Kaizen and Standardization

Abstract

Kaizen, a method and concept developed in Japan, evolved and was modified as Six-Sigma, the Lean Production System and so on as “Western-style Kaizen” to be applicable to Western corporate culture. Western-style Kaizen has become an international standard (ISO 13053-1&2/ISO 18404). The application of Kaizen differs country to country depending on their industrial climate and corporate culture. This chapter first analyzes the similarities and differences between the Japanese-style Kaizen with Western-style Kaizen. Second, it discusses the impact of ISO on African companies and a more suitable and appropriate method of Kaizen for African SMEs. Third, it outlines a research study conducted by JICA on “Standardizing Kaizen Approaches in Africa,” a sub-project of the Africa Kaizen Initiative that JICA and NEPAD launched in April 2017.

There are many methods and concepts of Kaizen that can be used to achieve quality and productivity improvements. Most of these originated in the West in line with the desire to improve production management. These were imported to Japan, improved and modified to suit the industrial climate and corporate culture of that country. Together with those aspects independently developed in Japan, they were further developed as Kaizen. As this was the driving force for high economic growth in post-war Japan, it became the focus of global attention. Specifically, its components of Quality Control (QC) circle activities, Total Quality Control (TQC) or Total Quality Management (TQM),¹ Toyota Production System (TPS) and Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) are well-known.

The United States (US) thoroughly scrutinized Kaizen, especially in the 1980s, and attempted to improve and modify the parts of the concept originating in Japan to match the industrial climate and corporate culture of the US. Typical examples of such improved and modified methods are the Six Sigma , the Lean Production System and the Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) methods. These have not only resulted in positive achievements among companies in the US but also become widespread in European countries, in Asia and in the rest of the world.

Among these newly developed methods, the problem-solving phases, relevant tools and techniques of the Six Sigma approach gained the status of international standards in 2011 as the Quantitative Methods in Process Improvement—Six Sigma —Part 1: DMAIC Methodology (ISO 13053-1: 2011) and the Quantitative Methods in Process Improvement—Six Sigma —Part 2: Tools and Techniques (ISO 13053-2: 2011). In December 2015, the ISO added further international standards concerning the required specific levels of competency regarding Six Sigma and Lean Production for individuals and their organizations. The title is ISO 18404: 2015 Quantitative Methods in Process Improvement—Six Sigma —Competencies for Key Personnel and their Organizations in Relation to Six Sigma and Lean Implementation.

There seem to be two types of Kaizen in the world today: the type that has a background of supporting the post-war industrial development in Japan and the type that incorporates new ideas from Western countries while referring to the principles that originated in Japan. In this chapter, the former is referred to as “Japanese-style Kaizen ²” and the latter as “Western-style Kaizen .” Which type is best in terms of suitability and effectiveness depends on the industrial climate and corporate culture of the country in question, or the specific judgment of top executives (Kurosaki and Otsuka 2015, 201; Stern 2016, xvi). This is our own conclusion based on our experience of involvement in various Kaizen projects. Accordingly, a comparison is made between the characteristics of Japan’s TQM and Six Sigma , between TPS and the Lean Production System and between BPR and Kaizen in this chapter, but the relative superiority of one over the other is not discussed.

The important issues to note in this chapter are that there are “Japanese-style Kaizen ” and “Western-style” Kaizen and that the Western-style, incorporating such approaches as Six Sigma and Lean Production, has been taken up by the ISO to develop relevant international standards. It is also important to investigate what impacts these international standards have on Kaizen projects assisted by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) or any other international donors and what the desirable future direction for Africa is in relation to this methodology.

4.1 Kaizen Modified in the US

Japan originally learned production management technologies (the concepts of which were collectively called Kaizen in Japan, even though there was no exact definition of this term³) from the West, mainly the US, improved these to suit Japan’s industrial climate and corporate culture, redeveloped them, disseminated them throughout Japan first⁴ and then re-exported them along with the overseas expansion of Japanese companies. Meanwhile, the West took notice of the improved, redeveloped or invented Kaizen, and re-learned Kaizen in turn, improving or re-arranging it to suit its own industrial climate and corporate culture, or systematizing it to achieve positive results in Western countries, and then spreading it worldwide. Western-style Kaizen is of course known in Japan and has been adopted by some Japanese companies. However there appear to have been mixed outcomes from adopting this style, as the performance of some Japanese companies has not necessarily improved. The one thing which is certain right now is that local Kaizen methods and concepts have taken deep root among Japanese companies.

Six Sigma , Lean Production System and Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) are typical Kaizen methods which have been improved, redeveloped or systematized in the US. Each of these is briefly described below, and then a comparison of the characteristics of Western-style and Japanese-style Kaizen is attempted.

4.1.1 Six Sigma

Six Sigma is a problem-solving method developed by Motorola , Inc. of the US in the early 1980s, when the company was trying to find a way to reduce the number of defective products it was making.⁵ It is said that this method was invented with reference to Japan’s QC circle activities, factory floor Kaizen activities and TQC , TQM ⁶ and TPS .⁷ According to the Six Sigma method, the problem-solving process is divided into four phases, that is, “measure,” “analyze,” “improve” and “control,” and is called MAIC by combining the initial letters of these four phases. A team of experts, which is unique to Six Sigma, works to solve a problem or task. For the formation of such a team, the top executive is the supreme leader, but the key members of the team are experts with specific education and training. These experts have the titles of Master Black Belt (MBB), Black Belt (BB) or Green Belt (GB) depending on their capability. The overall approach characterized by these features is called Six Sigma.⁸

Using the Six Sigma method, Motorola improved its business performance and was awarded the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) in 1988. This award, given by the President of the US, was established by Congress in 1987 to raise awareness of the importance of quality management and to acknowledge that US companies were successfully implementing a quality management system.⁹ The granting of this prominent award to Six Sigma made the method known throughout the US. The General Electric (GE) Company, in particular, showed much interest in it.

John Francis Jack Welch , Chairman of GE , introduced Six Sigma to the company at the end of 1995 to successfully carry out GE’s wide-ranging quality program. Six Sigma was introduced not only in the manufacturing departments but also in the non-production business departments throughout the company (Financial Times 2001). What was emphasized during the application process was the clear definition of who their customers were and what the focused problems and issues for improvement were. This approach led to the establishment of the DMAIC method, with the addition of D (define) before MAIC . The Six Sigma method of GE was systematized as a method to solve problems faced by all departments of GE . In other words, it became a Kaizen method to deal with the business challenges faced by GE and greatly contributed to enhancement of the company’s business performance. The achievement of Six Sigma at GE became widely known not only in the US but also in Europe and Asia, accelerating its worldwide diffusion. We compare the characteristics of Six Sigma with TQM . As Six Sigma is said to have originated from TQM , there are obviously similarities between them as well as differences, as shown in Table 4.1, which is self-explanatory.

Table 4.1 Similarities and differences between Six Sigma and TQM

4.1.2 Lean Production System

The Lean Production System (or simply “Lean”) was developed in the US as a method to thoroughly eliminate muda (waste) with reference to the Toyota Production System (TPS). This method was popularized by James P. Womack , Daniel T. Jones and Daniel Roos in 1996 (Pepper and Spedding 2010; Womack and Jones 1996). It has since become widely known and used by not only American companies but also European companies.

Lean is said to hardly differ from TPS . For example, the Glossary of Production and Manufacturing Management Terms edited by the Japan Industrial Management Association (2002/2012) explains that “the Lean Production System is a synonym for the Toyota Production System or Kanban System which puts just-in-time (i.e., the production or supply of what is needed when it is needed, and in the quantity needed) into practice.” Even the Home Page of Toyota Motor Corporation treats them as the same system.¹⁰ However, some researchers claim that these systems differ in several respects . Nakano (2017)¹¹ is one such researcher and he explains the differences between TPS and Lean as outlined below (see also Figs. 4.1 and 4.2).

Fig. 4.1

Basic concept of the Toyota Production System (TPS). (Source : Nakano (2017, 13)). *Elimination of “muri ,” “mura” and “ muda ”: Toyota has identified as “ mudas ” seven types of non-value-adding waste in business or manufacturing process, that is, overproduction, waiting (time on hand), unnecessary transport or conveyance, over-processing or incorrect processing, excess inventory, unnecessary movement and defects. Liker (2004, 28–29) added an eighth waste to the abovementioned seven wastes, that is, unused employee creativity)

Fig. 4.2

The basic concept of a Lean Production System . (Source : Nakano (2017, 17). ** Elimination of “ muda ”: Womack and Jones (1996) add one more “ muda ” to the seven that Toyota identified as non-value-adding wastes, that is, service which does not meet the customer’s requirement)

According to Toyota’s home page, the Toyota Production System was established based on the two concepts of “just-in-time ” and “ jidoka ” (automation with a human touch).¹² The former means “making only what is needed, when it is needed, and in the amount needed.” The latter means that “if any equipment malfunctions or defective part is discovered, the affected machine stops automatically, and the operators cease production and correct the problem.” Under TPS , daily Kaizen efforts are made to eliminate “muri , mura and muda .” There should be no “muri ” or unrealizable task in work practices, any “mura” or unevenness in production activities and their results and no “ muda ” which means a lack of customer value or added value. TPS adopts such methods as “visualization,” “smoothing,” “simultaneous engineering” and “defect-free process completion” to produce concepts, policies, activities and results related to “just-in-time ,” “jidoka,” “muri , mura and muda ” and “Kaizen” (Nakano 2017, 13–14).

“Visualization” is a powerful method to make stakeholders share a common understanding by clarifying problems and factors on the production floor. “Smoothing” means the elimination of variations by means of making the work load of each process of a production system even and is also called “levelling.” “Simultaneous engineering” means simultaneous merchandise planning, product design, production system design and marketing planning activities in-house or in cooperation with companies in the supply chain. The purpose of this method is to shorten the development period, to lower the cost and to develop high-quality products and services. “Defect-free process completion” means the concept as well as activity of upholding the creation of a process whereby inferior products are neither produced nor sent to the following process. In other words, it treasures the idea of “completing the quality within a process” (Nakano 2017, 14–15).

Compared to Fig. 4.1 for TPS , the pillar “jidoka” in TPS is replaced by TQM and Six Sigma in Fig. 4.2 for Lean, both of which were developed in the West. In Lean management, the elimination of muda takes precedence over the elimination of muri and mura. To materialize Lean, the value stream mapping method¹³ is frequently used to make “the value chain visualized.” “Concurrent engineering” is an approach then used to shorten the development period by making several sections work concurrently.

One special characteristic of TPS worth mentioning here is that Toyota heavily invests in the education and training of not only future leaders but also shop-floor workers. Toyota applies its production system used at home, that is, TPS , to all its factories throughout the world, regardless of the different industrial climates or corporate cultures in other countries. A thorough understanding of the methods and tools of TPS among all employees, ranging from top executives to front-line workers, is the result of focused and unsparing investment in education and training. One phrase which is often heard at Toyota is “Toyota makes people before making cars” (Liker 2004). In other words, Toyota may represent an exceptional case where it has successfully exported its own corporate culture to countries with different industrial climates and corporate cultures from Japan.

4.1.3 Business Process Re-engineering (BPR)

The basic idea of BPR is for an organization to identify its key business processes and to shed any excess fat from these processes to make them efficient. The background of this idea is the discovery of the necessity to fundamentally review and re-design the business organization whereby business processes are segmented and to carry out a series of reforms to produce value for end customers.

BPR spread throughout the world with the publication of “Re-engineering the Corporation” by James Chamy , co-founder of the consulting company CSC Index, and Michael Hammer , an electrical engineer and former professor of computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). They defined re-engineering as “the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical measures of performance such as cost, quality, service and speed.” Its roots lay in the research carried out by MIT from 1984 to 1989 on “Management in the 1990s” (Financial Times 2001). It is said that these two authors referred to many fashionable business ideas, such as TQM , just-in-time , customer service, time-based competition and Lean manufacturing, at the time to come up with the idea of BPR, but it is clear that many of these ideas were derived from the Kaizen methods and concepts that had originated in Japan.

What then are the similarities and differences between BPR and the Kaizen that originated in Japan? One similarity is that both set out a target to be achieved. As described later, however, the concept and the method for setting out the target are different. The crucial aspects of the target are that both BPR and Kaizen are approaches to enhance customer satisfaction, and thus both aim at eliminating muda in business activities and business processes to improve efficiency. However, one important difference is that while BPR has a strong connotation of fundamentally reviewing and improving the business process or reforming the business process at once, Kaizen involves gradual and continual improvement with the existing business process being largely maintained. For the setting of a target, while BPR designs the ideal situation, Kaizen identifies the gap between the reality and the ideal (target) as a problem to be solved. The approach is thus strongly conscious of the need to improve quality along with the elimination of muda .

BPR’s handling of workers can be harsh, as illustrated by the phrase used by its proponents: “peripheral processes (and, therefore, peripheral people) must be discarded. Don’t automate; obliterate.”¹⁴ In contrast, the basic of Kaizen is to respect people.¹⁵ The proponents of BPR also state that “scoping to scale” in re-engineering means more than the simple change in individual business processes and that true re-engineering targets the entire organization or is a recipe for company reform (Financial Times 2001). In this sense, BPR aims at achieving total optimization. In contrast, Kaizen can be described as an attempt to achieve total optimization through the piling-up of partial optimization successes. Table 4.2 summarizes the above descriptions of BPR and Kaizen.

Table 4.2 Similarities and differences between BPR and Kaizen

4.1.4 Background of Japanese-Style Kaizen and Western-Style Kaizen: Differences in Industrial Climate and Corporate Culture

At the outset, it must be asserted that whether Kaizen methods or concepts are suitable or effective for a company depends on the industrial climate of the country involved, and its corporate culture, as well as judgment by the executives of the company in question. Both Motorola and GE became aware that Japan’s TQM which was born in a different industrial climate and its corporate culture did not easily fit with the industrial climate and corporate culture in the US. Because of this, it is essential to clarify the differences between the industrial climate and corporate culture in Japan and those in the US and the background for the emergence of Western-style Kaizen.

Compared to Japanese top executives, those in the US are said to be required to produce results in a shorter time. Because of this, they are reluctant to resort to a bottom-up approach to accumulate small Kaizen achievements to ultimately produce a substantial result, as in the case of Japan. Instead, top executives in the US tend to aim at finding a breakthrough as quickly as possible.¹⁶ Therefore, they have little choice but to employ a top-down business approach. Moreover, the educational standard of factory workers in the US is not particularly high, and top executives therefore do not expect these workers to have the ability to propose solutions or to solve problems. This situation is also assumed to strengthen the preference for a top-down approach.

There is another reason why American executives take a top-down approach. Dynamism in the labor market works in the US more than in Japan, where a lifelong employment system still exists. Thus, American executives seem to have no other choice to take a top-down approach with strong decision-making due to large turnover of labor.¹⁷ On manufacturing floors in Japan, QC circle activities by workers (small group activities) are trusted as well as respected by top executives. The high educational standard of workers and strong sense of loyalty among workers to their own company due to the lifelong employment system¹⁸ are some of the reasons for the strong trust of top executives in their workers. Nevertheless, even though there is a strong trend among Japanese companies to opt for the bottom-up approach, this does not mean that workers practicing QC circle activities conduct them arbitrarily, or away from the framework of company policies. In short, the seemingly independent activities of workers are performed within the framework of company policies with the understanding of the top executive. Presentation meetings for the results of QC circle activities are attended by the top executives who commend or even give a special reward to those groups achieving excellent results. Therefore, it is safe to say that the business activities of these Japanese companies are performed with company-wide full participation from top to bottom.¹⁹ It may thus be more apt to describe corporate management in Japan as being based on both the bottom-up and top-down approaches.

Six Sigma activities are conducted in a top-down manner, and the principal body for the implementation of these activities is a Cross-Functional Team (CFT) made up of members from different departments. In the case of QC circle activities (small group activities) which are the mainstay of Kaizen activities in Japan, the group members continually find new problems every day at the same production floor and solve such problems internally using their combined wisdom. While a CFT in Six Sigma disbands when the problems are solved, QC circle activities continue all the time. However, it must be noted that a CFT is formed even in Japan when there is a need to solve inter-departmental problems.

As shown by the Six Sigma activities, Kaizen activities in the US emphasize original data and quantification; however, it would not be correct to say that such activities in Japan ignore statistical data. Rather, it is simply that Kaizen activities in Japan strongly emphasize facts (at the production floor).²⁰ Such activities in the US, especially Six Sigma activities, use detailed instructions to employees along with strict manuals. In contrast, in Japan they demand that workers tackle new problems almost daily that cannot be dealt with by the available manuals. To do this, all group members must rack their brains compared to their US counterparts, who conduct their Kaizen activities as instructed or as shown in manuals. For example, ISO 18404 specifies the methods and tools to be used for different stages of Kaizen or, more specifically, each phase of DMAIC . In contrast, Kaizen activities in Japan generally demand the development of a new method or technique for each problem or task, even though some activities may follow a manual exactly. In other words, such activities in the US can be described as ready-made activities, and those in Japan can be described as custom-made activities.²¹

4.2 ISO and Kaizen

4.2.1 Internationally Standardized Kaizen

As described at the beginning of this chapter, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) published ISO 18404 as a new international standard in December 2015. The full title of this standard is “Quantitative methods in process improvement – Six Sigma  – Competencies for key personnel and their organizations in relation to Six Sigma and Lean implementation.” This standard clarifies the requirements for an organization to implement Six Sigma as a process improvement method and establishes the required competencies for key personnel to implement Six Sigma and Lean. There are different titles for key personnel for Six Sigma implementation as shown in Table 4.3. ISO 18404 specifies the experience and competencies required of each key person. All key personnel must undergo training organized by a specified body (an accredited body in the future) to equip themselves with the required standard competencies (Ishiyama 2017b).

Table 4.3 Six Sigma (SS)/L(Lean)/L&SS methods and key personnel

Prior to ISO 18404 (2015), the ISO published ISO 13053-1 and ISO 13053-2, making Six Sigma an international standard in 2011. The full title of ISO 13053-1 is “Quantitative methods in process improvement – Six Sigma  – Part 1: DMAIC methodology” and that of ISO 13053-2 is “Quantitative methods in process improvement – Six Sigma  – Part 2: Tools and techniques.” According to the DMAIC methodology, Kaizen activities subject to Six Sigma are divided into Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control Phases (ISO 13053-1), and the tools and techniques used in each phase are set out in ISO 13053-2 (Stern 2016).

Another widely known ISO related to Kaizen is the ISO 9000 series (or ISO 9000 family), which consist of a set of international standards for quality management and quality assurance published by the ISO in March 1987. ISO 9001 was revised in 2000 and on 23 September 2015 as ISO 9001:2015, which is the latest version. The purpose of this latest version is to provide a core set of requirements which can be used for the next ten years or longer in a stable manner, taking changes in the implementation methods and techniques regarding Quality Management System (QMS) since 2000 into consideration (Nakajyo and Suda 2015). In short, the revisions made in 2015 aim at enhancing confidence in the competency of organizations providing conforming products and services, thereby increasing confidence in QMS based on ISO 9001 among customers (Nakajyo and Suda 2015). ISO 18404 specifies the competencies required of experts (key personnel) for Six Sigma and Lean and the requirements for organizations promoting these approaches. Accordingly, ISO 9001 and ISO 18404 are considered to have a complementary relationship, whereby the latter supplements the former.²²

Currently, ISO 9001 certification is widely obtained regardless of company size, public or private sector or business fields. Users of this standard are not restricted to the manufacturing sector but include such diverse business fields as engineering and building construction, information and communication, electricity and gas, transportation, wholesale, retail, restaurants, hotels, medical care, welfare, education, finance and public administration. While ISO 9001 certification is relatively easy to obtain even for a small organization, ISO 18401 Certification is much more difficult unless the organization concerned is fairly large. Because of this, the likely way forward for a small manufacturer is to obtain ISO 9001 certification to start with, in preparation for ISO 18404 certification in the future. It is highly unlikely that any organization wishing to obtain Kaizen-related ISO certification can obtain quality management or Kaizen-related ISO 18404 certification prior to ISO 9001 certification.

4.2.2 Significance of International Standardization

What then is the significance of international standards, such as the ISO standards? In general, the purposes of standardization are those listed below. In the past, the principal purposes of standardization were (1) through (4) but have been broadened in recent years to include (5) through (9) (Takayama 2011). The intention of the ISO to make Six Sigma and Lean international standards will require the achievement of most of the purposes listed below, especially (2) through (7):²³

• 1. Securing interchangeability and interface consistency;

• 2. Improvements in production efficiency;

• 3. Setting of appropriate quality for a product;

• 4. Promotion of mutual understanding;

• 5. Dissemination of technologies (outcomes of R&D);

• 6. Strengthening industrial competitiveness and development of a competitive environment;

• 7. Promotion and facilitation of trade;

• 8. Securing of safety and pace of mind (consumer protection, consideration of the elderly and handicapped, and so on); and

• 9. Environmental consideration (energy saving, recycling, etc.).

While the above list spells out the general advantages of international standardization, the advantages at the company level, industry level and country level are listed side by side. The revised list shown below focuses on the company level with some supplementary adjustments:

• Improvement of the quality of operation of an organization;

• Improvement of the quality of goods and services provided for customers by an organization;

• Improvement of the image of an organization (including the public image);

• Improvement of the credibility of an organization (especially for existing and potential partners for business transactions);

• Advantage in terms of international transactions; and

• Contribution to the national and regional economy as well as trade.

However, standardization does not always bestow advantages. “Whether or not an internationally established standard is the best standard is a different matter” (Hashimoto 2013/2015). Such a statement makes sense when we look at the history of the revisions made to the ISO 9000 series. Thus, for ISO 18404, it is planned to periodically review the ranking of the techniques used at each stage of DMAIC (Ishiyama 2017b). The ISO is an independent international non-governmental organization. Its head office is in Geneva, Switzerland, and its membership consists of 163 national standards bodies. Accordingly, the international standards published by the ISO are not necessarily binding. As far as Kaizen-related ISO standards are concerned, neither ISO 18404 nor ISO 9001 demand the compliance of individual organizations. It is up to the judgment of each organization or top executive to try to obtain ISO 18404 or ISO 9001 certification.

However, there can be situations where it is necessary to obtain ISO certification to support a certain business transaction. One example is ISO 9001, which is said to be a hit product of the ISO. Even if an organization can offer a product or service with a high level of customer satisfaction through its own quality management system without obtaining ISO 9001 certification, possession of ISO 9001 certification can help it to gain the trust of even a new customer (business partner or general consumer) in its products or services. In recent years, there appears to have been an increasing trend both at home and abroad to add the possession of ISO 9001 certification to the trading conditions set by a business partner or customer when placing an order. This trend shows that ISO 9001 is becoming the benchmark for measurement of the trustworthiness of a new trading partner. However, it is said that obtaining and maintaining (periodic inspection, etc.) ISO 9001 certification is hugely expensive. In fact, many organizations, especially SMEs even in Japan, are reluctant to have ISO 9001 certification for this reason, even though they acknowledge the advantages of this certification.

On 10 February 2017, an International Symposium on the Trends in ISO 18404 was held in Tokyo with the sponsorship of the Japanese Standards Association (JSA). At this symposium, it was disclosed that while ISO 18404 was published by the ISO in December 2015, the UK is currently the only country working to further elaborate this standard.²⁴ The UK is said to be planning the introduction of a certification system based on ISO 18404 with the leadership of the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) and the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). British speakers were invited to the symposium and one of them explained: “the UK’s efforts regarding ISO 18404 are currently at the pilot project stage but the intended certification system would attract some EU countries to follow, with possible expansion to the world if the pilot project proves to be successful.” The sponsor of the symposium took the view that ISO 18404, which has systematized and standardized methods for the improvement of manufacturing and business processes, will follow the historical development of ISO 9001.²⁵

Has any African company obtained ISO 18404 certification? There is a future possibility that African companies will be required to obtain ISO 18404 certification, or to appoint a black belt expert of a Western partner company or other for international transactions. However, there is speculation that SMEs in Africa are hesitant to voluntarily obtain ISO 18404 certification, presumably because of the following reasons. First is the question of company size. The companies which developed Six Sigma are such international companies as Motorola and GE . Japanese companies which have introduced it to Japan are also large companies, including Toshiba, Sony and NEC. There is a suspicion that Six Sigma may only be applicable to large companies. In the case of the Kaizen projects assisted by JICA, the companies selected for guidance²⁶ are mainly small and medium enterprises (SMEs ) with up to 100–200 employees, including the president and factory manager; with those with ten employees or less not being unusual. Therefore, there is no possibility of African SMEs introducing Six Sigma because of their size.²⁷

A second reason relates to human resources development. Most developing countries do not have a human resources development body for Six Sigma .²⁸ However, it is possible that individual consultants with Six Sigma training experience abroad and experience of providing guidance on Six Sigma will emerge. It is also theoretically possible that foreign experts could be invited to provide training at home. Also, a company can dispatch its staff abroad to undergo training but may find the cost and duration of training problematic.²⁹ It is likely therefore that the subject SMEs of JICA Kaizen projects in developing countries do not have the financial ability to pay for the training of Six Sigma experts (black belt or green belt , etc.). If so, is there any top executive who can decide on human resources development as an anticipatory investment for future profit? This is the problem faced by companies in developing countries, especially by the top executives or owners of SMEs . While the people who can be considered candidate members of a Six Sigma project are, by definition, capable people in their companies, the top executive of every company is haunted by the risk of employees with a black belt or green belt qualification being head-hunted by another company (including multi-nationals) willing to pay a higher wage.

The third is the problem of developing an organizational structure. In general, JICA Kaizen projects aim at fostering staff members capable of transferring Kaizen technologies (methods and concepts) to local companies (human resources development), and developing or strengthening those organizations receiving JICA assistance, usually the counterpart organization, that are developing an organizational structure. However, it is not easy to successfully develop human resources capable of providing guidance on Six Sigma as well as an organizational structure for Kaizen dissemination during the project period,³⁰ as described earlier, let alone successfully guide SMEs to develop an organizational structure capable of introducing Six Sigma given the time constraints.

The fourth reason is the difficulty in mastering advanced methods. Six Sigma uses difficult and advanced techniques, such as statistical tools (e.g., multivariate statistics and multivariable analysis), probability distribution tests (normality test, etc.), design of experiment (DOE), project risk analysis and measurement systems analysis (Ishiyama 2017b). Most companies participating in JICA Kaizen projects are SMEs in developing countries and the educational background of top executives or factory managers is not necessarily high. Therefore, it is safe to assume that they do not possess sufficient skills to use these complex and advanced methods.³¹

The four reasons described above suggest that SMEs in developing countries, especially in Africa, are unlikely to show interest in Six Sigma . It may be possible for them, however, to examine the possibility of introducing Six Sigma once they have developed to the stage where their products or services are about to enter the international market. In any case, obtaining ISO certification is not compulsory. It is up to individual organizations whether they employ the methods standardized by the ISO. Six Sigma and the Lean Production System may prove to be suitable and effective methods for some organizations. However, other Kaizen methods, such as TQM and TPS , may be better suited to other organizations.

4.3 What Kind of Kaizen Methods and Concepts Are More Appropriate for African SMEs?

Here, we approach the question of what kind of Kaizen methods and concepts are more appropriate for African SMEs. The first viewpoint is to examine under which conditions Kaizen is likely to be accepted by SMEs in Africa. This is an examination from a relatively short-term viewpoint in contrast to the second viewpoint to be discussed later. African SMEs may pursue more advanced Kaizen activities when their size as well as business activities are expanded in the future. When this happens, they will face the decision of needing to select either TQM or TPS that originated in Japan, or Six Sigma or Lean that was developed in Western counties. In preparation for this decision, it is essential to explore what should be done now. This decision has implications for the way JICA as well as other international donor agencies assist Kaizen diffusion in Africa.

4.3.1 More Acceptable Conditions for Kaizen (First Viewpoint)

In the last ten years, JICA has assisted Kaizen projects in eight African countries.³² The contents of this assistance are the development of human resources capable of disseminating and guiding Kaizen and the transfer of Kaizen methods and concepts to local companies (mostly SMEs), along with practical training on the production floor. The outputs of both human resources development and implemented Kaizen at SMEs participating in a JICA project have been generally praised by the governments of recipient countries (see Chaps. 2 and 5). Here, the appropriate conditions for the introduction of Kaizen to African companies (not limited to SMEs but including large companies which would be introducing Kaizen for the first time) are examined by focusing on Kaizen methods and concepts. Based on the first author’s experience of involvement in such projects,³³ the authors would like to argue that the following conditions can make Kaizen more acceptable to African SMEs. The first condition is that the methodology must be “easy to understand.” Any Kaizen method or concept should be easy to understand for both the top executive and employees involved. The top executive or owner of an African SME may not necessarily have a high educational background. In fact, there are many with only basic education. Moreover, many employees have not even had sufficient basic education. In consideration of this situation, it is essential for any Kaizen method or concept to be easy to understand.

The second is to be “not so difficult to implement.” It is desirable for any Kaizen method not to be complex but easy to implement on the production floor in addition to its ease of understanding by the top executives and employees of African SMEs. Preparatory work is required for the introduction of Kaizen. For a company planning to introduce this approach for the first time, it is essential to deploy someone who is responsible for its implementation. This means that the company concerned must train or secure the services of such person(s) and, therefore, a company may be reluctant to implement Kaizen because of the time and cost involved.

The third is “results in a short time.” For the successful introduction of Kaizen, a methodology that does not require much preparation time and which produces results in a relatively short period of time after its introduction is desirable. Although some Kaizen results take some time to emerge, there are many methods capable of producing visible results in a relatively short time. What is important is that not only the top executive but also employees feel and verify the results at an early stage of implementation even if these are only small. Such results then lead to an increased level of recognition of the approach, thereby becoming the driving force towards the next stage of Kaizen.

The fourth is that it must be “inexpensive to introduce.” There are many Kaizen methods and concepts which can contribute to quality improvement (e.g., reduction of defective products) or productivity improvement (e.g., productivity improvement per employee or unit of machinery) without much investment and using existing machinery. Even if investment is required to introduce Kaizen for the first time, it is desirable that the amount of investment does not constitute a burden on a SME.

The fifth is “low risk.” Although it is possible to initiate Kaizen on a large scale, it is also possible to begin small. Such efforts mean lower costs if such efforts fail or do not produce the expected results. The sixth is that it should not “be difficult to train employees.” Whichever Kaizen activity is to be implemented, the training of a person(s) implementing the activity is required regardless of whether the approach originated in Japan or was redeveloped in the West. It is desirable for this training not to become a burden on African SMEs in terms of time and cost. If possible, the preferred course of action is to develop the ability of employees to educate themselves,³⁴ and to solve problems by gaining experience through the process of implementation, even if the level of theoretical knowledge of Kaizen is not high to start with.

These are the six conditions which would make Kaizen more acceptable for African SMEs. Which Kaizen methods and concepts can meet these conditions in a concrete manner? Table 4.4 compiles the basic methods and concepts based on the experience of JICA Kaizen projects. Many of the methods and concepts listed in the table generally satisfy the six conditions discussed above.³⁵

Table 4.4 Basic Kaizen technologies (methods, tools and procedures)

In JICA Kaizen projects, most of the methods and concepts listed in Table 4.4 have been transferred to developing countries through classroom lectures. Meanwhile, the number of methods experimented with on the production floor is limited because of the constraints posed by the limited duration of each project. In this chapter, the methodology is discussed in terms of “Japanese-style Kaizen ” versus “Western-style Kaizen .” The methods and concepts shown in the above table are commonly included in both styles (Ishiyama 2017b; Stern 2016; Nakajyo and Yamada 2006).

4.3.2 Direction for Kaizen Promotion in Africa (Second Viewpoint)

The discussion in this chapter is based on the idea that the suitability of Kaizen methods and concepts for companies planning to introduce these depends on the industrial climate of the country concerned, the culture of each company planning such introduction and the judgment of the top executive of the company concerned.³⁶ Let us now explore the question of how African countries should deal with Kaizen in line with the expansion of their business activities and organization from different viewpoints.

Technology transfer under the Kaizen projects assisted by JICA so far targets the methods and concepts listed in Table 4.4. In short, the methods and concepts for transfer are the basic ones common to both Japanese- and Western-style Kaizen . To be more precise, JICA’s assistance helps the target companies to build foundations that can be used for either style in the future. This approach can be upheld as being desirable for international cooperation, because it allows those companies (mostly SMEs) that have received JICA’s guidance to opt for not only Japanese-style Kaizen (TQM and TPS , etc.) but also for Western-style Kaizen (Six Sigma and Lean, etc.) when they decide to introduce such activities in the future. While it may sound repetitive, the key point here is that JICA’s assistance does not force only Japanese-style Kaizen on recipient countries.

After the completion of a JICA Kaizen project in Tunisia in which the first author was involved, it was learned that one of the Tunisian companies assisted by JICA had obtained ISO 9001 certification. In other words, JICA’s assistance had made it easier for this company to obtain ISO 9001 certification. This may also mean that there could be cases in the future where participation in a JICA Kaizen project facilitates the obtaining of ISO 18404 Certification for participating companies in developing countries. In short, JICA Kaizen projects contribute to the development of the basic capacity of the target companies so that these companies can adopt appropriate Kaizen methods, including such Japanese-style methods as TQM and TPS , and such Western-style methods as Six Sigma and Lean, and can also obtain ISO 9001 and ISO 18404 certification.

JICA may not have consciously sought this kind of outcome, but it can be said that the approach it has adopted has ended up achieving something desirable in terms of international cooperation. Any future Kaizen project assisted by JICA should be formulated to make such potential a reality. At present, JICA is implementing a research project on the required level of the standardization of Kaizen for Africa. In its standardization efforts, JICA should consider the desirable contribution of these efforts to the development of the basic Kaizen capacity of companies in the target countries to enable them to opt for either style, and meet the challenge of obtaining ISO 9001 and ISO 18404.

Figure 4.3 outlines an image of the future direction of African enterprises (MSEs), based on the above discussion. It is hoped that JICA’s research project on this issue is expected to show the standard contents and direction for future Kaizen assistance for African companies. At the result of the research project implementation “African-style Kaizen,” which paves the way for more advanced methodologies (Japanese style or Western style) for African SMEs, may be suggested. The significance and outline of such standardization of Kaizen for Africa are discussed in the next section.

Fig. 4.3

An image of future Kaizen for African enterprises (MSEs). (Source: Prepared by the author)

4.4 Standardizing Kaizen Approaches in Africa

JICA’s current research study on “Standardizing Kaizen Approaches in Africa” aims to produce a handbook to guide policy makers and practitioners who intend to promote and implement these procedures in their country to enhance its competitiveness and productivity. The handbook will consist of definitions of Kaizen, recommendations and methods for dissemination and deployment approaches, as well as standard curricula, a syllabus and textbook lists for Kaizen facilitators.³⁷ Recommendations for the certification system will also be made. The guidelines will also contain key success factors and lessons learned from case studies in 14 different countries.³⁸

This research study is a sub-project of the Africa Kaizen Initiative that JICA and NEPAD launched in April 2017. The initiative was also one of the commitments from the Japanese government made during the Tokyo International Conference for African Development (TICAD) VI, held in Nairobi, Kenya, in August 2016. Prime Minister Abe addressed in his opening speech that “Japan will cooperate with NEPAD to spread Kaizen throughout Africa. We will aim to increase the productivity of factories by 30 percent where Kaizen is introduced.”

The core strategies of the initiative are (1) advocacy at policy levels, (2) standardizing Kaizen in Africa, (3) identifying and strengthening the functions of centers of excellence and (4) networking with Kaizen promoting institutions in Africa and around the world. The initiative aims to disseminate Kaizen through centers of excellence utilizing Kaizen facilitators trained under a standard training program and certified by a regional accreditation system, while extracting buy-in from policy makers, and connecting Kaizen promoting institutions around the world. The next section will elaborate on the ideas behind standardization and the key features of the initiative’s Kaizen standards.

4.4.1 Why Is Standardization of Kaizen Necessary?

The purpose of standardizing Kaizen in Africa is to speed up the process of scaling up. There is no doubt that African firms need to upgrade their capacity to compete in the global market. As mentioned in Chap. 1, many firms in Africa do not possess the very basic skills for management . Cirera and Malony (2017) introduce Kaizen as an approach Japan took during the post-World War II years to successfully upgrade its business capacity. They argue that Kaizen enhances the production capability of firms, which serves as the basic layer of firm capability. To this day, Kaizen has spread throughout the world through Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) or through consultants who have studied or practiced Kaizen and contributed to upgrading firm capability. Japanese firms operating overseas are also of great assistance in disseminating Kaizen. However, in areas where FDI and experienced consultants are limited, a push from the public sector and international donors may be needed.

So far, JICA has implemented Kaizen projects in eight countries in Africa and has developed few hundred Kaizen facilitators in partnership with government agencies in each country. However, the number is not enough to meet the huge demand that exists in Africa. We need to have many more Kaizen facilitators on the continent and to accelerate the process. Partnerships with various organizations and bringing in forces from the private sector should be sought. To do so, we need to have a common understanding of Kaizen.

Unfortunately, the complex aspect of Kaizen makes it difficult to grasp what it really is. The knowledge of Kaizen has been continuously developing through trial and error, and each company in Japan has their own unique way of implementing and conducting Kaizen. Through dissemination around the world, new knowledge has been created and boundaries have been expanded. Some of the knowledge may be externalized and have become explicit knowledge but much still resides within the people. People have different understandings of Kaizen and sometimes this may be misleading. Thus, we need to have a common understanding of what Kaizen is and understand how it can be effectively implemented in African firms. Furthermore, we need to rephrase it in the context of today’s Africa. We thus hope that the standardization of the Kaizen approach serves as the cornerstone for common understanding of what Kaizen is in Africa.

4.4.2 Key Features of the Initiative’s Kaizen Standard

Although the research study for “Standardizing Kaizen Approaches in Africa” is continuing and the results are not yet finalized, there are five key features that are expected in the outcome. First, the initiative’s Kaizen standard is a regional standard that should be designed to fit the needs of the African continent. Africa’s ownership is essential. The standards will be drafted by the research study team but in consultation with major Kaizen promoting institutions in and out of Africa.³⁹ Finally, when the standard is set out, it should be approved by the African nations.

Second, the standards will be set to develop qualified Kaizen facilitators. The study will formulate a standard training program (curricula and a syllabus) and develop a certification system. On the other hand, we should not attempt to impose a standard towards firms because we think it is unrealistic in Africa. Imposing such standards may overburden the firms especially if they are Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). Our objective is not to standardize the firms but to upgrade their capability. We want more firms to be implementing Kaizen rather than feeling overburdened.

Through focusing the standards for developing qualified Kaizen facilitators, we hope to amplify the number of facilitators substantially. These facilitators can provide the firms with advice that targets their specific problems in more efficient way without overburdening them with standards. When the firms develop the capacity to implement more systemized and advanced Kaizen such as TPS , TQM and TPM , the facilitator can guide the firms to implement these approaches. Furthermore, this may also increase the number of facilitators. Until now, most of these facilitators were trained under a JICA project. However, if the standard curricula become open knowledge and the certification system is open to the public, more people from the business side may join and become Kaizen facilitators. We need many more facilitators in Africa than we have now. In Africa, developing firm capability is more necessary than standardizing them. Thus, standardization of qualified facilitators may be more practical and efficient approach in the continent.

Third, the scope of Kaizen knowledge tackled by the standard approach should respond to the needs of today’s Africa by taking into account its future. Thus the knowledge and skills that will be dealt in the standard may be broader than the conventional knowledge associated with Kaizen. For example, those managerial skills that are usually not classified as Kaizen skills, such as business planning, marketing and accounting, will be also included in the initiative’s standard. Likewise, Western-style Kaizen should not be discriminated against but observed and incorporated if deemed beneficial for African firms. We should keep the good aspects of Japanese-style Kaizen but also be aware of the criticisms made of it.

In fact, in the interviews conducted by our research study team, interviewees from Malaysia and Singapore commented that Lean and Six Sigma are much easier to implement compared with Kaizen. When the interviewer asked why, the answer was “Kaizen is philosophical, Lean is more technical.” “Kaizen depends on individual capacity. It is not sustainable.” Regardless of the correctness of their comments, we need to be aware of these notions. As mentioned earlier, much of Kaizen knowledge is tacit knowledge that resides in the people. This makes it difficult for people to understand. We need therefore to convert their tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.

The fourth feature is flexibility. A word of caution that may appear to contradict the concept of standards is needed in Africa’s case. Although this is a regional standard, the African continent is made of more than 50 countries with different economic levels and policies. Even within the seven countries where JICA is currently implementing Kaizen projects, the context, purpose and means are different. In Ethiopia, the Ethiopia Kaizen Institute (EKI ), a government agency which is the core Kaizen promoting institution in the country, is providing services to large and medium enterprises and to the public sector. The majority of EKI consultants are recruited from new graduates (see Chap. 5 for further detail). On the other hand, in Cameroon, the SME agency utilizes private consultants to provide Kaizen as part of its business development service to SMEs . The curriculum needed to train facilitators in Ethiopia and Cameroon may therefore differ. To respond to these different circumstances, dividing the curriculum into modules is suggested by this research study. In this way, each country can choose the modules needed according to their targets and the background experience of the consultants. Different levels of certification, such as basic level consultant to advanced level consultant, should also be considered depending on the modules taken, level of knowledge and the years of experience a consultant has.

Likewise, we need to understand that customization is one of the essential features of Kaizen as argued in Chaps. 2 and 5. For effective application in country, customization has had a great role in the past. As US developed Lean and Six Sigma to adjust Kaizen to their corporate culture, Asian countries have also practiced customization. In Vietnam, Nguyen Dang Minh (2017), Chairman of the Advisory Board of the GKM Lean Institute, introduced a managerial philosophy called TAM THE to help Vietnamese understand the concept of Lean management. Here Minh acknowledges Lean management as equivalent to TPS . TAM THE is a “Made in Vietnam” Lean management philosophy that teaches that working seriously with good intentions will develop the firm’s capacity and that this is beneficial. African firms and communities should be able to customize and create their knowledge for themselves. Thus, the initiative’s standard should focus on transferrable knowledge and skills so that customization can be attempted in each country.

Finally, the standard should be subject to periodical revision. Kaizen knowledge is something that constantly evolves through continuous conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge and through customization. Furthermore, considering the current transformation of industries through digitalization and AI, the knowledge used today may not be relevant in the future. In order to accommodate these changes, periodical revision is needed.

In a nutshell, the initiative’s Kaizen standard is a regional standard for developing qualified facilitators. The set of knowledge and skills that will be dealt in the standard will be adjusted to the current challenges that African firms are facing. Though the bulk of the knowledge will be derived from conventional Kaizen knowledge, a broader set of skills will be incorporated. Furthermore, the standard will be periodically revised to accommodate new knowledge created within and out of Africa.

4.4.3 Significance of Standardizing Kaizen in Africa

As previously mentioned, the purpose of the initiative’s standard is to accelerate the catch-up process in African firms through the implementation of Kaizen. Up until now, aside from the counterpart organizations in JICA’s projects, only few organizations provide Kaizen or Lean services to firms in Africa. Since the few private firms that do exist provide services mostly for large or multi-national companies, local SMEs do not have a place to turn to. Even within JICA’s projects inefficiency can be seen. In each country where JICA has implemented a Kaizen project, the experts dispatched to those countries had to develop curricula and textbooks from scratch. If a standard curriculum and textbooks were available, there would be no need to develop these from the beginning.

Furthermore, if a qualification system for Kaizen facilitators is in place, more personnel from the private sector can be expected to join the force. There is no need for them to be trained in the standard training program if they already have experience in Kaizen applications. They could simply pass the exam and become qualified Kaizen facilitators, but if they wished to enhance a particular skill they could choose from the modules and receive training.

However, to really accelerate the process, standardization of Kaizen is not enough. That is why the initiative has four main strategies. However, other strategies need to be put in place to give it real effect. First, government support from each country is needed. Many enterprises still do not realize what they lack in their management capabilities. Therefore support from the government is needed, especially for MSMEs with limited capital. In this way we can stimulate the potential demand in Africa.

Second, we need to have core partner organizations that have the capacity to provide standard training and accreditation for qualified facilitators. Of course, the seven organizations in our partner countries are candidates but there can be other organizations that provide this training. For example, the Pan-Africa Productivity Association (PAPA), a regional organization promoting and encouraging member countries⁴⁰ to develop productivity cultures that can assure better living standards, can be one of the candidates. Productivity South Africa, where PAPA locates its secretariat, has experienced consultants. These organizations are expected to become Centers of Excellence that can also provide assistance to neighboring countries through providing training or dispatching their facilitators. Together with a standard curriculum, the initiative aims to develop a database where materials and case studies are stored. Any country can access and read, listen and watch to see how Kaizen can be implemented in different environments.

Third, creating a network of Kaizen promoting institutions within Africa and globally is also expected to boost the process. The Kaizen network is also expected to facilitate the process of converting tacit knowledge residing within people and each country to explicit ones that can be shared on a borderless basis.

The initiative will also attempt, at the policy level, to promote awareness of this approach. All African politicians recognize that they must enhance the productivity of their economy, firms and workers. Choosing what policy measures to adopt and implement is the hard task. Fortunately, the development of a basic Kaizen capability is compatible with other advanced methods, as we argued in the previous section. Furthermore, implementation can be achieved without large investment. The most basic factor for successful development is cultivating Kaizen-oriented minds and the Kaizen culture. It is also expected that eventually, this dissemination system will work on its own. The duration of the initiative is for ten years starting from 2017, and there will be a periodical review, which will make it possible to assess the extent to which our purposes are fulfilled. The challenge is whether we can create Kaizen-oriented minds and culture in Africa that will not only develop firm capacities but also create a learning society so that the continent can adapt to the future challenges that they may face.

4.5 Concluding Remarks

There appears to have been a somewhat ironic cycle of development in this area. Japan learned technologies (methods and concepts) from the West and developed them in its own way. In turn, the US learned technologies that had been successfully developed in Japan and redeveloped them in its own way to produce successful examples of these technologies. The technologies developed in the US then spread to the rest of the World, and the UK pushed some of them to gain the status of international standards (ISO standards). Following this cycle, the question may be immediately raised as to whether Japanese companies are affected by ISO standards, such as ISO 18404; however, there is no way of knowing at present how they will be affected in the coming years.

The more important question for us in this chapter was what impact will ISO 18404 have on African companies? The possibility that some multi-nationals based in Africa and large African companies operating in the international markets will opt to obtain ISO 18404 certification cannot be denied. However, ISO 18404 does not appear to have much impact on most African SMEs that are operating within the local market. In short, it is currently inconceivable that African SMEs will move to obtain ISO 18404 certification.

Needless to say, African SMEs should eventually advance their Kaizen methods such as to TQM , TPS , Six Sigma , Lean and so on so that they could compete within the global market. They may even be challenged to obtain not only Japanese-style Kaizen but also Western-style Kaizen. In consideration of such prospects, international cooperation for African SMEs should start from the implementation of basic Kaizen to enhance their firm’s capability so that the opportunity to challenge these styles of Kaizen and ISO standards can be seized where and when appropriate. To achieve this outcome, the standardization of these activities at the current level in Africa must contribute to “the development of a basic Kaizen capability” for African SMEs .⁴¹ This is precisely the direction that JICA’s current research study on “Standardizing Kaizen Approaches in Africa” is heading towards.