The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm
IJOPM
28,6
518
Received 19 October 2006
Revised 17 May 2007
Accepted 21 October 2007
International Journal of Operations &
Production Management
Vol. 28 No. 6, 2008
pp. 518-539
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0144-3577
DOI 10.1108/01443570810875340
Transferring Japanese kaizen
activities to overseas
plants in China
Katsuki Aoki
Faculty of Economics, Kanto Gakuin University, Japan and
Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine management practices in transferring Japanese
kaizen activities to overseas plants. The aim is to provide a greater understanding of organisational
capabilities that facilitate an incremental organisation-wide innovation.
Design/methodology/approach – Case studies of nine medium- and large-sized Japanese
auto-parts overseas plants in China were conducted. The data were analysed by comparing the
successful cases of management practices concerning the transfer of Japanese kaizen activities to
overseas plants with unsuccessful ones. Based on the assumption that learning is situated in the
context, the concept of communities of practice promoted by Wenger is used as the analytical
framework of this study.
Findings – The results of the comparative analysis show some common characteristics of
management practices in successful cases: they actively used team-based rather than individual-based
suggestion schemes; they had human resource practices that emphasised the importance of having
workers who could do more than one job and long-term employment; and the managers of successful
cases conducted shop floor visits to check the work processes every day.
Originality/value – This study suggests the necessity for the researchers and practitioners of kaizen
to consider a healthy balance between three types of organisational capabilities that encourage
workers’ self-initiative, facilitate cross-functional communication, and discipline workers.
Keywords Japan, China, Continuous improvement, Manufacturing systems,
Automotive components industry
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The concept of kaizen (or continuous improvement) has received much attention as a
key to Japan’s competitive success (Imai, 1986). Over the past few decades, a
considerable number of studies, which have focused on Japanese manufacturing
techniques (Schonberger, 1982), the Toyota production system (TPS) (Liker, 2004;
Ohno, 1988), or lean production (Womack et al., 1990; Womack and Jones, 1996), have
illustrated the importance of kaizen. Furthermore, studies of kaizen activities in
countries outside Japan, such as Australia (Chapman et al., 1997), Sweden (Lindberg
and Berger, 1997) and the UK (Oliver and Wilkinson, 1992), suggest that the concept of
kaizen have become routinely accepted throughout the world.
In contrast to the worldwide diffusion of the concept of kaizen, many researchers
have illustrated the difficulties for many companies outside Japan to have kaizen
activities take root in organisations (Bateman and David, 2002; Bessant et al., 1994). In
fact, as the comparison of key performance indicators between Japanese, UK and US
auto-parts manufacturers by Oliver et al. (2002) shows, there is still a large gap in terms Transferring
of the effects of kaizen activities between Japanese and western companies. This Japanese kaizen
highlights the necessity to understand not only the details of the implementation of
kaizen activities in countries outside Japan, but also the nature of Japanese kaizen activities
activities itself in more depth.
Studies on transferring Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants would be helpful
for this understanding, because these allow us to approach management practices by 519
examining the well-suited context of Japanese kaizen activities in countries outside
Japan. The transfer of Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants has been researched
as part of the studies on transferring Japanese management practices to overseas plants
in the USA (Abo, 1994; Kenney and Florida, 1993; Liker et al., 1999), the UK (Elger and
Smith, 2005; Oliver and Wilkinson, 1992; Saka, 2004), and China (Hong et al., 2006a, b;
Taylor, 1999). These studies suggest that the implementation of Japanese kaizen
activities in overseas plants is situated in the cultural and social contexts. For instance,
Hong et al. (2006b) illustrate that it is difficult to get active participation from frontline
workers in kaizen activities in China, and suggest that great management efforts are
needed to create well-suited contexts for Japanese kaizen activities, such as introducing
an open plan plant and office layout, and importing daily communal rituals from Japan.
This study examines management practices in transferring Japanese kaizen
activities to overseas plants through the case studies of nine Japanese overseas plants
in China. Based on the assumption that learning is situated in the context (Lave and
Wenger, 1991; Nicolini et al., 2003; Suchman, 1987), the concept of community of
practice (COP) promoted by Wenger (1998) is used as the analytical framework of this
study. The usefulness of this perspective in analyzing kaizen activities is highlighted
by the studies that illustrate the divergence between kaizen methods and the actual
practice on the shop floor (Baxter and Hirschhauser, 2004; Jørgensen et al., 2003).

Japanese kaizen activities

Japanese kaizen activities and continuous improvement studies
This study begins by positioning the subject of this study, Japanese kaizen activities, in
the field of continuous improvement studies. Bateman and Rich (2003) classify
continuous improvement into two approaches according to the length of time over
which the improvement activity is focused; the longer one is continuous improvement;
the shorter one is process improvement. In the case of process improvement, short-term
(one or two week) programmes that consist of break-through kaizen events are
implemented in a focused area (Bateman and David, 2002). However, although many
companies have achieved considerable improvement through the implementation of
process improvement programmes, the initial improvement is easily eroded back to the
pre-improvement level (Bateman and David, 2002).
In terms of the time frame of activity, Japanese kaizen is longer than process
improvement. First of all, Ohno (1988, p. 42), the Founder of TPS, states, “improvement
is both eternal and infinite.” This suggests that the concept of kaizen in Toyota is not a
programme with a limited time frame, but a process of activities that are implemented
continuously. In Japan, there is a trend that companies in various industries try to
implement kaizen activities in line with the Toyota way (Nikkei Sangyo Shimbun, 2007).
Therefore, it is possible to consider kaizen activities in Toyota as representative of
Japanese kaizen activities.
IJOPM “Continuous improvement” is one of the two pillars of Toyota’s basic philosophy
28,6 and means not only creating a lean system that contributes to cost reduction, but also
learning from mistakes and pursuing innovation (Kajiwara, 2002). In fact, Toyota has
made a great profit in recent years (e.g. the net income was almost $14 billion in 2007).
However, boosting the profit, or “exploitation of old certainties” (March, 1991), is not
the only aim of kaizen in Toyota. Learning from mistakes and pursuing innovation
520 include the aspect of “exploration of new possibilities” (March, 1991). Therefore,
creating a system of continuous organisational learning aiming towards innovation is
also the aim of kaizen in Toyota.
Liker (2004) notes that the concept of kaizen in Toyota is a kind of corporate culture
that supports continual organisational learning. This study shares a similar
perspective and is also in line with studies that consider continuous improvement as
organisational capabilities (Grant, 1991, Nelson and Winter, 1982) or dynamic
capabilities (Teece et al., 1997) that facilitate incremental, organisation-wide innovation
(Bessant and Caffyn, 1997; Bessant and Francis, 1999). The dynamic capabilities are
defined as “the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external
competences to address rapidly changing environments” (Teece et al., 1997, p. 516). In
this perspective, the aim of kaizen is to achieve sustainable competitive advantage
through the creation of innovative organisational capabilities that are difficult to be
imitated by others (Lewis, 2000). It is difficult for the TPS to be imitated by others,
because it consists of a lot of interdependent systems, such as just-in-time and total
quality control (TQC), and involves all levels of the organisation (Teece et al., 1997).

Organisational capabilities in Japanese companies

Before explaining the relationship between kaizen and organisational capabilities, this
section focuses on the three types of organisational capabilities that play certain roles
in Japanese kaizen activities. These are organisational capabilities that encourage
workers’ self-initiative (this study refers to them as type A capabilities), organisational
capabilities that facilitate cross-functional communication (type B capabilities), and
organisational capabilities that discipline workers (type C capabilities).
Researchers who recognise the effectiveness of Japanese work practices state that
Japanese companies have developed capabilities that make their workers or work teams
learn and improve their work processes independently (Kenney and Florida, 1993; Koike,
1994). Quality control (QC) circles or small group activities are considered to facilitate such
capabilities through giving every employee an opportunity for learning (Cole, 1994). In this
perspective, to put it simply, organisational capabilities that encourage workers’
self-initiative play an important role in Japanese kaizen activities (type A).
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) suggest that Japanese companies which emphasise the
importance of tacit knowledge have developed organisational capabilities that
facilitate knowledge creation. In this perspective, the key agent of knowledge creation
is a group of people who have various experiences and knowledge (Lam, 2000; Nonaka
and Takeuchi, 1995). On-the-job training (OJT) plays a critical role in creating such
capabilities. Employees in Japanese companies experience various kinds of jobs
through the OJT, which helps to reduce social distance between different categories of
the workforce (Lam, 2000). In this perspective, it is organizational capabilities which
facilitate communication among diverse people that allow Japanese companies to
implement incremental organization-wide innovation (type B).
 Ihara’s (2003) study, which is based on personal experience as a temporary worker in a Transferring
Toyota plant, suggests that Japanese kaizen activities are not always based on workers’ Japanese kaizen
self-initiative, and that the management practices of disciplining workers have a
significant effect on the improvement of work processes. Studies on total quality activities
management in countries outside Japan also illustrate the positive effects of disciplining
workers on quality (Edwards et al., 1998; Sewell and Wilkinson, 1992). According to
Ihara’s (2003) observation, every worker in the plant is expected to contribute a suggestion 521
concerning the work processes once a month. However, most of the workers seem to force
themselves to make a suggestion just before the deadline (Ihara, 2003, pp. 65-6).
In addition, Ihara (2003) describes shop floor conditions in Toyota as the following:
the prefabricated building is enclosed by glass walls on all sides, the inside of the
building and toilets are always kept clean, and even the placement of boxes is done
with extreme care. He states that, in this situation, every worker always feels that
he/she is under someone’s supervision, and thus it is mentally easier for the worker to
work as he/she is instructed (Ihara, 2003, p. 165). This situation is very similar to
Foucault’s (1977) “Panopticon,” and makes it possible to discipline workers to conform
to the company’s rules and ways (Ihara, 2003; Sewell and Wilkinson, 1992). This
suggests that organisational capabilities that discipline workers to conform to the
company’s ways also play a certain role in Japanese kaizen activities (type C).

The process of Japanese kaizen activities

This section examines the relationship between these three types of capabilities and
kaizen activities based on the original idea of kaizen in Toyota. Muda or waste
elimination is the very basic idea of kaizen, because kaizen activities are implemented
through the identification and elimination of muda (Imai, 1986, 1997; Ohno, 1988).
According to Ohno (1988), muda elimination means enhancing the ratio of “value-added
work” (changing the shape or character of a product or changing the assembly).
Improving the operating efficiency through the elimination of the seven types of waste,
namely waste of overproduction, waste of time on hand, waste in transportation, waste
of processing itself, waste of stock on hand, waste of movement and waste of making
defective products, is the denominator of this ratio (Ohno, 1988). It is operators that
assume “value-added work.” As Shimokawa and Fujimoto (2001) suggest, Ohno had a
philosophy that kaizen ideas should be conceived from the operators’ standpoint, and
took a stance of placing importance on hearing the opinion of operators.
In terms of the identification of muda, there are two different processes, i.e. one is
the identification by operators; the other is the identification by others, such as team
leaders and supervisors. In the former process, how operators suggest problems or
muda concerning their work processes is of major significance. QC circles and
suggestion schemes are well known means to facilitate operators making a suggestion.
According to Masao Nemoto, who was a key person for TQC in Toyota (Shimokawa
and Fujimoto, 2001), it is how every participant says something in a positive manner,
not how large improvements are achieved that has a great significance in QC circles
(Nemoto, 1992, pp. 56-7). This suggests that the self-initiative of workers to participate
in kaizen activities through voicing matters concerning their work processes plays an
important role in kaizen activities.
Nemoto (1992) also insists that it is supervisors (Shokucho) or group leaders
(Kumicho) who are expected to achieve major improvements. Therefore, it is of major
IJOPM significance how actually noticeable problems and muda are to them in the work
28,6 process. For instance, work standards in Toyota are used as a means for making muda
noticeable by being posted at each work station so that supervisors can determine
whether the operator is following the standards (Liker, 2004). A 5S or good
housekeeping (Imai, 1997) also creates the condition in which muda is easily noticeable.
When machines and tools are clean, one can easily find problems and determine
522 the causes. Ihara’s (2003) description, which was mentioned earlier illustrates
how thoroughly 5S is being performed in Toyota. This suggests that disciplining
workers to conform to work standards or 5S practices plays a critical role in kaizen
activities.
Once muda is identified, it must be reported to the appropriate people to analyse the
root causes and to take countermeasures. As Ohno’s (1988) “five-why analysis”
suggests, preventing a recurrence of muda through the thorough analysis of the root
cause is the basic idea of kaizen in Toyota. In this process, communication between
different functions has a critical role. If the cause of muda has to do with machines and
equipment, communication between the user of the machine, a maintenance person and
an equipment (or production) engineer is essential to analyse the root causes. Once the
results of such an analysis are reflected in the revision of a work standard, an improved
standard is established as the basis for the next round of kaizen. In this process,
communication between the people who make work standards and the people who are
involved with the analysis is indispensable.
Figure 1 shows this kaizen process and its relationship with the three types of
organisational capabilities. This figure illustrates that each of the three types
of capabilities plays a critical role in Japanese kaizen activities by supporting each
kaizen process. However, management tries to make a trade-off between type A and C
capabilities. In the kaizen process on the right side of this figure (concerning type C
capabilities), operators strictly follow the methods decided by management,

Kaizen process Organisational capabilities

Muda elimination

Communication between various functions

Type B: Organisational capabilities that facilitate cross-functional communication

Identification of muda by Identification of muda by

operators people other than operators

Type A: Organisational Type C: Organisational

capabilities that encourage capabilities that discipline
workers' self-initiative workers
Figure 1.
Relationship between
kaizen process and three Providing basic standards to identify muda
types of capabilities Standardisation of the results of muda elimination
while operators actively make a suggestion to management in the process shown on Transferring
the left side (concerning type A capabilities). This study considers both kaizen Japanese kaizen
processes to be critical factors in Japanese kaizen activities. It would be difficult to
create an organisational climate in which every employee can learn from mistakes and activities
pursue innovation exclusively through the right side kaizen process. It would also be
difficult to align the goals of workers who participate in kaizen activities with the
company goals only through the left side kaizen process. Japanese kaizen activities are 523
not merely voluntary activities among workers, but organisation-wide activities in
order to ensure a continuous implementation of the plan do check action cycle
(Imai, 1997).

Analytical framework
Communities of practice and the transfer of Japanese kaizen activities
The previous section illustrated that Japanese kaizen activities are supported by the three
types of organisational capabilities. However, as many researchers suggest, the reason
why organisational capabilities can be a source of competitive advantage is that they are
difficult to imitate by others (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; Hamel and Prahalad, 1994). The
organisational capabilities that have been developed through their own history and
consist of complex social relationships are difficult to transfer to other plants.
This study addresses the issue of the transfer of kaizen activities to overseas plants
through the concept of COP promoted by Wenger (1998). In this perspective, people
learn something through participating in a practice, and also develop their identities
through the participation (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Orr, 1996; Wenger, 1998). Here, the
concept of practice means, “doing in a historical and social context that gives structure
and meaning to what we do” (Wenger, 1998, p. 47). According to Wenger (1998),
the COP involves a group of people who mutually engage in a practice through
negotiating meaning, jointly pursue their own enterprise, and share resources for
negotiating meaning, such as routines, words, tools, ways of doing things and so on.
This perspective suggests that the transfer of Japanese kaizen activities cannot be
achieved only by introducing formal procedures in the overseas plants. As Brown and
Duguid’s (1991) argument of divergence between canonical and noncanonical practices
suggests, actual practice cannot be controlled completely through formal procedures.
In the strict sense of this perspective, the knowledge concerning Japanese kaizen
activities is not transferable to overseas plants, because the meaning of an activity is
always situated in the local context (Brown and Duguid, 1991; Suchman, 1987).
Instead, people in overseas plants can produce their own meaning of Japanese
kaizen activities by participating in these activities. Management practices are able to
allow the people to create their meanings of Japanese kaizen activities by providing
them with a context to learn Japanese kaizen activities. It is such management practices
that lay the ground for implementing Japanese kaizen activities in overseas plants.

Three types of capabilities in a COP perspective

A COP is able to give people a context in which they learn something and also develop
their identities (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Brown and Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998).
If it was possible to set up COPs for people in overseas plants, they would be able to
engage in kaizen activities, negotiate the meanings of kaizen activities, consider kaizen
activities as their own enterprise, and share the meanings of concepts and tools used in
IJOPM kaizen activities. In a COP, the participants are able to develop their self-initiative as
28,6 participants in Japanese kaizen activities by having a meaningful experience of kaizen.
However, a COP is also a place that develops the participants’ own language and
norms that are difficult to share with outsiders, and enterprises that do not always
match a company’s mission (Wenger, 1998), or what van Maanen and Barley (1985) call
a subculture. The engagement in a COP makes it possible both to produce a meaning in
524 a local context and to constrain the original meaning from circulating beyond the local
context (Bechky, 2003; Star, 1995; Wenger, 1998). As stated earlier, the three types of
organisational capabilities play a critical role in Japanese kaizen activities. Although,
type A is matched with the management practices that provide a COP as a context for
learning, a COP is able to place limitations not only on the freedom of communication
across various communities (type B), but also on disciplining people to conform to the
company’s ways (type C).
In order to address the issues that go beyond the scope of engagement in a single COP,
this study notes people’s modes of involvement in the three social systems identified by
Wenger (1998): COP, constellation of practices, and designed organisation. As stated
earlier, we have a meaningful experience by engaging in a COP. This kind of
involvement corresponds to engagement as a mode of belonging to a social system
(Wenger, 1998), or active involvement in mutual processes of negotiating meaning.
However, our scope of engagement is always limited to a COP, because a practice is
always situated in the local context. Therefore, we cannot engage in a whole company
or plant that consists of various COPs, but can imagine the whole picture of a company
as a constellation of interrelated practices (Gherardi and Nicolini, 2002; Wenger, 1998).
As Wenger (1998, p. 246) states, “No one’s purview is the constellation itself, because
no one has that scope of engagement.” This kind of involvement corresponds to
imagination as a mode of belonging (Wenger, 1998), or creating images of the world
and seeing connections through time and space.
A company or plant also has an aspect of functional organisation that is designed to
achieve certain goals and missions (Thompson, 1967; Galbraith, 1973), or designed
organisation. In a designed organisation, people’s efforts are aligned to achieve certain
goals according to formal procedures. This type of involvement corresponds to alignment
as a mode of belonging (Wenger, 1998), or coordinating people’s energy and activities in
order to fit within a broader structure and to contribute to broader enterprises.
This study examines management practices that support the three types of
organisational capabilities (A-C) through the perspective of COP by relating them to
these three modes of belonging (Wenger, 1998): engagement – type A capabilities,
imagination – type B capabilities, and alignment – type C capabilities. At the level
of COP, workers in overseas plants can develop their self-initiative to participate in
Japanese kaizen activities through engaging in actual practice. The main issue in
management practices at this level is how to give workers a practice in which they
participate and have a real say in improving their work processes, and through
which they have meaningful experiences, i.e. how to support type A capabilities. At the
level of constellation of practices, people in overseas plants are able to have a broader
perspective through imagining connections between different functions or
communities. The main issue in management practices at this level is how to give
people an opportunity to access other kinds of communities, jobs, knowledge and
perspectives, i.e. how to support type B capabilities. At the level of designed
organisation, the activity of each worker is aligned in terms of a certain company Transferring
policy or target. The main issue in management practices at this level is how to ensure Japanese kaizen
workers’ coordinated activities through disciplining them to conform to the company’s
rules and ways, i.e. how to support type C capabilities. activities
In sum, a COP has both positive and negative effects on the transfer of Japanese
kaizen activities to overseas plant. To put it briefly, management practices that support
type A capabilities encourage the positive effect of COP, while those that support type 525
B and C capabilities serve to overcome the negative effect of COP.

Methodology
A case study methodology (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003) was used to examine
management practices concerning the transfer of Japanese kaizen activities in nine
medium- and large-sized Japanese auto-parts overseas plants in China (Table I). This
aimed to look at generic processes concerning how management practices that support
the three types of organisational capabilities work in transferring Japanese kaizen
activities to overseas plants in China. Multiple-case sampling was employed to
strengthen the confidence of findings (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The main intent
was not to conduct random sampling, but to follow replication logic (Yin, 2003).
A cross-case comparative analysis was conducted in order to look for within-group
similarities as well as inter-group differences (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Sample plants were selected with the aim of investigating the intensified management
efforts to transfer Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants. Automotive-related and
China were two key factors in the case selection. First, the parent companies of all these
plants were Japanese auto-parts manufacturers that have made an intensified effort to
implement kaizen activities with the help of the customers or Japanese automotive
manufacturers (MacDuffie and Helper, 1999; Womack et al., 1990). Second, as the growth
of automotive production in China, that is estimated to produce more than 10 million cars
by 2010 (Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 2007), suggests, automotive-related companies have

Establishment Employment Time of research Interviewees

Case A 1995 300 September 2004 MD (Japanese), deputy MD (two Japanese)

Case B 2002 300 November 2005 MD (Japanese), production manager
(Japanese)
Case C 1992 400 September 2004 Deputy MD (Japanese)
Case D 2003 600 November 2005 MD (Japanese)
Case E 2003 800 October 2005 MD (Japanese), plant director (Japanese),
sales manager (Japanese and Chinese)
Case F 1995 900 September 2004 MD (Japanese)
Case G 2003 1,200 November 2005 MD (Japanese), production manager
(Japanese), director in Japanese head office
(Japanese)
Case H 1988 1,500 August 2004 MD (Japanese), production director
(Chinese), production manager (Japanese),
operations manager (Japanese)
Case J 2001 3,300 September 2004 President (Japanese), MD (Japanese), plant Table I.
director (Japanese), production manager List of surveyed plants
(two Japanese), operations manager and interviewees in
(Japanese) research visits in China
IJOPM recently put a lot of effort into China. All sample plants had Japanese-related automotive
28,6 manufacturers as customers, and were mainly managed by Japanese managers who came
from Japanese parent companies.
In order to collect data, the author conducted field research in China from August to
September in 2004 and from October to November in 2005. In the field research,
semi-structured and unstructured interviews with managers were conducted in the
526 sample plants in China (the details of interviewees are shown in Table I). In each plant,
at least two interviews were conducted; one was in a conference room in a
semi-structured manner and usually lasted about one to three hours; and the other was
on the shop floor in an unstructured manner and usually lasted about one to two hours.
All the interviews conducted in a conference room were taped and transcribed, while
the interviews on the shop floor were written down in field notes. Follow-up interviews
were also conducted in China for case A-D, F and J, and also in Japan for case C, D and
F. Most of these interviews were also taped and transcribed. A total of 36 interviews
were carried out. Data were also collected through on-site plant observations, and
internal company documents, such as standard work sheets and work flow charts.
In every case, the interviewees included a Japanese managing director (MD) or their
deputy who was in a position to lead the transfer of Japanese kaizen activities to the
overseas plant. This was based on the following intents:
.
it is possible to hear about the situation of a whole plant because an MD and
deputy MD have a responsibility to manage everything in the plant;
.
it is possible to hear about the experiences of kaizen activities in overseas plants
from the standpoint of Japanese managers who might have a detailed knowledge
of Japanese methods; and
.
it is possible to compare the experiences of kaizen activities in overseas plants
with Japanese experiences.

The semi-structured interviews focused on the following three topics:

(1) general business conditions;
(2) the implementation of kaizen activities; and
(3) management practices related to the implementation of kaizen activities (the
details are shown in the Appendix).

The aim was to investigate not only the implementation of Japanese kaizen activities in
China (topic 2), but also the environment surrounding this implementation (topic 1),
and management efforts in creating well-suited contexts for Japanese kaizen activities
(topic 3). In the framework of COP, it is actual practice that gives workers meaningful
experiences, not formal methods. Therefore, the interviewees were asked about details
on how kaizen activities and related management practices were implemented, in
particular about the opportunities for participation by workers.
In the analysis, the data concerning management practices that support type A, B and C
capabilities were selected and classified according to their type. Concerning type A,
management practices that offer workers opportunities for participating in kaizen
activities through voicing matters concerning their work processes were selected.
Concerning type B, management practices that enable plant members to get in touch with
people from different functions and communities, and also HRM practices that support
cross-functional communication were selected. Concerning type C, management practices Transferring
that aim to make workers adhere to company rules and work standards were selected. Japanese kaizen
However, difficulties arose because management practices, such as suggestion schemes
and QC circles, are implemented in different ways depending on the company, and cannot activities
be classified into only one category. For example, a QC circle can be a place where workers
actively participate in kaizen, and can thus be classified as type A. However, in one of the
investigated companies, QC circles were conducted among people higher than team 527
leaders. Therefore, when classifying the data, the author paid close attention to the way
certain management practices were implemented. When describing the results of the
analysis (“basic findings” in this paper), the author always tried to bear in mind the various
ways certain management practices were implemented.
Data analysis included multiple readings of the data collected through various
channels, such as interview transcripts, field notes, and documents given to the author
by the investigated companies. In order to minimize interviewee’s bias, data collected
from the semi-structured interviews were carefully compared with the data from
unstructured interviews on the shop floors and plant observations. In the unstructured
interviews, interviewees were asked to explain tangible examples in detail in order to
improve the reliability of the data. In the case of tools and equipment, interviewees
were asked questions such as which exact part was improved through which kaizen
activities, and who was involved in the improvement.

Categorization of sample cases

In order to conduct comparative analysis, the successful cases were identified according
to the following two measures. First, the scale of kaizen activities implemented in each
plant is used as a measure of success. This means that successful plants should be able to
implement kaizen activities on a large-scale. Second, the degree of self-initiative of
workers is employed as another measure of success. Here, the self-initiative of workers
was based on the perception of Japanese managers. This study considers the perception
of Japanese managers as a critical factor for measuring the self-initiative of workers,
because they would know if the degree of the self-initiative of workers is enough to meet
the requirement of Japanese automotive manufacturers.
Therefore, the interviewed Japanese managers were not only questioned about the
attitudes and capabilities of workers, but also about their involvement in fulfilling
customer requests (Japanese-related automotive manufacturers). For example, it was
asked if the company received effective suggestions from the workers in addressing
the customer requests. The investigated companies were being pressurised by the
customers to produce auto-parts at the same level of quality as in Japan, but at cheaper
cost than in Japan. In the successful cases, the tangible results of kaizen activities with
the self-initiated involvement of workers were checked through the unstructured
interviews and the shop floor observations.
Each of the nine sample cases was categorized into one of four groups based on the
combination of these two measures (Figure 2). In the upper two groups of Figure 2
(group 1 and 2), the scope of kaizen activities covered the whole plant including the
shop floor level. All of these cases had a place in which operators participate in kaizen
activities as a team and suggest some improvement concerning their work processes.
In the lower two groups (group 3 and 4), however, kaizen activities were implemented
only on a small scale. The Japanese managers in these cases noted that they were not in
IJOPM a position to implement kaizen activities on a full scale, or that kaizen activities were
28,6 only implemented among the people higher than supervisor level.
Concerning the self-initiative of workers, Japanese managers in group 1 suggested
that they had already achieved proactive participation in kaizen activities by the
workers. In terms of case E in group 3, although they had not implemented kaizen
activities on a full scale, Japanese managers noted that the workers showed
528 self-initiative to do their own jobs, and that they had a plan to implement kaizen on a
full scale in the near future. In the two groups in the left column of Figure 2 (group 2
and 4), however, the Japanese managers found it difficult to encourage workers to show
self-initiative. Finally, only case D and H in group 1 were considered to be successful.
This suggests how difficult it is to transfer Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants
in China.

Basic findings
Management practices in supporting type A capabilities
Concerning type A capabilities, case D and H in group 1 and case J in group 2 had a
place in which shop floor workers participated in kaizen activities, considered kaizen
ideas, and suggested the ideas as a team. This management practice is considered to
give workers a place in which workers have a meaningful experience of kaizen through
negotiating meanings with each other, i.e. a COP. These three plants also actively used
ideas from operators to improve their work processes and equipment. However,
although operators in each case made suggestions, it was people higher than team
leader level that played a major role in actually improving work processes, tools and
equipment.
Case D held small group activities on a regular basis (QC circles and suggestion
committees every Wednesday), in which workers considered and suggested kaizen
ideas. This plant had a policy to revise work standards in response to the results of QC
circles and suggestions from operators as quickly as possible. It was team leaders that
played a major role in improving work standards in this plant. Although, the engineers
prepared the documents that were used to make work standards, the team leaders
judged the appropriateness of the procedures described in the documents, and asked
engineers to revise the documents;, i.e. they had a real say in improving work standards.
Case H had a team-based piecework system. In an ordinary piecework system, a
standardised way of working determines the upper limit of a piecework rate. In this
plant, however, it is possible to achieve a higher piecework rate by improving the tools
that the workers use by themselves. The MD of this plant noted that although the
Japanese staff initially provided most of the ideas for improving tools, most of the
recent ideas were suggested from the workers as a team. In addition, this plant has a
policy to share a good idea from operators with the whole plant.

Scale of The degree of self-initiative

activities Small Large

Group 2 Group 1
Large
Case J Case D, H
Figure 2.
Four groups of sample Group 4 Group 3
cases Small
Case A, B, C, F,G Case E
Case J also had QC circles and a suggestion scheme as in case D, and thus gave workers a Transferring
place to have a meaningful experience. However, this plant had a more individual-oriented Japanese kaizen
suggestion scheme than in case D. In case J, a suggestion was written down by an
individual worker on a preset form, and was evaluated in terms of the estimated effects of activities
its implementation. This plant had a monthly board of review in which the management
evaluates the suggestions. The worker could get a monetary reward for the suggestion
through this evaluation process. In contrast, the suggestion scheme in case D was 529
conducted as a part of small group activities and did not provide a monetary reward to the
individual worker who made a suggestion. In this scheme, a leader who was selected from
among group members played a coordinating role in a group.
Both case D and J had a management practice that gave workers a challenge or hint
to conceive kaizen ideas. As an example of case D, the author saw a noticeboard that
had 15 sheets of hints about kaizen written by the MD. One kaizen hint included charts
on how to identify the difference between repaired products and defective products. He
mentioned his aim of this practice as giving workers clear goals in order to increase
their self-initiative to create better things.
Most of the cases in group 3 and 4 did not have a place in which workers considered
and suggested kaizen ideas as a team, such as QC circles. Therefore, it was only
possible to observe very few management practices concerning type A capabilities
from these cases. Case G had a QC circle whose participants were only the people
higher than team leader level. In fact, the MD of this plant said that Japanese staff were
the main people who conceived kaizen ideas. Case E also implemented kaizen only
among people higher than assistant managers.
Although most of the cases in group 4 gave workers an opportunity to make a
suggestion, managers in these plants noted that the plants were not in a position to link
such a scheme to kaizen implementation. As an example of this position, a production
manager of case B reported that, although defective products were rare in Japan, nearly
half of the products were sent for repair in this plant. He explained that the operators
were of the opinion that, “When defective products arise, one only has to send them in
for repair.” Concerning the reason why it is difficult to implement kaizen with the
involvement of operators, the deputy MD in case C put forward three reasons:
(1) there is a large difference of salaries between management and workers;
(2) it is easy to implement kaizen according to the ways decided by management; and
(3) operators frequently move to other companies.

Management practices in supporting type B capabilities

Concerning type B capabilities, both case D and H in group 1 gave workers an
opportunity to participate in the improvement of tools in collaboration with people who
had different functions, such as tool engineers, production engineers and managers.
This was a place in which participants were able to access other kinds of communities,
jobs, knowledge and perspectives.
Case D encouraged active communication between production and tool functions by
having team leaders engage in tool design. During the tool design stage, members from
various communities, including tool engineers, team leaders, assistant managers, and
managers discussed the tool for about 30 minutes. Case H had a room that was
specially designed to improve tools. In the room, the operator as the proponent of
IJOPM improving a tool, a team leader and an engineer created a new tool in cooperation with
28,6 each other under the lead of the team leader. These two practices are considered to be
what Wenger (1998) calls “boundary practice,” in which members from various
communities negotiate meanings with each other. Such a practice allows the
participants to better understand other functions in the plant.
Case D and H also had OJT systems in which workers experience different jobs
530 according to a personnel development plan. As an example of case D, although each
worker was able to conduct only one work process at the beginning, half of all the
workers were able to conduct all six work processes within the year; the other half were
able to conduct about three work processes. In this plant, all Chinese managers had
been promoted from within this plant. Case H also had a policy to promote long-term
employment. These human resource strategies are able to give employees
opportunities to understand the connection between different jobs in the plant.
In contrast, case J in group 2 had a system in order to narrowly limit the scope of
each worker’s job. This is based on the perception of Japanese managers that it is
difficult for the workers in the plant to have a number of jobs. A number of plants in
group 4 had a similar strategy. Case G had a policy that each worker basically has only
one job, though they developed multi-skilled workers in Japanese plants. This policy
aimed to prevent producing defective products by reducing the complexity of each
worker’s job. In this plant, it was production engineers in the Japanese head office that
prepared tools for the Chinese plant.
In terms of the comparison between Chinese and Japanese plants, an operator in
case C handled six machines in his/her daily operation in a Japanese plant.
However, one operator handled only one machine in the Chinese plant. In case F,
although one operator was in charge of two production lines in a Japanese plant, four to
five operators were in charge of one production line in the Chinese plant.

Management practices in supporting type C capabilities

Japanese managers in most cases across all groups highlighted the importance of
disciplining workers to conform to the company rules, especially work standards. In
group 3 and 4, every plant was trying to create well-defined rules, and easy-to-follow
work standards in particular. In most of the cases, inspections were strengthened to
prevent defects in production. According to the MD in case F, “We are trying to create
workplace conditions in which our operators steadily follow work standards. This
allows us to prevent producing defective products.” The work standards of case G
included a sophisticated means to discipline workers. There was a signature space on
the back of a work standard sheet in case G. Every worker had to sign the sheet every
day to show that he/she understood the standardised procedure. As another example of
strategies to discipline workers, case F had a practice to post the names of workers who
produced defects (and also those who discovered defects).
Case J in group 2 had a strategy that prescribed clear rules and standards to
discipline workers. This plant had a policy to document all the things that must not be
done, such as not to throw away rubbish on the shop floor, and also had four times
more company rules than in Japan. This plant also had a practice that all managers go
around the shop floor to check the work processes under the lead of the MD three times
a month. After checking the work processes, they had a meeting to report the problems
in each area and to take countermeasures.
 Case D and H in group 1 also conducted the practice of shop floor visits by managers Transferring
under the lead of the MD. However, there are differences in terms of the ways of Japanese kaizen
disciplining workers through this practice between group 1 and 2. First, in both cases in
group 1, a shop floor visit was conducted every day. Second, the MDs of both cases in activities
group 1 noted that Chinese managers began to go round the shop floor on their
own initiative after Japanese managers had conducted a shop floor visit for a certain
period. The MD of case H said, “Our followers see our everyday practices as of top 531
executives. Our everyday shop floor visit induced them to emulate the same practice.”
As stated earlier, 5S practice is used to make muda or problems easily noticeable by
disciplining workers. Managers in case D, E, G, F and J made an intensified effort to
implement 5S. Concerning this practice, interesting similarities were discovered
between case D and E, both of which belong to the right column of Figure 2. First, the
MDs of both cases noted that their workers practice 5S on their own initiative. Second,
when asked how such a situation had been created, they emphasised the significance of
the MD himself to pick up rubbish. Third, both cases had an assessment system and an
opportunity to announce the results of 5S. In case D, Japanese managers, including the
MD, had checked every workplace once every month to decide the best 5S achievements.
According to the MD, Chinese managers asked him to leave the check of 5S
achievements to them eight months after the assessment by Japanese managers started.
Discussion
This section begins by examining the similarities across the cases. All the investigated
companies were under pressure from the Japanese-related customers to meet difficult
requests, such as ensuring high quality at low cost. In addition, most interviewed
managers across the cases shared the opinion that the initial standards of work
performance and employee commitment in China were much worse than in Japan.
Therefore, great management efforts were needed not only to implement Japanese
kaizen activities, but also to meet the customer requests. In fact, all of these companies
were vigorously trying to implement Japanese quality and cost management methods.
These companies also roughly shared a “quality first” policy.
However, such management efforts did not necessarily lead to the implementation
of Japanese kaizen activities that involved workers’ active participation. Of all three
types of capabilities, only management practices connected to type C capabilities were
actively being applied by all the companies. In particular, most companies clarified
their company rules. This suggests that in Japanese overseas plants in China, there is a
higher priority on ensuring high quality by the use of management practices that
discipline workers than on the implementation of Japanese kaizen activities through
management practices that support type A and B capabilities.
As the previous section showed, various ways of implementing management
practices that support the different types of organisational capabilities were identified
among the nine cases. However, it was possible to sum up the common characteristics
between the successful cases as shown in Table II. The following section examines the
theoretical and practical implications of the findings by focusing on the characteristics
of the successful cases.

General implications for the studies on kaizen

First, this analysis raises some doubt about the effectiveness of individual-based
suggestion schemes as a part of kaizen activities. Although most of the cases
IJOPM
Type A capabilities Team-based, rather than individual-based suggestion schemes were
28,6 actively used
They had a policy and steadfast system to address kaizen ideas from
workers to improve work processes and equipment
Team leader level played a major role in improving work processes and
equipment
532 Type B capabilities They provided a place in which workers participated in the improvement
of tools in collaboration with people who had different functions
They had an OJT system in which workers experienced different jobs
according to a human development plan
They had a policy to promote long-term employment
Table II. Type C capabilities A shop floor visit by management to check the work processes was
Characteristics of conducted every day under the lead of the MD
management practices in Chinese managers implemented a shop floor visit by emulating the
successful cases attitude of Japanese top executives

implemented suggestion schemes, few positive results of individual-based suggestion

schemes were encountered. In contrast, successful cases actively used team-based
suggestion schemes, and gave a team a certain degree of autonomy. This result
matches the perspective of COP that emphasises the role of other participants in a COP.
However, this analysis illustrates that it was the team leader level that played a major
role in actually improving work processes and equipment even in the successful cases.
The main roles of operators in case D were to follow standards, to identify problems, and
to report them to their team leaders. Most of the interviewed Japanese managers had the
opinion that in order to enhance quality it is necessary for everyone to follow the rules.
This suggests the necessity to further note the roles of disciplining workers in Japanese
kaizen activities. In fact, discipline on the job is considered to be a virtue in Japan.
In general, Japanese consider disciplining employees, or shituke in Japanese, as a part of
corporate education. Shituke, whose meaning is to teach employees good manners, is
sometimes considered to be a part of corporate responsibility.
The successful cases used methods which emphasise the effects of COP and were
also connected with disciplining workers. As Wenger (1998) illustrates, a COP plays a
critical role in disciplining the participants to conform to the ways that the participants
in a COP have developed through negotiating meaning. However, as stated earlier, a
COP is likely to develop its own perspectives that do not always match company goals.
Therefore, management practices that bridge type A and C capabilities are needed to
align the perspectives of a COP to the goals for the whole organisation. In the case of
small group activities in case D, they had a group leader meeting every week, in which
group leaders who were selected from among group members, a Japanese director in
charge, and Chinese managers participated. This meeting was a place in which
management gave the participants advice, and through which activities from each
group could be aligned.
It is important that this meeting should not be the place where the management
requires the workers to unilaterally conform to the management policy. In that case, this
meeting would cause detrimental effects on type B as well as type A capabilities by
impeding workers from talking openly to the management. In order to avoid such a
situation, the MD of case D always let Chinese managers accompany him on shop floor
visits, and tried to teach them how to coach the workers so that they could gain a deeper
understanding of the workers. Thus, it can be stated that QC circles and suggestion Transferring
committees in case D, which are used in combination with group leader meetings, are Japanese kaizen
able to support not only type A capabilities, but also type B and C capabilities, or each
mode of belonging by Wenger (1998): engagement, imagination, and alignment. activities
Disciplining workers based on concrete situations
In terms of disciplining workers, this analysis discovered interesting similarities in 533
successful cases. To summarise, successful cases had a tendency to employ more shop
floor-based methods to discipline workers. Such methods were carried out through a
shop floor visit by managers under the lead of the MD. This suggests that a lot of
top-level management effort and their direct involvement are needed to achieve
successful kaizen implementation. This assumption is supported by many studies on
continuous improvement that emphasise the importance of active commitment by senior
management (Bateman, 2005; Bateman and Rich, 2003; Kaye and Anderson, 1999).
In case D, the MD visited the shop floor for two to three hours every morning based on
his philosophy of the “three gen” principle. In Japanese manufacturing plants, this principle
normally refers to the three “gens”: genba (actual place), genbutu (actual things), and genjitu
(reality). However, at this plant, he used the concept of genkohan, a word indicating that one
is caught “red-handed” at the scene, instead of genjitu. According to him:
It is important to stop someone who is not doing things as established, at the scene. Such a
situation constitutes an opportunity to convey our true purpose to the employees. If we
explained things to them elsewhere, they might wonder why we were talking of an incident
that took place in the past [. . .] In order to establish a trust relationship with local people, we
must explain things to them in a concrete situation.
This practice not only disciplines workers to conform to the company’s rules, but also
provides an opportunity to learn the ways of Japanese kaizen activities based on a
response to a problem at the actual scene. This learning style has a significant meaning
in the perspective of COP. As stated earlier, a meaning is always situated in the local
context and is difficult to be applied beyond the local situation. Therefore,
communication that is not based on a concrete situation is likely to lead to
misunderstanding. However, this practice allows management and workers to use the
concrete situation as a context for learning, and thus to share understanding.
The practice of shop floor visits by managers is not only used for the unilateral
communication channel from management to workers. It is possible for workers to
discuss some problems concerning their work processes with managers. In case D,
managers were given authority to call suitable people to solve such problems, and to
have a meeting at the scene. This means that this practice also provides an opportunity
for cross-functional communication based on a concrete situation. Regarding this, the
MD of case D noted that if a problem was not resolved at the meeting, the same
problem or “red-handed” situation would always be caught as long as the everyday
shop floor visit continued to be conducted. Therefore, this practice is able to give
workers the legitimacy to suggest something concerning their work processes by
letting them know that management addresses the problems suggested by workers.
This suggests that disciplining workers is not achieved by the application of
unilateral power over the workers by management. A shop floor visit by managers is
able to give workers an opportunity to have an image of the plant as “the plant that
makes serious efforts for kaizen or not.” In the example of 5S in case D and E, if the
IJOPM managers pass through an area without stopping to pick up rubbish that is visible to
28,6 workers, a plant image as “the plant that makes serious efforts for 5S” could be unsettled
immediately. This means that actions by managers on the shop floor are always
watched by workers, and that these actions are able to give workers the legitimacy to
engage in kaizen activities. Managers as well as workers should follow 5S practices on
the shop floor. Managers must show a lot of self-discipline if they want the workers to
534 show the same self-discipline.

Kaizen and the evolution of equipment

Concerning type B capabilities, both successful cases provided a place in which
workers participated in the improvement of tools in collaboration with people who had
different functions. These cases also had a scheme that trained workers to do different
work processes, though unsuccessful cases were likely to narrowly limit the scope of
each worker’s job. As the comparison of multi-skilled operators between Chinese and
Japanese plants in case C and F illustrates, Japanese overseas plants in China are likely
to use simpler equipment than that in Japan. The reasons given were that in the case of
complex equipment, it was difficult to do maintenance and to fix problems with just the
people in overseas plants. This suggests the ineffectiveness of the methods that try to
introduce or transfer advanced equipment to overseas plants without support systems
for their introduction.
The improvement of tools in case H was a continuing process of trial and error by
the people from different functions. According to the MD of case H:
The integration of different tools allowed one worker to do two different processes. However,
this also broke the line balancing, and brought the increase of intermediate stock [. . .] In the
course of fixing line balancing, someone suggested the improvement of other tools [. . .] We
have done things like that using ideas from various people.
This illustrates that case H was able to develop support systems to maintain the
equipment in the course of the kaizen implementation. The workers are able to gain
knowledge about tools; the engineers are also able to gain knowledge about the
conditions of equipment on the shop floor through the experiences of trial and error
and communication between different functions. According to the MD of case H, this
Chinese plant had developed a better production line than the Japanese main plant. In
the assembly shop, the author saw a unique production line that used a circular rail to
hook the products. The circular rail turned over at a constant rate (63 seconds), which
decided the takt time of each work process in the production line. Moreover, the
external defect rate of this plant had decreased from 100 to 10 ppm in the past year.
Case D also had improved their tools through the active communication between team
leaders, tool engineers, and Chinese and Japanese managers. Finally, this plant had
produced equipment that eliminated the intermediate stock between six assembling
processes, i.e. they had achieved a single piece flow production system. According to the
MD of case D, this Chinese plant was better than the Japanese main plant in everything at
that time. The external defect rate in case D had decreased from 300-400 to 15-20 ppm
in the past year. When the author visited the company’s Japanese main plant in
March of 2007, the plant was trying to implement a similar single piece flow production
system under the lead of the same production director who was the MD of case D in 2005.
Thus, case D had become a model plant for the Japanese main plant.
 The kaizen activities in these cases make it possible both to continuously improve Transferring
their equipment, and to create the support systems to maintain the equipment through
the communication between different functions. These two successful cases
Japanese kaizen
suggest that the transfers of Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants in China activities
were not achieved by imposing Japanese methods on Chinese people unilaterally.
These plants were able to outperform the main Japanese plants by continuously
implementing the kaizen cycle (shown in Figure 1) based on the communication among 535
various people including both Japanese and Chinese people.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the implications for the studies on management practices in transferring
Japanese kaizen activities, or organisational capabilities that facilitate an incremental
organisation-wide innovation, to overseas plant are summed up in the following three
points:
(1) Management practices that try to support one of the three types of capabilities that
encourage workers’ self-initiative, facilitate cross-functional communication, and
discipline workers are able to achieve significant effects in combination with the
support of the other two types of capabilities. It is necessary to create a healthy
balance between the three types of organisational capabilities.
(2) Shop floor-based disciplinary methods play a major role in transferring Japanese
kaizen activities to overseas plants. These methods are able to give people in
overseas plants not only an opportunity to learn kaizen activities, but also a source
of understanding that provides the legitimacy to engage in kaizen activities.
(3) Communication between different functions makes it possible not only to
improve their equipment, but also to create the support systems to maintain the
equipment with just the people in the overseas plant.
As stated earlier, in Japanese kaizen activities, management had to make a trade-off
between type A and C capabilities. In order to address this issue, this study concludes it
is necessary to further examine shop floor-based disciplinary methods. The successful
cases made good use of such methods. As the “red-handed” practice in case D illustrates,
managers are better able to make the linkage between company goals and workers’
operations comprehensible, when it is based not only on canonical descriptions (Brown
and Duguid, 1991), such as work standards and company rules, but also on a concrete
situation or actual practice. This suggests that such shop floor-based methods may lead
to the sharing of company goals between workers and management, and may also
produce a trust relationship between them.
In order to further examine this hypothesis, it will be necessary to develop a framework
that is useful to investigate the relationship between management practices and trust
relationships between different actors. Using Wenger’s (1998) concept of COP, it is
possible to address this issue by focusing on the three modes of belonging (engagement,
imagination, alignment). As Wenger (1998) suggests, an essential duality is inherent in
COPs that not only create meaningful experiences for the participants, but also hold them
hostage to such experiences. COPs create discontinuities between those who have been
participating and those who have not (Wenger, 1998, p. 103). However, few studies have
addressed this issue in the context of the implementation of actual management practices,
such as kaizen. Further research should be focused on issues such as how individual actors
IJOPM achieve a healthy balance among the three modes, and how the combination of the three
28,6 modes leads to trust relationships within and between COPs.
Concerning the research methodology, some future tasks exist. This study has not
fully examined social and historical aspects of management practices, such as conflicts
and power relations among various plant members. To address such issues, it is
necessary to conduct diachronic studies on single cases that cover interviews with
536 various members, such as workers, supervisors, engineers and managers. Moreover, in
order to approach the complexity of individual management practices in depth, more
participative methods, such as participant observation, are needed.
Some future tasks also remain concerning the generalisability of the results. This
study has not fully examined the influence of cultural factors in China on the
adequateness of management practices. For example, it can be questioned if Japanese
methods that emphasise discipline work better in countries, such as Europe and
the USA with a longer history of implementing Japanese kaizen activities than China.
Thus, there is a need for cross-national case comparisons in order to examine the
cultural differences of the implementation of Japanese kaizen activities.

References
Abo, T. (Ed.) (1994), Hybrid Factory: The Japanese Production System in the United States,
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Bateman, N. (2005), “Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 261-76.
Bateman, N. and David, A. (2002), “Process improvement programmes: a model for assessing
sustainability”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22
No. 5, pp. 515-26.
Bateman, N. and Rich, N. (2003), “Companies’ perceptions of inhibitors and enablers for process
improvement activities”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 185-99.
Baxter, L.F. and Hirschhauser, C. (2004), “Reification and representation in the implementation of
quality improvement programmes”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 207-24.
Bechky, B. (2003), “Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of
understanding on a production floor”, Organization Science, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 312-30.
Bessant, J. and Caffyn, S. (1997), “High-involvement innovation through continuous
improvement”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-28.
Bessant, J. and Francis, D. (1999), “Developing strategic continuous improvement capability”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 1106-19.
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., Gilbert, J., Harding, R. and Webb, S. (1994), “Rediscovering continuous
improvement”, Technovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1991), “Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a
unified view of working, learning and innovation”, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 40-57.
Chapman, R.L., Hyland, P.W., Jenkins, R.J. and Sloan, T.R. (1997), “Continuous improvement in
Australian manufacturing firms: findings of a survey in New South Wales”, International
Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 102-15.
Cole, R.E. (1994), “Different quality paradigms and their implications for organizational Transferring
learning”, in Aoki, M. and Dore, R. (Eds), The Japanese Firm: Sources of Competitive
Strength, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 66-83. Japanese kaizen
Edwards, P., Collinson, M. and Rees, C. (1998), “The determinants of employee responses to total activities
quality management: six case studies”, Organization Studies, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 449-75.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50. 537
Elger, T. and Smith, C. (2005), Assembling Work: Remaking Factory Regimes in Japanese
Multinationals in Britain, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Allen Lane, London.
Galbraith, J.R. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2002), “Learning in a constellation of interconnected practices:
canon or dissonance?”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 419-36.
Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for
strategy formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-35.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Hong, J.F.L., Easterby-Smith, M. and Snell, R.S. (2006a), “Transferring organizational learning
systems to Japanese subsidiaries in China”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 5,
pp. 1027-58.
Hong, J.F.L., Snell, R.S. and Easterby-Smith, M. (2006b), “Cross-cultural influences on
organizational learning in MNCS: the case of Japanese companies in China”, Journal of
International Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 408-29.
Ihara, R. (2003), Toyota No Rodogenba, Sakurai Shoten, Tokyo (in Japanese).
Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Imai, M. (1997), Gemba Kaizen: A Commonsense, Low-cost Approach to Management,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Jørgensen, F., Boer, H. and Gertsen, F. (2003), “Jump-starting continuous improvement through
self-assessment”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23
No. 10, pp. 1260-78.
Kajiwara, K. (2002), Toyota Way: Shinka Su Ru Saikyo No Keieijutu, Business Sha, Tokyo
(in Japanese).
Kaye, M. and Anderson, R. (1999), “Continuous improvement: the ten essential criteria”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 485-506.
Kenney, M. and Florida, R. (1993), Beyond Mass Production: The Japanese System and Its
Transfer to the U.S., Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Koike, K. (1994), “Learning and incentive systems in Japanese industry”, in Aoki, M. and Dore, R.
(Eds), The Japanese Firm: Sources of Competitive Strength, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY, pp. 41-65.
Lam, A. (2000), “Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: an integrated
framework”, Organization Studies, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 487-513.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Lewis, M. (2000), “Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 959-78.
IJOPM Liker, J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest
Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
28,6
Liker, J.K., Fruin, W.M. and Adler, P.S. (Eds) (1999), Remade in America: Transplanting and
Transforming Japanese Management Systems, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Lindberg, P. and Berger, A. (1997), “Continuous improvement: design, organization and
management”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 86-101.
538 MacDuffie, J.P. and Helper, S. (1999), “Creating lean suppliers: diffusing lean production through
the supply chain”, in Liker, J.K., Fruin, W.M. and Adler, P.S. (Eds), Remade in America:
Transplanting and Transforming Japanese Management Systems, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY, pp. 154-200.
March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization
Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nemoto, M. (1992), TQC Seiko No Hiketu 30 Kajo, Nikagiren, Tokyo (in Japanese).
Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S. and Yanow, D. (2003), “Introduction: toward a practice-based view of
knowing and learning in organizations”, in Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S. and Yanow, D. (Eds),
Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach, M.E. Sharp, Armonk, NY, pp. 3-31.
Nihon Keizai Shimbun (2007), Nihon Keizai Shimbun, July (in Japanese).
Nikkei Sangyo Shimbun (2007), Nikkei Sangyo Shimbun, September.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, Productivity Press,
New York, NY.
Oliver, N. and Wilkinson, B. (1992), The Japanization of British Industry: New Developments in
the 1990s, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
Oliver, N., Delbridge, R. and Barton, H. (2002), “Lean production and manufacturing performance
improvement in Japan, the UK and US 1994-2001”, ESRC Centre for Business Research,
University of Cambridge, Working Paper, No. 232.
Orr, J.E. (1996), Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job, ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.
Saka, A. (2004), “The cross-national diffusion of work systems: translation of Japanese
operations in the UK”, Organization Studies, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 209-28.
Schonberger, R.J. (1982), Japanese Manufacturing Techniques: Nine Hidden Lessons in Simplicity,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Sewell, G. and Wilkinson, B. (1992), “Someone to watch over me: surveillance, discipline and the
just-in-time labour process”, Sociology, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 271-89.
Shimokawa, K. and Fujimoto, T. (2001), Toyota System No Genten, Bunshindo, Tokyo
(in Japanese).
Star, S.L. (1995), “The politics of formal representations: wizards, gurus, and organizational
complexity”, in Star, S.L. (Ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and
Technology, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 88-118.
Suchman, L.A. (1987), Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Taylor, B. (1999), “Japanese management style in China? Production practices in Japanese Transferring
manufacturing plants”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 129-42.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Japanese kaizen
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33. activities
Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
van Maanen, J. and Barley, S.R. (1985), “Cultural organization: fragments of theory”, in Frost, P.J., 539
Moore, L.F., Louis, M.R., Lundberg, C.C. and Martin, J. (Eds), Organizational Culture, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World: Based on the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5-million Dollar 5-year Study on the Future of the
Automobile, Rawson Associates, New York, NY.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Appendix. Interview protocol

(1) General business conditions:
.
company profiles (firm sizes, products, customers, equipment, employees) and brief
company histories;
.
characteristics of management methods in China (compared with those in Japan);
.
characteristics of production methods in China (compared with those in Japan); and
.
relationships with customers and suppliers in China.
(2) The implementation of kaizen activities:
. type of kaizen activities implemented (QC circles, suggestion schemes, other activities);
.
way of implementation of kaizen activities;
.
results of kaizen (concrete examples); and
.
employees’ attitudes and capabilities concerning the implementation of kaizen
activities (workers’ self-initiative, capabilities of workers, engineers and managers).
(3) Management practices related to the implementation of kaizen activities:
. HRM practices (employee training, employment system, wage system);
.
management practices concerning day-to-day operations (work standards, 5S, the
maintenance of machine and equipment);
.
management efforts to match the requirement of the customer (quality, cost,
delivery); and
.
management efforts to create a supportive organizational climate.

Corresponding author
Katsuki Aoki can be contacted at: kaoki@kanto-gakuin.ac.jp

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints