The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1754-2731.htm

Addressing the Kaizen business Addressing the

Kaizen
operations: the role of triple helix business
operations
actors during COVID-19 outbreak
Vimal Kumar and Priyanka Verma
Department of Information Management, Chaoyang University of Technology,
Taichung, Taiwan Received 14 August 2023
Revised 4 November 2023
Ankesh Mittal and Pradeep Gupta 29 December 2023
Accepted 3 January 2024
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sangrur, India
Rohit Raj
Department of Information Management, Chaoyang University of Technology,
Taichung, Taiwan, and
Mahender Singh Kaswan
Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, India

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this study is to investigate and clarify how the triple helix actors can effectively
implement the concepts of Kaizen to navigate and overcome the complex obstacles brought on by the global
COVID-19 pandemic.
Design/methodology/approach – Through broad literature reviews, nine common parameters under triple
helix actor have been recognized. A regression analysis has been done to study how the triple helix actors’
common parameters impact Kaizen implementation in business operations.
Findings – The results of this study revealed insightful patterns in the relationships between the common
parameters of triple helix actor and the dependent variables. Notably, the results also showed that leadership
commitment (LC) emerges as a very significant component, having a big impact on employee engagement as
well as organizational performance.
Research limitations/implications – In addition to offering valuable insights, this study has limitations
including the potential for response bias in survey data and the focus on a specific set of common parameters,
which may not encompass the entirety of factors influencing Kaizen implementation within the triple helix
framework during the pandemic.
Originality/value – The originality of this study lies in its comprehensive exploration of the interplay between
triple helix actors and Kaizen principles in addressing COVID-19 challenges. By identifying and analyzing nine
specific common parameters, the study provides a novel framework for understanding how triple helix actors
collaboratively enhance organizational performance and employee engagement during challenging times.
Keywords Kaizen, Triple helix, COVID-19 pandemic, Business excellence
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused the worst worldwide disaster in recent memory, upending
economies, cultures and health systems all across the world (Tortorella et al., 2023). Traditional
operational norms have been disrupted, and the foundations of survival shifted to embrace

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers, Associate Editor, and Editor-in-Chief for
their valuable comments and suggestions that helped to improve the manuscript.
Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication
of this article. The TQM Journal
Declaration of conflicting interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect © Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2731
to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article. DOI 10.1108/TQM-08-2023-0253
TQM adaptability and resilience as fundamental principles (Hundal et al., 2022). Amidst this
disrupted environment, the long-standing principle of “Kaizen” emerged as a helping hand for
businesses striving to navigate the unpredictable challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic era
(Demirtas et al., 2022). The recognized Kaizen operations, which emphasize gradual and
continual improvement, have shown to be important resources for businesses not just during
the COVID-19 epidemic, but also to negotiate the unclear post-pandemic environment
(Alsmairat et al., 2023). The concept of Kaizen principles has given businesses a way to navigate
the enormous obstacles offered by the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, enabling
them to not only survive but even grow (Demirtas et al., 2022). Even after COVID-19 pandemic,
organizations (universities, government sectors and industries, the triple helix actors) still need
to be adaptable in order to negotiate the constantly shifting market circumstances. The triple
helix actor is in line with the philosophy of Kaizen principles, which makes it an effective tactic
for overcoming obstacles brought on by pandemics (Cai and Amaral, 2022).
The idea of triple helix model not only gives focus to the cooperation between industry
sector and universities but also places more emphasis on the role of government sectors
(James et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2022). To promote economic and social progress, a series of
intersection between universities, government sector and industries comes under the
innovation of triple helix model (Tagliazucchi et al., 2023). This concept was first introduced
by Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff in the 1990s, and it has since gained wide
recognition in the field of innovation studies (Khan et al., 2022). triple helix refers to a
framework for innovation that involves three key actors: government, industry and academia
(Lerman et al., 2021). Since each of these three actors has the ability to affect the other two,
their interactions are thought to be dynamic and reciprocal (Morrar and Arman, 2020).
Government regulations, for instance, may influence the research priorities of universities,
while industry collaborations may aid in funding research initiatives and the
commercialization of novel technology (Criado and Gil-Garcia, 2019). The triple helix
model is generally seen as a practical means of encouraging innovation and fostering
economic expansion in a knowledge-based economy (Khan et al., 2022). The purpose of triple
helix model is to highlight the close collaboration and interaction between universities,
industries and governments in the innovation process. By implementing Kaizen business
operations, triple helix actor has been able to identify and discontinue unwanted operations,
restructure processes and maximize resource allocation. Kaizen concepts continue to be a
useful business tool for triple helix actors battling not only through crises but also in a world
marked by rapid change and unpredictability (Demirtas et al., 2022).
Unparalleled global crisis, the COVID-19 epidemic has had a profound effect on a number of
fields, including triple helix actors. The pandemic’s issues have disrupted established processes,
necessitating creative solutions to lessen its negative impacts (Tortorella et al., 2023). Exploring
fresh approaches to assist these triple helix actors in effectively responding to and recovering
from the crisis is imperative (Khan et al., 2022). By doing this, the research hopes to offer
insightful contributions that will improve communication, adaptability and innovation across
academics, business and government both during and after the epidemic (George et al., 2022).
There are not many in-depth studies, though, that look at how the triple helix actors
integrate Kaizen principles in COVID-19 pandemic crisis. In the literature, there is no evidence
on the comprehensive analysis of how triple helix actors entities collaborated in crisis
management, and the adaptation of Kaizen tools in crisis contexts to navigate and overcome the
complex obstacles may be lacking in existing literature. Addressing these gaps is critical for
gaining a comprehensive knowledge of how the triple helix model might maximize Kaizen
techniques in the face of crises such as COVID-19. The aim of this study is to investigate and
clarify how the triple helix actors can effectively implement the concepts of Kaizen to navigate
and overcome the complex obstacles brought on by the global COVID-19 pandemic. In this
study, a regression analysis has been done to explore how the triple helix actors’ common
parameters impact Kaizen implementation in business operations during the COVID-19 Addressing the
pandemic. The results of this study add to the body of information that inspires similar projects Kaizen
and approaches in various settings, encouraging cross-sector cooperation and innovation. In
line with the aim of this research work, this study answers the following research questions:
business
operations
RQ1. What are the common parameters and strategies for implementing Kaizen
principles in the operations and collaborative efforts of triple helix actors during a
crisis like the COVID-19 outbreak?
RQ2. How does the presence and effectiveness of the identified common parameters of
triple helix actors relate to the extent of Kaizen operations and, in turn, impact
organizational performance and employee engagement during and after a crisis
like the COVID-19 pandemic?
The rest of the paper is divided into six sections. The literature on Kaizen principles, triple
helix actors, challenges faced by triple helix actors during COVID-19 pandemic, identification
of common parameters for implementing Kaizen principles within the collaborations of triple
helix actors and theoretical framework is discussed in Section 2. The research methodology
based on quantitative approach has been discussed in Section 3. Section 4 of the study’s
findings and discussion provide further explanation. Conclusion with future scope of work is
discussed in Section 5 of this study.

2. Literature review
The implementation of Kaizen business operations is typically successful due to some critical
success parameters, according to a thorough analysis of past studies. Research, theories and
insights regarding Kaizen implementation, the triple helix framework and their applicability in
the context of the COVID-19 pandemic would be examined in this section of the study focusing on
the common success parameters for Kaizen projects and their interaction with triple helix actors.

2.1 Kaizen principles

The Kaizen concept, which has its roots in Japanese management techniques, is based on the
idea of continuous improvement (Kumar et al., 2021, 2023d; Mittal et al., 2023b). Kaizen
principles, which are founded on the notion of implementing small gradual changes, have
won widespread acclaim for their revolutionary influence on business operations, employee
engagement and organizational performance (Helmold et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2023c).
Previous year research studies (Hundal et al., 2022; Demirtas et al., 2022; Alsmairat et al., 2023)
demonstrated that a dedication to continuous improvement results in higher effectiveness,
decreased waste and increased competitiveness. Participation of employees at all levels in the
process of improvement is prioritized by Kaizen concepts. Giving employees the flexibility to
identify problems, suggest solutions and take ownership of changes not only improves
morale but also releases a wealth of knowledge and invention (Brunet and New, 2003).
Organizations may streamline operations, save costs and free up resources for value-added
tasks by identifying and removing waste. Kaizen places an importance on dealing with issues
at their core as opposed to just managing their symptoms (Gupta and Jain, 2014).
Organizations that follow this rule concentrate on looking into the underlying problems that
cause errors or inefficiency. Just-in-time (JIT) production uses Kaizen concepts to minimize
inventory levels and shorten lead times in order to respond quickly to customer demands
(Kumar et al., 2021; Kumar and Sharma, 2017a; Murugesan et al., 2020). Kaizen workshops
bring cross-functional teams together so that they can quickly brainstorm, analyze and
implement solutions. Organizations that place a high priority on employee development
through Kaizen operations and well-being foster a climate that is favorable to innovation and
TQM continuous improvement (Singh and Singh, 2009; Mittal et al., 2021). Organizations that
successfully implement the Kaizen principles are better equipped to deal with the challenges
of a dynamic business environment (Maarof and Mahmud, 2016).
The Kaizen philosophy’s main contribution is that it emphasizes making small, continuous
improvements in order to achieve organizational excellence (Janji
c et al., 2019; Berger, 1997). A
culture of continuous improvement is promoted by Kaizen at all organizational levels (Saleem
et al., 2012). It promotes a mindset of continuous improvement by encouraging small, gradual
changes rather than large overhauls in procedures, goods and services (Ugboro and Obeng,
2000; Su
arez-Barraza and Miguel-D
avila, 2011). Involving employees in the process of
improvement is a key component of employee empowerment (Janji
c et al., 2019; Saleem et al.,
2012; Berger, 1997). Every employee’s opinions and contributions are valued by Kaizen, which
motivates staff members to find and apply improvements in their specialized fields (Saleem
et al., 2012; Ugboro and Obeng, 2000). The goal of Kaizen is to remove waste, or muda, from
systems and processes (Janji
c et al., 2019; Ugboro and Obeng, 2000). Enhanced productivity
and efficiency result from the identification and resolution of inefficiencies, redundancies and
non-value-added activities. The idea promotes a culture of problem-solving where challenges
are seen as chances for advancement rather than roadblocks (Saleem et al., 2012). It encourages
taking a proactive stance in order to locate and address issues at their source. Kaizen promotes
creativity but also highlights the value of discipline and standard operating procedures (Amah
and Ahiauzu, 2013). Its goal is to set up standardized processes that can be enhanced over time.
The Kaizen philosophy is by its very nature customer-focused (Janji
c et al., 2019). It motivates
businesses to focus their improvement initiatives on meeting and surpassing customer
expectations through the provision of superior goods and services (Janji
c et al., 2019; Ugboro
and Obeng, 2000). An organization’s culture often changes as a result of Kaizen
implementation (Saleem et al., 2012). It encourages a mentality change in which making
improvements becomes ingrained in the organizational culture as opposed to being a one-time
endeavor (Saleem et al., 2012). Kaizen prioritizes long-term, sustainable improvements in
addition to immediate gains. Instead of focusing on band-aid solutions, it encourages an all-
encompassing strategy for organizational development (Amah and Ahiauzu, 2013). To sum
up, the core value of the Kaizen philosophy is found in its all-encompassing approach to waste
reduction, problem-solving, employee involvement, continuous improvement and building an
environment of sustained excellence within businesses (Janji
c et al., 2019; Amah and Ahiauzu,
2013; Ugboro and Obeng, 2000).

2.2 Triple helix actors

This concept was first introduced by Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff in the 1990s, and
it has since gained wide recognition in the field of innovation studies (Khan et al., 2022). Triple
helix refers to a framework for innovation that involves three key actors: government,
industry and academia (Lerman et al., 2021). The triple helix idea states that interactions and
cooperation between academic institutions, corporations and governments are the primary
factors affecting innovation activities (Tagliazucchi et al., 2023). Each actor performs the roles
of the other two actors, adds value to each other and carries out certain duties on their behalf.
Regional innovation systems have been extensively studied, utilizing the triple helix theory in
recent years, and qualitative research has been abounded (Cai and Amaral, 2022). The triple
helix theory of regional innovation capacity, empirical performance evaluation research and
mutual information-based study on the interaction between universities, companies and
governments are the key types of quantitative research. The triple helix model of innovation
consists of the interactions between the three entities and their respective initial roles:
universities doing basic research, industries creating items for the market and governments
controlling markets (Galvao et al., 2019).
2.3 Challenges faced by triple helix actors during COVID-19 pandemic Addressing the
The industrial sector faced a variety of difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic, including Kaizen
supply chain disruptions, demand changes, distant work adjustments and financial
instability (Lu et al., 2021). As they reached the crisis, industrial sectors faced challenges
business
like adapting to quickly shifting conditions and putting measures in place to preserve operations
company continuity (Biswas and Das, 2020). To meet the changing needs of the COVID-19
pandemic era, industries quickly embraced digital transformation, Kaizen operations and
reinvented their business models (Demirtas et al., 2022). In order for industries to successfully
handle uncertainties, seize opportunities and grow stronger in a post-pandemic world, they
will need to be able to quickly react to disruptions, prioritize employee safety and innovate in
the face of adversity (Hao et al., 2020).
The COVID-19 epidemic presented universities with a variety of difficulties that had an
impact on several facets of teaching, research, student life and financial stability (Nuere and
De Miguel, 2021). Universities have to negotiate unfamiliar ground while protecting the
welfare of students, professors and staff due to disrupted educational methods and
financial restrictions (Moustakas and Robrade, 2022). The epidemic speed up the use of
technology, emphasized the value of student well-being and underlined the need for
adaptable and cutting-edge educational strategies (Dragolea and Topor, 2022). Universities
financial struggles served as a reminder of the value of diversifying their sources of income,
using resources efficiently and developing backup plans (Singh, 2022). The COVID-19
pandemic unknowns highlighted the necessity for flexible planning and scenario-based
solutions to deal with changing circumstances (Dioputra et al., 2022). Universities have been
put to the test by the COVID-19 pandemic, but they have also emerged as models of
creativity and resiliency, influencing the direction of education in a world that is changing
quickly.
Government sector faced a variety of intricate difficulties as a result of the COVID-19
epidemic as they attempted to safeguard the public’s health, maintain economic stability and
exercise good governance (Ganguly and Chakraborty, 2021). Government sector had to make
challenging choices to stop the COVID-19 spread while reducing its financial burden (Singh
et al., 2021). Governments have shown flexibility and ingenuity in their responses, whether
they were dealing with healthcare crises or navigating economic downturns. The COVID-19
challenges could only be overcome through effective governance, cooperation and a
dedication to the general welfare (Pradhan et al., 2020). The difficulties in maintaining
community well-being and mental health also showed the government responsibilities extend
beyond its usual roles (Shah, 2020). To overcome the COVID-19 challenges, government
sector should reiterated their dedication to serving and protecting their populations, while
also encouraging resilience in the face of ambiguity.

2.4 Identification of common parameters for implementing Kaizen principles within the
collaborations of triple helix actors
The use of Kaizen concepts within the partnerships of the triple helix actors presents a
special chance to boost creativity, streamline operations and promote continuous
improvement. Within the triple helix framework, the concepts of Kaizen offer a common
framework for fostering a culture of innovation and advancement (Khan et al., 2022).
Triple helix actor can improve their combined efficiency, streamline procedures and
contribute to the overall success of collaborative endeavors by establishing and putting
into practice shared standards (Tagliazucchi et al., 2023). Key parameters that can make it
easier to implement Kaizen ideas inside the triple helix framework are presented in
Table 1 whereas Table 2 provides the common parameters of Kaizen principles in triple
helix actor.
TQM S.N. Parameters References S.N. Parameters References

Universities
1. Celebrate small McDermott et al. (2021), 11. Leadership Singh (2022), Gumasing
wins Singh (2022), Suarez- commitment et al. (2021), Naddeo et al.
Barraza et al. (2022), (2021), Dragolea and
Gumasing et al. (2021), Topor (2022), Kumar et al.
Naddeo et al. (2021), (2023e), Mittal et al.
Dioputra et al. (2022) (2023c)
2. Communication Sreedas and Emmatty 12. Long-term Sreedas and Emmatty
strategies (2022), McDermott et al. vision (2022), McDermott et al.
(2021), Singh (2022), (2021), Singh (2022),
Gumasing et al. (2021), Suarez-Barraza et al.
Naddeo et al. (2021), (2022)
Duran and Mertol (2020),
Dragolea and Topor
(2022), Verma et al. (2022)
3. Employee Sreedas and Emmatty 13. Policy planning Dragolea and Topor
feedback (2022), McDermott et al. (2022)
(2021), Singh (2022),
Suarez-Barraza et al.
(2022)
4 Continuous Naddeo et al. (2021), 14. Problem- Gumasing et al. (2021),
improvement Duran and Mertol (2020), solving Naddeo et al. (2021),
Dioputra et al. (2022), Dioputra et al. (2022),
Dragolea and Topor Dragolea and Topor
(2022) (2022)
5. Cross functional Suarez-Barraza et al. 15. Proper McDermott et al. (2021),
activities (2022), Suarez-Barraza employee Gumasing et al. (2021),
et al. (2011), Gumasing training Naddeo et al. (2021),
et al. (2021), Naddeo et al. Dragolea and Topor
(2021), Dioputra et al. (2022)
(2022), Dragolea and
Topor (2022)
6 Data-driven McDermott et al. (2021), 16. Resilience Sreedas and Emmatty
decision Gumasing et al. (2021), (2022), McDermott et al.
Naddeo et al. (2021) (2021), Dragolea and
Topor (2022)
7. Flexibility and Sreedas and Emmatty 17. Standardized Duran and Mertol (2020),
adaptability (2022), McDermott et al. processes Dioputra et al. (2022)
(2021)
8. Innovation McDermott et al. (2021), 18. Student Sreedas and Emmatty
Singh (2022), Suarez- involvement (2022), Singh (2022),
Barraza et al. (2022), Suarez-Barraza et al.
Duran and Mertol (2020), (2022), Gumasing et al.
Dioputra et al. (2022), Jha (2021)
et al. (2022b)
9. IT-enabled Sreedas and Emmatty 19. Total employee McDermott et al. (2021),
technology (2022), Singh (2022), involvement Gumasing et al. (2021),
Suarez-Barraza et al. Naddeo et al. (2021)
(2022), Gumasing et al.
(2021), Verma et al. (2023)
10. Kaizen events Dioputra et al. (2022), 20. Visual Sreedas and Emmatty
Table 1. Dragolea and Topor management (2022), McDermott et al.
Key parameters of (2022) (2021)
kaizen principles in
triple helix actor (continued )
S.N. Parameters References
Industries
1. Communication Hundal et al. (2022), Mitra
strategies Debnath, 2019, Silvestre
et al. (2022), Sundararajan
and Terkar (2022),
George et al. (2022), Dinka
(2021), Sundararajan and
Terkar (2022)
2. Continuous Van Pham et al. (2022),
improvement Kenge and Khan (2023),
Mishra et al. (2021),
Nayak (2022), Singh and
Rathi (2023)
3. Cross functional Silvestre et al. (2022), Van
activities Pham et al. (2022),
Sundararajan and Terkar
(2022), George et al.
(2022), Dinka (2021),
Sundararajan and Terkar
(2022), Gonzalez
4. Customer-centric Nayak (2022), Singh and
approach Rathi (2023), Citybabu
and Yamini (2022),
Sundararajan and Terkar
(2022), George et al. (2022)
5. Digital Van Pham et al. (2022),
transformation Kenge and Khan (2023),
Mishra et al. (2021),
Nayak (2022), Singh and
Rathi (2023)
6. Innovation Citybabu and Yamini
(2022), Sundararajan and
Terkar (2022), Dinka
(2021), Sundararajan and
Terkar (2022), Gonzalez-
Aleu et al. (2022)
7. Innovation Singh and Rathi (2023),
ecosystem Citybabu and Yamini
(2022), Sundararajan and
Terkar (2022), George
et al. (2022), Dinka (2021),
Sundararajan and Terkar
(2022), Gonzalez-Aleu
et al. (2022)
S.N. Parameters References
Addressing the
Kaizen
business
11. Policy planning Singh and Rathi (2023),
Citybabu and Yamini operations
(2022)
12. Process Van Pham et al. (2022),
improvement Kenge and Khan (2023),
Mishra et al. (2021),
Nayak (2022), Singh and
Rathi (2023)
13. Remote Mitra Debnath, 2019,
collaboration Silvestre et al. (2022), Van
tools Pham et al. (2022)
14. Resilience Mishra et al. (2021),
Nayak (2022), Singh and
Rathi (2023), Citybabu
and Yamini (2022)
15. Safety protocols Hundal et al. (2022), Mitra
and training Debnath, 2019, Mishra
et al. (2021), Nayak (2022),
Singh and Rathi (2023),
Citybabu and Yamini
(2022)
16. Supplier Nayak (2022), Singh and
collaboration Rathi (2023), Citybabu
and Yamini (2022),
Sundararajan and Terkar
(2022), George et al.
(2022), Dinka (2021),
Sundararajan and Terkar
(2022), Jauhar et al. (2021)
17. Supply chain Sundararajan and Terkar
resilience (2022), George et al.
(2022), Dinka (2021),
Sundararajan and Terkar
(2022), Gonzalez
(continued ) Table 1.
TQM S.N. Parameters References
8. IT-enabled Mishra et al. (2021),
technology Nayak (2022), Singh and
Rathi (2023), Citybabu
and Yamini (2022),
Sundararajan and Terkar
(2022), George et al.
(2022), Dinka (2021),
Sundararajan and Terkar
(2022), Gonzalez-Aleu
et al. (2022)
9. Leadership Mitra Debnath, 2019,
commitment Sundararajan and Terkar
(2022), George et al.
(2022), Dinka (2021),
Sundararajan and Terkar
(2022), Gonzalez-Aleu
et al. (2022), Mittal et al.
(2022)
10. Lean inventory Nayak (2022), Singh and
management Rathi (2023), Dinka
(2021), Sundararajan and
Terkar (2022), Gonzalez-
Aleu et al. (2022), Yadav
et al. (2023b)
Government sector
1. Citizen-centric Theresia et al. (2022),
approach Ekhsan et al. (2023),
Singh et al. (2021),
Ganguly and
Chakraborty (2021)
2. Collaborative Su
arez Barraza and
problem-solving Morales Contreras (2022),
Shah (2020), Pradhan
et al. (2020)
3. Communication Ekhsan et al. (2023),
strategies Singh et al. (2021),
Ganguly and
Chakraborty (2021)
Table 1.
S.N. Parameters References
18. Total employee Kenge and Khan (2023),
involvement Mishra et al. (2021),
Nayak (2022), Singh and
Rathi (2023)
19. Virtual Mishra et al. (2021),
problem- Nayak (2022), Singh and
solving Rathi (2023), Citybabu
and Yamini (2022),
Sundararajan and Terkar
(2022)
20. Stakeholders Mishra et al. (2021),
support Nayak (2022), Singh and
Rathi (2023), Citybabu
and Yamini (2022),
Sundararajan and Terkar
(2022), Kumar et al.
(2023a), Kumar et al.
(2023b), Sharma et al.
(2023), Yadav et al.
(2023a)
11. Flexibility in Kumar, 2021, Theresia
regulations et al. (2022), Ekhsan et al.
(2023), Singh et al. (2021)
12. Innovation Su
arez Barraza and
Morales Contreras (2022),
Tufail et al. (2021),
Kumar, 2021, Theresia
et al. (2022), Ekhsan et al.
(2023), Singh et al. (2021),
Ganguly and
Chakraborty (2021), Shah
(2020), Pradhan et al.
(2020)
13. IT-enabled Su
arez Barraza and
technology Morales Contreras (2022),
Singh et al. (2021),
Ganguly and
Chakraborty (2021), Shah
(2020)
(continued )
S.N. Parameters References S.N. Parameters References
Addressing the
Kaizen
4. Continuous Tufail et al. (2021), Singh 14. Leadership Ekhsan et al. (2023), business
improvement et al. (2021), Ganguly and commitment Singh et al. (2021),
Chakraborty (2021), Shah Ganguly and operations
(2020) Chakraborty (2021), Shah
(2020), Pradhan et al.
(2020)
5. Crisis training and Su
arez Barraza and 15. Long-term Ekhsan et al. (2023),
simulations Morales Contreras (2022), preparedness Singh et al. (2021),
Tufail et al. (2021), Ganguly and
Kumar, 2021, Shah (2020), Chakraborty (2021), Shah
Pradhan et al. (2020) (2020), Pradhan et al.
(2020)
6. Cross functional Ganguly and 16. Policy planning Ganguly and
activities Chakraborty (2021), Shah Chakraborty (2021), Shah
(2020), Pradhan et al. (2020), Pradhan et al.
(2020) (2020)
7. Cross- Ganguly and 17. Resilience Kumar (2021), Theresia
departmental Chakraborty (2021), Shah et al. (2022), Ekhsan et al.
collaboration (2020), Pradhan et al. (2023), Singh et al. (2021)
(2020)
8. Data-driven Theresia et al. (2022), 18. Resource Ganguly and
decision-making Pradhan et al. (2020) allocation Chakraborty (2021), Shah
efficiency (2020), Pradhan et al.
(2020)
9. Digital service Su
arez Barraza and 19. Risk Ganguly and
transformation Morales Contreras (2022), assessment and Chakraborty (2021), Shah
Kumar, 2021, Theresia mitigation (2020), Pradhan et al.
et al. (2022), Ekhsan et al. (2020)
(2023), Singh et al. (2021)
10. Emergency Kumar, 2021, Theresia 20. Total employee Su
arez Barraza and
response plans et al. (2022), Ekhsan et al. involvement Morales Contreras (2022),
(2023), Singh et al. (2021), Tufail et al. (2021), Shah
Ganguly and (2020), Pradhan et al.
Chakraborty (2021), Shah (2020)
(2020)
Source(s): Author’s own work Table 1.

Name Total Parameters Abbreviation

Triple helix actor 9 IT-enabled technology ITA

Leadership commitment LC
Total employee involvement TEI
Policy planning PP
Communication strategies CS
Innovation INN
Continuous improvement CI Table 2.
Cross functional activities CFA Common parameters of
Resilience RES Kaizen principles in
Source(s): Author’s own work triple helix actor
TQM 2.5 Theoretical framework and hypothesis development
In the context of implementing Kaizen principles within a triple helix actor, a theoretical
framework has been formulated which studies how these parameters impact employee
engagement and organizational performance. Organizations may take use of the combined
potential of these sectors to boost innovation, competitiveness and engagement by
encouraging collaboration between triple helix actors. The framework presented in
Figure 1 aims to empirically investigate how the collaborative efforts of the triple helix
actor parameters collectively influence both organizational performance and employee
engagement.
The ability of the three triple helix actors such as industry, university and government to
jointly manage organizational performance is a crucial one, particularly when it comes to
creative and cooperative solutions. Collaborations utilizing the triple helix model can take
advantage of each actor’s distinct assets and strengths (Brem and Radziwon, 2017).
Government provides resources and regulatory support, industry adds actual experience and
academia offers knowledge and research capabilities (Etzkowitz, 2003). It is true that this
cooperative synergy can improve organizational effectiveness. Universities are centers of
knowledge generation, and through cooperative efforts, this knowledge can be successfully
conveyed to businesses (Yusuf, 2008). Improved goods, procedures and services may result
from this knowledge transfer, which may eventually have an effect on organizational success
(Lee and Choi, 2003). New ideas and technology can be sparked by government assistance for
innovation and research (Tsakalidis et al., 2020). These players’ cooperative efforts have the
potential to stimulate innovation, which is a major factor in determining how well an
organization performs (Hartley et al., 2013). The collective knowledge of triple helix actors can
be utilized to tackle difficult issues in times of crisis or adversity. Together, they may create
and put into practice plans for managing and enhancing organizational performance in
challenging circumstances. In order to develop policies that encourage creativity and
cooperation, the government is essential (Tsakalidis et al., 2020). Good policies can help create
an atmosphere where organizational performance can rise. Although there is great promise,
obstacles and difficulties could prevent triple helix actors from working together effectively
(Ranga et al., 2008). These could be agenda conflicts, bureaucratic roadblocks or cultural
incompatibilities. The triple helix partnerships have improved the performance of the

Triple Helix Actor

Organizational
IT enabled technology performance
Overall performance
Leadership Commitment
Financial performance
Total employee involvement
Stakeholder satisfaction
Policy planning
Communication strategies Employee engagement
Innovation Transparency
Continuous improvement Employee development and
recognition
Cross functional activities

Resilience
Figure 1.
Theoretical framework
Source(s): Author’s own work
organization. They measure and evaluate organizational performance in the context of triple Addressing the
helix collaborations. The sustainability of the strategy is thought to be whether the Kaizen
advantages of the collaborations are long-lasting or predominantly successful in the short
term (Ranga et al., 2008; Sharma et al., 2021). The prospective programs have the ability to
business
enhance the triple helix partnerships’ function in performance management within operations
organizations. The potential for good impact on organizational performance stems from
the combined dimensions of triple helix actors. However, the efficacy of these collaborations
may differ based on the particular actors involved and the situation. Based on the evidence,
and the aim of this theoretical framework, the following hypothesis has been proposed:
H1. The combined parameters of triple helix actor (industry, university and government)
are able to manage organizational performance.
The triple helix collaboration creates a dynamic atmosphere full of possibilities for learning,
varied viewpoints and common objectives. By supporting skill development, establishing
meaningful work experiences and nurturing a feeling of purpose, this collective synergy can
increase employee engagement. When employee feel their contributions are in line with
collaborative innovation objectives, they are more likely to be engaged. The coordination of
triple helix actor actions creates a setting that encourages resource sharing, innovation and
cross-sector information exchange. This synergy between collaborative efforts can result in
creative goods, improved operational procedures and a stronger competitive edge, all of
which help to boost organizational performance. Employee engagement in organizations can
be efficiently managed by combining the dimensions of the triple helix actors such as
industry, university and government (Brem and Radziwon, 2017). This idea suggests that
these three organizations can enhance employee engagement when they collaborate (Macey
and Schneider, 2008). To manage and enhance employee engagement, industry, universities
and governments might form cooperative initiatives. Each of the triple helix actors like
industry, university and government can play distinct roles and make contributions to
improving employee engagement, and it is possible to take advantage of their special
resources and competencies (Sarpong et al., 2017). There are particular channels or platforms
for knowledge exchange that are more effective, and information sharing and knowledge
transfer across various players can result in improved employee engagement (Martinelli et al.,
2008). The advantages are increased employee engagement for the organization and how
each actor in the triple helix relates to its goals (Ranga et al., 2008). The success of the triple
helix partnership in managing employee engagement may be assessed using these
indicators: policy planning, communication strategies, innovation, continuous
improvement, cross-functional activities, leadership commitment, innovation,
communication methods and resilience. In the context of employee engagement, the
possible indicators could promote and address efficient cooperation between the government,
universities and business sectors. Additionally, they could support the triple helix actors’
long-term collaborative efforts to manage and improve employee engagement (Ranga and
Etzkowitz, 2015). In line with the aim of this theoretical framework, the following hypothesis
has been proposed:
H2. The combined parameters of triple helix actor (industry, university and government)
are able to manage employee engagement.

3. Research methodology
In this study, regression analysis research methodology has been used to examine the
relationship between organizational performance and employee engagement as well as the
common parameters of triple helix actors. Regression analysis enables us to objectively
TQM evaluate how changes in the parameters indicated, such as communication, collaboration and
leadership participation across triple helix actors, affect the level of Kaizen implementation.
This approach sheds light on the effectiveness of triple helix collaborations in enhancing
Kaizen practices during the COVID-19 outbreak by analyzing the data gathered
through surveys and employee interviews. This approach provides insights into the
influence of these parameters on organizational performance and employee engagement. The
sampling, data collection and data analysis are presented in this part. This research work has
chosen organizational performance and employee engagement because they have a direct
impact on the aims of our study and are strongly supported by earlier research. These ideas
are critical in our practical environment, and their viability for inquiry was an important
consideration.

3.1 Sampling and data collection

In line with the analysis purpose, data have been collected from the respondents who
represent the triple helix actors of academia, industry and government. To offer thorough
perspectives, the selection criteria guarantee a balanced representation of each area. To
gather data, organized questionnaires are given to each actor, eliciting their opinions on
the determined parameters and how they affect Kaizen operations. Regression analysis
will be based on these responses, allowing for a thorough investigation of the connections
between triple helix collaboration, Kaizen implementation and results like organizational
performance and employee engagement. A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed,
and 175 of the responses were helpful. Due to considerable missing or incomplete values,
21 surveys were ignored. The incomplete responses were disregarded, leaving 154 valid
responses (46% response rate), which were then examined further. According to Hair
et al. (2010), this sample size was adequate to evaluate the proposed hypotheses. The
demographic data of the respondents are shown in Table 3.

Profile Classification No. of respondents Percentage

Respondents Male 96 62.33%

Female 58 37.67%
Total 154
Background Academic sector 58 37.67%
Industry sector 51 33.11%
Government sector 45 29.22%
Total 154
Age 20–24 years 24 15.58%
25–29 years 49 31.81%
30–34 years 33 21.42%
35–40 years 21 13.63%
Above 40 years 27 17.53%
Total 154
Educational qualification High school/Intermediate and under 20 12.98%
Bachelor degree 52 33.76%
Master’s degree 36 23.37%
PhD 18 11.68%
Table 3. Others 28 18.18%
Summary of Total 154
demographic details Source(s): Author’s own work
3.2 Data analysis Addressing the
In this study, data analysis has been done with IBM SPSS Statistics version 22. Powerful Kaizen
statistical tools like SPSS make it possible to explore, manipulate and analyze large data sets.
The data collected from 154 survey respondents have been entered into the SPSS program for
business
analysis. The correlation coefficient and multiple regression analysis have been used to operations
determine the relationship between the dependent and independent variables (Verma et al.,
2022; Verma et al., 2023). Thirty-five items have been collected for this study under nine
independent variables, including “IT enabled technology (ITA),” “Leadership Commitment
(LC),” “Total employee involvement (TEI),” “Policy planning (PP),” “Communication
strategies (CS),” “Innovation (INN),” “Continuous Improvement (CI),” “Cross-functional
activities (CFA),” “Resilience (RES).” The fifteen items that made up organizational
performance and employee engagement have been regarded as the dependent variable. From
1 to 5, on a Likert scale of 5 points (i.e. 1 5 strongly disagree, 3 5 neutral, and 5 5 strongly
agree), all the components have been calculated.

4. Analysis and results

4.1 Factor analysis (FA)
The various components required to create a valid and reliable scale to measure respondents’
impressions have been identified using factor analysis (Mahmood, 2020). Factor analysis has
been used to examine the relationship between common parameters of triple helix actor and
organizational performance and employee engagement. An exploratory factor analysis with
varimax rotation has been used to examine the underlying indicators and organizational
performance. If they do not meet the approval measure of 0.60 or greater, they are removed
(Kumar and Sharma, 2018). The factor loadings for all thirty-five for independent and fifteen
for dependent variables items are shown in Table 4.
To assess the normality of all the variables, a normality Shapiro–Wilk test was conducted
on individual variables. The test examined the distribution of each variable to determine
whether they followed a normal distribution. The results of the Shapiro–Wilk test indicated
that all the variables had p-values greater than 0.05, signifying that none of the variables
significantly deviated from a normal distribution. As a result, this provides support for the
acceptance of the proposed hypotheses in this study, as the data for the variables adhere to
the assumption of normality.
Hair et al. (2006) studied that if there are a number of eigenvalues and a factor loading more
than 0.5, all constructs have been regarded to have undergone significant testing. All factor
analysis loadings in this study have been found to be more than 0.60, as indicated in Table 4.
In order to accurately represent the data, a conceptual framework comprising 9 independent
and 2 dependent variables is required. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measurement and
Bartlett’s test of sphericity (BoS) have been performed to evaluate the sample size and data
appropriateness. According to Kaiser (1974) and Kumar and Sharma (2018), the BoS
significance level should be less than 0.05, and the KMO value should always be greater than
0.6 for factor analysis to be effective. Table 5 displays the results of the Bartlett’s sphericity
test and the KMO measurement.
The consistency of all measures has been assessed using the most used reliability analysis
technique, the Cronbach’s coefficient (Hair et al., 1998; Kumar et al., 2018; Jha et al., 2022a). The
Cronbach’s alpha has been calculated using the formula.
!
Σðσ yi Þ
2
K
α¼ 1
K1 ðσ x Þ2
 TQM

Table 4.
Factor analysis results
Items ITA LC TEI PP CS INN CI CFA RES OP EE

ITA 0.712–0.834
LC 0.689–0.802
TEI 0.723–0.912
PP 0.745–0.875
CS 0.695–0.901
INN 0.754–0.876
CI 0.711–0.844
CFA 0.788–0.820
RES 0.672–0.855
OP 0.706–0.903
EE 0.613–0.818
Eigen 1.745 2.222 2.675 1.968 2.987 2.656 2.886 2.348 1.988 2.942 2.664
values
Source(s): Author’s own work
 Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Addressing the
SN Items KMO Chi-square (χ 2) Sig. Kaizen
business
1 ITA 0.754 229.613 0.000
2 LC 0.826 198.253 0.000 operations
3 TEI 0.665 225.730 0.000
4 PP 0.780 178.566 0.000
5 CS 0.807 191.787 0.000
6 INN 0.762 220.654 0.000
7 CI 0.814 301.254 0.000
8 CFA 0.695 203.076 0.000
9 RES 0.708 108.223 0.000
10 OP 0.904 176.895 0.000
11 EE 0.922 102.445 0.000 Table 5.
Source(s): Author’s own work Validity statistics

where ðσ x Þ2 is the variance of component “i” for the present sample of respondents, and ðσ yi Þ2
is the variance of the observed total test scores (Anthony, 1965; Hair et al., 1998). A
measurement is regarded as reliable if its Cronbach’s alpha value is more than 0.7 (Kumar and
Sharma, 2017b; Hair et al., 2010; Kumar and Sharma, 2016). Cronbach’s alpha scores for the
present study (nine independent and two dependent) constructs are more than or equal to 0.7.
The alpha value measurement is based on dependent variables (like OP and EE) and
independent variables (triple helix actor parameters viz. ITA, LC, TEI, PP, CS, INN, CI, CFA
and RES). The reliability statistics for common parameters of triple helix actor and
organizational performance are shown in Table 6.
To identify multivariate outliers, Mahalanobis distances of the independent variable have
been calculated (Cohen et al., 2013). The results showed that all Mahalanobis distance values
less than or equal to 0.001 were found. The reliability coefficient and inter-item correlations
were then examined in order to understand the variability and dependence of the scales that
were created.

4.2 Common method bias (CMB) and non-response bias

There is a chance of CMV (common method variance) because the instrument we used to
collect the data was survey-based (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Several post-hoc statistical
techniques are employed to test for CMV, including the confirmatory factor analysis marker

SN Parameters Total items Mean Std. deviation Variance Alpha values (α)

1 ITA 3 4.1003 0.49520 0.245 0.896

2 LC 4 4.8198 0.77305 0.598 0.883
3 TEI 4 3.8059 0.62852 0.395 0.899
4 PP 3 3.9037 0.75361 0.568 0.881
5 CS 5 4.1003 0.72464 0.525 0.890
6 INN 4 4.2156 0.58140 0.338 0.915
7 CI 5 3.6003 0.60305 0.364 0.852
8 CFA 4 4.1198 0.53852 0.290 0.880
9 RES 3 3.0859 0.46361 0.215 0.875
10 OP 9 4.0937 0.77464 0.600 0.900
11 EE 6 4.2241 0.47140 0.222 0.851 Table 6.
Source(s): Author’s own work Reliability statistics
TQM technique, measured response-style technique, correlation matrix procedure and Harman’s
single-factor test. In this work, we employed two distinct techniques to evaluate the degree of
common method bias: the correlation matrix process (Lindell and Whitney, 2001) and
Harman’s one-factor. We initially used Harman’s one-factor test to solve the common method
variance problem (Podsakoff et al., 2003). There was no major common technique bias, as
evidenced by the fact that no one indicator could explain for the 50% variance threshold
when all indicators were input. Second, no exceptionally significant bivariate correlations
(r > 0.90) were discovered during the search for bivariate correlations between the constructs
in this study, suggesting that common method bias was not present (Bagozzi et al., 1991).
Using Armstrong and Overton’c (1977) method, potential non-response bias was
investigated. The data collection was divided in half based on the median return date, and
the answers of early and late respondents were contrasted. This method is justified by the fact
that late respondents are more likely than early respondents to be non-responders. On the
primary study measures, t-test analyses did not find any appreciable differences between
early and late respondents. The non-response bias seems to be unaffected as a result.

4.3 Descriptive statistics

The estimated means and standard deviations for each item have been calculated and
presented in Table 6 for comparison. The findings demonstrate that leadership commitment
(highest mean score M 5 4.819, SD 5 0.770) has a greater impact on the organizational
performance and employee engagement; resilience (lowest mean value M 5 3.085,
SD 5 0.463). Table 6 illustrates that the high standard deviation values (which signify the
dispersion in a widely distributed distribution) are a good representation of the impact of
triple helix actor parameters on organizational performance and employee engagement.

4.4 Correlation analysis

Table 7 elaborates on the relationship between 10 scale measurements and the associated
measurement scales. These items were remarkably interconnected in a good way; Table 7

Hypothesis Path coefficient (r) p-value Decision

H1 H1a(ITA > OP) 0.651 <0.01 Supported

H1b(LC > OP) 0.722 <0.01 Supported
H1c(TEI > OP) 0.613 <0.01 Supported
H1d(PP > OP) 0.712 <0.01 Supported
H1e(CS > OP) 0.664 <0.01 Supported
H1f(INN > OP) 0.581 <0.01 Supported
H1g(CI > OP) 0.651 <0.01 Supported
H1h(CFA > OP) 0.634 <0.01 Supported
H1i(RES > OP) 0.582 <0.01 Supported
H2 H2a(ITA > EE) 0.705 <0.01 Supported
H2b(LC > EE) 0.772 <0.01 Supported
H2c(TEI > EE) 0.580 <0.01 Supported
H2d(PP > EE) 0.672 <0.01 Supported
H2e(CS > EE) 0.592 <0.01 Supported
H2f(INN > EE) 0.633 <0.01 Supported
H2g(CI > EE) 0.518 <0.01 Supported
H2h(CFA > EE) 0.662 <0.01 Supported
H2i(RES > EE) 0.554 <0.01 Supported
Table 7. Note(s): Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Parameter estimations Source(s): Author’s own work
elaborates on the relationship between ten scale measurements and the corresponding Addressing the
measurement scales. Kaizen
There is no collinearity between the triple helix actor parameters and organizational
performance, as further evidenced in Table 7, that all scaled item values were less than 0.90
business
(Kumar and Sharma, 2018; Hair et al., 1998). The correlations between the variables show that operations
the measuring scales utilized in this study were valid and reliable (Barclay et al., 1995; Hair
et al., 1998; Kumar and Sharma, 2018). The results of leadership commitment are crucial to
both outcomes that are organizational performance and employee engagement.

4.5 Multiple regression analysis (MRA)

MRA has been utilized to evaluate the association between independent and dependent
variables (Ul Hassan et al., 2012). In this study, two dependent variables and nine
independent variables have been taken into account, and the sample size has been adequate
to carry out this analysis. The F-statistics result (99.995) indicated that the multiple
regression coefficients have been significant at the 1% level (Sig. F 5 0:000), which
confirmed the model’s fitness. The Durbin–Watson number, that is 2.11, falls within the
required range of (1.5<D < 2.5). The statistics showed no autocorrelation problems as a
result. All tolerance indicators exhibited values more than 0.1, VIF (variation inflation
factors) values between 1 and 10 and the data also show no evidence of multicollinearity
(independent variables).
In this study, histograms and conventional P-P plots have been used to check the
authenticity of the variables, and the results were found to be normal. The homoscedasticity,
or consistency, of the error terms has also been illustrated using a scatter plot (Arumugam
et al., 2008; Kumar and Sharma, 2018). Building partial regression graphs necessitates a linear
relationship between the dependent and independent variables (Arumugam et al., 2008;
Kumar and Sharma, 2018). This study found a statistically significant relationship between
triple helix actor parameters with organizational performance and employee engagement.
Table 8 presents an examination of the regression analysis’s results.
In this analysis model, the two dependent variables (organizational performance and
employee engagement) have multiple regression coefficients (R) of 0.825 and 0.855,
respectively, indicating a high degree of predictability. The coefficient of determination (R2)
value is 0.815 and 0.795, as shown in Table 8. It was then made clear how the triple helix
actor model could successfully account for 81.5% of the dependent variables
(organizational performance) and 79.5% of the employee engagement. Now, from
MRA, the F-ratio verifies that the aggregate regression model matches the data.
F (9, 123) 5 99.995, the sum of squares 81.028 and 79.824 which indicates the variation
attributed to the error, and p levels indicate that the independent variables, that is triple
helix actors (ITA, LV, TEI, PP, CS, INN, CI, CFA, RES), predict the dependent variable
(organizational performance and employee engagement) statistically, evidence that the
regression model fits well with the data.
The results are presented in Table 8; the correlation and significance findings indicate that
the triple helix actor parameters are positively and strongly associated with organizational
performance and employee engagement.

5. Discussion and findings

The present study explores the application of Kaizen principles within the triple helix
framework to address challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Through an
extensive literature review, nine common parameters under the triple helix framework were
identified: IT-enabled technology, leadership commitment, total employee involvement,
TQM Dependent Independent variable Adjusted
variable (constant) R R2 β F Sig. R2

OP ITA 0.825a 0.815 0.012 99.995 0.000*** 0.806

LC 0.065 0.000***
TEI 0.084 0.000***
PP 0.064 0.003*
CS 0.061 0.002**
INN 0.085 0.000***
CI 0.023 0.000***
CFA 0.051 0.000***
RES 0.087 0.000***
EE ITA 0.855a 0.795 0.074 99.995 0.003* 0.788
LC 0.065 0.002**
TEI 0.041 0.000***
PP 0.021 0.000***
CS 0.074 0.000***
INN 0.099 0.000***
CI 0.048 0.000***
CFA 0.089 0.000***
RES 0.012 0.000***
Table 8. Note(s): aPredictors: (constant), ITA, LV, TEI, PP, CS, INN, CI, CFA, RES
Regression analysis *,**, *** Correlations are significant at the 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 levels (2-tailed), respectively
matrices Source(s): Author’s own work

policy planning, communication strategies, innovation, continuous improvement, cross-

functional activities and resilience. Through a conceptual framework, these parameters
formed the foundation for examining their impact on dependent variables, namely,
organizational performance and employee engagement. The regression analysis results
showed that an insightful patterns in the relationships between the common parameters of
triple helix actor and the dependent variables. Notably, the results show that leadership
commitment (LC) emerges as a very significant component, having a big impact on employee
engagement as well as organizational performance. This emphasizes the critical role that
committed leadership had in the triple helix collaboration’s successful application of Kaizen
concepts throughout the pandemic.
The study’s postulated hypotheses also receive strong support from the findings. The
statistics support the claim that the parameters of the triple helix actors taken together can
control organizational performance. Organizational performance is improved through the
interaction of IT-enabled technology, communication tactics, innovation and other factors.
This enables businesses to adapt and succeed even under difficult circumstances. The idea
that the combined characteristics of the triple helix actors can manage employee engagement
successfully is also highly supported. Employee engagement is enhanced by common
parameters under triple helix actors. This supports the idea that, especially amid
unanticipated upheavals, a collaborative atmosphere, as exemplified by the triple helix
concept, fosters a sense of ownership and purpose among employees.
The results not only support the theoretical underpinnings provided by the common
parameters of triple helix actor, but they also clarify the practical implications for triple helix
actor. Organizations are urged to engage in leadership development and foster a culture of
continuous improvement through the focus on leadership commitment. As a reflection of the
triple helix collaborative ethos, it emphasizes the interdependence of leadership’s influence on
performance outcomes and employee engagement.
5.1 Theoretical implications Addressing the
The study has addressed some theoretical implications and examined Kaizen business Kaizen
processes and the function of triple helix actors in relation to operational performance and
employee engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the context of Kaizen business
business
processes and their influence on operational performance and employee engagement during operations
the COVID-19 outbreak, the triple helix concept has been deployed and measured. In order to
handle business difficulties during a crisis, this research helps to integrate several disciplines
from the government, corporate and academic sectors. In order to enhance operational
performance and employee engagement, businesses and government bodies can benefit from
the knowledge, research findings and best practices that universities can impart (Maon et al.,
2009). The knowledge of innovation ecosystems and their function in adjusting to and
prospering in disruptive events such as the COVID-19 pandemic is enriched by this study.
According to Boer et al. (2017), the idea of Kaizen promotes organizational learning and
adaptation in times of crisis for both operational performance and employee engagement. By
analyzing the cooperation and coordination of triple helix actors and their effects on
corporate operations and employee engagement, the study advances network theory.
Resilience theory provides the theoretical framework for comprehending how Kaizen
practices and cooperation amongst triple helix actors support organizational resilience in the
event of a pandemic. The psychological contract between employers and employees is
impacted by the modifications to business processes during COVID-19 (Lopez and Fuiks,
2021). The application of change management theories is observed in the execution of Kaizen
activities and additional operational modifications. During a crisis, the relationships between
government, business and academic actors change, and these dynamics have an impact on an
organization’s operational effectiveness and employee engagement. It offers a deeper
comprehension of how Kaizen methods and the triple helix collaboration affect employee
engagement and business operations in the difficult COVID-19 outbreak.

5.2 Practical implications

Numerous real-world applications can be drawn from the study on Kaizen business
operations and the triple helix players’ roles in operational performance and employee
engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. In times of crisis, such as the COVID-19
pandemic, organizations employ Kaizen principles and practices to improve operational
performance. It is also possible to take proactive measures to encourage cooperation between
government, business and academic institutions. The useful tactic that academic institutions
and research centers can employ to address operational difficulties with enterprises and
governmental organizations is sharing their knowledge, research findings and experience
(Boardman and Gray, 2010). By collaborating with outside partners, the organizations
actively participate in innovation ecosystems and contribute to them, and they can gain
tangible advantages from doing so (Yaghmaie and Vanhaverbeke, 2020). The strategies can
help firms encourage a continual learning and adaption culture and support Kaizen programs
in the face of disruptive events. To increase their operational resilience, the organizations
skillfully manage their reliance on outside resources, including alliances with governmental
and academic institutions (Stewart et al., 2009). Organizations can use employee engagement
initiatives and strategies that are in line with Kaizen principles – to encourage and assist their
workers in times of crisis. During a crisis, the effective implementation of Kaizen principles
and other operational improvements can be ensured by using change management
approaches to retain employee involvement. In order to solve the issues raised by the COVID-
19 pandemic, organizations can benefit from increased cooperation and communication
between triple helix actors through the use of management practice tools and platforms.
Practical business continuity planning is influenced by the study’s findings, which make
TQM firms more resilient to unforeseen events and crises (Sahebjamnia et al., 2015). Organizations
can enhance their operational resilience by using certain measures that enhance their ability
to adjust and withstand unforeseen obstacles. The study provides actionable guidance for
organizations, universities, government entities and other stakeholders to navigate and
respond effectively to crises like the COVID-19 outbreak while maintaining high levels of
employee engagement and improving operational performance. It also offers policy
recommendations for governments and policymakers to support organizations in
enhancing their operational performance and employee engagement during crises.

5.3 Societal implications

The paper discusses Kaizen corporate practices, and it has important ramifications for
society given the part triple helix players had in the COVID-19 pandemic. During and after the
COVID-19 pandemic, the triple helix players’ cooperation and the implementation of Kaizen
principles foster innovation and economic progress at the societal level. Organizations that
work to keep and generate jobs during hard times can benefit society by improving
operational performance and employee engagement (Markos and Sridevi, 2010; Bakker et al.,
2007). The emphasis on employee engagement and Kaizen has an effect on the workforce’s
overall resilience, which has wider consequences for society well-being (Tafvelin et al., 2019).
As part of the triple helix concept, university-industry partnership fosters education and
workforce development to address changing demands of the labor market in the post-
pandemic society. Adopting resource-efficient operations and sustainable practices has
societal ramifications in terms of resource conservation and environmental impact (Kumar
et al., 2020). In order to address social inequities in employment and opportunity, the pursuit
of Kaizen practices and triple helix collaboration help foster inclusivity and equity in the
workforce (Shkabatur et al., 2022). Particularly during a public health emergency such as the
COVID-19 pandemic, the organizations’ actions help society by enhancing employee
engagement, work satisfaction and overall well-being (Capone et al., 2022). Organizations
working with the government and academia help create communities that are more resilient
to disasters and can bounce back from them (Gil-Rivas and Kilmer, 2016). Additionally,
public-private partnerships can be strengthened and contribute to the achievement of social
benefits through improved employee engagement and operational success (Brinkerhoff and
Brinkerhoff, 2011). By improving societal resilience and adaptability to future crises, the
sharing of knowledge and best practices from this study has a positive impact on other
organizations and industries (Koronis and Ponis, 2018). Governments and legislators can
implement programs and legislation that promote and encourage businesses to embrace
triple helix cooperation and Kaizen concepts for the good of society. The study’s conclusions
can be used to increase society’s readiness for unforeseen events and emergencies in the
future. It draws attention to the potential to support a number of societal advancements,
including economic growth, workforce resilience, equity, sustainability and the creation and
retention of jobs.

6. Conclusions, limitations and future scope

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, this research has shed important light on the dynamic
interaction between the three actors that make up the triple helix: academia, industry and
government. It has also demonstrated how to successfully apply Kaizen concepts in such
situations. This study has offered a comprehensive view of how collaboration among the triple
helix actors can improve organizational performance and elevate employee engagement during
the challenging times. This happened by thoroughly examining nine common parameters,
including IT-enabled technology, leadership commitment, total employee involvement, policy
planning, communication strategies, innovation, continuous improvement, cross-functional Addressing the
activities and resilience. The study emphasizes how important it was for triple helix actors – the Kaizen
public sector, private sector and academic institutions – to handle Kaizen business practices
during the COVID-19 pandemic. In conclusion, the importance of this team-based approach is
business
emphasized. In addition to highlighting the particular Kaizen techniques that were successful in operations
preserving or improving corporate operations, the study explores how firms that adopted
Kaizen principles showed resilience and adaptation during the epidemic. Additionally, it
concludes that information exchange and knowledge transfer amongst triple helix actors were
crucial in enabling Kaizen practices and offers suggestions on how governments might
encourage the adoption of Kaizen and cooperation amongst triple helix actors in times of crisis.
It provides useful advice to companies wishing to apply Kaizen concepts to their crisis
management procedures.
The outcomes of the regression analysis indisputably highlight the critical part played by
leadership commitment as a driver of organizational performance. Leadership commitment
has become a key component in establishing a culture of continuous improvement and
innovation, showing a significant impact on organizational performance and employee
engagement. This emphasizes the value of visionary leaders who motivate their people to
adapt, innovate and succeed in the face of difficulty in addition to navigating uncertainty.
The empirical support for the stated hypotheses also increases the conviction in the triple
helix framework’s ability to effectively manage employee engagement and organizational
success. The collaborative synergy between triple helix actor, led by shared standards,
demonstrates how growth is still possible even under the most challenging conditions. This
work creates possibilities for further investigation. Studies conducted over a longer period of
time could give information on the longevity of Kaizen techniques and their effects on
organizational performance and employee engagement. A fuller knowledge of the overall
impact of the indicated characteristics could be gained by examining the methods through
which they interact and affect one another.
The study’s findings may not be applicable globally and may be context-specific, which is
why it is important to talk about the limitations of extrapolating the results to other sectors or
geographical areas, the accessibility of the data, particularly in light of the COVID-19
epidemic, when access to the data may have been limited, the research design’s limitations,
such as the methodology’s restrictions or the possibility of bias in the data gathering. It
acknowledges that the study’s foundation is a certain period of the COVID-19 outbreak.
Future studies can examine the long-term effects of the Kaizen practices used during the
epidemic and determine whether the modifications remain or result in long-term gains.
Future research can look into prospects for comparative studies between various industries
or geographical areas to confirm the efficacy of Kaizen methods and triple helix
collaborations in various settings. Future studies should examine how technology
interacts with triple helix partnerships and Kaizen concepts in light of the pandemic’s
faster adoption of technology. It looks into how sustainable Kaizen techniques are outside of
times of crisis and whether they can support long-term sustainability in company operations.
After that, the paper goes on to discuss how to design policies and offer suggestions to
governments on how to foster the adoption of Kaizen both during and after crises.

References
Alsmairat, M.A., El Baz, J. and Al-Ma’aitah, N. (2023), “Investigating the performance of quality
management practices induced by top management commitment and Kaizen initiatives:
evidence from Jordanian public hospitals in the aftermath of COVID-19”, International Journal
of Quality and Reliability Management, pp. 1-23, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.
1108/ijqrm-11-2022-0316.
TQM Amah, E. and Ahiauzu, A. (2013), “Employee involvement and organizational effectiveness”, Journal
of Management Development, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 661-674, doi: 10.1108/jmd-09-2010-0064.
Anthony, R.N. (1965), Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis, Graduate School of
Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402, doi: 10.2307/3150783.
Arumugam, V., Ooi, K.B. and Fong, T.C. (2008), “TQM practices and quality management
performance: an investigation of their relationship using data from ISO 9001: 2000 firms in
Malaysia”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 636-650.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L.W. (1991), “Assessing construct validity in organizational
research”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-458, doi: 10.2307/2393203.
Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2007), “Job resources boost work
engagement, particularly when job demands are high”, Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 274-284, doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274.
Barclay, M.J., Smith, C.W. and Watts, R.L. (1995), “The determinants of corporate leverage and
dividend policies”, The Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 4-19.
Berger, A. (1997), “Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizational designs”,
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 110-117, doi: 10.1108/09576069710165792.
Biswas, T.K., Das, M.C., Haque, Z. and Ibrahim, B. (2020), “Selection of the barriers of supply chain
management in Indian manufacturing sectors due to COVID-19 impacts”, Operational Research
in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.31181/
oresta2030301b.
Boardman, C. and Gray, D. (2010), “The new science and engineering management: cooperative
research centers as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations”, The Journal of
Technology Transfer, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 445-459, doi: 10.1007/s10961-010-9162-y.
Boer, H.,Berger, A., Chapman, R. and Gertsen, F. (Eds) (2017), in CI Changes from Suggestion Box to
Organisational Learning: Continuous Improvement in Europe and Australia, Routledge.
Brem, A. and Radziwon, A. (2017), “Efficient Triple Helix collaboration fostering local niche
innovation projects–A case from Denmark”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 123, pp. 130-141, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.002.
Brinkerhoff, D.W. and Brinkerhoff, J.M. (2011), “Public–private partnerships: perspectives on
purposes, publicness, and good governance”, Public Administration and Development, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 2-14, doi: 10.1002/pad.584.
Brunet, A.P. and New, S. (2003), “Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1426-1446, doi: 10.1108/
01443570310506704.
Cai, Y. and Amaral, M. (2022), “Triple Helix model of innovation: from boundaries to frontiers”, Triple
Helix, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 107-117, doi: 10.1163/21971927-12340007.
Capone, V., Borrelli, R., Marino, L. and Schettino, G. (2022), “Mental well-being and job satisfaction of
hospital physicians during COVID-19: relationships with efficacy beliefs, organizational
support, and organizational non-technical skills”, International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.3390/ijerph19063734.
Citybabu, G. and Yamini, S. (2022), “The implementation of Lean Six Sigma framework in the Indian
context: a review and suggestions for future research”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 1823-1859, doi: 10.1108/tqm-10-2021-0291.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2013), Research Methods in Education, Routledge, New
York, NY.
Criado, J.I. and Gil-Garcia, J.R. (2019), “Creating public value through smart technologies and Addressing the
strategies: from digital services to artificial intelligence and beyond”, International Journal of
Public Sector Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 438-450, doi: 10.1108/ijpsm-07-2019-0178. Kaizen
Demirtas, E.A., Gultekin, O.S. and Uskup, C. (2022), “A case study for surgical mask production
business
during the COVID-19 pandemic: continuous improvement with Kaizen and 5S applications”, operations
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 679-703, doi: 10.1108/ijlss-02-
2022-0025.
Dinka, S.T. (2021), “Kaizen implementation and its challenges in small and medium manufacturing
firms: a case of Woliso Town, Ethiopia”, Jurnal Perspektif Pembiayaan Dan Pembangunan
Daerah, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 199-208, doi: 10.22437/ppd.v9i2.10496.
Dioputra, S., Wahidin, D., Iriantara, Y. and Warta, W. (2022), “Academic information system
management to improve service quality to students during the covid-19 pandemicat
universities in jambi province”, International Journal of Educational Research and Social
Sciences (IJERSC), Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 1165-1169, doi: 10.51601/ijersc.v3i3.385.
Dragolea, L.L. and Topor, D.I. (2022), “Perspectives on implementing kaizen method for the
improvement of academic online teaching”, Annales Universitatis Apulensis-Series Oeconomica,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 70-80.
Duran, V. and Mertol, H. (2020), “Kaizen perspective in curriculum development”, Asian Journal of
Education and Training, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 384-396, doi: 10.20448/journal.522.2020.63.384.396.
Ekhsan, M., Parashakti, R.D., Religia, Y. and Moulana, I. (2023), “Kaizen culture and employee
performance in the post-COVID-19 era: does servant leadership mediate in the model?”, Asian
Journal of Management, Entrepreneurship and Social Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 536-550.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003), “Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of university-industry-government
relations”, Social Science Information, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 293-337, doi: 10.1177/
05390184030423002.
Galvao, A., Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C., Ferreira, J. and Ratten, V. (2019), “Triple helix and its
evolution: a systematic literature review”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 812-833, doi: 10.1108/jstpm-10-2018-0103.
Ganguly, R.K. and Chakraborty, S.K. (2021), “Integrated approach in municipal solid waste
management in COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives of a developing country like India in a global
scenario”, Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1016/
j.cscee.2021.100087.
George, M., Tung, V.N.D., Truc, L.P.T., Ngoc, N.M. and Nhi, L.K.Y. (2022), “Kaizen applications in
fashion and textile industries”, in Lean Supply Chain Management in Fashion and Textile
Industry, Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, pp. 145-175.
Gil-Rivas, V. and Kilmer, R.P. (2016), “Building community capacity and fostering disaster resilience”,
Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 12, pp. 1318-1332, doi: 10.1002/jclp.22281.
Gonzalez-Aleu, F., Garza-Gutierrez, D., Granda-Gutierrez, E.M.A. and Vazquez-Hernandez, J. (2022),
“Increasing forklift time utilization in a food equipment manufacturing plant with a kaizen
event”, International Scientific-Technical Conference Manufacturing, Springer International
Publishing, Cham, pp. 182-193.
Gumasing, M.J.J., Aniban, J.G., Catigum, J.M., Dy, D.L., James, C.L. and Pamandanan, T.A.T. (2021),
“Effects of academic stress on the academic performance of students: a case study during
pandemic”, Proceedings of the Second Asia Pacific International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Operations Management Surakarta, Indonesia, September 14-16, 2021.
Gupta, S. and Jain, S.K. (2014), “The 5S and kaizen concept for overall improvement of the
organisation: a case study”, International Journal of Lean Enterprise Research, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 22-40, doi: 10.1504/ijler.2014.062280.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate data analysis, 5th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
TQM Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Vol. 6.
Hao, F., Xiao, Q. and Chon, K. (2020), “COVID-19 and China’s hotel industry: impacts, a disaster
management framework, and post-pandemic agenda”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 90, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102636.
Hartley, J., Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2013), “Collaborative innovation: a viable alternative to market
competition and organizational entrepreneurship”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 73 No. 6,
pp. 821-830, doi: 10.1111/puar.12136.
Helmold, M., Yılmaz, A.K., Flouris, T., Winner, T., Cvetkoska, V. and Dathe, T. (2022), Lean
Management, Kaizen, Kata and Keiretsu: Best-Practice Examples and Industry Insights from
Japanese Concepts, Springer Nature, Cham.
Hundal, G.S., Thiyagarajan, S., Alduraibi, M., Laux, C.M., Furterer, S.L., Cudney, E.A. and Antony, J.
(2022), “The impact of Lean Six Sigma practices on supply chain resilience during COVID 19
disruption: a conceptual framework”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
Vol. 33 Nos 15-16, pp. 1913-1931, doi: 10.1080/14783363.2021.2014313.
James, S., Liu, Z., White, G.R. and Samuel, A. (2023), “Introducing ethical theory to the triple helix
model: supererogatory acts in crisis innovation”, Technovation, Vol. 126, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1016/j.
technovation.2023.102832.
Janji
c, V., Bogi
cevi
c, J. and Krsti
c, B. (2019), “Kaizen as a global business philosophy for continuous
improvement of business performance”, Ekonomika, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 13-25, doi: 10.5937/
ekonomika1902013j.
Jauhar, S.K., Pant, M., Kumar, V., Sharma, N.K. and Verma, P. (2021), “Supply chain and the
sustainability management: selection of suppliers for sustainable operations in the
manufacturing industry”, in Chapter 4, Sustainability in Industry 4.0: Challenges and
Remedies, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, pp. 75-93.
Jha, A., Sharma, R.R.K., Kumar, V. and Verma, P. (2022a), “Designing supply chain performance
system: a strategic study on Indian manufacturing sector”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 66-88, doi: 10.1108/scm-05-2020-0198.
Jha, A., Sharma, R.R.K. and Kumar, V. (2022b), “Critical success factors for open-source innovation in
pharma industry: learnings from two case studies”, The TQM Journal, pp. 1-22, Vol. Ahead-of-
Print, No. Ahead-of-Print, doi: 10.1108/TQM-08-2021-0223.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974), “An index of factorial simplicity”, Psychometrika, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 31-36.
Kenge, R. and Khan, Z. (2023), “A Lean Six Sigma case study to improve the manufacturing process
affected during COVID-19”, International Journal of Quality Engineering and Technology, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 20-33, doi: 10.1504/ijqet.2023.129120.
Khan, I.S., Kauppila, O., Iancu, B., Jurmu, M., Jurvansuu, M., Pirttikangas, S., Lilius, J., Koho, M.,
Marjakangas, E. and Majava, J. (2022), “Triple helix collaborative innovation and value co-
creation in an Industry 4.0 context”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 125-147, doi: 10.1504/ijil.2022.125029.
Koronis, E. and Ponis, S. (2018), “Better than before: the resilient organization in crisis mode”, Journal
of Business Strategy, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 32-42, doi: 10.1108/jbs-10-2016-0124.
Kumar, J. (2021), “Lean and kaizen application in the healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic”, 11th
Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management,
pp. 5748-5753.
Kumar, V. and Sharma, R.R.K. (2016), “Relating left/right brained dominance types of leaders to TQM
focus: a preliminary study”, Sixth International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Operations Management (IEOM) held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 8-10, 2016,
pp. 814-823.
Kumar, V. and Sharma, R.R.K. (2017a), “An empirical investigation of critical success factors Addressing the
influencing the successful TQM implementation for firms with different strategic orientation”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 1530-1550, doi: 10. Kaizen
1108/ijqrm-09-2016-0157. business
Kumar, V. and Sharma, R.R.K. (2017b), “Relating management problem solving styles of leaders to operations
TQM focus: an empirical study”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 218-239, doi: 10.1108/tqm-
01-2016-0002.
Kumar, V. and Sharma, R.R.K. (2018), “Leadership styles and their relationship with TQM focus for
Indian firms: an empirical investigation”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1063-1088, doi: 10.1108/ijppm-03-2017-0071.
Kumar, V., Sharma, R.R.K., Verma, P., Lai, K.K. and Chang, Y.H. (2018), “Mapping the TQM
Implementation: an empirical investigation of the Cultural Dimensions with different strategic
Orientation in Indian firms”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 8,
pp. 3081-3116, doi: 10.1108/bij-06-2017-0150.
Kumar, V., Verma, P., Mangla, S.K., Mishra, A., Dababrata, C., Hsu, S.C. and Lai, K.K. (2020), “Barriers
to total quality management for sustainability in Indian organizations”, International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 37 Nos 6/7, pp. 1007-1031, doi: 10.1108/ijqrm-10-
2019-0312.
Kumar, S., Dhingra, A.K. and Singh, B. (2021), “Application of lean-kaizen concept for improving
quality system of manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering:
Theory, Applications and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1-6.
Kumar, U., Kaswan, M.S., Kumar, R., Chaudhary, R., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Rathi, R. and Joshi, R. (2023a),
“A systematic review of Industry 5.0 from main aspects to the execution status”, The TQM
Journal, pp. 1-24, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print doi: 10.1108/TQM-06-2023-0183.
Kumar, N., Singh, A., Gupta, S., Kaswan, M.S. and Singh, M. (2023b), “Integration of Lean
manufacturing and Industry 4.0: a bibliometric analysis”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 1-25,
Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/tqm-07-2022-0243.
Kumar, V., Cudney, E., Mittal, A., Jha, A., Yadav, N. and Owad, A.A. (2023c), “Mapping quality
performance through lean six sigma and new product development attributes”, The TQM
Journal, pp. 1-24, Vol. Ahead-of-Print, No. Ahead-of-Print doi: 10.1108/TQM-11-2022-0324.
Kumar, V., Mittal, A., Sharma, N.K. and Verma, P. (2023d), “The role of IoT and IIoT in supplier/
producer and customer continuous improvement interface”, in Digital Transformation and
Industry 4.0 for Sustainable Supply Chain Performance, Springer Nature, Switzerland.
Kumar, V., Mittal, A., Verma, P. and Antony, J. (2023e), “Mapping the TQM implementation
approaches and their impact on leadership in Indian tire manufacturing industry”, The TQM
Journal, pp. 1-28, Vol. Ahead-of-Print, No. Ahead-of-Print doi: 10.1108/TQM-08-2022-0258.
Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), “Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: an integrative view and empirical examination”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 179-228.
Lerman, L.V., Gerstlberger, W., Lima, M.F. and Frank, A.G. (2021), “How governments, universities,
and companies contribute to renewable energy development? A municipal innovation policy
perspective of the triple helix”, Energy Research and Social Science, Vol. 71, pp. 1-11.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in crosssectional
research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121, doi: 10.1037//0021-
9010.86.1.114.
Lopez, P.D. and Fuiks, K. (2021), “How COVID-19 is shifting psychological contracts within
organizations”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 Nos 1-2, pp. 45-49, doi: 10.
1017/iop.2021.59.
TQM Lu, L., Peng, J., Wu, J. and Lu, Y. (2021), “Perceived impact of the Covid-19 crisis on SMEs in different
industry sectors: evidence from Sichuan, China”, International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, Vol. 55, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102085.
Maarof, M.G. and Mahmud, F. (2016), “A review of contributing factors and challenges in
implementing kaizen in small and medium enterprises”, Procedia Economics and Finance,
Vol. 35, pp. 522-531, doi: 10.1016/s2212-5671(16)00065-4.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30, doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x.
Mahmood, W.A.Q.A.S. (2020), “The influence of total quality management, school climate and job
satisfaction on school performance in government schools in Pakistan”, PhD Dissertation,
Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Vanhamme, J. (2009), “Developing supply chains in disaster relief operations
through cross-sector socially oriented collaborations: a theoretical model”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 149-164, doi: 10.1108/13598540910942019.
Markos, S. and Sridevi, M.S. (2010), “Employee engagement: the key to improving performance”,
International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 12, pp. 89-96, doi: 10.5539/ijbm.
v5n12p89.
Martinelli, A., Meyer, M. and Von Tunzelmann, N. (2008), “Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A
case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized,
research-oriented university”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 259-283,
doi: 10.1007/s10961-007-9031-5.
McDermott, O., Antony, J. and Douglas, J. (2021), “Exploring the use of operational excellence
methodologies in the era of COVID-19: perspectives from leading academics and practitioners”,
The TQM Journal, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1647-1665, doi: 10.1108/tqm-01-2021-0016.
Mishra, M.N., Mohan, A. and Sarkar, A. (2021), “Role of lean six sigma in the Indian MSMEs during
COVID-19”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 697-717, doi: 10.1108/
ijlss-10-2020-0176.
Mitra Debnath, R. (2019), “Enhancing customer satisfaction using Kaizen: a case study of Imperial
Tobacco Company (ITC)”, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 277-293, doi: 10.1108/jamr-01-2018-0009.
Mittal, A., Gupta, P., Kumar, V. and Verma, P. (2021), “The role of barriers to TQM success: a case
study of deming awarded industry”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management, Vol. 1, pp. 1-13, Vol. Ahead-of-Print, No. Ahead-of-Print doi: 10.1504/IJPQM.
2021.10044426.
Mittal, A., Kumar, V., Verma, P. and Singh, A. (2022), “Evaluation of organizational variables of quality
4.0 in digital transformation: the study of an Indian manufacturing company”, The TQM Journal,
Vol. 36, pp. 1-26, Vol. Ahead-of-Print, No. Ahead-of-Print doi: 10.1108/TQM-07-2022-0236.
Mittal, A., Gupta, P., Kumar, V. and Chan, C.C.K. (2023b), “The application of quality control circle to
improve the PQCDSM quality parameters: a case study”, International Journal of Productivity
and Quality Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 102-119, doi: 10.1504/ijpqm.2021.10046628.
Mittal, A., Sachan, S., Kumar, V., Vardhan, S., Verma, P., Kaswan, M.S. and Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2023c),
“Essential organizational variables for the Implementation of Quality 4.0: empirical evidence
from the Indian furniture industry”, The TQM Journal, pp. 1-25, Vol. Ahead-of-Print, No.
Ahead-of-Print, doi: 10.1108/TQM-06-2023-0189.
Morrar, R. and Arman, H. (2020), “The transformational role of a third actor within the Triple Helix
Model–the case of Palestine”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research,
pp. 1-21, Vol. Ahead-of-Print, No. Ahead-of-Print, doi: 10.1080/13511610.2020.1828045.
Moustakas, L. and Robrade, D. (2022), “The challenges and realities of e-learning during COVID-19:
the case of university sport and physical education”, Challenges, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.
3390/challe13010009.
Murugesan, V.S., Sequeira, A.H., Jauhar, S.K. and Kumar, V. (2020), “Sustainable postal service design: Addressing the
integrating quality function deployment from the customer perspective”, International Journal
of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 494-505, doi: 10.1007/ Kaizen
s13198-019-00906-6. business
Naddeo, A., Califano, R. and Fiorillo, I. (2021), “Identifying factors that influenced wellbeing and operations
learning effectiveness during the sudden transition into eLearning due to the COVID-19
lockdown”, Work, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 45-67, doi: 10.3233/wor-203358.
Nayak, R. (2022), in Lean Supply Chain Management in Fashion and Textile Industry, Springer Nature.
Nuere, S. and De Miguel, L. (2021), “The digital/technological connection with COVID-19: an
unprecedented challenge in university teaching”, Technology, Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 931-943, doi: 10.1007/s10758-020-09454-6.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P. and Lee, J.Y. (2003), “The mismeasure of man
(agement) and its implications for leadership research”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 615-656, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.08.002.
Pradhan, S., Ghose, D. and Shabbiruddin (2020), “Present and future impact of COVID-19 in the
renewable energy sector: a case study on India”, Energy Sources, A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects, pp. 1-11, Vol. Ahead-of-Print, No. Ahead-of-Print, doi: 10.1080/15567036.
2020.1801902.
Ranga, M. and Etzkowitz, H. (2015), “Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation
policy and practice in the Knowledge Society”, in Entrepreneurship and Knowledge Exchange,
1st ed., Routledge, Taylor and Francis, Oxfordshire, England, UK, pp. 117-158.
Ranga, L.M., Miedema, J. and Jorna, R. (2008), “Enhancing the innovative capacity of small firms
through triple helix interactions: challenges and opportunities”, Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 697-716, doi: 10.1080/09537320802426408.
Sahebjamnia, N., Torabi, S.A. and Mansouri, S.A. (2015), “Integrated business continuity and disaster
recovery planning: towards organizational resilience”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 242 No. 1, pp. 261-273, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.09.055.
Saleem, M., Khan, N., Hameed, S. and Abbas, M. (2012), “An analysis of relationship between Total
quality management and Kaizen”, Life Science Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 31-40.
Sarpong, D., AbdRazak, A., Alexander, E. and Meissner, D. (2017), “Organizing practices of university,
industry and government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a hybrid triple helix model
of innovation”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 123, pp. 142-152, doi: 10.1016/
j.techfore.2015.11.032.
Shah, S. (2020), “Economy Impact of Covid-19-A Case Study of India”, Master’s thesis, Caucasus
International University.
Sharma, N.K., Chen, W.K., Lai, K.K. and Kumar, V. (2021), Sustainability Performance Measurement
Methods, Indicators and Challenges: A Review” Chapter 9, Book Titled “Sustainability in
Industry 4.0: Challenges and Remedies, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Florida, pp. 179-199.
Sharma, S., Malik, A., Sharma, C., Batra, I., Kaswan, M.S. and Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2023), “Adoption of
industry 4.0 in different sectors: a structural review using natural language processing”,
International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), Vol. ahead-of-print
No. ahead-of-print, pp. 1-23, doi: 10.1007/s12008-023-01550-y.
Shkabatur, J., Bar-El, R. and Schwartz, D. (2022), “Innovation and entrepreneurship for sustainable
development: lessons from Ethiopia”, Progress in Planning, Vol. 160, pp. 1-37, doi: 10.1016/j.
progress.2021.100599.
Silvestre, S.E.M., Chaicha, V.D.P., Merino, J.C.A. and Nallusamy, S. (2022), “Implementation of a Lean
Manufacturing and SLP-based system for a footwear company”, Production, Vol. 32, pp. 1-10,
doi: 10.1590/0103-6513.20210072.
Singh, S. (2022), “Process improvement approach to transform online business education in the post-COVID
world”, Journal of Learning for Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 363-369, doi: 10.56059/jl4d.v9i2.693.
TQM Singh, M. and Rathi, R. (2023), “Implementation of environmental lean six sigma framework in an
Indian medical equipment manufacturing unit: a case study”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 36,
pp. 1-30, Vol. Ahead-of-Print, No. Ahead-of-Print, doi: 10.1108/tqm-05-2022-0159.
Singh, J. and Singh, H. (2009), “Kaizen philosophy: a review of literature”, IUP Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 51-72.
Singh, M., Adebayo, S.O., Saini, M. and Singh, J. (2021), “Indian government E-learning initiatives in
response to COVID-19 crisis: a case study on online learning in Indian higher education
system”, Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 7569-7607, doi: 10.1007/
s10639-021-10585-1.
Sreedas, E.N. and Emmatty, J.F. (2022), “Performance improvement through kaizen and failure mode
and effect analysis (FMEA) in an academic institution”, Performance improvement through
Kaizen and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) in an academic institution (February 24,
2022). Proceedings of the International Conference on Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
(ICAME 21).
Stewart, G.T., Kolluru, R. and Smith, M. (2009), “Leveraging public-private partnerships to improve
community resilience in times of disaster”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 343-364, doi: 10.1108/09600030910973724.
Su
arez Barraza, M.F. and Morales Contreras, M.F. (2022), “The kaizen philosophy, a management
approach for continuous improvement in times of COVID-19”, A case study (early cite-online
publishing).

(2011), “Implantaç~ao do Kaizen no M
exico: um estudo
Su
arez-Barraza, M.F. and Miguel-D
avila, J.A.
explorat
orio de uma aproximaç~ao gerencial japonesa no contexto latino americano”, Innovar,
Vol. 21 No. 41, pp. 19-38.
Su
arez-Barraza, M.F., Ramis-Pujol, J. and Kerbache, L. (2011), “Thoughts on kaizen and its evolution:
three different perspectives and guiding principles”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 288-308, doi: 10.1108/20401461111189407.
Suarez-Barraza, M.F., Miguel-D
avila, J.A. and Morales Contreras, M.F. (2022), “KAIZEN: an ancestral
strategy for operational improvement: literature review and trends”, International Scientific-
Technical Conference MANUFACTURING, Springer, Cham, pp. 154-168.
Sundararajan, N. and Terkar, R. (2022), “Improving productivity in fastener manufacturing through
the application of Lean-Kaizen principles”, Materials Today: Proceedings, Vol. 62, pp. 1169-1178,
doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.350.
Tafvelin, S., von Thiele Schwarz, U., Nielsen, K. and Hasson, H. (2019), “Employees’ and line
managers’ active involvement in participatory organizational interventions: examining direct,
reversed, and reciprocal effects on well-being”, Stress and Health, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 69-80,
doi: 10.1002/smi.2841.
Tagliazucchi, G., Della Santa, S. and Gherardini, F. (2023), “Design of a living lab for autonomous
driving: an investigation under the lens of the triple helix model”, The Journal of Technology
Transfer, Vol. ahead-of-Print No. ahead-of-Print, pp. 1-24, doi: 10.1007/s10961-023-10009-x.
Theresia, L., Sudri, N.M., Mauliddina, Y. and Rahmasari, B. (2022), “Relationship between kaizen,
employees work, and quality of service A PLS-SEM approach”, Proceedings of the 3rd Asia
Pacific International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management.
Tortorella, G.L., Prashar, A., Antony, J., Fogliatto, F.S., Gonzalez, V. and Godinho Filho, M. (2023),
“Industry 4.0 adoption for healthcare supply chain performance during COVID-19 pandemic in
Brazil and India: the mediating role of resilience abilities development”, Operations
Management Research, Vol. ahead-of-Print No. ahead-of-Print, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1007/s12063-
023-00366-z.
Tsakalidis, A., van Balen, M., Gkoumas, K. and Pekar, F. (2020), “Catalyzing sustainable transport
innovation through policy support and monitoring: the case of TRIMIS and the European green
deal”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 8, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.3390/su12083171.
Tufail, M.M.B., Shakeel, M., Sheikh, F. and Anjum, N. (2021), “Implementation of lean Six-Sigma Addressing the
project in enhancing health care service quality during COVID-19 pandemic”, AIMS Public
Health, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 704-719, doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2021056. Kaizen
Ugboro, I.O. and Obeng, K. (2000), “Top management leadership, employee empowerment, job
business
satisfaction, and customer satisfaction in TQM organizations: an empirical study”, Journal of operations
Quality Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 247-272, doi: 10.1016/s1084-8568(01)00023-2.
Ul Hassan, M., Mukhtar, A., Qureshi, S.U. and Sharif, S. (2012), “Impact of TQM practices on firm’s
performance of Pakistan’s manufacturing organizations”, International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 232-259.
Van Pham, C., Le, H.V.P. and Tu, H.C. (2022), “Kaizen applications in the garment industry: a case
study”, Tập san Khoa học va kỹ thuật trường Ðại học Bınh Dương, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.
56097/binhduonguniversityjournalofscienceandtechnology.v5i4.88.
Verma, P., Kumar, V., Mittal, A., Gupta, P. and Hsu, S.C. (2022), “Addressing strategic human resource
management practices for TQM: the case of an Indian tyre manufacturing company”,
The TQM Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 29-69, doi: 10.1108/tqm-02-2021-0037.
Verma, P., Kumar, V., Mittal, A., Rathore, B., Jha, A. and Rahman, M. (2023), “The role of 3S in big data
quality: a perspective on operational performance indicators using an integrated approach”,
The TQM Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 153-182, doi: 10.1108/tqm-02-2021-0062.
Yadav, V., Kaswan, M.S., Gahlot, P., Duhan, R.K., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Rathi, R., Chaudhary, R. and
Yadav, G. (2023a), “Green Lean Six Sigma for sustainability improvement: a systematic review
and future research agenda”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 759-790,
doi: 10.1108/ijlss-06-2022-0132.
Yadav, V., Kumar, V., Gahlot, P., Mittal, A., Kaswan, M.S., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Rathi, R., Antony, J.,
Kumar, A. and Owad, A.A. (2023b), “Exploration and mitigation of green lean six sigma
barriers: a higher education institutions perspective”, The TQM Journal, Vol. ahead-of-Print
No. ahead-of-Print, pp. 1-26, doi: 10.1108/TQM-03-2023-0069.
Yaghmaie, P. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2020), “Identifying and describing constituents of innovation
ecosystems: a systematic review of the literature”, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 283-314, doi: 10.1108/emjb-03-2019-0042.
Yusuf, S. (2008), “Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses”, Research
Policy, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1167-1174, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.011.

Further reading
Mazzucato, M. and Kattel, R. (2020), “COVID-19 and public-sector capacity”, Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, Vol. 36, Supplement_1, pp. S256-S269, doi: 10.1093/oxrep/graa031.
Mittal, A., Gupta, P., Kumar, V., Antony, J., Cudney, E.A. and Furterer, S. (2023a), “TQM practices and
their impact on organizational performance: the case of India’s deming-award industries”, Total
Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 34 No. 11, pp. 1410-1437, doi: 10.1080/
14783363.2023.2177148.

About the authors

Vimal Kumar is an assistant professor at Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung, Taiwan
(R.O.C.), in the Department of Information Management. He completed his postdoctoral research at
Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung, Taiwan (R.O.C.) in the Department of Business
Administration in the domain of technological innovation and patent analysis. He has served as
assistant professor under TEQIP III, an initiative of MHRD, Government of India, at AEC Guwahati in
the Department of Industrial and Production Engineering. Prior to joining AEC, he served as assistant
professor at MANIT, Bhopal, in the Department of Management Studies, and also served as visiting
faculty at IMT Nagpur. He obtained his PhD in the domain of TQM and manufacturing strategy in the
year 2017, and master’s in supply chain management from the Department of Industrial and
Management Engineering, IIT Kanpur, in the year 2012. He graduated (B.Tech) in manufacturing
TQM technology from JSS Academy of Technical Education, Noida, in the year 2010. He has published eighty-
five articles in reputable international journals, nine book chapters and presented twenty-six papers at
international conferences. His research paper entitled “Time Table Scheduling for Educational
Sector on an E-Governance Platform: A Solution from an Analytics Company” has been
selected for best paper award at the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management (IEOM) held in Bandung, Indonesia, March 6–8, 2018. He was also invited to serve as
session chair of session on “Energy Related Awareness” held on 1September 19, 2018, at iCAST 2018,
IEEE International Conference on Awareness Science and Technology and “Lean Six Sigma” at the
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM-2018) at
Bandung, Indonesia, and “Quality Control and Management” at the International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM-2016) at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He has
been appointed as an editorial board member in the IEEE-TEMS journal from January 1, 2022, to
December 31, 2024. He is a contributing author in international journals including Journal of Cleaner
Production, Journal of Informetrics, Technology in Society, CLSCN, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, IJOA, JEEE, BSE, TFSC, JKM, CSREM, IJPPM, IJQRM, IJPMB, IJPQM, IJBIS,
AJOR, The TQM Journal and Benchmarking: An International Journal. He was also a guest reviewer of
reputable journals like IEEE-TEMS, JOI, IJPPM, IJQRM, TQM & Business Excellence, The TQM
Journal, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Journal of Asia Business Studies and JSIT. Vimal
Kumar is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: vimaljss91@gmail.com
Priyanka Verma is pursuing PhD at Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung, Taiwan, in the
Department of Information Management. Her research interest is in supply chain management area.
Ankesh Mittal is an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department of Sant
Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Punjab, India. He received his B.Tech and M.Tech.
degrees from Chitkara University, Punjab, India, and Thapar University, Patiala, India, in 2013 and
2015, respectively, and a Ph.D. degree from Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Longowal, Punjab, in 2021. His areas of research are total quality management and production
engineering. He has published in various national and international journals of repute and conference
proceedings.
Pradeep Gupta Gupta is a professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Sant Longowal
Institute of Engineering and Technology Longowal, Punjab, India. He received his B.E. and M.E. degrees
from PEC, Chandigarh, in 1989 and 1997, and a Ph.D. degree from NIT, Kurukshetra, in 2004. His areas
of interest include quality and reliability engineering, total preventive maintenance, TQM, industrial
engineering, conventional and non-conventional metal machining and optimization techniques. He has
published more than 100 research papers in various national and international journals of repute and
conference proceedings. He has more than 28 years of teaching and research experience.
Rohit Raj is pursuing a master’s degree at Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung, Taiwan,
in the Department of Information Management. His research interests are in the area of text mining, data
analysis, bibliometric analysis, technological innovation and patent analysis, total quality management,
manufacturing strategy, supply chain management, strategic management and operation management.
Mahender Singh Kaswan is working as assistant professor in the Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India. He has received his Ph.D. degree
from Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India, in 2021, and M.Tech. from National
Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, India. His research areas include Industry 4.0/5.0, lean six sigma,
green technology, sustainable production, circular economy and so forth.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com