Encontrando al Kaizen : un análisis teórico de la mejora continua

Abstract

Desde que Masaaki lmai acuño el término de Kaizen a mediados de los años ochenta, este se ha visto como un elemento clave para la competitividad de las empresas japonesas. No obstante, y a pesar de que el Kaizen ha sido definido por el autor que condujo a la luz el término, todavía sigue existiendo en la literatura sobre el tema cierta ambigüedad e inconsistencia. Además, existe una clara necesidad de desarrollar esta teoría en el campo de la dirección de operaciones.El propósito de este trabajo es analizar el Kaizen en la literatura académica y práctica con el fin de mejorar, explorar y hacer una contribución a su potencial perfil teórico. Se realizó una revisión de la literatura usando Kaizen como término de búsqueda en varias bases de datos: Proquest, Business Source Elite, Business Source Premier, Emerald, Science Direct and Google Scholar. También se consultaron libros escritos tanto por académicos como por los que lo practican. La literatura concerniente al Kaizen fue metodológicamente analizada y clasificada. Los hallazgos del estudio indican que el Kaizen es presentado bajo tres perspectivas o esferas, que incluyen una serie de principios y técnicas. Comparando los tres puntos de vista, emergieron un conjunto de principios y/o piedras angulares.<br /><br />Since Masaaki 'mai coined the term Kaizen in the mid eighties it has been regarded as a key element in the competitiveness of Japanese companies. However, even though Kaizen was defined by the author who created the term, writings by scholars and practitioners in the field exhibit a certain degree of ambiguity and inconsistency. Finally, there is a clear need to develop this theory in the field of operations management. Kaizen in the academic and practitioner literature in order to better understand it and further explore and contribute to its potential theoretical profile. A literature review was carried out using Kaizen as a search term. Various databases were used for this purpose: Proquest, Business Source Elite, Business Source Premier, Emerald, Science Direct and Google Scholar. Books written by both scholars and by practitioners on the subject were also consulted. The literature concerning Kaizen was methodically analyzed and categorized. The findings of the study indicate that Kaizen is presently displayed under three perspectives or spheres, which include a series of principies and techniques. By comparing the three viewpoints, a set of guiding principies and/or cornerstones for Kaizen have also emerged.

Three decades of continuous improvement

“…Some examples of theoretical studies are Bhuiyan et al (2006), Suárez-Barraza (2008), Suárez-Barraza et al (2011), Singh and Singh (2009, 2012 or Dahlgaard-Park et al (2013). However, among the analysed studies we have not found papers that, combining qualitative and quantitative analysis, review the evolution of the continuous improvement field.…”

Key lessons to maintain continuous improvement: A case study of four companies

“…According to Cooney and Sohal (2004), teams that generate clear policies and standards achieve success. In addition, Barraza and Dávila (2009) state that a fundamental CI principle is to standardize operations in order to sustain the obtained achievements. 10.…”

Kaizen philosophy

“…The Berger’s (1997) classification mentions two dimensions: individual or group tasks and a parallel structure or one that is integrated into daily work. According to Suárez-Barraza and Miguel-Dávila (2008), the Western aspect of Kaizen presents four practical applications: Kaizen blitz, Gemba-Kaizen workshops, office Kaizen and Kaizen teian (suggestion systems). Kaizen teian is the backbone of our research in its teamwork aspect, and operates according to three main principles: first, a participation system, in which employees participate voluntarily to improve their work; second, developing skills where it is the management’s responsibility to train employees at all times, and it is the employees’ responsibility to learn through practice; and third, creating a driving force, made up of top management policies, managers’ participation, developing objectives and reward mechanisms, preferentially not financial one (Japan Human Relations Association, 1992).…”