solution the team develops during the solution process, at least
until this solution is proven inadequate. In addition, this research
provides a set of measurement instruments and methods that can
be used to assess Kaizen event design and initial outcomes. Tese
instruments consist of two short survey questionnaires completed
by Kaizen event team members and a questionnaire completed by
the Kaizen event facilitator, as well as a team activities log. Due to
scope and space constraints, these instruments are not presented
here, but are available in other publications (Farris, 2006). We
invite interested individuals to contact the authors for copies of
these instruments.
Acknowledgments
Tis research was supported by the National Science Foundation
under grant No. DMI-0451512. We also gratefully acknowledge
the Kaizen event team members, facilitators, and coordinators
for their participation in data collection and validation. Finally,
we thank the four anonymous reviewers for their constructive
and insightful feedback. An earlier version of this paper appeared
in the 2006 American Society for Engineering Management
Conference Proceedings.

References
Adams, John S. Inequity in Social Exchange, in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology Leonard Berkowitz (ed.)
Vol. 62 (1965), pp. 335-343, Academic Press.
Aldefer, Clayton S. An Empirical Test of a New Teory of Human
Needs, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
4 (1969), pp. 142-175.
Borgatta, Edward F., and George W. Bohrnstedt, Level of
Measurement: Once and Over Again, Sociological Methods
and Research, 9:2 (1980), pp. 147-160.
Cohen, Susan G., and Diane E. Bailey, What Makes Teams Work:
Group Efectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the
Executive Suite, Journal of Management, 23:3 (1997), pp.
239-290.
Cole, Robert E., Te Quality Revolution, Production and
Operations Management, 1:1 (Winter 1992), pp. 118-120.
Cuscela, Kristin N., Kaizen Blitz Attacks Work Processes at Dana
Corp., IIE Solutions, 30:4 (April 1998), pp. 29-31.
Farris, Jennifer, An Empirical Investigation of Kaizen Event
Efectiveness: Outcomes and Critical Success Factors, Ph.D.
Dissertation (2006), Virginia Tech.
Farris, Jennifer, Eileen M. Van Aken, and Toni L. Doolen,
Studying Kaizen Event Outcomes and Critical Success
Factors: A Model-Based Approach. Proceedings of the
Industrial Engineering and Research Conference (May
20061), CD-ROM.
Farris, Jennifer, Eileen M. Van Aken, Toni L. Doolen, and
June Worley, Learning from Kaizen Events: A Research
Methodology for Determining the Characteristics of More
- and Less - Successful Events, Proceedings of the American
Society for Engineering Management Conference (October
20062), CD-ROM.
Farris, Jennifer, Eileen M. Van Aken, Toni L. Doolen, and June
Worley, A Study of Mediating Relationships on Kaizen
Event Teams, Proceedings of the Industrial Engineering and
Research Conference (May 2007), CD-ROM.
Gaito, John, Measurement Scales and Statistics: Resurgence of
an Old Misconception, Psychological Bulletin, 87:3 (1980),
pp. 564-567.
Goldstein, Gerald, and Michel Hersen, Handbook of Psychological
Assessment, Pergamon Press (1984).
Hand, David J., Statistics and the Teory of Measurement,
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 159:3 (1996), pp. 445-
492.
Laraia, Anthony C., Patricia E. Moody, and Robert W. Hall, Te
Kaizen Blitz: Accelerating Breakthroughs in Productivity and
Performance, Te Association for Manufacturing Excellence
(1999).
Lawler, Edward E., and Susan A. Mohrman, Quality Circles Afer
the Fad, Harvard Business Review, 63:1 (Jan/Feb1985), pp.
64-71.
Lawler, Edward E., and Susan A. Mohrman, Quality Circles:
Afer the Honeymoon, Organizational Dynamics, 15:4
(Spring 1987), pp. 42-54.
Letens, Geert, Jennifer Farris, and Eileen M. Van Aken,
Development and Application of a Framework for the
Design and Assessment of a Kaizen Program, Proceedings
of the American Society for Engineering Management
Conference (October 2006), CD-ROM.
Likert, Rensis, A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes,
Archives of Psychology, 140 (1932), pp. 5- 55.
Lord, Frederic M., On the Statistical Treatment of Football
Numbers, Te American Psychologist, 8 (1953), pp. 750-751.
Lounamaa, Pertti H., and James G. March, Adaptive Coordination
of a Learning Team, Management Science, 33:1 (January
1987), pp. 107-123.
Melnyk, Stephen A., Roger J. Calantone, Frank L. Montabon, and
Richard T. Smith, Short-Term Action in Pursuit of Long-
Term Improvements: Introducing Kaizen Events, Production
and Inventory Management Journal, 39:4 (Fourth Quarter
1998), pp. 69-76.
Michell, Joel, Measurement Scales and Statistics: A Clash of
Paradigms, Psychological Bulletin, 100:3 (1986), pp. 398-
407.
Minton, Eric, Profle: Luke Faulstick Baron of Blitz Has
Boundless Vision of Continuous Improvement, Industrial
Management, 40:1 (Jan/Feb 1998), pp. 14-21.
Mohr, William. L., and Harriet Mohr, Quality Circles, Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company (1983).
Oakeson, Mark, Kaizen Makes Dollars & Sense for Mercedes-
Benz in Brazil, IIE Solutions, 29:4 (1997), pp. 32-35.
Sheridan, John H., Kaizen Blitz, Industry Week, 246:16
(September 1, 1997), pp. 18-27.
Sitkin, Sim B., Learning Trough Failure: Te Strategy of
Small Losses, in Research in Organizational Behavior L.L.
Cummings and B.M. Straw (Eds.), 14 (1992), pp. 231-266,
JAI Press.
Stevens, Stanley S., On the Teory of Scales of Measurement,
Science, 103 (1946), pp. 667-680.
Stevens, Stanley S., Mathematics, Measurement and
Psychophysics, in Handbook of Experimental Psychology S.S.
Stevens (Ed.), (1951), pp. 1-49, Wiley.
Townsend, James T., and F.G. Ashby, Measurement Scales and
20 September 2008 Vol. 20 No. 3 Engineering Management Journal
Statistics: Te Misconception Misconceived, Psychological
Bulletin, 96:2 (1984), pp. 394-401.
Velleman, Paul F., and Leland Wilkinson, Nominal, Ordinal,
Interval and Ratio Typologies are Misleading, Te American
Statistician, 47:1 (1993), pp. 65-72.
Vitalo, Ralph L., Frank Butz, and Joseph P. Vitalo, Kaizen Desk
Reference Standard, Vital Enterprises (2003).
Womack, James P., Daniel T. Jones, and Daniel Roos, Te Machine
that Changed the World, Rawson Associates (1990).
Yin, Robert K., Case Study Research Design and Methods, 3rd
edition, Sage Publications, Inc. (2003).
Zumbo, Bruno D., and Donald W. Zimmerman, Is the Selection
of Statistical Methods Governed by Level of Measurement?
Canadian Psychologist, 34 (1993), pp. 390-400.
About the Authors
Jennifer A. Farris is an assistant professor in the Department
of Industrial Engineering at Texas Tech University. She
received her BS in industrial engineering from the University
of Arkansas and her MS and PhD in industrial and systems
engineering from the Grado Department of Industrial
and Systems Engineering at Virginia Tech, where she also
served as a Graduate Research Assistant and a Postdoctoral
Associate in the Enterprise Engineering Research Lab.
Her research interests are in performance measurement,
product development, kaizen event processes, and healthcare
performance improvement. She is a member of IIE and
Alpha Pi Mu.
Eileen M. Van Aken is an associate professor and associate
department head in the Grado Department of Industrial and
Systems Engineering at Virginia Tech. She is the founder
and director of the Enterprise Engineering Research Lab,
conducting research with organizations on performance
measurement, organizational improvement methods, lean
work systems, and team-based work systems. Prior to joining
the ISE faculty at Virginia Tech in 1996, she was employed
for seven years at the Center for Organizational Performance
Improvement at Virginia Tech, and was also employed by
AT&T Microelectronics in Virginia where she worked in
both process and product engineering. She received her BS,
MS, and PhD degrees in industrial engineering from Virginia
Tech. She is a senior member of IIE and ASQ, and is a member
of ASEM and ASEE. She is a Fellow of the World Academy of
Productivity Science.
Toni L. Doolen is an associate professor in the School
of Mechanical, Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering
at Oregon State University. Prior to joining the faculty at
OSU, Toni gained 11 years of manufacturing experience at
Hewlett-Packard Company as an engineer, senior member
of technical staf, and engineering manager. Toni received a
BS in electrical engineering and a BS in mterials science and
engineering from Cornell University, an MS in manufacturing
systems engineering from Stanford University, and a PhD in
industrial engineering at Oregon State University. She is a
senior member of SWE, IIE, and SME. She is also a member
of ASEE.
June M. Worley is a PhD candidate in the Mechanical,
Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering Department
at Oregon State University. She received a BS in computer
science and a BS in mathematical sciences from Oregon State
University. She received an MS in industrial engineering
from Oregon State University, completing a thesis on the
sociocultural factors of a lean manufacturing implementation.
Her research interests include systems analysis, information
systems engineering, lean manufacturing, performance
metrics, and human systems engineering. Prior industry
experience includes fve years in operations management at a
regional bank and over three years of technical experience in
project analysis and implementation.
Contact: Jennifer A. Farris, PhD, Texas Tech University,
Industrial Engineering Building Room 201 (3061) Lubbock,
TX 79409-3061; phone: 806-742-3543; jennifer.farris@ttu.edu