Mälardalen University640564/FULLTEXT02.pdfIntroduction Severe competition in a global arena requires manufacturing companies to continuously develop ... Jarrar and Aspinwall, 1999;

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


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,


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


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


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,


Kato, H. (2008) "Workhead to ryohin joken (kakouten) wo tsuikyu suru", IE Review, Vol. 49,


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,


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,


Matsuda, K. (2000) "Zyuchu kaihatsu gata system seihin no seisan kaikaku heno torikumi", IE


Matsuo, H. (2007) "Seizou kakushin katsudou ni okeru 3 nenkan no torikumi", IE Review, Vol.


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,


Mizuguchi, H. (2006) "Cell seisan donyu ni yoru lead time no tanshuku", IE Review, Vol. 47,


Morita, M. (2003) "Gemba kara start saseta Hiokidenki no HiPS katsudou", Factory


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


Nakagi, A. (2004) "Seisan kakushin "Unichikara" katsudou de shueki kaizen wo!", Factory


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


Nakayama, C. (2004c) 'Kenwood no seisan kakushin 3', Nikkei Monozukuri, November, Nikkei


Nakayama, C. (2004d) 'Kenwood no seisan kakushin 4', Nikkei Monozukuri, December, Nikkei


Noguchi, H. (2007) "Ikinokori wo kaketa monozukuri ryoku no saikochiku", IE Review, Vol. 48,


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.


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,


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,


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,


Shirato, K. (2009) "Cost up ni taiou suru monozukuri to seisan kakushin", IE Review, Vol. 50,


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.


Tamori, S. (2003) "Dango seisan kara 1 setto nagashi heno chosen", Factory Management, Vol.


Tanahashi, T. (2009) "Henka shitsuzukeru kojo wo mezasu keizoku teki kaizen katsudou", IE


Tanaka, M. (2004) "Kaizen wo susumeru to mondai no honshitsu ga mietekuru", Factory


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,


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,


Yoshida, M. and Fujiwara, H. (2007) "Inverter no seisan kakushin", IE Review, Vol. 48, No. 5,


Yoshida, S. and Saito, A. (2008) "Tannoki to teikosuto de fukakachi wo umidasu", IE Review,


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

Documents

Mälardalen University640564/FULLTEXT02.pdfIntroduction Severe competition in a global arena requires manufacturing companies to continuously develop ... Jarrar and Aspinwall, 1999;