Critical success factors model developing for sustainable Kaizen implementation in manufactur-ing industry in Ethiopia

Abstract

The purpose of the research is to identify critical success factors and model developing for sustaining kaizen implementation. Peacock shoe is one of the manufacturing industries in Ethiopia facing challenges on sustaining. The methodology followed is factor analysis and empirically testing hypothesis. A database was designed using SPSS version 20. The survey was validated using statistical validation using the Cronbach alpha index; the result is 0.908. The KMO index value was obtained for the 32 items and had a value of 0.642 with Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. ChiSquare 4503.007, degree of freedom 496 and significance value 0.000. A factor analysis by principal components and varimax rotation was applied for finding the critical success factors. Finding designates that 32 items were merged into eight critical success factors. All the eight factors together explain for 76.941 % of the variance. Multiple regression model analysis has indicated that some of the critical success factors had relationship with success indicators. Due to constraint of time, the researcher focused only at peacock shoe manufacturing industry. Other limitation also includes the absence of any local research that shows the critical success factors at the moment.

Application of Kaizen philosophy for enhancing manufacturing industries’ performance: exploratory study of Ethiopian chemical industries

“…Different scholars also identified Kaizen practices as independent variables: leadership or top management support (Shafiq et al , 2019; Jong et al , 2019; Rawashdeh, 2018; Baye and Raju, 2016; Jalu, 2015; Beshah and Kitaw, 2014); Customer focus (Jong et al , 2019; Rawashdeh, 2018; Baye and Raju, 2016; Beshah and Kitaw, 2014); People management (Shafiq et al , 2019; Jong et al , 2019; Rawashdeh, 2018; Baye and Raju, 2016); Process management (Shafiq et al , 2019; Jong et al , 2019; Rawashdeh, 2018; Baye and Raju, 2016; Beshah and Kitaw, 2014); Continuous improvement (Rawashdeh, 2018; Baye and Raju, 2016); Product design (Psomas et al , 2014); Supplier quality management (Rawashdeh, 2018; Baye and Raju, 2016); Strategy (policy, strategic planning) (Shafiq et al , 2019; Jong et al , 2019; Rawashdeh, 2018); Resources including partnership (Shafiq et al , 2019; Beshah and Kitaw, 2014); Measurement, analysis and knowledge management (Jong et al , 2019; Rawashdeh, 2018); Kaizen tools and techniques (Jalu, 2015). Moreover, other preceding studies also identified Kaizen practices as CSFs: leadership (Janjić et al , 2019; Hailu et al , 2017b); Top management policy, commitment, support (Kumar, 2019; Lina and Ullah, 2019; Todorovic et al , 2019; Abdulmouti, 2018; Hailu et al , 2017b); process control (2017b); Culture of effective and flexible suggestion system (Kumar, 2019; Abdulmouti, 2018; Hailu et al , 2017b); the use of problem-solving approach (Kumar, 2019; Abdulmouti, 2018; Khanna et al , 2017a, b; Amrutkar and Kamalja, 2017) and Supportive organization structure (Kumar, 2019; Janjić et al , 2019); employee's attitude (Hailu et al , 2017b); employee's and management involvement, team dynamics (good presentation and communication skills), recognition (Janjić et al , 2019; Abdulmouti, 2018; Hailu et al , 2017b); good management–employee relationship and train employees (T...…”

“…This study also used seven drivers of Kaizen philosophy practice identified by Hailu et al (2020) as social factors: leadership and people; technical factors: process, strategy, partnership, resource and problem-solving approach as technical factors to explore the factors practiced by Ethiopian chemical manufacturing companies. Moreover, this study also used organizational effect measures as stated earlier and identified by Lina and Ullah (2019), Hailu et al (2017b, 2015), Desta (2014) and Imai (1986) to explore the confirmed various positive effects achieved during practice of Kaizen philosophy including both qualitative and quantitative (monetary and nonmonetary) results. Therefore, from the aforementioned literature, this research developed a research framework (Figure 1), which related the independent variable of Kaizen practices (structured implementation framework, social, technical factors) to dependent variable of organizational effect (quantitative – monetary and nonmonetary and qualitative results) (see Figure 2).…”

“…Ethiopian companies used dedicated QCCs and/or cross-functional teams to improve a targeted manufacturing work area (Hailu et al , 2015). These teams apply structured process tools and human creativity with a goal of substantially improving the performance of the work area, process or product (Hailu et al , 2017b).…”

“…Nonmonetary impact included: increasing labor productivity (by reducing time loss for searching tools on average 50%), reduction of floor space around 50%, defect ratio improvement in the range of 50–70%, lead time improved in the range of 16–90%, labor saved from 15 to 90% (Lina and Ullah, 2019). Hailu et al (2017b) stated, at the time of Kaizen implementation, company was achieving substantial tangible and intangible improvements with attractive physical changes. These achievements were explained in the research work of Hailu et al (2015).…”

“…In the context of Ethiopia, the idea of kaizen was first brought to the attention in 2008, and the introduction of kaizen as a management tool in Ethiopia has been started with the assistance of JICA in response to the request of the government of Ethiopia to the government of Japan for kaizen technology transfer to Ethiopia (Hailu et al , 2017b; Admasu, 2015). The government of Ethiopia has given high attention to build the manufacturing and service providing organizations by introduction and dissemination of kaizen philosophy through establishing an institution of Ethiopian Kaizen Institute and cooperatively conducting capacity-building program with JICA Ethiopia for the past 8 years.…”