A comparison of Korean and US continuous improvement projects

Purpose - – Quality Circles and Kaizen Events have resulted in productivity and quality improvements for organizations. There is limited empirical research comparing these two approaches. This research study was designed to understand the similarities and differences in the structure and outcomes of these two popular continuous improvement approaches in Korea and the USA. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - – A logic model was used to structure a comparative analysis of Quality Circles and Kaizen Events undertaken in six different organizations in Korea and the USA. A logic model framework consisting of four areas (resources, activities, outputs and outcomes) was used to assess the key components of these six improvement projects. Data for three different comparative case study project pairs were collected. Projects were matched on both manufacturer-level and project-level characteristics. Matched projects were similar in size and type of product produced. Findings - – Similarities between Quality Circles and Kaizen Events were identified in every component of the logic model. Both mechanisms were effective in driving improvements in performance and in motivating employees, even though significant differences in the project size, type, and industrial sector existed across the six different projects. Originality/value - – There was no evidence to support the conclusion that one continuous improvement approach is more or less effective than the other. Both approaches produced improvements in both technical and social system outcomes. Overall, it appears based on this study, that both Quality Circles and Kaizen Events can be successfully deployed in an organization's continuous improvement journey.

[1]  Sıtkı Gözlü,et al.  Quality circle activities in the Turkish establishments , 1993 .

[2]  John A. McLaughlin,et al.  Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story , 1999 .

[3]  Thomas Y. Choi,et al.  Conceptualizing continuous improvement: Implications for organizational change , 1995 .

[4]  A. Gafni,et al.  Optimizing care in osteoporosis: The Canadian quality circle project , 2008, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[5]  T. McNichols,et al.  Quick and continuous improvement through kaizen blitz. , 1999, Hospital materiel management quarterly.

[6]  Toni L. Doolen,et al.  Learning From Less Successful Kaizen Events: A Case Study , 2008 .

[7]  이강인.  효과적인 품질분임조활동의 단계별 진행요령에 관한 연구 , 2003 .

[8]  Scott F. Rockart,et al.  Overcoming the improvement paradox , 1999 .

[9]  Martha Kent.  Quality Circles: An Innovation to Optimize Quality Care in the Perioperative Setting , 2009 .

[10]  J. Kotter.  Leading change: why transformation efforts fail , 2009, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[11]  Frank L. Montabon.  Using kaizen events for back office processes: the recruitment of frontline supervisor co-ops , 2005 .

[12]  Richard J. Schonberger,et al.  Japanese production management: An evolution—With mixed success , 2007 .

[13]  Michele Kowalski Burch.  Lean longevity: Kaizen events and determinants of sustainable improvement , 2008 .

[14]  Barrie Dale,et al.  The operating characteristics of quality circles and yield improvement teams: A case study comparison , 1989 .

[15]  Researcher Lise Granerud,et al.  Organisational learning and continuous improvement of health and safety in certified manufacturers , 2011 .

[16]  Masaaki Imai,et al.  Gemba Kaizen: A Commonsense, Low-Cost Approach to Management , 1997 .

[17]  Steven A. Melnyk,et al.  Short-term action in pursuit of long-term improvements: Introducing Kaizen events , 1998 .

[18]  Kang-In Lee,et al.  A Suggestion on the Promotive Directions of Quality Circle Activity , 2007 .

[19]  Evangelos Psomas,et al.  Investigating total quality management practice's inter-relationships in ISO 9001:2000 certified organisations , 2010 .

[20]  N. Bateman.  Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement , 2005 .

[21]  C. Annique Un,et al.  An empirical multi-level analysis for achieving balance between incremental and radical innovations , 2010 .

[22]  Choi Cheon-Kyu.  A Study on the Causal Model between QCC Activities and Performance , 2005 .

[23]  Chae-Jang Lee.  ON A q-ANALOGUE OF THE p-ADIC GENERALIZED TWISTED L-FUNCTIONS AND p-ADIC q-INTEGRALS , 2007 .

[24]  H. Rüden,et al.  Can quality circles improve hospital-acquired infection control? , 2000, The Journal of hospital infection.

[25]  Katsuki Aoki,et al.  Transferring Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants in China , 2008 .

[26]  Wiljeana J. Glover,et al.  A framework for designing, managing, and improving Kaizen event programs , 2010 .

[27]  Toni L. Doolen,et al.  Kaizen events and organizational performance: a field study , 2008 .

[28]  A. Metcalfe,et al.  Quality practices in the manufacturing industry in the UK and Malaysia , 2000 .

[29]  Juan A. Marin-Garcia,et al.  The impact of Kaizen Events on improving the performance of automotive components' first-tier suppliers , 2009 .

[30]  Toni L. Doolen,et al.  Critical success factors for human resource outcomes in Kaizen events: An empirical study , 2009 .