mälardalen university640564/fulltext02.pdfintroduction severe competition in a global arena...
TRANSCRIPT
Mälardalen University
This is a submitted version of a paper published in Journal of ManufacturingTechnology Management.
Citation for the published paper:Yuji, Y., Monica, B. [Year unknown!]"Manufacturing process innovation initiatives at Japanese manufacturing companies"Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Access to the published version may require subscription.
Permanent link to this version:http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-20899
http://mdh.diva-portal.org
Manufacturing process innovation initiatives at Japanese manufacturing
companies
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to present an overview picture of manufacturing process
innovation (MPI) initiatives conducted at Japanese manufacturing companies. The picture is then
analyzed in the perspectives of how deutero learning occurred and how one’s creativity was facilitated
during those initiatives.
Design/methodology/approach – The overview picture was obtained by reviewing 65 case study articles
describing MPI initiatives. Cross-case analysis was made to identify similarities among the 65 MPI cases.
Findings – From the analysis of the obtained overview picture it has been identified that 1) companies
tend to view MPI initiatives as stimulants to build improvement and innovation capabilities, 2) co-
evolving cycles of improving operational performance and building improvement and innovation
capabilities are embedded in MPI initiatives, 3) MPI initiatives result in different levels of innovativeness,
namely local and radical innovations, and 4) several companies use an unique design approach for
manufacturing processes, referred to as the value adding process point approach, that contributes to
facilitating one’s creativity and generating unique outcomes.
Originality/value – In the process innovation research much focus has been on how to manage change
processes and a limited attention has been paid to deutero learning and creativity facilitation during
process innovation. This article contributes to adding the knowledge of the practice of Japanese
manufacturing companies concerning these scarcely studied areas.
Keywords Manufacturing, production, process innovation, kaikaku, kakushin, radical improvement,
deutero learning, capability building, creativity, Japan
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Severe competition in a global arena requires manufacturing companies to continuously develop
their manufacturing functions for greater efficiency and speed. Moreover, in a business
environment characterized by fast-paced change, it is hard to sustain operational competitiveness
as long as the speed of improvements is moderate. Companies must have a capacity to undertake
large-scale improvements of a radical and innovative nature, as a complement to incremental
improvements. This article features radical improvements in manufacturing.
Process innovation, or process re-engineering, has been a popular theme of research dealing with
radical improvements in manufacturing and business processes. Since its emergence in the
1990’s a large number of theoretical and empirical studies have been undertaken. Previous
studies have proposed definitions of process innovation (e.g. Davenport, 1993), developed
normative steps for planning and implementation (e.g. Motwani et al., 1998), identified critical
success factors (e.g. Paper and Chang, 2005), and linked to manufacturing strategy and change
management (e.g. Guha et al., 1997). Compared to the number of studies focusing on how to
manage changes in process innovation, there are a limited number of studies viewing process
innovation as an opportunity of deutero learning, in other words, an opportunity for people in an
organization collectively to learn how to improve and innovate. Moreover, far less study has
been undertaken with respect to how people can be even more creative during process
innovations (Feurer et al., 1996; McAdam, 2003).
Japanese manufacturing companies are generally known for a long history of practicing
continuous improvement (kaizen). In recent years, manufacturing functions in Japan have been
exposed to strong competitive pressures from fast-growing internal and external competitors
located in East and South East Asia. Many Japanese companies have launched organization-wide
major manufacturing improvement initiatives in Japan to increase the speed of improvement.
The initiatives are often called kakushin or kaikaku in Japanese (they are usually translated as
innovation and reformation, respectively). An initial study of several kakushin/kaikaku
initiatives at Japanese manufacturing companies has shown that deutero learning was strongly
emphasized in many of the initiatives and furthermore, some outcomes of the initiatives were
perceived as highly innovative (Yamamoto, 2010). An extensive study of kakushin/kaikaku
initiatives may give a deeper insight into the areas of interest in this article: deutero learning and
creativity facilitation during process innovations in manufacturing.
The purpose of this article is first to present an overview picture of kakushin/kaikaku initiatives
and then to discuss implications in terms of the above mentioned areas of interest. In order to
obtain the overview picture, 65 case study articles describing kakushin/kaikaku initiatives at
Japanese manufacturing companies were reviewed and analyzed.
This article is organized as follows. The theoretical background of the present study is described.
It is followed by explaining of the methodology adopted in this study. Then, the overview picture
of kakushin/kaikaku initiatives is presented. Finally, implications are discussed and conclusions
are drawn.
Manufacturing process innovation
Various definitions of process innovation exist in literature. In this article, we adopt one of the
most accepted definitions of process innovation proposed by Hammer and Champy (1993); a
process of fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business and manufacturing processes
to achieve dramatic improvements in critical contemporary measures of performance such as
cost, quality, service, and speed. A process is described as a set of logically related tasks
performed to achieve a defined outcome (Davenport and Short, 1990). Process innovation can be
further described. In process innovation, problems desired to be solved are often wide-ranging
and deeply rooted in an organization. Therefore, organization-wide cooperation is inevitable and
a fundamental rethinking of existing routines and the shared mindset in the organization is likely
necessary. Although process innovation is by definition a radical measure, it does not necessarily
mean one big jump. It can also be a result of many smaller changes that occur in concert and
reinforce each other toward a radically new form (Smeds, 2001). New process design can be
radical but its implementation may be incremental (Andreu et al., 1997; Stoddard et al., 1996).
Manufacturing process innovation (MPI) denotes process innovation in manufacturing.
Processes in manufacturing do not only involve core manufacturing processes that transform
material into products. They also include any support processes related to the core processes, for
instance processes in production planning, logistics, purchasing, engineering, and management.
Kakushin/kaikaku mentioned in the previous section is considered as MPI.
A considerable number of studies have been conducted in the area of process innovation. In
previous research, various life-cycle models of process innovation including phases and steps to
be undertaken have been presented (e.g. Coulson-Thomas, 1994; Davenport, 1993; Guha et al.,
1993; Harrington, 1991; Motwani et al., 1998), critical success factors for process innovation
have been identified (Coulson-Thomas, 1994; Guimaraes and Bond, 1996; Herzog et al., 2007;
Jarrar and Aspinwall, 1999; Paper and Chang, 2005), the linkage between manufacturing
strategy and process innovation has been investigated (Herzog et al., 2009), and the
incorporation of change management and organizational learning in process innovation has been
studied (Boudreau and Robey, 1996; Buckler, 1996; Guha et al., 1997; Haho, 2004; Petersen et
al., 2004; Riis et al., 2001; Robey et al., 1995; Smeds, 1997; 2001).
Considering the amount of effort that has been made, process innovation research can be
generally considered as having arrived at a mature stage. However, there are areas where further
inquiry can be made. One of the areas particularly addressed in this article is deutero learning
during process innovation. Learning is a process of improving actions through better knowledge
and understanding (Fiol and Lyles, 1985). Argyris and Schön (1978) distinguish collective
learning into three kinds: single-loop, double-loop, and deutero learning. According to them,
single-loop learning occurs when an organization or a group modifies existing practices in
response to errors without changing shared values and standards in the group or the organization.
When these shared values and standards are questioned and modified, it is called double-loop
learning. Deutero learning is about learning how to carry out single and double-loop learning. In
other words, deutero learning is to learn how to improve and innovate, thus it is relevant to
building improvement and innovation capabilities. The importance of these capabilities has been
stressed by management theorists stating that it is a critical source of competitive advantage in
today’s business environment (e.g. Fujimoto, 2007; Teece et al., 1997). A process innovation can
be viewed as an opportunity to build those capabilities, which can put a greater significance in
process innovation methodologies and in their use (Coulson-Thomas, 1996). However, the
primary learning concern in process innovation has been single-loop and double-loop learning,
because mainstream process innovation research has focused on how to manage change
processes. The interaction process innovation and building of improvement and innovation
capabilities has been far less studied.
Another possible area of further inquiry in process innovation research is how people involved in
process innovations can be even more creative. Creativity is an ability of producing unique and
valuable ideas (Couger, 1995).The role of creativity becomes more important when a higher
level of innovativeness is desired in the outcome of process innovations (Kettinger et al., 1997).
There are practices in process innovation that can enhance creative thinking. Davenport (1993)
mentioned several practices, for example setting stretched targets, forming cross-functional
teams, analyzing problems from a process and holistic perspective, and designing processes with
fewer constraints (a clean sheet of paper approach). Kettinger et al. (1997) summarized various
creative thinking techniques used by companies and consultants in process innovations, for
instance brainstorming, force field analysis, and nominal group technique. However, compared
to the amount of mainstream process innovation research, a surprisingly limited attention has
been paid to the issue of creativity (Feurer et al., 1996; McAdam, 2003). The facilitation of
creativity during process innovation can be studied more.
Methodology
One of the aims of the present study is to obtain an overview picture of MPI initiatives at
Japanese manufacturing companies. The study collected empirical data from case study articles
describing MPI initiatives at Japanese companies in detail. Other possible data collection
techniques such as interviews and observations would require a considerable amount of time
(Yin, 1994), considering that a large number of cases are necessary to obtain such a broad
picture of the initiatives.
The case study articles were collected through CiNii, one of the largest database services in
Japan for Japanese-written academic publications. Japanese-written articles were searched
because descriptions of MPI initiatives at Japanese companies were seldom available in
international articles. Initially, a title search was conducted using key words such as seisan
kakushin (manufacturing innovation), seisan kaikaku (manufacturing reformation), kojo kakushin
(factory innovation), and kojo kaikaku (factory reformation). Only articles published during and
after the year 2000 were searched, because we desired to understand recent MPI initiatives in
Japan. More than 350 articles were found in the data base. By reading titles or abstracts, the
articles with little relevance to the study were removed. After the initial screening, 93 articles
were left. These were read, and the articles that did not provide sufficient descriptions of the MPI
initiatives were eliminated. After the second screening, 65 articles remained for the review. The
reviewed articles are listed in Appendix. Eleven of these articles describe MPI initiatives at
SMEs with less than 300 employees. Other articles are reporting MPI initiatives at large
companies.
During the review notes were taken concerning what the companies did during the initiatives,
and how and why they did it. It was eventually found that the notes could be categorized into
nine themes: reasons of initiation, objectives, strategic focus areas, how initiatives were driven at
an organization level, generated solutions, how these solutions were generated, how the
implementations were undertaken, results of the initiatives, and success factors. A matrix of
these themes in columns and the cases in rows was created in order to conduct a cross-case
analysis. All the notes written at each column were clustered. When many clusters were
identified, they were further grouped. A number of notes related to each cluster were counted.
The results of the clustering and counting of the notes for each theme are shown in Table 1 to 5.
In Table 1, for example, “severe competition (15)” under the group of “business concerns” in the
theme of “backgrounds” means that 15 case study articles described severe competition among
the companies as one of the reasons for launching MPI initiatives. However, the results of the
counting should be treated with caution. The reviewed articles had no common way of
describing the initiatives. Some articles mostly described the solutions generated during the
initiatives, while others mostly described how the implementations were undertaken. Therefore,
the results of the counting will be regarded as only indicative and having limited statistical
meaning.
Manufacturing process innovation initiatives at Japanese companies: An overview
picture
A broad picture of MPI initiatives at Japanese companies will be described in accordance with
the nine themes mentioned in the previous section.
Reasons of initiation
Most of the case study articles began with explaining the circumstances behind the initiatives.
There were various reasons why the companies launched the initiatives, but they are generally
related to business concerns or manufacturing concerns. The summary of the backgrounds is
shown in Table 1.
(Table 1)
With respect to business concerns, the increasing pace of competition in the global arena was
frequently mentioned in the articles. For example, Enomoto (2007) stated that one of the reasons
why the company started an MPI initiative was the fast-growing competitors in East and
Southeast Asia. The need of dealing with the customers’ demand for shorter lead time to
delivery, increasing product variation, and shorter product life cycle, was another major reason
to start many of the initiatives. The need for change felt urgent at most of the companies but it
was in terms of preventing a possible crisis in the future. Only a couple of companies started the
initiatives because the companies were in crisis already and needed to improve their operation
drastically.
As for manufacturing concerns, the need for shorter manufacturing lead time and lower
inventories was a frequently mentioned reason for the initiatives. Dissatisfaction with the present
speed of improvement and the need for gaining higher improvement speed was another major
motivation for the initiatives. For instance, the companies reported by Fukushima (2007) and
Omori (2009) started the initiative because their improvements had been slow and reactive.
These companies desired to break through the current pace of improvement. A number of
companies that have been working with kaizen for decades also launched MPI initiatives. A
company started an MPI initiative because kaizen had stagnated due to increasing product
variation and shorter product life cycles (Sawa, 2007). Another company started an initiative in
order to encourage employees to be more innovative in improvements (Shirai, 2007). Examples
of other reasons identified in the study are, the need of meeting the business strategy, need of
total optimization, and high fixed cost (see Table 1). Some initiatives were launched in
connection with the introduction of new products and factory relocations and renovations.
Objectives
Most of the companies gave specific names to the initiatives such as kakushin, kaikaku, or
others, in order to manifest that the initiatives were radical approaches to improvements. Some
of the articles presented process visions and road maps toward the desired states. Numeric
performance targets were set with respect to quality, productivity, lead time, amount of
inventory, and area of shop floor. Some companies set targets for equipment development, such
as investment cost and size of equipment. The time frames in which the targets were to be
accomplished varied from six months to five years. Nearly all of the targets were considerably
stretched in order to provoke people in the organizations to question the current status of the
operation as well as shared mindsets and behaviors. Better team work and use of creativity were
also expected by setting stretch targets at some companies (Sawa, 2007; Shirai, 2007). A few
articles presented a qualitative target such as an increased motivation for improvements among
employees.
Strategic focus areas
The initiatives in the articles had one or a few strategic focus areas, for example material flow
and manufacturing equipment. Various strategic focus areas were found as shown in Table 2.
Nearly two thirds of the initiatives involved an organization-wide implementation of lean
manufacturing. This is why a large number of initiatives focused on, for example, establishing
one-piece or small-batch manufacturing flow, discarding conveyors at assembly lines and
introducing cellular layouts, and reducing inventories. Waste elimination in manual operations,
and a change of planning and control systems toward small-lot and demand-synchronized
manufacturing were also frequently mentioned focus areas in the initiatives involving lean
implementations.
(Table 2)
Some of the companies seemed to have established lean manufacturing already before the
initiatives. At such companies, the main focus areas were often related to the development of in-
house equipment suitable for lean manufacturing, continuous monitoring of manufacturing status
with the help of information technology, and reconfigurable assembly lines.
Human resource development was often mentioned as a strategic focus area. Education and skill
development were provided during the initiatives. Several companies implementing lean
manufacturing gave significant attention to mindset and behavior changes recognizing that they
were critically important for the success of the implementation. Some companies focused on
increasing the innovation capacity of managers and employees during the initiatives. For
instance, the company reported by Tanahashi (2009) required vision making and ambitious target
setting from every manager, expecting them to act toward innovations. Other focus areas found
in the articles were, for instance, modular product design, internal and external logistics, and
energy consumption.
Driving structures
In the reviewed articles, there were descriptions of how the initiatives were driven at an
organization level, although the descriptions were often limited in terms of detail. They are
summarized in Table 2. Many of the articles mentioned that the companies received support
from external consultants to drive the initiatives. This was more common for SME companies or
companies attempting to introduce lean manufacturing. Steering committees, divisions, or teams
were created to support and/or drive the initiatives. Their role included for instance to give
general directions for improvements, make targets and road maps, conduct various analyses,
assist implementation of the solutions, and provide education. The members of the committees,
divisions, or teams worked full or part time for the initiatives and they were usually from various
functions in the organizations. They often had rich experiences in large-scale changes and/or
advanced technical skills. The company reported by Shirai (2007) created a cross-functional
team consisting of experts from various divisions, expecting effective new idea generation and
realization. Some articles described how the initiatives were followed up. For example, monthly
briefing sessions were held in order to check the progress of the initiatives and discuss necessary
actions. At some companies, regular factory inspections were conducted by senior managers,
where the managers walked through the shop floors and indicated improvement points.
New manufacturing processes and equipment
In the initiatives, various new manufacturing processes and pieces of equipment were created as
solutions. They were clustered as shown in Table 3. Since many initiatives were related to
implementing lean manufacturing, many solutions were also related to this type of development.
Examples are one-piece or small-batch flow, kanban, pull systems, work load leveling, short
time set-up, and waste-reduced manual operations. Those solutions might be new for the
companies implementing them for the first time. However, they do not appear particularly novel
from the industrial perspective, because many other companies have already implemented
similar solutions. In contrast, some companies created solutions that seem unique even to the
industry. For example, the company reported by Tanaka (2005) created a reconfigurable
assembly line consisting of connected trolleys. The length of the line could be quickly changed
by changing the number of trolleys connected, in accordance with the volume of the products. In
the article reported by Yoshida and Fujiwara (2007), the company made an assembly line where
an operator could be quickly replaced with a robot module.
(Table 3)
A number of articles presented solutions concerning planning and control systems for
manufacturing. Many of the solutions were realized with the help of information technology.
One example is an equipment operation chart that could continuously display the current and
future load of every machining tool. The chart helped the total optimization of equipment
utilization (Eno and Fukutomi, 2007).
Several reports presented simple, slim, compact, and often low cost pieces of equipment that
could be in-lined to the manufacturing lines. This type of equipment was well described in the
articles by Yoneya (2001). According to him, conventional pieces of equipment used to be
designed for manpower-saving and high speed processing. However, they became obstacles to
realizing one-piece flows. They were often too large to be placed at one- piece flow lines, and
the speeds of those machines were too high to match with the takt times of the lines. Therefore,
the company developed small and low cost pieces of equipment that could be placed in the lines
and synchronized with the takt time. In the articles by Akita (2004) and Takahashi (2001), this
type of equipment was called “lean equipment”. Most of the lean equipment was developed in-
house. An executive vice president of the company reported by Takahashi (2001) stated that the
lean equipment would be the source of manufacturing competitiveness in the future.
There were many other kinds of solutions presented in the articles (see Table 3). They were
related to, for example, internal logistics, multi-skill management, daily follow-up systems,
quality tracking systems, simultaneous engineering, and standard design processes.
How the new processes and equipment were designed
There were several articles describing how the new manufacturing processes and equipment
were designed. The summary of this theme is shown in Table 3.
A number of analytical tools were mentioned as used to generate the solutions. They were, for
instance, time measurement, process mapping, P-M analysis, and video analysis. All of the
analytical tools referred to in the articles are widely known in the industry.
Various perspectives were applied during idea generation. At some companies, the ideal state
was considered. At the company reported by Fujimoto (2009), for example, an ideal length of the
manufacturing line was calculated in order to minimize the length of walking. At another
company, the designers of a new assembly line discussed what the ideal line could be, in order to
gain a new perspective in the idea generation (Tanahashi, 2009). In the article presented by Sato
(2005), a new layout was designed for a minimum of material movement, human movement, and
material and information handling.
There was another perspective adopted at a couple of companies. In this article, this perspective
is called the value adding process point (VAPP) approach, because it focuses on the point where
value is added in manufacturing. At a machining tool, for example, cutting is done by the drill
touching the work and transferring energy to it. The VAPP is the space where the energy transfer
occurs. In a case of assembling a product consisting of two parts, the point where the parts are fit
together is considered as VAPP. Manufacturing lines, cells, and pieces of equipment are
considered as supporting structures to realize the energy transfers at these points. Ideally, it is
cost minimum if these transfers are realized without any of those structures. In the VAPP
approach, manufacturing lines, cells, and pieces of equipment are designed so that a minimal
amount of physical entities is used to realize the energy transfers at the VAPPs. The company
reported by Sawa (2007) regarded the energy transfers at the VAPPs as “forms” and the
structures to realize the forms as “mechanisms”. The company made an effort to create new
forms and eliminate mechanisms when developing simple and low cost equipment. At another
company, designers of a new assembly line assumed that that assembly parts should be fed to the
immediate points where the parts were fit together (Tanahashi, 2009). With this consideration,
the designers invented a new design approach in which an assembly line was designed
backwards from the assembly completion.
A few companies applied a perspective called “strike zone” when they designed or improved
assembly lines. The strike zone refers to an area within a radius of about 35 to 50 centimeters of
an assembly operator. All the assembly parts, feeders, jigs, fixtures, and tools were allocated in
such a way that operators could reach them within the strike zones. This perspective is a practice
of pursuing the principle of motion economy developed within industrial engineering. Other than
the above mentioned perspectives, cross-functional team work was mentioned as a contributor to
idea generation. For example, operators’ participation in equipment development helped create
pieces of equipment that were highly usable for the operators.
How the implementations were undertaken
There were greatly varied descriptions in the analyzed articles regarding how the new
manufacturing processes and equipment were implemented. In general, the articles dedicated to
describing the development of equipment provided little information about how the
implementation was conducted. On the other hand, the articles reporting major changes in
operational processes, such as lean implementation, described the implementations in more
detail.
Several groups of clusters regarding implementation were identified as shown in Table 4. The
first group presented in Table 4 is related to the roles of management in the implementations.
Several articles mentioned that the changes were driven by the strong leadership of the top
management. He or she engaged in close dialogue with the employees in order to communicate
the purpose of the changes, for example, in regular round-table conferences. A director of a
company explained that managers themselves needed change in order to lead the employees to
the changes (Kamata, 2000).
Training was often provided in order to facilitate the implementations. In lean implementations,
managers, change agents, and employees were sent to external or internal training programs to
gain necessary knowledge and skills for the implementation. In some other cases, companies
organized internal workshops to study and disseminate a new way of working.
The motivation of the employees was considered essential for an effective implementation. A
number of articles described how employees’ motivation was increased during the initiatives.
Some articles reported that a sense of achievement increased the motivation for further
improvements. At one company, for instance, employees reduced the area for the inventories to
less than half (Takahashi, 2001). They became confident in their efforts and gained the energy
for more improvements. A few companies in the articles consciously displayed the improvement
results to employees in order to share the sense of achievement. Visualization of problems was
also mentioned as a means to increase the need for improvement among employees. Other ways
used to increase motivation are shown in Table 4. One example is making appealing posters of
the initiative and displaying them in various places in the factories and offices (Noguchi, 2007).
(Table 4)
The initiatives were often divided into a number of smaller improvement activities, each of
which had certain themes and targets. These activities normally took from a few weeks to several
months. Several articles described how these smaller improvement activities were driven during
the initiatives. Descriptions were related to three areas; how the improvement activities were
planned and followed up, when they were conducted, and who conducted them (see Table 4).
Some articles mentioned that a certain mindset was necessary for the changes. A couple of
articles wrote that a bold spirit among the employees contributed to the realization of seemingly
difficult changes. At one company, for instance, a layout change involving a relocation of a large
press machine had been considered impossible, because the employees thought that the
relocation would affect the quality of a grinding process when the press machine was placed
beside the grinding process. However, the change was conducted with the culture of “give it a
try” and no influence was found after the relocation. As a result, they eliminated the work in-
process between the press and grinding machines. Other than the bold spirit, managers in some
of the articles were aware that the speed of each improvement cycle was crucial, because it
decided the overall speed of the progress in the initiatives.
Results of MPI initiative
Most of the articles showed the results of the MPI initiatives. The summary of the results is
shown in Table 4. More than half of the articles showed radical improvements in the
manufacturing lead time or the amount of inventories. Major improvements in productivity were
often reported as well. Other reported results, for instance, in manufacturing area, investment
cost in equipment, size of equipment, quality loss cost, and material cost, were also radical
showing improvements by 30% or more. Other than these improvements in performance factors,
nearly one third of the articles mentioned that increased motivation and enhanced improvement
skills among employees were significant results of the initiative. For example, the president of
one company commented that he observed a behavioral change in the employees from a
conservative type - preferring to maintain the status quo and avoid changes, to an innovative type
- favoring to question the status quo and undertake experiments (Kamata, 2000). He stated that
this change was the most significant achievement of the initiative.
Success factors
At the end of most of the articles, the authors of the articles or the managers involved in the
initiatives reflected and commented on what had contributed to or what had been important for
the success of the initiatives. The summary of their reflection is shown in Table 5. Nine groups
of clusters were identified. They are the role of the top management, mindset, participation,
evolutional approach, visualization, team work, analysis and design, employee skills, etc.
The first group is again related to the role of the top management. Top management’s leadership
and enthusiasm were mentioned as critical success factors for the initiatives in many articles.
Other managerial roles, for instance, communication, setting challenging targets, having a clear
strategy and tactics, and giving high priority to the initiative, were stated as important.
Many authors and managers commented that certain mindsets were essential to the success of the
initiatives. Bold spirit, unlearning, and creative thinking were often mentioned as important to
achieve change. A total optimization and process perspective was also emphasized in several
articles. Other kinds of mindsets mentioned in the articles were a sense of urgency and a never-
give-up mentality.
(Table 5)
The third group in Table 5 is related to employee participation. Several articles mentioned that
everyone’s involvement in and motivation for improvements were key to achieve the desired
state. Some authors and managers stated that empowerment and skill development through
problem-solving cycles were critically important for the initiatives. A director of a company in
an article commended that people in the organization visualized wastes, solved them, gained a
sense of achievement, and repeated this process again (Yoneya, 2001). Through this cycle the
people increased their capability for improvement, and the performance of the operation was also
increased. The director believed that this cycle was the most important element of the company’s
MPI effort. In another article, a director of a company pointed out that explorative improvements
undertaken with a bold spirit might result in failures, but people could learn from them and
prevent the same mistake from occurring again (Kamata, 2000). He stated that such
improvements developed people. The more people could achieve such improvements, the more
difficult challenges they could tackle. He concluded that this kind of development was the key to
moving forward with an MPI initiative.
Several authors of the articles suggested that taking steady steps rather than abrupt ones was a
way of realizing radical improvements. In one article, it was mentioned that people could see
more improvement opportunities by working with improvements step by step (Fujimoto, 2009).
In the context of taking steps in the initiatives, a number of authors and managers commented
that the speed of each improvement cycle was important to keep the pace of change in the
initiatives.
Visualization was also mentioned as a success factor in several articles. Some authors pointed
out that showing managers and employees the results of improvements, especially radical ones,
(for example major improvements in 5S, one piece flow, and area savings), was an effective way
of increasing the motivation for the improvements. Visualizing problems in various ways, for
instance, formulating a clear distinction between normal and abnormal states in the operation
(Omori, 2009), was mentioned as important to drive improvements.
Other groups of success factors are shown in Table 5. Examples are, close cooperation with
different divisions and functions, imagining some kind of ideal state when designing new
processes and equipment, employee skills and knowledge of improvement, learning from others,
and a solid culture of continuous improvement.
Implications
In the previous section, an overview picture of MPI initiatives at Japanese companies has been
presented. Generally, many features of these initiatives are already described in previous
research. For instance, these initiatives mostly follow the life cycle models of process innovation
proposed by Coulson-Thomas (1994); Davenport (1993); Guha et al. (1993); Harrington (1991);
Motwani et al. (1998). Most of the success factors mentioned in the case study articles have
already been recognized by Coulson-Thomas (1994); GuimaraesBond (1996); Herzog et al.
(2007); JarrarAspinwall (1999); PaperChang (2005). However, when these initiatives are
carefully analyzed from the perspectives of building improvement and innovation capabilities
and creativity facilitation, some implications can be drawn that have not been much discussed in
the literature related to manufacturing process innovation. They are described below.
Building improvement and innovation capabilities toward continuous innovation
Many of the large companies in the reviewed articles seem to already have an established culture
of continuous improvement before launching the initiatives. These companies appeared to launch
MPI initiatives not only to improve manufacturing performance radically, but also to encourage
managers and employees to learn how to innovate new processes and equipment. In other words,
the companies used the initiatives as stimulants to obtain or strengthen innovation capabilities.
On the other hand, many other companies in the articles, especially SMEs, had weak cultures of
continuous improvement. These companies tended to launch the initiatives, for instance
introducing lean manufacturing, as a means to establish a strong culture of continuous
improvement.
The above analysis implies that obtaining a higher level of improvement and innovation
capabilities was considered as an important objective in many of the initiatives, even though it
was not always articulated clearly at the companies. In order to explain this capability-building
objective, four levels of improvement and innovation capabilities are described as shown in
Table 6. The descriptions are simple but assumed sufficient for the discussion in this article. The
three lower levels are defined based on the levels of improvement suggested by Bessant et al.
(2001). The definition of the highest level is based on the notion of continuous innovation
described by Petersen et al. (2004). In an organization at this level, both an exploitation of
existing operational processes (incremental improvements) and an exploration for new processes
(radical improvements) are simultaneously sought and effectively combined (Petersen et al.,
2004). A culture of innovation is apparent and an infrastructure for innovation is established.
(Table 6)
Using Table 6, the aforementioned large companies with the strong cultures of continuous
improvement can be estimated at level 3 at the beginning of the initiative. It can be understood
that their capability-building objectives were to reach level 4. The companies with a weak
culture of continuous improvement may be at level 2 at the outset, and they launched the
initiative desiring to reach level 3.
The current analysis implies that the awareness or articulation of capability-building objectives
in a MPI initiative can make the initiative more learning oriented. This is congruent with the
suggestion made by Boudreau and Robey (1996) and Robey et al. (1995). They proposed that
making “learning objectives” (the statements of what knowledge an organization desires to share
with members) explicit before redesigning processes could facilitate collective learning.
However, these authors did not provide a concrete description of what a learning objective could
be. It can be said that stepping up to a higher level of improvement and innovation capabilities is
a more concrete example of a learning objective.
Co-evolution of operational performance and improvement and innovation capabilities
Many companies in the reviewed articles achieved radical improvements through a number of
smaller changes. At these companies, top or senior management usually launched the initiatives
and orchestrated the smaller changes in order to achieve the overall objectives. At the same time,
the smaller changes were undertaken by groups of employees at lower levels in the
organizations, to some degree in a learning-by-doing manner. Some authors defined this kind of
approach as deliberate-emergent approach (Riis et al., 2001; Smeds, 1994; 1997).
Many companies in the reviewed articles employing the deliberate-emergent approach in their
initiatives experienced that the improvement and innovation capabilities were increased as
improvement cycles iterated. This process can be described in more detail as follows. Education
and training were usually given at the beginning of the improvement activities. Problems were
visualized, analyzed, and solved. The results were visualized and the problem-solving identified
more improvement opportunities. People who were involved in or observed the improvements
gained a sense of achievement and became motivated for further improvements. This process
was repeated again. Some improvements might fail but people could reflect upon and learn from
the failures. As the operational performances improved, people became more willing to engage
in challenging improvements with a bold spirit. This co-evolutional development of operational
performance and improvement and innovation capabilities is illustrated in Figure 1. In the figure,
one cycle of co-evolution is called a learning cycle. This cycle can also be seen as a deutero
learning cycle (Argyris and Schön, 1978).
A risk of co-evolutional development is that the speed of improvements can be too slow. Some
of the reviewed articles reported that the companies’ initial efforts in MPI were failed because
the progress was much slower than they desired. It is understandable why a number of authors
and managers in the articles expressed that the speed of each improvement cycle was the key to
success in the initiatives. Consequently, one arising question is how to keep or increase the speed
of the learning cycles during a MPI initiative.
Some answers to this question can be identified from the analysis of the case study articles.
Some companies in the articles seem to rely on external consultants to speed up the learning
cycles especially in the earlier phases of the initiatives. At these companies, initial or earlier
changes were made in a deliberate way. It can be assumed that the purpose of this strategy was to
trigger the learning cycles. When the employees learned how to perform improvements,
improvements were done in a more deliberate-emergent way. Other than this way of stimulating
the learning cycles, a bold spirit, leadership, and skills in identifying problems also seem to
affect the pace of the learning cycles. Nonetheless, more research is needed to fully answer this
question.
(Figure 1)
Efforts toward radical innovations
Many of the companies in the articles implemented of lean manufacturing in the initiatives. As
mentioned earlier, such efforts may be new to the companies implementing it for the first time
but they are not particularly novel from an industrial perspective. On the other hand, the
introduction of lean equipment and reconfigurable manufacturing lines presented in some of the
articles seem to be further developed in the course of lean manufacturing, and they appeared
more unique to the industry. This implies that an MPI initiative can aim at or result in different
levels of innovativeness. We distinguish two levels of innovativeness as local and radical
innovations. Local innovation means that the outcome of an initiative is new to the company but
not particularly new to the industry, while radical innovation means that the outcome is novel
even to the industry.
No authors of the case study articles articulated the two levels of innovativeness, but the
distinction may be important for enhancing creativity in MPI. The analysis of the case study
articles has showed that a majority of MPI efforts still seem to be in the category of local
innovations. However, as Smeds (1997) states, if only imitating the latest managerial fads or the
competitor's solutions, factories soon risk their survival. If we agree to this statement, aiming at
local innovation is perhaps adequate when the level of improvement and innovation capabilities
is low, but MPI efforts should be eventually directed toward radical innovation. Although
organizational innovation theorists believe that organization culture is the main determinant for
achieving radical innovation (Prajogo and Ahmed, 2006; Zien and Buckler, 1997), an awareness
of radical innovation can influence an organization to emphasize the importance of creativity
facilitation during MPI.
Value adding process point (VAPP) approach
The VAPP approach described in the previous section seems to have facilitated creative thinking
in designing manufacturing processes and pieces of equipment, and contributed to generating
more unique solutions, such as simple and slim manufacturing lines and equipment. As
mentioned in earlier sections, there are several practices in process innovation facilitating
creative thinking, such as setting stretched targets, forming cross-functional teams, and designing
processes with less constraints (Davenport, 1993; Feurer et al., 1996). Various creative problem-
solving techniques, for instance brainstorming, affinity diagramming, force-filed analysis, and
problem reversal, have been applied in process innovations (Kettinger et al., 1997; Paper, 1997).
The VAP approach can be counted as an additional technique for stimulating creative thinking in
the design of manufacturing processes and equipment, especially when a company wants to
develop a simple, slim, compact manufacturing lines and cells that can strengthen lean
manufacturing. The VAPP approach could be used at many companies but it does not seem to be
widely known internationally and only a few books written in Japanese describe the approach
(Kawase, 1995; Nakamura, 2003). Case study reports by Sawa (2007), Tanahashi (2009), and
Kato (2008) are a couple of the few documented empirical applications of the approach. It could
be interesting to explore this approach more in future research.
Conclusion
The study presented in this article analyzed 65 case study articles describing manufacturing
process innovation initiatives at Japanese manufacturing companies. Continuous improvement
activities at Japanese companies have been well documented (e.g. Brunet and New, 2003; Imai,
1986), whereas descriptions of MPI efforts at Japanese companies have been far less available in
international literature. The overview picture of the MPI initiatives presented in this article has
provided more information on how these companies approach major improvement initiatives in
manufacturing. The present study has also identified implications in terms of improvement and
innovation capability building and creativity facilitation during MPI. In short, the identified
implications are that 1) companies can view MPI initiatives as stimulants to build improvement
and innovation capabilities, 2) the co-evolution of operational performance and improvement
and innovation capabilities is an important element of MPI when it is approached in a deliberate-
emergent way, 3) an MPI initiative can aim at or result in different levels of innovativeness,
namely local and radical innovations, and 4) the value adding process point approach can be
used to facilitate one’s creativity and contribute to developing simple manufacturing lines, cells,
and pieces of equipment than can strengthen lean manufacturing. Finally, the present study has
raised further questions such as how to keep the pace of the co-evolution cycles and how to
utilize the VAP approach. Our current research proceeds to seek answers to these questions.
References
Akita, H. (2004) "Naiseika to chie de moukaru kaisha heno kakushin", Factory Management,
Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.53-59 (in Japanese)
Andreu, R., Ricart, J. E. and Valor, J. (1997) "Process Innovation: Changing Boxes or
Revolutionizing Organizations?", Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 4, No. 2,
pp.114-125
Anonymous (2003) "Line ROA wo shihyo ni shita seisan kakushin katsudou", Factory
Management, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp.7-17 (in Japanese)
Anonymous (2007) "Kojo to desk work no renkei niyoru nagare seisan kaikaku", Factory
Management, Vol. 53, No. 10, pp.40-47 (in Japanese)
Anonymous (2009) "8 tuno kakushin project wo kaishi, zensha ichigan taisei de taishitsu kyoka
he", Factory Management, Vol. 55, No. 10, pp.24-31 (in Japanese)
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. (1978) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective,
Addison-Wesley.
Banzai, M. and Watanabe, Y. (2007) "Seisan Kakushin katudo wo sasaeru "mieruka" no teian to
keyparts naiseka jidoka no suishin", IE Review, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.37-41 (in Japanese)
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S. and Gallagher, M. (2001) "An evolutionary model of continuous
improvement behaviour", Technovation, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.67-77
Boudreau, M.-C. and Robey, D. (1996) "Coping with contradictions in business process re-
engineering", Information Technology & People, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.40-57
Brunet, A. P. and New, S. (2003) "Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study", International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23, No. 12, pp.1426-1446
Buckler, B. (1996) "A learning process model to achieve continuous improvement and
innovation", The Learning Organization: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.31-
39
Couger, J. D. (1995) Creative Problem Solving and Opportunity Finding, Boyd & Fraser
publishing company, Massachusetts.
Coulson-Thomas, C. (1994) Business process re-engineering: myth and reality, Kogan Pge,
London.
Coulson-Thomas, C. J. (1996) "BPR and the learning organization", The Learning Organization:
An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.16-21
Davenport, T. H. (1993) Process innovation: reengineering work through information
technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Davenport, T. H. and Short, J. E. (1990) "The new industrial engineering: Information
Technology and Business Process Redesign", Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 4,
pp.11-38
Eno, K. and Fukutomi, N. (2007) "Jutyu seisan hin ni okeru monozukuri kaikaku", IE Review,
Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.33- 36 (in Japanese)
Enomoto, M. (2007) "Seisan Kakushin to Monozukuri kyoka", IE Review, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp.20-
24 (in Japanese)
Feurer, R., Chaharbaghi, K. and Wargin, J. (1996) "Developing creative teams for operational
excellence", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16,
No. 1, pp.5-18
Fiol, C. M. and Lyles, M. A. (1985) "Organizational learning", The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.803-813
Fujimoto, A. (2009) "TPM katsudou ni yoru seisansei 2 bai no model line", IE Review, Vol. 50,
No. 3, pp.73-78 (in Japanese)
Fujimoto, T. (2007) Competing to be really, really good, International House of Japan.
Fujita, Y. (2005) ""Saikyo no monozukuri shudan" wo mezashite Sanyo tokyo manufacturing no
seisan kakushin", Factory Management, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp.52-73 (in Japanese)
Fukushima, A. (2007) "Kouritsu wo motometa monozukuri heno kosu-seisansei kojou-
katsudou", IE Review, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.26-30 (in Japanese)
Fukutomi, Y. and Sasaki, T. (2004) "Sharyo you suishinseigyo souchi kumitate kojo ni okeru
seisan kakushin katsudou no suishin", IE Review, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp.23-27 (in Japanese)
Guha, S., Grover, V., Kettinger, W. J. and Teng, J. T. C. (1997) "Business process change and
organizational performance: Exploring an antecedent model", Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.119-119-154
Guha, S., Kettinger, W. J. and Teng, J. T. C. (1993) "Business process reengineering: Building a
comprehensive methodology", Information Systems Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.13-
23
Guimaraes, T. and Bond, W. (1996) "Empirically assessing the impact of BPR on manufacturing
firms", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16, No. 8,
pp.5-28
Haho, P. (2004) "Paths to deutero-learning through successive process simulations: a case
study", Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.239-251
Hamada, M. (2003) "Seisan kakushin no nami wo ukete datsubungyo kadokuji no seisan kanri",
Factory Management, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp.6-10 (in Japanese)
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993) Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business
revolution, Harper Business, New York.
Harrington, H. J. (1991) Business process improvement: the breakthrough strategy for total
quality, productivity, and competitiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hattori, A. and Nakagawa, K. (2006) "Gyomuyou kuchoki reitoki ni okeru seisan kakushin heno
torikumi", IE Review, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp.37-42 (in Japanese)
Herzog, N. V., Polajnar, A. and Tonchia, S. (2007) "Development and validation of business
process reengineering (BPR) variables: a survey research in Slovenian companies",
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45, No. 24, pp.5811-5834
Herzog, N. V., Tonchia, S. and Polajnar, A. (2009) "Linkages between manufacturing strategy,
benchmarking, performance measurement and business process reengineering",
Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp.963-975
Hirose, M. (2005) "Jidou souko to computer ni yoru seisan kanri system wo haishi shi kurojika
jitsugen", Factory Management, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp.32-41 (in Japanese)
Hora, H. (2003) "K-UP undou gannen keijo rieki 2 bai wo mezashite", Factory Management,
Vol. 49, No. 1, pp.11-15 (in Japanese)
Horio, C. (2008) "21seiki ni ikiru jinzai", IE Review, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp.36-42 (in Japanese)
Imai, M. (1986) Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ishibashi, F. (2003) "Mikomi seisan hoshiki kara zyutyu seisan hoshiki heno kakushin ", Factory
Management, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp.25-29 (in Japanese)
Iwasaki, M. (2001) "Kaikaku ga kaikaku wo yobu seisan kakushin katsudou", IE Review, Vol.
42, No. 4, pp.27-32 (in Japanese)
Iwata, T. (2003) "100 nen no dento wo uchiyabure! oriya no seisan kakushin katsudou", Factory
Management, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp.45-49 (in Japanese)
Jarrar, Y. F. and Aspinwall, E. M. (1999) "Business process re-engineering: Learning from
organizational experience", Total quality management, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.173
Kamata, Y. (2000) "Okyakusama ga mieru monozukuri", Factory Management, Vol. 46, No. 16,
pp.9-43 (in Japanese)
Kanno, Y. (2002) "Wakuwaku kojo kaikaku no nouhau", Factory Management, Vol. 48, No. 1,
pp.55-59 (in Japanese)
Kato, H. (2008) "Workhead to ryohin joken (kakouten) wo tsuikyu suru", IE Review, Vol. 49,
No. 3, pp.32-37 (in Japanese)
Kawakami, H. and Kobayashi, K. (2005) "Jido hanbaiki seisan ni okeru shijo henka no supi-do
ni awaseta monozukuri", IE Review, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp.39-44 (in Japanese)
Kawase, T. (1995) Solving industrial engineering problems, Nikkan kogyo shimbun (in
Japanese).
Kettinger, W., J. , Teng, J., T. C. and Guha, S. (1997) "Business Process Change: A Study of
Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.55-80
Kishimoto, N. and Fujita, K. (2009) "Cost up ni uchikatsu seisan kakushin", IE Review, Vol. 50,
No. 1, pp.27-32 (in Japanese)
Kobayashi, K. and Shimizume, T. (2011) "Keizoku shita seisan kakushin katsudou ni yoru
kyousouryoku no kyoka", IE Review, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp.23-28 (in Japanese)
Kumagai, S. (2000) "Seisan kakushin katsudou wo toshite: Katsudou no naiyou to seika", IE
Review, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.13-17 (in Japanese)
Maruyama, T. (2003) "Seisan kakushin ni yoru ishiki kaikaku de zaiko, lead time, shikakari hin
wo 50% sakugen", Factory Management, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp.20-24 (in Japanese)
Maruyama, Y. (2008) "Sekisui ryu IE ni yoru monozukuri kakushin", IE Review, Vol. 49, No. 1,
pp.31-35 (in Japanese)
Matsuda, K. (2000) "Zyuchu kaihatsu gata system seihin no seisan kaikaku heno torikumi", IE
Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp.75-80 (in Japanese)
Matsuo, H. (2007) "Seizou kakushin katsudou ni okeru 3 nenkan no torikumi", IE Review, Vol.
48, No. 3, pp.79-84 (in Japanese)
McAdam, R. (2003) "Radical change: a conceptual model for research agendas", Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.226-235
Mishima, H. (2004) "Yaruzo! konbea toruzo! ikkonagashi!", Factory Management, Vol. 50, No.
1, pp.20-25 (in Japanese)
Miyake, M. (2008) "Okizuki tyuzou syokuba ni okeru monozukuri kaikaku katudou", IE Review,
Vol. 49, No. 1, pp.83-88 (in Japanese)
Mizuguchi, H. (2006) "Cell seisan donyu ni yoru lead time no tanshuku", IE Review, Vol. 47,
No. 5, pp.47-52 (in Japanese)
Morita, M. (2003) "Gemba kara start saseta Hiokidenki no HiPS katsudou", Factory
Management, Vol. 49, No. 12, pp.72-80 (in Japanese)
Motwani, J., Kumar, A., Jiang, J. and Youssef, M. (1998) "Business process reengineering: A
theoretical framework and an integrated model", International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 18, No. 9, pp.964-977
Nagai, M., Mizutani, K. and Osakabe, Y. (2001) "Through put saidai wo mezashita seisan
kakushin", Factory Management, Vol. 46, No. 8, pp.34-71 (in Japanese)
Nakachika, K. (2000) "Seisan kakushin de majime seiryuka layout henkou wo jishi", Factory
Management, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp.134-139 (in Japanese)
Nakagi, A. (2004) "Seisan kakushin "Unichikara" katsudou de shueki kaizen wo!", Factory
Management, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.26-31 (in Japanese)
Nakamura, Z. (2003) Mono koto bunseki de seikou suru simple na shigoto no hassou hou, The
nikkan kogyo shimbun, Japan (in Japanese).
Nakayama, C. (2004a) 'Kenwood no seisan kakushin 1', Nikkei Monozukuri, September, Nikkei
Bussiness Publications, pp.201-205 (in Japanese)
Nakayama, C. (2004b) 'Kenwood no seisan kakushin 2', Nikkei Monozukuri, October, Nikkei
Bussiness Publications, pp.273-277 (in Japanese)
Nakayama, C. (2004c) 'Kenwood no seisan kakushin 3', Nikkei Monozukuri, November, Nikkei
Bussiness Publications, pp.257-261 (in Japanese)
Nakayama, C. (2004d) 'Kenwood no seisan kakushin 4', Nikkei Monozukuri, December, Nikkei
Bussiness Publications, pp.193-197 (in Japanese)
Noguchi, H. (2007) "Ikinokori wo kaketa monozukuri ryoku no saikochiku", IE Review, Vol. 48,
No. 5, pp.29-34 (in Japanese)
Okuno, K. (2002) 'NEC kansai no seisan kakushin "push-gata" kara "pull-gata" he', Nikkei
Microdevices, June, Nikkei Bussiness Publications, pp.80-85 (in Japanese)
Omori, K. (2009) "Mieru seisan wo mezashite jigyo bu wo kaeru", IE Review, Vol. 50, No. 1,
pp.21- 26 (in Japanese)
Otomo, H. (2001) "Seisan kaikaku ni yoru cho teikosuto seisan heno chosen", IE Review, Vol.
42, No. 4, pp.41-45 (in Japanese)
Ozawa, H. (2006) "TC-1 shisou ni yoru seisan kakushin", IE Review, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp.63-69
(in Japanese)
Paper, D. (1997) "The value of creativity in business process re-engineering", Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.218-231
Paper, D. and Chang, R.-D. (2005) "The state of business process reengineering: a search for
success factors", Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 16, No. 1,
pp.121-133
Petersen, A. H., Boer, H. and Gertsen, F. (2004) "Learning in different modes: the interaction
between incremental and radical change", Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11,
No. 4, pp.228-238
Prajogo, D., I. and Ahmed, P., K. (2006) "Relationships between innovation stimulus, innovation
capacity, and innovation performance", R & D Management, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp.499-499
Riis, J., O., Hildebrandt, S., Andreasen, M. M. and Johansen, J. (2001) "Implementing change:
lessons from five development projects", International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 22, No. 1-2/3, pp.13-27
Robey, D., Wishart, N. A. and Rodriguez-Diaz, A. G. (1995) "Merging the metaphors for
organizational improvement: Business process reengineering as a component of
organizational learning", Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, Vol.
5, No. 1, pp.23-39
Sasaki, M. (2009) "IMM de susumeru seisan management system", IE Review, Vol. 50, No. 2,
pp.39-43 (in Japanese)
Sato, K. (2001) "Monozukuri gizyutsu kakushin", IE Review, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp.6-11 (in
Japanese)
Sato, K. (2005) "Shijo heno tsuiju wo kanou ni suru ikko nagashi zenkishu mainichi seisan no
jitsugen", IE Review, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp.51-56 (in Japanese)
Sato, K., Nagata, K., Koyama, T. and Tanaka, H. (2001) "Johou system to yugou shita seisan
kakushin katsudou", IE Review, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp.72-75 (in Japanese)
Sawa, J. (2007) "Seisan Kakushin katsudo to konnichi no kadai", IE Review, Vol. 48, No. 5,
pp.15- 19 (in Japanese)
Shiina, R. (2009) "Kaizen katudou keizoku no point", IE Review, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp.27-30 (in
Japanese)
Shiki, K. (2003) "Nihon ichi no kagusanchi ni kakushin no nami wo", Factory Management,
Vol. 49, No. 1, pp.30-34 (in Japanese)
Shimoda, K. (2004) "3 shuno katsudou wo yukiteki ni kumiawasete shueki kaizen wo jitsugen
shita seisan kakushin", Factory Management, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.32-39 (in Japanese)
Shirai, Y. (2007) "1/3 ni kodawatta Simple and Slim setsubi-zukuri heno chosen ", IE Review,
Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.21-25 (in Japanese)
Shirato, K. (2009) "Cost up ni taiou suru monozukuri to seisan kakushin", IE Review, Vol. 50,
No. 1, pp.33-39 (in Japanese)
Smeds, R. (1994) "Managing Change towards Lean Enterprises", International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.66-82
Smeds, R. (1997) "Radical change through incremental innovations: generic principles and
cultural differences in evolution management", International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.146-162
Smeds, R. (2001) "Implementation of business process innovations: an agenda for research and
action", International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 22, No. 1-2/3, pp.1-12
Stoddard, D. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L. and Littlejohn, M. (1996) "The Reality of Business
Reengineering: Pacific Bell's Centrex Provisioning Process", California Management
Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp.57-57
Takahashi, S. (2001) "60 nenrai no zyurai taishitsu wo hitei shite", Factory Management, Vol.
47, No. 14, pp.30-47 (in Japanese)
Tamori, S. (2003) "Dango seisan kara 1 setto nagashi heno chosen", Factory Management, Vol.
49, No. 1, pp.40-44 (in Japanese)
Tanahashi, T. (2009) "Henka shitsuzukeru kojo wo mezasu keizoku teki kaizen katsudou", IE
Review, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp.39-44 (in Japanese)
Tanaka, M. (2004) "Kaizen wo susumeru to mondai no honshitsu ga mietekuru", Factory
Management, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.60-66 (in Japanese)
Tanaka, S. (2002) "Seizou gemba to kyoutsu staff bumon ga ittai to natta seisan kakushin
katsudou", IE Review, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp.83-87 (in Japanese)
Tanaka, T. (2005) "Daisha biki konryu seisan hoshiki no tanjo", IE Review, Vol. 46, No. 4,
pp.31-37 (in Japanese)
Taniguchi, Y. (2009) "Seisan kakushin katudou keizoku heno torikumi", IE Review, Vol. 50, No.
5, pp.21-25 (in Japanese)
Teece, D., J. , Pisano, G., P. and Shuen, A. (1997) "Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp.509-533
Tsukame, M. and Sakamoto, T. (2011) "Gemba wo shuyaku ni zenin de gemba wo tasukeru
kaizen katsudou", IE Review, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp.17-22 (in Japanese)
Watabe, N. (2010) "Seisan gizyutsu ga redo suru sekkei kakushin to seisan kakushin no ayumi",
IE Review, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp.29-34 (in Japanese)
Watai, T. (2004) "1 rino 100 po yori 100 nin no 1 po - seisan kakushin de shokuba wo mamoru ",
Factory Management, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.46-52 (in Japanese)
Yamamoto, Y. (2010) Kaikaku in production. Licentiate thesis, Mälardalen University.
Yin, R. K. (1994) Case study research- design and methods, Sage Publications Inc.
Yoneya, M. (2001) "Zeiin de kachitotta genka teigen 100 okuen", Factory Management, Vol. 47,
No. 14, pp.3-29 (in Japanese)
Yoshida, M. and Fujiwara, H. (2007) "Inverter no seisan kakushin", IE Review, Vol. 48, No. 5,
pp.45-49 (in Japanese)
Yoshida, S. and Saito, A. (2008) "Tannoki to teikosuto de fukakachi wo umidasu", IE Review,
Vol. 49, No. 3, pp.27-31 (in Japanese)
Zien, K. A. and Buckler, S. A. (1997) "Dreams to Market: Crafting a Culture of Innovation",
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.274-287
Appendix: Reviewed articles describing manufacturing process innovation
initiatives at Japanese manufacturing companies
Author (year) Company name
(Akita, 2004) NEC Tokin Ceramics
(Anonymous, 2003) Komatsu
(Anonymous, 2007) Kikukawa Kogyo
(Anonymous, 2009) Aisin Keikinzoku
(Banzai and Watanabe,
2007)
Mitsubishi Electric
(Eno and Fukutomi,
2007)
Hitachi Plant
Technologies
(Enomoto, 2007) NEC
(Fujita, 2005) Sanyo Tokyo
Manufacturing
(Fujimoto, 2009) Aisin Kyushu
(Fukushima, 2007) Yaskawa Electric
(Fukutomi and Sasaki,
2004)
Mitsubishi Electric
(Hamada, 2003) hMd-Hamada press
(Hattori and Nakagawa,
2006)
Mitsubishi Electric
(Hirose, 2005) Miki pulley
(Hora, 2003) Kashiwara Kikai
Seisakusho
(Horio, 2008) Omron Switch &
Devices
(Ishibashi, 2003) Anzai Manufacturing
(Iwasaki, 2001) Topcon
(Iwata, 2003) Iwanaka
(Kamata, 2000) NEC
(Kanno, 2002) Adachi Protechno
(Kawakami and
Kobayashi, 2005)
Kubota
(Kishimoto and Fujita,
2009)
Toto
(Kobayashi and
Shimizume, 2011)
Fuji Xerox
(Kumagai, 2000) Stanley Electric
(Maruyama, 2003) Harmonic Drive
Systems
(Maruyama, 2008) Sekisui Engineering
(Matsuda, 2000) Oki Electric Industry
(Matsuo, 2007) Toto
(Mishima, 2004) Okamoto
(Miyake, 2008) Kubota
(Mizuguchi, 2006) Mori Seiki
(Morita, 2003) Hioki E.E.
(Nagai et al., 2001) Panasonic
(Nakachika, 2000) Kuraray Plastics
(Nakagi, 2004) Unitika
(Nakayama, 2004a; b;
c; d)
Kenwood Yamagata
(Noguchi, 2007) Daido Steel
(Okuno, 2002) NEC Kansai
(Omori, 2009) Murata Manufacturing
(Otomo, 2001) Tohoku Ricoh
(Ozawa, 2006) Tohoku Ricoh
(Shimoda, 2004) Kuraray
(Shirai, 2007) Aisin Seiki
(Shirato, 2009) Panasonic
(Sasaki, 2009) Isuzu Motors
(Sato, 2001) Hitachi
(Sato et al., 2001) NEC Miyagi
(Sato, 2005) Kenwood Yamagata
(Sawa, 2007) Canon
(Shiina, 2009) Hitachi Appliances
(Shiki, 2003) Shiki Mokkou
(Takahashi, 2001) Tokin
(Tamori, 2003) Toyo
(Tanahashi, 2009) Mitsuba
(Tanaka, 2002) Nippon Steel
(Tanaka, 2004) Osaki Electric
(Tanaka, 2005) Ricoh Unitechno
(Taniguchi, 2009) Suzuka Fuji Xerox
(Tsukame and
Sakamoto, 2011)
NEC Yamashina
(Watabe, 2010) Fuji Xerox
(Watai, 2004) Asahi Organic
Chemicals Industry
(Yoneya, 2001) Stanley Electric
(Yoshida and Fujiwara,
2007)
Yaskawa Electric
(Yoshida and Saito,
2008)
Nissei
Table 1. Reasons of initiation and objectives
Reasons of initiation Objectives
Business concerns
• Severe competition (15)
• Emerging competitors (5)
• Demand for shorter lead time to
delivery (8)
• Demand for higher flexibility (7)
• Increasing product variation (5)
• Shorter product life cycles (5)
• Sales drop (8)
• Product price decrease (7)
• Increasing volume (4)
• High raw material cost (3)
• Decreasing profitability (3)
• Company in crisis (2)
Manufacturing concerns
• Long manufacturing lead time and large
inventory (12)
• Need of synchronization between sales
and manufacturing (6)
• Need for higher speed of improvement (4)
• Need to take even higher challenges (4)
• Stagnation of kaizen (3)
• Need for new thinking (3)
• Low motivation of employees (3)
• Need to meet business strategy (3)
• Need for total optimization (3)
• Need of reducing manufacturing cost (3)
• High fixed cost (2)
• Decreasing yield (1)
• Much firefighting in the operation(1)
• Result of audits by internal/external
persons (6)
• New product introduction (3)
• Result of benchmarking (2)
• Factory renovation and relocation (1)
Name, vision, and road map
• The initiative called kakushin (40)
• The initiative called kaikaku (11)
• Presentation of a conceptual schema
explaining a manufacturing related
vision (7)
• Presentation of a road map (6)
Numeric targets
• Productivity increase by 30 ~ 100% (16)
• Manufacturing lead time reduction
to 1/2 ~ 1/3 (5)
• Inventory reduction to 1/2 (4)
• Investment cost in equipment and size of
equipment reduced to 1/3 ~ 1/5 (3)
• Quality loss cost reduction to
1/2 ~ 1/3 (2)
• Reduction of manufacturing area by 30
~ 50% (4)
• Manufacturing line length reduction
to 1/2 (1)
• Yield increase by 12% (1)
Qualitative targets
• Improved mindsets and behaviors for
improvements (3)
Table 2. Strategic focus areas and driving structures
Strategic focus areas Driving structures
Process flow
• Establishment of one-piece or small
-batch flow (27)
• Introduction of cellular layout (11)
• Development of flexible and/or
reconfigurable lines (7)
• Inventory reduction (6)
Planning and control system
• Production planning system (16)
• Production control system (12)
Manual operation
• Waste elimination of manual
operations (15)
Equipment
• In-house equipment development (9)
• Improvement of existing equipment
(3)
Human resource
• Education and skill development
(13)
• Mindset and behavior change (8)
• Improvement of innovation capacity
(4)
Other
• Factory internal or external
logistics (9)
• 5S (8)
• Set up time (4)
• Product/process design processes
(5)
• Visualization of processes (3)
• Introduction of modular product
design (2)
• Organization structure (1)
• Standardization (1)
• TPM (1)
• Production expense (1)
• Energy consumption (1)
• Purchasing processes (1)
• Cost management (1)
• Startup of production (1)
• Improvement of direct run rate (1)
• Supported by consultants (21)
• Steering committees, divisions,
and/or teams to support and/or drive
the initiatives (19)
• Regular factory inspections by senior
managers (5) • Top management being responsible
for the initiative (4)
• Regular briefing sessions to report
the progress (4)
• Internal audit system (1)
Table 3. New manufacturing processes and equipment, and how they are designed
New manufacturing processes and equipment How the new processes and equipment were designed
Lean manufacturing
• One-piece or small-lot flow (26)
• Cellular layout (15)
• Kanban (11)
• Pull system (11)
• Waste reduced manual operation
(10)
• Short time set up (9)
• Small improvements in equipment
(fixture, jig, etc.) (9)
• Flexible and/or reconfigurable lines
(5)
• Leveled work load (4)
Production planning and control system
• Production planning system
supported by IT (18)
• Production monitoring and control
system supported by IT (14)
• Operation control board (7)
In-house lean equipment
• Simple, slim, compact pieces of
equipment that can be in-lined (10)
• Low cost equipment (7)
• Modular equipment (1)
Misc.
• Factory internal logistics (6)
• Product design for manufacturing
(5)
• Simultaneous engineering (4)
• 5S (4)
• Multi-skill management (4)
• Factory external logistics (4)
• Daily follow-up system (2)
• Quality tracking system (2)
• Productivity follow up chart (1)
• Vender management inventory (1)
• Procurement follow-up system (1)
• Standard design processes (1)
• Cost management system (1)
Analytical tools
• Time measurement (5)
• Process mapping (2)
• 7 losses in TPM (2)
• P-M analysis (2)
• Video analysis (2)
• QC 7 tools (1)
• IE tools (1)
Perspectives
• Strike zone (4)
• Value adding process point
approach (3)
• Imaging an ideal state (3)
• Material and human movement
should be minimum (1)
• Material flow should be short and
simple (1)
• Material and information handling
should be minimum (1)
• Value engineering (1)
• Waste elimination in equipment (1)
Cross functional team work
• Operators joined in equipment
development (2)
• Frequent experiments at shop floors
to obtain quick feedbacks (1)
• Corporation of product and
production engineers (1)
• Internal contest for equipment
development (1)
Table 4. How implementations were undertaken and results of MPI initiatives
How implementations were undertaken Results of MPI initiatives
Role of management
• Driving the changes with
leadership (6)
• Close communication with
employees (4)
• Creating alignment (1)
• Changing oneself (1)
• Challenging target setting (1)
Training
• Training for managers and change
agents (18)
• Training for employees (11)
• Workshops (2)
Motivation for changes
• Creating sense of achievement (3)
• Visualization of the results (3)
• Visualization of problem (2)
• Cycle of education and practice (1)
• Careful attention to employees’
wants (1)
• Displaying the progress of
improvements to everyone (1)
• Making appealing posters (1)
• Benchmarking other companies (1)
Structure for improvement activities
Plan and follow-up
• Monthly follow-up by the
management (5)
• Targets and schedules were made
for each improvement activity (4)
• Review of each improvement
activity after the completion (1)
When and how long the activities
were undertaken
• One activity takes a few weeks to
several months (3)
• 1 month every half a year for
intensive improvements (1)
• 1 to 2 days every month (1)
• 1 to 2 hours every week at a fixed
time (2)
• Improvements done during
overtime and weekends (1)
Who conducted activities
• A group of employees from other
divisions (3)
• A team consisting of specially
trained employees (3)
• Small improvement groups made
of every employees (1)
Mindset required for the changes
• Bold spirit (4)
• Speed of each improvement cycle
(3)
• New thinking (1)
• Use of wisdom (1)
Others
• Made pilot factories or lines
before the full implementation (3)
• Improvement consisted of a lot of
trial and errors (3)
• Indirect employees helped
improvements at shop floors (2)
• Manufacturing lead time reduced to 1/2 ~
1/20 (31)
• Productivity increase by 30 ~ 400% (31)
• Manufacturing area reduced to 1/2 ~ 1/33
(18)
• Inventory reduced to 1/3 ~ 1/7 (14)
• Manufacturing line length reduced to 1/2
~ 1/10 (3)
• Capacity increase by 52% (1)
• Investment cost in equipment
reduced to 1/2 ~ 1/10 (5)
• Equipment size 40 to 75% less (3)
• Equipment development lead time
reduced to 1/3 ~ 1/6 (3)
• Quality loss cost reduced to 1/2 (2)
• Number of quality complaint
reduced to 1/2 ~ 1/3 (2)
• Number of design errors after the start of
production reduced by 80% (1)
• Yield increased by 16% (1)
• Material cost reduced to 1/2 (2)
• Assembly parts 30~55% less (2)
• Carry efficiency of containers increased
by 30% (1)
• Mobilized employees (13)
• CI started to be rooted (6)
Table 5. Success factors
Success factors
Role of top management
• Leadership (7)
• Enthusiasm (4)
• Setting challenging goals (4)
• Continuous communication (2)
• Prioritizing the initiative (1)
• Creating alignment (1)
• Setting clear manufacturing
strategies (1)
Mindset
• Unlearning (9)
• Bold spirit (7)
• Total optimization (5)
• Creative thinking (2)
• Process perspective (2)
• Sense of urgency (1)
• Persistence (1)
Participation
• Everyone’s involvement and
motivation for improvement (8)
• Cycle of problem solving leading
to motivation increase (5)
• Improvements by the persons who
work there (1)
• Enjoy and learn from the
improvements (1)
Evolutional approach
• Accumulation of every day effort led
to a major change (2)
• No shortcut for changes (2)
• Taking steps to see more (1)
• Working on every detail (1)
• Speed of each improvement cycle (5)
Visualization
• Visualization of result (5)
• Visualization of problems (4)
• Real-time visualization of progress
in the operation (1)
Team work
• Close cooperation with divisions and
functions (6)
• Physical closeness of cooperating
functions (1)
Analysis and design
• Thorough problem analysis (3)
• Drawing ideal state (3)
Employees skills
• Employees skills and knowledge
of improvement (2)
• Change agents’ know-how about
change (1)
Others
• Learning from others (4)
• Culture of continuous
improvement (2)
• Wisdom of many (2)
• Support organization driving and
assisting improvements (2)
• Use of IT to assist design
processes and develop knowledge
database (2)
• Independent budget (1)
• Quantification of situation (1)
• Internal audit system (1)
Table 6. Four levels of improvement and innovation capabilities
Level of capabilities Characteristic behaviors or patterns Speed of improvement
Level 1: Fire-fighting Little or no improvements are undertaken. A large amount of time is spent to correct urgent
problems emerging continuously.
Little or negative
Level 2: Local improvements Operational processes are more stable than
level 1. Improvements are conducted at a
local level but bring little or no strategic
impact.
Low
Level 3: Strategic continuous
improvement
A strong culture of continuous improvement
exists in the organization. Improvements are
linked to strategic objectives. Innovation can
occur occasionally.
Medium
Level 4: Continuous innovation Incremental and radical improvements are
simultaneously sought and effectively
combined. A culture of and infrastructure for
innovation is apparent in the organization.
High
Figure1. A model of co-evolution of operational performance and improvement and innovation
capabilities
Obtaining sense
of achievement Capturing
knowledge
Gaining
motivation for
more challenging
improvements
Visualizing
problems
Solving
problems
Visualizing
results
Oper
atio
nal
per
form
ance
Im
pro
vem
ent
and
inn
ov
atio
n c
apab
ilit
ies