STEAM-ME: A Novel Model for Successful Kaizen

Research ArticleSTEAM-ME A Novel Model for SuccessfulKaizen Implementation and Sustainable Performance ofSMEs in Vietnam

Thanh-Lam Nguyen

Office of International Affairs Lac Hong University Dong Nai Vietnam

Correspondence should be addressed toThanh-Lam Nguyen green4restvngmailcom

Received 12 November 2018 Revised 14 January 2019 Accepted 23 January 2019 Published 7 February 2019

Guest Editor Jorge Luis Garcıa-Alcaraz

Copyright copy 2019 Thanh-LamNguyenThis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

The current trend of international integration urges every business organizations to continuously improve their competitiveadvantage for their survival and sustainable growth And Kaizen has been a preferable approach in practice Due to the special roleof SMEs in the Vietnam economy improving their competitiveness is criticalThus this study is aimed at identifying determinantsof the successful Kaizen implementation and sustainable performance so that SMEs can have proper actions and prioritize theiroperationswithin their available resourcesThrough a formal survey of 213 participants from62 SMEswhich have been successful inimplementing Kaizen and appropriate statistical analyses seven important determinants have been identified namely (1) supportsfrom senior management (2) training (3) environment (4) assessment (5) motivation (6) mindset and (7) engagement ofall members in the organization Among them ldquomindsetrdquo is newly proposed in this study through a qualitative research andfound as crucial component in the model The finding obviously fulfills the existing literature Moreover the first letters of theidentified factors are orderly congregated as ldquoSTEAM-MErdquo which is a novel model for the successful Kaizen implementation andthe sustainable performance of SMEs in Vietnam ldquoSTEAM-MErdquo implies that organizations need to have a new airflow as ldquosteamrdquoto make all of its members refreshed and brimful of energy to gain significant success in implementing Kaizen and improve theirbusiness performance as well as competitive advantage for their sustainable development Notably the novel model can efficientlydemonstrate organic relationships among its components which all have positive and significant impacts on the successful Kaizenimplementation and sustainable performance of SMEs in Vietnam

1 Introduction

Nowadays the inevitable globalization has offered severalopportunities and many challenges to almost every businessorganization Thus being competitive on the marketplaceis critical for their survival and sustainable growth [1]To improve their competitiveness different businesses mayhave different strategies among them continuous improve-ment for operational excellence has been preferably used inpractice [2 3] However applying the Kaizen concept forcontinuous improvement has been an attractive choice [4ndash6] because it significantly helps to increase quality improvelevel of efficiency and reduce waste and production costfor business excellence [7] Thus Kaizen is one of the mostcommon ldquoJapanese business termsrdquo [8]TheKaizen approachhas been successfully implemented in different industries

in several countries regardless of business sectors Homma[9] and Costa amp Filho [10] pointed out that Kaizen canbe effectively used not only for industrial development butalso for productivity improvement in public services andutility management such as energy or healthcare or non-firm-related use or even the improvement of environmentalperformance [11ndash13] The applicability of Kaizen and itspractical benefits in terms of inventory reduction customersatisfaction lead time and waste reduction etc have beenvalidated by different researchers worldwide such as Chahalet al [14] Marodin et al [15] Gupta et al [16] Belekoukiaset al [17] Fullerton et al [18] Ingelsson amp Martensson [19]Prashar [20] Teehan amp Tucker [21] and Dora et al [22]Consequently Lozano et al [8] concluded that Kaizen haseconomic and environmental implications because it closelyrelates to organizational systems and business strategies

HindawiComplexityVolume 2019 Article ID 6048195 23 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520196048195

2 Complexity

Table 1 Criteria in identifying types of SMEs in Vietnam

Areas Criteria SME types under Decree 392018 SME types under Decree 562009Micro Small Medium Micro Small Medium

Agriculture forestryaquacultureindustry andconstruction

No of employees(e)lowast le 10 le 100 le 200 le 10 le 200 le 300

Total capital (BV)lowastlowast le 3 le 20 le 100 le 20 le 100Annual revenue

(BV)lowastlowastle 3 le 50 le 200

Trading and Services



(BV)lowastlowast le 10 le 100 le 300

Notes lowast employees lowastlowast Billion Vietnam Dong

by engaging all levels of management and employees forcontinuous improvement

On the other hand the important role of small andmedium enterprises (SMEs) inmost socioeconomic activitieshas been well recognized globally thus it is one of thecommon topics discussed in multilateral cooperation forumsand meetings such as Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation(APEC)Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevel-opment (OECD) AsiandashEurope Meeting (ASEM) and Asso-ciation of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) [23] Especiallyits importance is further affirmed in APEC 2017 as it isone of their four key priorities ldquoStrengthening Micro SMEsrsquoCompetitiveness and Innovation in the Digital Agerdquo

In Vietnam the number of SMEs accounts for about975 of 561064 enterprises of all types operating in Vietnam[24]The new definition of SMEs has been issued in Article 6of DecreeNo 392018ND-CP by theGovernment and comesinto effect since March 11th 2018 SMEs can be classified intothree categories depending on two criteria (1) annual averagenumber of employees contributing Social Insurance (No ofemployees) and (2) annual revenue or total capital registeredThese criteria are somehow different from previous Decree562009ND-CP Table 1 briefly presents details of thesecategories mentioned in the two Decrees

Practically SMEs not only contribute over 40 ofnational GDP and 1726 of the annual national budget butalso employ more than 50 workforce [23] consequentlySMEs are an important contributor to the development ofVietnam economy Comparing between 2017 and 2016 wefound that the number of medium enterprises increasedby 236 small ones increased by 212 and micro onesincreased by 655 But there were also more than 60660enterprises bankrupted in 2016 [23] indicating that SMEsare vulnerable in the competitive marketplace and currenteconomic context due to their limited resources and capacity[25]

However with the small and medium business scaleSMEs have their advantages in flexibly renovating themselvesand adopting new management approaches as well as easilyadapting to the changes in their business environmentTherefore when advanced management approaches such as

Kaizen and 5S are introduced they are always willing to learnand apply as much as they can to improve their operationalefficiency effectiveness and productivity [25] In the currentcontext of international integration the improvement hasbecome notably mandatory since the introduction of ASEANEconomics Community (AEC) in 2015 because the freemovement of goods services and investments as well asfreer flow of capital and skills among the ASEAN countriesresults in more intensive competition on the marketplaceIn such competitive environment providing good prod-uctsservices at reasonable prices becomes critical to thesurvival and growth of the enterprises And Kaizen has beenconsidered as an effective tool to improve the productiv-ity cost-effectiveness profitability efficient use of capitalreduction of operating time and competitive advantage[26]

Kaizen has been well transferred to Vietnam since early1990s Over the years more and more companies locatedthroughout Vietnam are trying their best to implementKaizen in their operationsThough there are some differencesin the practical implementation of Kaizen among Japanese-owned companies Japanese-joint companies and foreignand local onesmany of themhavewell recognized the impor-tance of Kaizen for their development From the trainingworkshops on Kaizen organized in Vietnam practitionersfind that Kaizen approach is suitable to be widely appliedacross the industrial enterprises in Vietnam because it isconsidered simple and inexpensive However its practicalimplementation is actually more complex than expectedConsequently some of them fail to implement Kaizen in theircompanies but some with successful implementation havegained significant benefits in terms of increased efficiency andproductivity Therefore this study is aimed at identifying keydeterminants of the successful Kaizen implementation andtheir impacts on the sustainable performance to encouragemore andmore SMEs in Vietnam to effectively deploy Kaizenapproach to improve their competitiveness

The rest of this paper is organized as follows Section 2reviews relevant literature about Kaizen and organizationalperformance as well as key factors affecting them beforeresearch hypotheses and model are proposed in this study

Complexity 3

Methods used for data collection and data analysis areexplicitly presented in Section 3 while empirical resultsare explained in Section 4 Section 5 provides detailed dis-cussions and managerial implications departed from theobtained results Conclusions make up the last section

2 Literature Review

To achieve the above-mentioned research objectives andsupport the following analyses and discussions this sectionwill present some key terminologies such as ldquoKaizenrdquo andldquosustainable performancerdquo and cover some fundamentalliterature about (1) sustainable performance of an organi-zation (2) briefs about Kaizen (3) Kaizen implementationand measures of successful Kaizen implementation (4)relationship between Kaizen implementation and organiza-tional performance and (5) factors affecting the success ofKaizen implementation Through such presentation researchhypotheses and research model investigated in this study areaccordingly proposed

21 Sustainable Performance Organizational performancerefers to the extent to which an organization succeeds orachieves its objectives and strategies [27] Proper man-agement of performances helps organizations to effectivelycapture their current situation monitor their progress inachieving their goals and identify latent causes obstructingtheir success [28] Current context of fierce competitivemarketplace urges organizations to strive for their long-term development through ldquosustainable performancerdquo whichis differently defined by different scholars For exampleArtiach et al [29] defined it as the degree to which anorganization incorporates its concerns in terms of profitenvironment people and governance into its operations forultimate impacts on the organization and society whereasStanciu et al [30] defined it as the ability of organizationsto satisfy the needs and expectations of their stakeholdersbased on long-term balanced and effective managementwith proper awareness of their staffs through their learningand applying of improvements and innovations UBS [31]claimed that sustainable performance focuses on long-termand consistent benefits to stakeholders

Literally sustainable performance and sustainability havebeen interesting topics in different research areas as found in[32ndash38] Several researchers such as Long amp Nguyen [39]Norazlan et al [40] Moldan et al [41] and Schoenherr[42] agreed that the sustainable performance is measuredwith three dimensions namely (1) economic performancedefined as the extent to which an organization improves itsoperations market and financial results (2) environmentperformance defined as the extent to which an organizationimproves its control of pollution and its resource efficiencyand (3) social performance defined as the extent to whichan organization improves its practical outcomes related toits employees and community Considered as the key pillarsof triple bottom line theory balancing these dimensions iscritical to improve organizational competitive advantages[43]

22 Briefs about Kaizen As human always wants to becomebetter and better consistent improvement is a fundamentalneed Searching for ways to improve business operations ledto the term ldquoKaizenrdquo which combines two separate wordsldquoKairdquo (change) and ldquoZenrdquo (goodbetter) Thus ldquoKaizenrdquo iscommonly understood as ldquochange for the betterrdquo or ldquocontin-uous improvementrdquo [26 44] ldquoa philosophy guiding individ-uals and organizations to do better achievements in the longtermrdquo [45] or ldquoself-sacrifice for everyonersquos bettermentrdquo Overthe last 30 years the term ldquoKaizenrdquo has become a popularmanagement concept in the 21st century [45ndash47] Kaizen canbe used in all aspects of life including business organizations[48 49] Nowadays Kaizen is considered as grand-scalecompanywide daily and everywhere improvement made byeveryone Fundamentally Kaizen is aimed at transformingwork area and developing employees for specific targets inan escalated timeframe [49ndash51] by using cross-functionalteams training employees and rotating jobs [51 52] sothat the workforce can be subtly controlled to avoid latentconflicts with the management [50] According to Lemma[26] Kaizen is a firm-level process working as a strategictool to improve the productivity in manufacturing firms Itis actually the core of ldquomonozukurirdquo which means ldquomakingthingsrdquo to satisfy customers By focusing on three areas forimprovement namely Muda (waste) Mura (discrepancy)andMuri (strain) if implemented correctly Kaizen is a donorto make employees have more positive attitude towards theirwork and enhance the self-esteem and the awareness oftheir responsibilities towards their workplace their workingprocesses and ways to improve them because they are alwaysencouraged to share their ideas tomake the existing standardsbetter [52]

Practically Kaizen is a process-oriented method to makesmall immediate and incremental improvements in workstandards generated repeatedly by workers [44]Thus Kaizenmainly asks for the engagement of all members in theimprovement effort [48 53] and there is no need for a hugecapital investment nor an enormous preparation at one timeAccording to Lozano et al [8] Kaizen philosophy is based onthree pillars (1) preventing waste (2) organizing workplaceand (3) making things standardized Therefore accordingto Jurburg et al [54] Kaizen is an effective tool to (1)cheaply abolish or lessen hidden costs resulting from unduewaste (2) improve operational performance in terms of high-quality products low production cost and short service time(3) optimize operations with minimum downtime whichis irrecoverable [55] and others Consequently Kaizen isconsidered as a good strategy for any organization to improveits competitive advantages

23 Kaizen Implementation and Measures of Its Success

231 Kaizen Implementation Kaizen is a companywide pro-cess which involves all people from high-level managementto front-line employees The former provides commitmentand supports to motivate the latter who directly performsthe ldquocontinuous improvementrdquo In implementing Kaizenin practice a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle is usually

4 Complexity

used to deal with not only unit-functional but also cross-functional problems in their operations Specifically areasfor improvement must be firstly identified (planning phase)before corrective actions are taken (doing phase) In thedoing phase also called the Kaizen implementation severaltechniques such as 5 Whys [56] and Value Stream Mapping(VSM) [57ndash59] can be used to fully capture the root causesof the problems for example the quality level scrapreworkrate layout performance and amount of certain resourcesused in each stage of the process From the identified causesproper improvement solutions should be considered andaccordingly implemented

In the checking phase we need to closely monitor theimpacts of the Kaizen solutions on the detected problemsand determine whether positive results can be observedas expected If the solutions are satisfactory in the actingphase we should formally set the Kaizen activities as newstandards and move forward otherwise an adjustment interms of solutions implementing methods etc should bereconsidered in the next cycle Once Kaizen is successfullyimplemented in an organization innovation becomes itscutting-edges in strengthening its competitiveness and theKaizen activities should be standardized and turned intopermanent tasks in their processes [26]

Literally Kaizen is a slow and long-term process ofchanges rather than a sudden intervention [60] Implement-ing Kaizen should first begin with reviewing the existingprocesses and identifying areas for improvement beforeproviding proper training tools and structure to employeesThen employees are encouraged to become aware of allpossible problems in their daily operations and think aboutfeasible improvement solutions Gradually they likely taketheir mental ownership of their individual processes finallythey consider improving the processes as a critical part oftheir responsibility

Though the Kaizen principles are quite easy to be fullyunderstood there are still several challenges in its implemen-tation in practice due to the difficulties in managing Kaizenactivities [61ndash64] Several obstacles have been found such asresistance to change among mature workers the abstractionof ldquocontinuous improvementrdquo concepts [65] the absenceof compensation or reward lack of proper training foremployees and long delays in getting suggestions processed[66] lack of resources to run Kaizen activities lack of focusdue to business pressure and lack of understanding of theneed to change [64] lack of knowledge and poor employeeparticipation [22] Thus innovation and education are keycomponents in Kaizen implementation [12]

232 Measures of Successful Kaizen Implementation Thoughthere have been several studies in identifying factors affect-ing the success of Kaizen implementation there are a feweffective approaches to measure the overall success Forinstance ldquoOverall Equipment Effectivenessrdquo (OEE) proposedby Nakajima [67] focused on equipment utilization whileDomingo amp Aguado [68] proposed a more comprehensivemetric ldquoOverall Environmental Equipment Effectivenessrdquo(OEEE) However through group discussions with leaders

from six SMEs successfully implementing Kaizen they failedto deploy OEEE in measuring the success Thus furtherdiscussions were conducted to explore what measures shouldbe used Based on the qualitative research there are fourmeasures suggested (1) effective usage of existing resources(including space utilization) for incremental and continuousimprovement (2) increased efficiency by optimizing opera-tions and processes with properly arranged layouts of workarea and work flows to minimize superfluous movementor operations as well as production costs (3) safer cleanerand better-organized working environment perceived by rel-evant stakeholders and (4) positive mindset of ldquocontinuousimprovementrdquo among employees The improvement level ofthese measures is evaluated in 5-Likert scale as explained inSection 3

24 Relationship between Kaizen and Sustainable Perfor-mance Several scholars worldwide have made special effortsto promote the benefits of Kaizen across different coun-tries Existing researches from different industries clearlyshow that successful implementation of Kaizen brings sev-eral benefits including reducing scraps reworks inventoryunnecessary movement production lead time and failuresin toolsmachinery and improving product quality produc-tivity delivery floor security and safety employeesrsquo moti-vation responsibility cross-communication and teamworkamong others [69 70] Therefore Kaizen helps a businessfirm to satisfy its stringent customersrsquo requirements andexpectations gaining more trusts from its stakeholders andboosting its competitive advantages through the increasein customer satisfaction employee satisfaction productivityand financial performance [71] Moreover as public arepaying more andmore attention to environmental protectionand social impacts successfully implementing Kaizen willhelp organizations to achieve ldquogreen attributesrdquo which werefound to have positive and direct influence on businessperformance of industrial manufacturers [72] Consequentlysuccessful Kaizen implementation helps to sustain organiza-tional performance [40 73]

25 Factors Affecting the Success of Kaizen ImplementationExisting literature shows that there are a number of factorsaffecting the success of Kaizen implementation For examplean open working environment that allows effective cross-communication and encourages innovation is critical for abetter understanding between management bodies and theiremployees as well as the sharing of improvement ideas foreasier and faster processes based on their practical expe-rience [74ndash76] In addition strong commitments from topmanagement in implementing Kaizen with clear approachesstrategies policies and targets also play significant rolesin sustaining improvement actions [64 74] and buildingKaizen culture because they help to effectively support directand allocate relevant resources [77] In particular this studyconducted a thorough search of more than 200 researchreports published in the last two decades on key databasessuch as ScienceDirect Elsevier EBSCOhost Springer andEmerald For brevity only some reports cited in main texts

Complexity 5

are listed in the References while many others are listed inAppendix IThe searchwell gives the rational validation to thesix key affecting factors presented in Table II1 (Appendix II)Similar approaches can be found in [70 78ndash81]The identifieddeterminants are clarified in the following subsections

251 Supports from Senior Management As continuousimprovement is the core of Kaizen senior leaders must actas the most vital driving force to make the improvementprocess effectively implemented with their strong supportsto ensure the full and active participation of every member[54 82] Such supports including spiritual and physical onesas well as necessary resources allocated can be expressed inverbal or written commitments statements policies plansor even direct involvement in following up the progress ofKaizen and related practical activities [47 74] The supportsand commitments should be well formulated and effectivelyarticulated as a motivational factor for employees to performbetter [83] and more engage in the continuous improvement[51] Further evidence of this factor can be found in [81 84ndash86] It is found that such involvement from senior leadersis the most fundamental factor affecting the success ofcontinuous improvement programs [87ndash89]

With this factor the following hypotheses will be investi-gated

(i) H1 Support from senior management has positiveimpacts on the successful Kaizen implementation

(ii) H2 Support from senior management has positiveimpacts on the sustainable performance

252 Training Literally the importance of training andeducation for the success of Kaizen has been well validatedby several scholars worldwide [52 74 90 91] because itis critical for not only providing ldquoneed-to-knowrdquo basis butalso consolidating human development and changing theemployeesrsquo mindset [92] According to Soltero amp Waldrip[93] Kaizen training should be first provided to managerssupervisorsleaders of all levels because they not only focuson soliciting proposals but also act as ldquobellwethersrdquo in thejourney for successful Kaizen implementation Thereforesuch training helps them to (1) clearly understand the philos-ophy (2) realize positive outcomes of Kaizen implementationfor their better reinforcement and engagement (3) know howto motivate and elicit active participation of their employeesand (4) lead the whole process of continuous improvement

Moreover through on-the-joboff-the-job training andproper schemes for job rotation or relocation organizationsgain certain benefits from innovative suggestionsideas oftheir employees [94 95] Importantly the training not onlyequips the employees with new skills and updated knowledgebut also raises their awareness of continuous improvement[96] and sense of belonging [97] In addition there is a statis-tically significant relationship between employee training andemployeemotivation [98 99] aswell as employee engagement[100ndash103]


(i) H3 Training has positive impacts on the successfulKaizen implementation

(ii) H4 Training has positive impacts on the sustainableperformance

253 Environment Realyvasquez et al [104] also pointed outthat environmental elements such as air quality humiditytemperature noise lighting have significant impacts onworkersrsquo psychological characteristics and their performancewhereas Day amp Randell [97] claimed that a healthy work-ing environment is one of the cores of Kaizen philosophybecause it positively results in significant increase in employ-eesrsquo commitment retention stakeholdersrsquo satisfaction andfirmsrsquo financial performance In addition working environ-ment strongly affects organizational productivity [105] andemployee satisfaction [106ndash108] leading to an increase inoverall performance Hence a good working environmentin terms of openness cleanliness tidiness social interactioninterpersonal relationship group norms and values organi-zational structure etc makes employees self-motivated andconcentrated to their work with better behavior attitude andproductivity [109]

Similarly Liker amp Franz [110] and Soltero amp Waldri[93] pointed out that Kaizen implementation needs a demo-cratic working environment in which open communicationcreativity innovation and improvement proposals amongemployees are appreciated and encouraged Aguado et al [111]claimed that innovation is the best approach to efficiency andsustainability As such Stadnicka amp Sakano [112] suggestedthat organizations should create a friendly working environ-ment and build their culture of continuous improvement fortheir successful Kaizen implementation


(i) H5 Environment has positive impacts on the success-ful Kaizen implementation

(ii) H6 Environment has positive impacts on the sustain-able performance

254 Assessment As discussed above training is mainlyaimed at changing peoplersquos behavior To have an effectivetraining program Gravells [113] proposed a training cyclewith five stages identifying needs planning and designingdelivering assessing and evaluating Among them assessingtraining needs and effectiveness of training program as wellas increase in employee performanceabilityskillsattitudesin their work is a critical task [114ndash116] Therefore employeeassessment must be done before the training in the trainingand after the training so that we can have necessary actions toimprove the performance of the whole system Importantlysuch assessment provides useful information to evaluate theeffectiveness of the training program and to design futureones better

Nonetheless in order to ensure the success of Kaizenimplementation regularly assessing the improvement ofwork ergonomics (employee productivity efficiency attitudeetc) and working environment (vibrations noise internal

6 Complexity

air pollution microclimate radiation dustiness or energyexpenditure of the worker etc) is critical [117] Such reg-ular activity is of great help in taking prompt correctiveactions if needed to properly adjust relevant processes andorapproaches to achieve certain specific targets


(i) H7Assessment has positive impacts on the successfulKaizen implementation

(ii) H8 Assessment has positive impacts on the sustain-able performance

255 Motivation In the field of organizational behaviorthere are two key components of job motivation intrin-sic motivation and extrinsic motivation [118 119] whichurge employees to accomplish their personal and organi-zational goals [120ndash124] And there are several motivationapproaches including salary and benefits [125ndash128] rewardsand recognition [129ndash131] career promotion [132ndash137] andempowerment [129 138ndash141] Motivation approaches shouldbe carefully considered and selected in line with requiredimprovements [142 143]

In the current context of fierce competition on the mar-ketplace motivated and engaged employees are usually con-sidered as invaluable asset and competitive advantage of anorganization [144] And employee motivation is a key deter-minant of organizational success [145] because motivatedemployees tend to foster a creative working environment[146ndash148] and accept changes for better [146] resulting inincreased profitability [149] higher customer satisfaction andloyalty due to better customer service [150 151] and improvedorganizational competitiveness [152] Besides it is also foundthat motivated workforce usually (1) think creatively andproactively [153 154] (2) have higher job satisfaction [155ndash157] (3) perform better [151 158 159] (4) have higher lifesatisfaction [160 161] (5) have higher productivity [150 162]and (6) are more diligent and loyal [163ndash165] As suchemployee motivation is one of the key determinants for thesuccess of Kaizen implementation [63 86 166ndash169]


(i) H9Motivation has positive impacts on the successfulKaizen implementation

(ii) H10 Motivation has positive impacts on the sustain-able performance

256 Mindset This factor is newly proposed in this studythrough a formal qualitative research as presented inSection 3 In this study the term ldquomindsetrdquo refers to that ofall management levels and employees Literally Dweck [170]defined a mindset as the views a person adopts for him-selfherself Such views including personal assumptions andexpectations significantly affect hisher usual behaviors andrelevant responses to hisher daily affairs Besides Thomaset al [171] defined employeesrsquo mindset as their attitudesbehaviors and practices which shape the way an organization

approaches and executes its strategies There are two majortypes of mindset fixed mindset and growth mindset [170]The growth mindset is more important because it providesmore benefits in terms of creating resilience [172ndash174]tenacity [172] improving collaboration communication andengagement [174] and increasingmotivation for learning anddeveloping [175] However relationships between mindsetand successful Kaizen implementation as well as sustainableperformance are left unsolved in the current literatureThere-fore investigating its impacts is one of the key contributionspresented in this study


(i) H11 Mindset has positive impacts on the successfulKaizen implementation

(ii) H12 Mindset has positive impacts on the sustainableperformance

257 Engagement To ensure the success of Kaizen imple-mentation several studies have claimed that all manage-ment levels and employees should proactively engage in thejourney towards operational excellence through continuousimprovement The engagement from management levelsclosely relates to their supports and commitments And thatfrom employees should be further examined According toTakeuchi et al [176] employees in Toyota are appreciatedas a source of knowledge and wisdom of experience thusthey should engage in the continuous improvement processPractically there have been several different definitions ofemployee engagement in the field of organizational behaviorbut generally it is all about how employees stay eitheremotionally cognitively or physically connected with theirorganizations [177ndash179] Anitha [102] claimed that employeeengagement is critical for an organization to gain not onlyuseful business performance results but also competitiveadvantages over its rivals It is because engaged employeeshelp organizations serve customers better in terms of satis-faction loyalty productivity and profit [180] Moreover theytend to bemore satisfied with their jobs committed and loyalto their organizations [181] because they believe that theyconstitute a part of the organization [182] Siddhanta amp Roy[183] found that engagement makes employees more moti-vated and committed thus it positively affects organizationalperformance [182 184ndash193] Hence engaged employees tendto proactively and enthusiastically participate in assignedactivities with their full responsibilities

To improve employee engagement Marinova et al [194]suggested that companies build different incentive systemsand continuous improvement programs so that employeesbecome satisfied and motivated with their jobs Stadnicka ampSakano [112] claimed that active participation of all membersincluding management and employees is critical for thesuccess of continuous improvementKaizen implementationof an organization


Complexity 7

MESTEAM

Support from senior management (S)

Training (T)

Environment (E)

Assessment (A)

Motivation (M)

Successful Kaizen Implementation

Sustainable Performance

Mindset(M)

Engagement(E)

Organizational factorsWorkforce factors

H10

H15

H1H3

H5H7

H9H2H4H6 H12

H14

H11

H13

H8

Figure 1 Proposed research model

(i) H13 Engagement has positive impacts on the success-ful Kaizen implementation

(ii) H14 Engagement has positive impacts on the sustain-able performance

Moreover with the relationship between Kaizen andsustainable performance of organizations presented inSection 24 this study will also investigate the followinghypothesis

(i) H15 Successful Kaizen implementation has positiveimpacts on the sustainable performance

Thus the researchmodel proposed in this study is visuallypresented in Figure 1

3 Research Method

This research is conducted in three main phases as explainedin the followings

31 Phase 1 Questionnaire Design This initial phase isaimed at constructing a complete questionnaire for a formalsurvey From the exhaustive literature review mentionedin Section 25 a list of six determinants namely supportfrom senior management training environment assess-ment motivation and engagement is created and then usedto conduct a qualitative research to validate the relevanceof the factors and explore other prospective ones The qual-itative research invited seven experts from two companieswhich have successfully implemented Kaizen in Dong Naiand Binh Duong Among the seven two are working asdirector and vice director three working as managers of theirwarehouses and production departments and two workingas Kaizen leaders Their practical experiences from suchpositions would provide clear insights into these factors aswell as suggesting possible measures for the success of Kaizenimplementation in their cases

From the initial interviews they not only agreed about therelevance of the six listed factors but also proposed a new fac-tor named ldquomindset of all personnel in an organizationrdquo to beconsidered in this study The importance of this newly addedfactor has already been discussed in Section 25 Moreoverthey also provided some key measures of a successful Kaizenimplementation as discussed in Section 232 above Theseinputs were carefully considered in the design of primary

survey questionnaire which was then used in a pilot test toevaluate the lucidity of each surveyed statement in termsof meaning and word usage Four participants from topmanagement levels of other two companies located in HoChiMinh City joined the pilot test Their feedback was carefullychecked and integrated to refine the questionnaire for anofficial survey The final version consists of three major parts

(1) Seven independent factors are composed of 34observed items The participants were asked to eval-uate the importance level of each item on a 5-Likertscale towards the success of Kaizen implementationin their organizations where 1 indicates the leastimportant level and 5 indicates the most importantlevel

(2) Successful Kaizen implementation is composed of 6observed items whose success levels are evaluated ona 5-Likert scale where 1 indicates lowest level and 5indicates highest level

(3) Organizational performance consists of 6 itemsreflecting the economic performance environmentperformance and social performance The partici-pants were asked to evaluate the current performanceof these items on a 5-Likert scale (1- ldquounacceptablerdquo2- ldquoinconsistentrdquo 3- ldquorather effectiverdquo 4- ldquoeffectiverdquo5- ldquoexceptionalrdquo)

For brevity full contents of these constructs and detaileditems will be supplemented on request

32 Phase 2 Survey and Data Capture The official surveywas conducted from March 15 2018 to June 20 2018 Firstfrom personal network with other trainees participating inprevious workshops on Kaizen this study lists 62 SMEswhich have successfully implemented Kaizen among them34 SMEs are located in the South 21 SMEs are in the northand the rest are in the middle of Vietnam Then 254 hardcopies of the final questionnaire were directly delivered to254 people working as directors vice directors departmentmanagers or Kaizen leaders in the selected SMEs Becausethe objectives of this study were effectively communicatedmost of them actively took part in the survey Therefore 237out of 254 pieces of completed questionnaires were collectedAmong them there were 24 pieces invalid so data from 213valid observations were finally analyzed in this study Prior to

8 Complexity

Table 2 Codes of investigated constructs and observed items

Constructs No of items CodesSupports from senior management (SUP) 6 SUP1 997888rarr SUP6Training (TRA) 4 TRA1 997888rarr TRA4Environment (ENV) 4 ENV1 997888rarr ENV4Assessment (AST) 5 AST1 997888rarr AST5Motivation (MOT) 5 MOT1 997888rarrMOT5Mindset (MIN) 6 MIN1 997888rarrMIN6Engagement (ENG) 4 ENG1 997888rarr ENG4Successful Kaizen implementation (SUC) 6 SUC1 997888rarr SUC6Organizational performance (PER) 6 PER1 997888rarr PER6

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of respondents

Demographic Characteristics Frequency Percent ()

Working PositionKaizen leader 62 291

Department Manager 107 502DirectorVice Director 44 207

Enterprise LocationSouth of Vietnam 172 808Middle of Vietnam 7 32North of Vietnam 34 160

Enterprise SizeMicro 14 66Small 84 394

Medium 115 540

Ownership Type

State-owned enterprise 9 42Private enterprise 37 174Joint-ventureenterprise 79 371

Foreign-ownedenterprise 88 413

the analysis the investigated constructs and their observeditems are accordingly coded as shown in Table 2

33 Phase 3 Data Analysis In this phase the collecteddata were first screened Some data analysis approacheslike exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and scale reliabilityanalysis withCronbachrsquos Alpha (120572) coefficients were deployedwith IBM SPSS V22 Fundamentally EFA is consideredappropriate if its parameters well satisfy the following criteria(1) eigenvalue ge 1 (2) total variance explained ge 50 (3)KMO ge 05 (4) significance (Sig) coefficient of KMO testle 005 (5) factor loadings of all observed variables ge 04as there are 213 observations in the sample and (6) weightdifference between the loadings of two factors gt 03 [195]And key criteria to judge if a scale is considered reliableinclude the following (1) all corrected item-total correlationsof its components are gt 03 (2) its 120572 coefficient ge 07 [196]

After EFA and scale reliability analysis the extractedfactors are further analyzed with (1) confirmatory factoranalysis (CFA) to affirm their unidirectionality internalconsistency convergence value and distinguishing value (2)structural equation modelling (SEM) to test the validity of

the proposed research model and stated hypotheses [3943] According to Hair et al [197] and Steenkamp amp Trijp[198] these two analyses are considered appropriate if thefollowing criteria are satisfied (1) the significance value (p-value) of the Chi-square test le 005 (2) ratio of Chi-square(CMIN) over the degree of freedom (df) CMINdf le 200(in some cases CMINdf le 300 is also acceptable) (3) thegoodness of fit index (GFI) TuckerndashLewis index (TLI) andcomparative fit index (CFI)ge 090 (4) rootmean square errorof approximation (RMSEA) le 008 (5) overall reliability ge06 and (6) extracted variance ge 05

4 Empirical Results

41 Descriptive Statistics Some key characteristics of the 213respondents are briefly shown in Table 3 Particularly amongthe 213 valid observations there were 172 people accountingfor 808 from 34 SMEs located in the South because mostof existing joint-venture and foreign-owned enterprises arelocated in the South due to special calls for investment andattractive policies by the local authorities to create dynamicbusiness environment

Complexity 9

Table 4 EFA rotated matrix of independent variables and reliability analysis

Componenta120572 CITCb 120572 if item

deleted1 2 3 4 5 6 7MIN1 0938

0845

0905 0890MIN3 0853 0791 0805MIN5 0844 0781 0807MIN6 0828 0748 0811MIN4 0809 0726 0814MIN2 0784 0707 0816SUP1 0916

0832

0863 0892SUP3 0850 0791 0803SUP5 0849 0785 0804SUP2 0831 0748 0809SUP6 0811 0735 0810SUP4 0795 0708 0814AST2 0899

0851

0838 0818AST1 0876 0795 0827AST4 0856 0778 0831AST3 0854 0778 0831AST5 0775 0686 0750ENV1 0891

0865

0809 0785ENV3 0858 0721 0823ENV4 0806 0668 0845ENV2 0783 0655 0849MOT1 0885

0811

0787 0735MOT3 0831 0681 0784MOT4 0765 0609 0816MOT2 0738 0590 0823ENG3 0795

0773

0633 0718ENG4 0784 0618 0726ENG1 0763 0582 0744ENG2 0761 0554 0758TRA1 0795

0765

0599 0694TRA3 0791 0605 0691TRA2 0755 0552 0719TRA4 0706 0514 0740Extraction method Principal Component AnalysisRotation method Varimax with Kaiser Normalization(a) Rotation converged in 6 iterations(b) Corrected item-total correlation

Moreover more than 50 of the participants are workingas department managers and about 30 working as Kaizenleaders in the investigated enterprises generally about 80of the respondents are from joint-venture and foreign-owned enterprises In addition 54 and about 40 of theparticipants are frommedium size and small size enterprisesrespectively

42 Exploratory Factor Analysis The latent relationshipsamong the 34 observed variables of seven key factors arefirst investigated with EFA approach Results from the first

analysis showed that MOT5 failed to satisfy the requiredcriterion of discrimination in its loadings among twoextracted factors thus it was dropped out from the list ofvariables The second analysis of 33 items resulted in sevenfactors extracted as shown in Table 4 With the obtainedKMO = 0792 the significance of Bartlettrsquos test p-value le0001 and the satisfactory factor loadings of the componentsEFA analysis used in this study is considered appropriate

43 Scale Reliability Analysis These extracted scales werethen tested for their internal consistency with scale reliability

10 Complexity

Table 5 EFA rotated matrix of dependent variables and reliability analysis

Componenta120572 CITCb 120572 if item deleted

1 2PER1 0908

0875

0853 0891PER2 0874 0808 0898PER6 0842 0765 0904PER3 0837 0758 0905PER5 0826 0748 0906PER4 0770 0679 0916SUC4 0884

0824

0816 0860SUC1 0862 0786 0864SUC3 0805 0708 0877SUC6 0780 0676 0882SUC2 0761 0659 0885SUC5 0759 0657 0885Extraction method Principal Component AnalysisRotation method Varimax with Kaiser Normalization(a) Rotation converged in 3 iterations(b) Corrected item-total correlation

Table 6 Confirmatory factor analysis

Term Scale No of Observedvariables

Reliability testCronbachrsquos 120572 Composite 120572

Determinants ofsuccessful Kaizenimplementation andsustainableperformance of SMEsin Vietnam

Support from seniormanagement (SUP) 6 0832 0835

Training (TRA) 4 0765 0769Environment (ENV) 4 0864 0867Assessment (AST) 5 0851 0858Motivation (MOT) 4 0811 0840Mindset (MIN) 6 0845 0859

Engagement (ENG) 4 0773 0789Successful Kaizen implementation (SUC) 6 0824 0866Sustainable performance (PER) 6 0875 0896

analysis Their results are shown in columns ldquo120572rdquo and ldquoCITCrdquoof Table 4

The high values of 120572 coefficients (ranging from 0773 to0865) and all corrected item-total correlations (CITC) largerthan 03 indicate that the extracted scales have high internalconsistency because they well satisfy the required criteriafor scale reliability analysis mentioned in Section 33 hencethese extracted scales are considered reliable for furtheranalysis such as CFA and SEM

With the same token EFA approach was also used toexplore the structure of the dependent factors ldquosuccessfulKaizen implementationrdquo and ldquoorganizational performancerdquoTable 5 clearly shows that the use of EFA approach for thesetwo scales is also appropriate because its KMO is 0887 thesignificance of Bartlettrsquos test is p-value le 0001 and the factorloadings of the components are all larger than 04

44 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Table 6 briefly shows thecomposite reliability of the investigated factors and the two

dependent scales denoted by SUC and PER And Figure 2displays estimated standardized results of saturated modelin CFA including CMIN=1253360 df= 909 p-valuele 0001CMINdf = 1378lt 200 GFI= 0914 TLI = 0932 CFI = 0928RMSEA = 0042 lt 008 As these figures well satisfy therequired criteria for CFA in terms of (1) unidimensionality(2) scale reliability (3) convergent validity and (4) discrimi-nant validity presented in Section 33 it can be concluded thatthe research model fits market data

45 Structural Equation Modelling

451 Model of Successful Kaizen Implementation Figure 3briefly shows the analysis results of SEM model of thedeterminants of the successful Kaizen implementation ofSMEs in Vietnam The estimated standardized parameters ofthe saturated model such as CMIN= 953090 df= 674 p-value le 0001 CMINdf = 1414lt 200 GFI=0916 TLI=0933CFI=0939 RMSEA=0044 lt 008 well satisfy the requiredcriteria for SEM as presented in Section 33 thus the

Complexity 11

078071081

075

085

093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

099085082

030

070077080

022

018

026

035

032038

042 031

038044

021

042

024 039

043

012

033

032

031

022

040

029

033

032

037

024

022

027

030

029

044

035

046

043021

Support

SUP1SUP2SUP3SUP4SUP5SUP6

a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

Mindset

MIN1MIN2MIN3MIN4MIN5MIN6

a7

a8

a9

b1

b2

b3

Assessment

AST1AST2AST3AST4AST5

b4

b5

b6

b7

b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2

c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6

c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1

d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5

d6

Successful Implementation

SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3

PERFORMANCEPER1PER2PER3

e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9

CMIN=1253360 df=909CMINdf=1378 ple0001TLI=0932 GFI=0914CFI=0928 RMSEA=0042

Figure 2 Confirmatory factor analysis

078071081

075

085093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

0732

0719

0586

0702

0549

0608

0671

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9c1

c2c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3

CMIN=953090 df=674 CMINdf=1414 ple0001 TLI=0933 GFI=0916 CFI=0939 RMSEA=0044

f1

Figure 3 Standardized SEM model of successful Kaizen implementation

proposed model is considered fit for the actual data Inaddition the bias of the model estimation obtained frombootstrapping 500 times was found insignificant Thereforeit can be concluded that the estimates obtained in the modelare reliable

452 Model of Sustainable Performance With the sametoken Figure 4 displays the analysis results of the determi-nants of sustainable performance of SMEs in Vietnam Theestimated standardized parameters such asCMIN= 1253360df= 909 p-value le 0001 CMINdf = 1378 lt 200 GFI =

12 Complexity

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

078071081

075

085

093

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

080075082

078

077

096

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

084

089083082

072

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2c3

071067071061

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

092071080071

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

091066075068

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6

066062076074


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9

088069072

085070076

099085082

070077080


0718

0792

0767

0811

0508

0675

0623

0749

f2

Figure 4 Standardized SEM model of sustainable performance of SMEs in Vietnam

0914 TLI = 0932 CFI = 0928 RMSEA = 0042 lt 008well satisfy the required criteria for SEM as presented inSection 33 thus the proposed model is considered fit forthe actual data Moreover analysis results obtained from 500-time bootstrapping approach show that there is insignificantbias in the model estimation parameters indicating that theobtained model estimates are reliable

46 Hypothesis Tests with SEM The results of the modelestimation and bootstrapping in SEM shown in Table 7clearly indicate that all of the proposed hypotheses (H1 997888rarrH15) are statistically supported as the p-values of relatedcoefficients are less than 005

47 Tests of the Impacts of Demographic Characteristics Thisstudy used one-way ANOVA test to investigate the impacts ofdemographic characteristics such as location size ownershiptype of the enterprise and the working position of therespondents on the evaluation of the two dependent fac-tors ldquosuccessful Kaizen implementationrdquo and ldquoorganizationalperformancerdquo In order to achieve the objective two newvariables coded as ldquoSUCCrdquo and ldquoPERFrdquo were created bytaking averages of the six components of each dependentfactor respectively

Table 8 briefly presents the analysis results from tests ofhomogeneity of variances among the groups within eachcharacteristic With the given significance level of 5 usedin this study Table 8 clearly shows the different variances ofSUCC and PERF among respondentsrsquo groups based on the

ownership type and the enterprise location In addition thevariances of PERF among respondentsrsquo groups based on theenterprise size are also differentThe results in Table 8 provideimportant information to further test the equality ofmeans ofSUCCandPERF among the groupswithin each characteristicas shown in Table 9

The figures in Table 9 clearly show that there are certaindifferences in the evaluation of SUCC and PERF amonggroups based on the working position ownership type andenterprise size From the results in Table 8 and Table 9 posthoc tests were conducted to investigate which groups aredifferent from others

(1) In terms of working positions Kaizen leaders anddepartment managers have similar evaluations whichare higher than those of directorsvice directorsIt was found that Kaizen leaders and departmentmanagers are the ones directly involving in the Kaizenimplementation and monitoring the improvementfrom the shop floors thus they tend to be satisfiedwith the success and the organizational performanceHowever as directors and vice directors more con-cerned about the overall performance and generaltargets they always expect to have better gains

(2) In terms of size it was found that medium enterpriseshave better success and higher performance than themicro and small ones because they usually pay moreattention to the improvement of their operationaleffectiveness and efficiency to increase their compet-itive advantages

Complexity 13

Table 7 Coefficients from the SEM model

Relationships Coefficients Std Coefsa SEb CRc p-value ConclusionSUClarr997888 SUP 0729 0732 0089 8191 lowast H1 supportedSUClarr997888MIN 0712 0719 0081 8790 lowast H11 supportedSUClarr997888 ENG 0716 0702 0079 9063 lowast H13 supportedSUClarr997888 TRA 0693 0671 0079 8772 lowast H3 supportedSUClarr997888 ENV 0591 0608 0053 11151 lowast H5 supportedSUClarr997888 AST 0578 0586 0085 6800 lowast H7 supportedSUClarr997888MOT 0557 0549 0072 7736 lowast H9 supportedPERlarr997888 SUC 0802 0811 0067 11970 lowast H15 supportedPERlarr997888MIN 0785 0792 0081 9691 lowast H12 supportedPERlarr997888 SUP 0791 0767 0061 12967 lowast H2 supportedPERlarr997888 ENG 0751 0749 0079 9506 lowast H14 supportedPERlarr997888 AST 0722 0718 0076 9500 lowast H8 supportedPERlarr997888 ENV 0659 0675 0053 12434 lowast H6 supportedPERlarr997888MOT 0642 0623 0071 9042 lowast H10 supportedPERlarr997888 TRA 0504 0508 0075 6720 lowast H4 supportedNotes a standardized coefficients b standard error c critical ratio lowast less than 01

Table 8 Tests of homogeneity of variances

Characteristic Factor LeveneStatistic df1 df2 Sig

Ownership type SUCC 34894 2 210 0032PERF 31752 2 210 0044

Enterpriselocation

SUCC 39012 2 210 0022PERF 32636 2 210 0040

Enterprise size SUCC 19781 2 210 0141PERF 12796 2 210 0280

Workingposition

SUCC 11278 2 210 0326PERF 06910 2 210 0502

(3) In terms of ownership types it was found that thereis no difference in the evaluations of SUCC andPERF between the state-owned enterprises and localprivate ones and between the joint-venture enter-prises and foreign-owned ones However the joint-venture and foreign-owned enterprises especiallyJapan-based ones were found more successful thanothers because they better recognize the importanceof Kaizen in their business operations and investmoreresources to implement it in practice

(4) In terms of location it was found that the locationof enterprises fails to have significant impacts onthe evaluations of SUCC and PERF This indicatesthat once Kaizen is carefully understood and imple-mented it would result in similar success and perfor-mance

5 Discussions and Managerial Implications

51 Discussions As shown in Table 7 all research hypothesesproposed in this study are statistically supported meaning

that the success of Kaizen implementation and the sustainableperformance of SMEs in Vietnam are affected by severalfactors including (1) supports from senior management(2) training (3) working environment (4) assessment (5)motivation (6) mindset and (7) engagement of all leadersand employees in the enterprises Among them the supportfrom senior management (120573=0732) plays themost importantrole in the successful Kaizen implementation This findingfurther agrees with those by Goodridge et al [87] Garcıaet al [81] Al-Najem et al [88] Imai [47] Suarez-Barraza etal [74] and Crute et al [89] Though the support is rankedas the 3rd important factor directly affecting the sustain-able performance it is also considered crucial because thesuccessful Kaizen implementation has the strongest impacton their sustainable performance (120573=0811) Consequentlysenior management should formulate and effectively artic-ulate their supports in terms of commitments statementspolicies plans resources or even direct involvement etcSMEs should consider this as their top prioritized factorbecause it works as the cornerstone for other factors andactivities

14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA

Characteristic Factor Sum ofSquares df Mean

Square F Sig

Ownershiptype

SUCCBetween Groups 2159 2 1080 3797 0024Within Groups 59707 210 0284

Total 61866 212

PERFBetween Groups 2611 2 1306 4217 0016Within Groups 65007 210 0310

Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation

SUCC Between Groups 0564 2 0282 0996 0371Within Groups 59436 210 0283

Total 60000 212PERF Between Groups 0828 2 0414 1344 0263

Within Groups 64751 210 0308Total 65579 212

Enterprisesize




Workingposition




Moreover mindset of all leaders and employees is rankedas the second important factor determining the success ofKaizen implementation and the sustainable performance ofan enterprise respectively taking 120573=0719 and 0792 Thisfinding further strengthens that of Thomas et al [171] whoclaimed that employeesrsquo mindset is critical to organizationalachievements and sustainability of their high performancebecause it greatly affects the productivity innovation andpersistence of the workforce Positive mindset should betranslated into organizational practices to create a goodculture for better performance [171] because the good culturehelps to hoard habitual changes and support continuousimprovement [48 90] Consequently SMEs should haveproper policies to foster and cultivate growth mindsetin quality culture and continuous improvement practicesmeanwhile fixed mindset should be gradually redirected andchanged However changing the mindset of a person isalways a difficult task in practice Thus this study proposessome typical implications to deal with it It is noteworthythat mindset is a newly proposed factor discovered from thequalitative research thus it is considered as one of the keycontributions of this study

Along with the mindset every member in an enterpriseshould actively and fully participate in the improvementprocess Therefore the engagement is ranked as the third

significant factor affecting the success of Kaizen implemen-tation (120573=0811) which is similar to the finding by Stadnickaamp Sakano [112] It is also ranked the fourth in affectingthe sustainable performance (120573=0811) further agreeing with[182 184ndash193] Basically the engagement from managementlevels can refer to their supports and commitments whereasthe engagement from employees refers to their participationin relevant activities with their responsibility

In this study among the seven independent factorstraining is found as the fourth important factor affecting thesuccessful Kaizen implementation in the SMEs in VietnamIts importance was also previously identified by [52 74 9091 96] As presented in Section 44 the training positivelyhelps to change the mindset (r=027) and improve employeemotivation (r=012) as well as employee engagement (r=030)Similar findings were found by Alvarado-Ramirez et al[92] However the training has the lowest impact on thesustainable performance This is explained by the fact thatit has significant impacts on other factors such as mindsetengagement motivation and success of Kaizen implemen-tation while these factors have more direct relationshipsto the organizational performance Therefore in generaltraining also plays crucial role in improving the sustainableperformance of the SMEs

Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model

Continuous improvement

(b) STEAM-ME and Kaizen sustainable performance

Figure 5 STEAM-ME model

Besides environment also has positive impacts on thesuccessful Kaizen implementation and the performance ofan enterprise Specifically its importance is ranked the fifthamong the seven factors affecting the success (120573=0608) andthe sixth among the eight factors affecting the performance(120573=0675) This finding is similar to those by [97 104ndash108]Consequently creating a friendly working environment anda good culture of quality and continuous improvement is alsocrucial to be considered by the SMEs in Vietnam

Practically this study also finds that regular assessment ofwork ergonomics (employee productivity efficiency attitudeetc) and working environment (vibrations noise internalair pollution microclimate radiation dustiness or energyexpenditure of the worker etc) has positive impacts on thesuccess of Kaizen implementation and sustainable perfor-mance of SMEs because it can help to effectively trace thecurrent progress and lead to reasonable actions to achieveorganizational targets This finding is further validated byGlover et al [117] An effective assessment also helps toimprove organizational performance

Lastly organizations should have good policies andapproaches to motivate their employees because the moti-vation is also a significant factor affecting the successfulof Kaizen implementation (120573=0549) and the organizationalperformance (120573=0623) It is further supported by [63 86 144150 151 167ndash169]

In short seven determinants of the successful Kaizenimplementation and the sustainable performance of SMEsin Vietnam are (1) Supports from senior management (2)Training (3) Environment (4) Assessment (5) Motivation(6) Mindset and (7) Engagement The first letters of thesefactors are orderly congregated as ldquoSTEAM-MErdquo which isconsidered as a novel model for the successful Kaizenimplementation and the sustainable performance of SMEs inVietnam The name of the model also implies that an orga-nization needs to have a new airflow with energy as ldquosteamrdquoto firstly make gradual changes to start its journey towardssignificant success in implementing Kaizen and sustaining

organizational performance The ldquosteamrdquo will make all of itsmembers refreshed and brimful of energy to improve theirminds attitudes behaviors engagement productivity andresponsibilities which will result in substantial increase inboth personal and organizational performance

Especially Figure 5 visually presents the components ofSTEAM-ME model and their positive correlations as wellas their impacts on the success of Kaizen implementationand organizational performance Mindset and engagementare placed in the center of the model due to their critical rolesas discussed above Nonetheless related activities in termsof motivation training and assessment taking place help topositively change the mindset and improve the engagementof all members in an organization whereas the supports fromsenior management and environment provide foundationsfor the activities

With the strong correlations identified in Figure 2 noclear boundary exists among these factors as shown inFigure 5(a) They are all flexibly and continuously trans-formed from one state to others in a spiral endless-circleThough the model looks like the traditional yin-yang circleit only presents the mutual relationships and organic trans-formation among the factors it does not mean ldquooppositerdquoas of the yin-yang theory In addition the positive impactsof the identified factors on the successful Kaizen implemen-tation and sustainable performance indicate that the morethe factors are improved the more success and the betterperformance an organization will have Thus if the STEAM-ME circle moves forwards the organization will have betterimprovement and greater performance This mechanism isdemonstrated in Figure 5(b)

52 Managerial Implications The existing literature clearlyshows that successfully implementing Kaizen is a long andcomplex mission which should be integrated into strategicmanagement instead of being considered as a particularproject The insights of the mutual relationships among theseven affecting factors proposed in the novel STEAM-ME

16 Complexity

model greatly help business organizations especially SMEsto create proper strategies for their continuous improvementand sustainable performance

Firstly to effectively cultivate growth mindsets withinthe organizations top executives and department managersshould be the first ones to refresh their mindsets by takingKaizen training workshops so that they fully capture theKaizen philosophy as well as potential benefits they willgain once Kaizen is successfully implemented This is reallyimportant to start the first cycle because such new mindsetsnot only urge them to set and patiently pursuit Kaizenas a strategic goal but also make them willing to providesufficient supports and create good environment for theiremployees After that they should either send more staffsto join similar workshops or organize some internal trainingby either Kaizen experts or the trained executivesmanagersbecause the staffs will be the ones directly participatingin the continuous improvement process With encouragingand open environment they can quickly employ the knowl-edge and experiences learnt from the training hence wecan observe immediate improvements From such trainingall members will shape their own Kaizen mindsets whichdrive them to (1) consider continuous improvement as apermanent need in every daily operation (2) always welcomesuggestions for improvement (3) always strive for betterproductivity and quality because there are several areasfor improvement (4) appreciate teamwork and constructivecontributions and (5) always consider ldquosustainabilityrdquo inevery solutions or activities for long-term achievements SuchKaizen mindsets will steadily transform into organizationalculture of continuous improvement and sustainable develop-ment

Secondly with the positive mindsets they will activelyengage in improvement processes and more innovativesolutions for improvement will be proposed Therefore theSMEs should have right motivation approaches to encouragetheir engagement and increase their overall performance

Thirdly SMEs should have proper tools and measures toincessantly monitor and assess their actual performance andbenchmark with their expected outcomes to take correctiveactions if needed Importantly the tools andmeasures shouldincorporate three critical pillars for sustainable performancepeople planet and profit

Finally the findings in Section 47 urge the state-ownedenterprises and the private ones to pay more attention to theunderstanding and implementing of Kaizen philosophy intheir business operationsThey should sendmore senior lead-ersstaffs to Kaizen training workshops to fully capture thephilosophy and learn the practical experiences from the shar-ing of their peers This is really important to improve theircompetitive advantages against the joint-venture and foreign-owned enterprises to assure their sustainable development inthe current trend of regional and international integrationPractically joint-venture and foreign-owned enterprises tendto implement Kaizen easier because they have better man-agement system with stronger quality culture Moreover themicro and small enterprises should also make more effortsto implement Kaizen to improve their performance and theirproductivity before they can enlarge their business

6 Conclusion

Over the past few decades Kaizen has been successfullyimplemented across different industries in many countriesworldwide and brought significant benefits towards relevantorganizations including SMEs SMEs in Vietnam play animportant role in developing the national economy Howeverthe recent trend in international integration urges them toimprove their competitive advantages for their survival andsustainable growth Therefore this study is aimed at identi-fying determinants of the successful Kaizen implementationand sustainable performance of SMEs in Vietnam so thatothers can have proper actions and prioritize their operationsin accordance with their available resources Specificallythrough a formal survey of 213 participants from 62 SMEssuccessfully implementing Kaizen in the North Middle andSouth of Vietnam and appropriate statistical approaches suchas exploratory factor analysis (EFA) scale reliability analysisconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equationmodelling (SEM) seven important determinants have beenidentified (1) supports from seniormanagement (2) training(3) working environment (4) assessment (5) motivation(6) mindset and (7) engagement of all members in theenterprises These seven factors perfectly form a new modelnamed as ldquoSTEAM-MErdquo implying that organizations need tohave a new airflow as ldquosteamrdquo to make all of its membersrefreshed and brimful of energy to foster their growthminds positive attitudes behaviors engagement produc-tivity and responsibilities and improve their performanceso that the organizations can (1) gain significant successin implementing Kaizen and (2) improve their businessperformance and competitive advantage for their sustainabledevelopment

In particular among the seven identified factors ldquomind-setrdquo is newly proposed in this study It was identified fromthe qualitative research and has significant impacts on thesuccess of Kaizen implementation and sustainable perfor-mance The finding obviously adds a new affecting factorto fulfill research gap in the existing literature In additionthe quantitative relationships among the identified factorshelp to create an innovative STEAM-ME model whose com-ponents positively and crucially affect the successful Kaizenimplementation and sustainable performance of SMEs inVietnam

As this study focuses on SMEs only future researchshould investigate if similar determinants exist in the cases oflarge enterprises and multinational corporations Compara-tive analysis of the success and organizational performanceamong enterprises of all sizes will deepen our understandingof how Kaizen can be successfully implemented across theenterprise sizes

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from previously reported studies and datasetswhich have been cited In addition the official survey and thedata will be supplemented by the author upon request

Complexity 17

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

This study is funded by Lac Hong University under theDecision No 879QETH-ETHHLH dated October 24 2018 by theRector

Supplementary Materials

Appendix I provides a full list of references support-ing the rational validation of the six identified factorspresented in the main text while Appendix II providesa table mapping each factor with its reference sources(Supplementary Materials)

References

[1] A K Arya and S Choudhary ldquoAssessing the application ofKaizen principles in Indian small-scale industryrdquo InternationalJournal of Lean Six Sigma vol 6 no 4 pp 369ndash396 2015

[2] H Iberahim H Mazlinda M Marhainie and A N HidayahldquoDeterminants of sustainable continuous improvement prac-tices in mail processing service operationsrdquo Procedia - Socialand Behavioral Sciences vol 219 pp 330ndash337 2016

[3] B Kaminska ldquoKaizen as a method of management improve-ment in small production companiesrdquo Entrepreneurship andManagement vol 16 no 2 pp 157ndash170 2015

[4] M Oropesa Vento J L Garcıa Alcaraz A A MaldonadoMacıas and V Martınez Loya ldquoThe impact of managerialcommitment and Kaizen benefits on companiesrdquo Journal ofManufacturing Technology Management vol 27 no 5 pp 692ndash712 2016

[5] C Topuz and Z Arasan ldquoKaizen-educational An awareness-raising and motivational-enhancement group counselingmodelrdquo Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences vol 84 pp1356ndash1360 2013

[6] D J Teece ldquoExplicating dynamic capabilities The natureandmicrofoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performancerdquoStrategic Management Journal vol 28 no 13 pp 1319ndash13502007

[7] W GMacpherson J C LockhartH Kavan andA L IaquintoldquoKaizen a Japanese philosophy and system for business excel-lencerdquo Journal of Business Strategy vol 36 no 5 pp 3ndash9 2015

[8] R Lozano M Suzuki A Carpenter and O Tyunina ldquoAnanalysis of the contribution of Japanese business terms tocorporate sustainability learnings from the ldquolooking-glassrdquo ofthe eastrdquo Sustainability vol 9 no 2 article no 188 2017

[9] T Homma ldquoJICArsquos industrial cooperation in africardquo in Proceed-ings of the GRIPS Development Forum International Seminar onAfrican Manufacturing Tokyo 2014

[10] L B M Costa and M G Filho ldquoLean healthcare Reviewclassification and analysis of literaturerdquo Production Planning ampControl vol 27 no 10 pp 823ndash836 2016

[11] S Duarte and V Cruz-Machado ldquoModelling lean and green areview from business modelsrdquo International Journal of Lean SixSigma vol 4 no 3 pp 228ndash250 2013

[12] A Chiarini ldquoSustainable manufacturing-greening processesusing specific lean production tools An empirical observationfrom european motorcycle component manufacturersrdquo Journalof Cleaner Production vol 85 no 4 pp 226ndash233 2014

[13] J A Garza-Reyes ldquoLean and green-a systematic review of thestate of the art literaturerdquo Journal of Cleaner Production vol 102no 8 pp 18ndash29 2015

[14] V Chahal N Grover N Kumar and M T Pardeep ldquoImpact oflean strategies on different industrial lean wastesrdquo InternationalJournal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics vol 12 no 2 pp275ndash286 2017

[15] G A Marodin A G Frank G L Tortorella and D C Fet-terman ldquoLean production and operational performance in theBrazilian automotive supply chainrdquo Total Quality Managementamp Business Excellence vol 30 no 3-4 pp 370ndash385 2017

[16] S Gupta M Sharma and V Sunder M ldquoLean services asystematic reviewrdquo International Journal of Productivity andPerformance Management vol 65 no 8 pp 1025ndash1056 2016

[17] I Belekoukias J A Garza-Reyes and V Kumar ldquoThe impactof lean methods and tools on the operational performance ofmanufacturing organisationsrdquo International Journal of Produc-tion Research vol 52 no 18 pp 5346ndash5366 2014

[18] R R Fullerton F A Kennedy and S K Widener ldquoLeanmanufacturing and firm performance The incremental contri-bution of lean management accounting practicesrdquo Journal ofOperations Management vol 32 no 7-8 pp 414ndash428 2014

[19] P Ingelsson and A Martensson ldquoMeasuring the importanceand practices of Lean valuesrdquo TQM Journal vol 26 no 5 pp463ndash474 2014

[20] A Prashar ldquoRedesigning an assembly line through Lean-Kaizen An Indian caserdquo TQM Journal vol 26 no 5 pp 475ndash498 2014

[21] R Teehan andW Tucker ldquoService quality Kaizen blitzThe roadto improving customer satisfactionrdquo Sinergie Italian Journal ofManagement vol 94 no 1 pp 233ndash241 2014

[22] M Dora M Kumar D Van Goubergen A Molnar and XGellynck ldquoOperational performance and critical success factorsof lean manufacturing in European food processing SMEsrdquoTrends in Food Science amp Technology vol 31 no 2 pp 156ndash1642013

[23] AFED - Agency for Enterprise Development ldquoWhite paper -Small andmedium enterprises in vietnamministry of planningand investmentrdquo 2017 httpbusinessgovvnPortals02018ST20DNNVV202017 final1pdf

[24] VGP- Vietnam Government Portal ldquoDoanh nghiệp Việt Namcang ngay cang nh đirdquo 2018 httpbaochinhphuvnKinh-teDoanh-nghiep-Viet-Nam-cang-ngay-cang-nho-di328552vgp

[25] N D Minh D T Cuc T T H Giang and H T T Ha ldquoAppli-cation of 5S in Vietnam small and medium manufacturingenterprises current situation and recommendationsrdquo Journal ofScience of Vietnam National University vol 29 no 1 pp 23ndash312013

[26] A F Lemma ldquoThe role of Kaizen in economic trans-formation working paper 523 overseas development insti-tuterdquo 2018 httpwwwodiorgsitesodiorgukfilesresource-documents12110pdf

[27] Sebhatu S P ldquoThe challenges and opportunities in creatingsustainable shared values at the base of the Pyramid- Cases fromsub-Saharan Africardquo in Sustainability Challenges and Solutionsat the Base-of-the-Pyramid Business Technology and the Poor

18 Complexity

P Kandachar and M Halme Eds pp 146ndash162 Green LeafPublishing Sheffield UK 2017

[28] A N Norazlan N F Habidin M H Roslan and M ZZainudin ldquoThe development of sustainable supply chain man-agement and sustainable performance in Malaysian healthcareindustryrdquo International Journal of Ethics in Engineering andManagement Education vol 1 no 2 pp 51ndash55 2014

[29] T Artiach D Lee D Nelson and J Walker ldquoThe determinantsof corporate sustainability performancerdquoAccountingamp Financevol 50 no 1 pp 31ndash51 2010

[30] A StanciuMConstandache and E Condrea ldquoConcerns aboutthe sustainable performance of firm in the context of qualitymanagement systems implementationrdquo Procedia - Social andBehavioral Sciences vol 131 pp 340ndash344 2014

[31] UBS ldquoAchieving sustainable performance- Integrated Report-ing 2017rdquo 2017 httpwwwubscomglobalenabout inte-grated-report-2017-enpdf

[32] J E Correa J B Turrioni A P D Paiva et al ldquoThe influenceof accreditation on the sustainability of organizations withthe Brazilian accreditation methodologyrdquo Journal of HealthcareEngineering vol 2018 Article ID 1393585 11 pages 2018

[33] Q Feng X Liu L Tang L Shi J Jiang andX Su ldquoResearch on aconnotation and assessment index systemof eco-communitiesrdquoInternational Journal of Sustainable Development amp WorldEcology vol 24 no 6 pp 524ndash531 2017

[34] M Yang M Movahedipour J Zeng Z Xiaoguang and LWang ldquoAnalysis of success factors to implement sustainablesupply chain management using interpretive structural mod-eling technique A real case perspectiverdquo in MathematicalProblems in Engineering vol 2017 p 14 2017

[35] L Shen C Shuai L Jiao Y Tan and X Song ldquoA globalperspective on the sustainable performance of urbanizationrdquoSustainability vol 8 no 8 article no 783 2016

[36] S K Chaharsooghi and M Ashrafi ldquoSustainable supplierperformance evaluation and selection with Neofuzzy TOPSISMethodrdquo International Scholarly Research Notices vol 2014Article ID 434168 10 pages 2014

[37] S M Masoumik S H Abdul-Rashid E U Olugu and R ARaja Ghazilla ldquoSustainable supply chain design A configura-tional approachrdquoThe Scientific World Journal vol 2014 ArticleID 897121 16 pages 2014

[38] W C Huang C H Jhong and J F Ding ldquoKey factorsinfluencing sustainable development of a green energy industryin Taiwanrdquo inMathematical Problems in Engineering vol 2013p 10 2013

[39] N Long and T Nguyen ldquoSustainable development of ruraltourism in an Giang Province Vietnamrdquo Sustainability vol 10no 4 article no 953 2018

[40] A N Norazlan N F Habidin M H Roslan and M ZZainudin ldquoInvestigation of kaizen blitz and sustainable perfor-mance for Malaysian healthcare industryrdquo International Journalof Quality and Innovation vol 2 no 34 p 272 2014

[41] B Moldan S Janouskova and T Hak ldquoHow to understand andmeasure environmental sustainability Indicators and targetsrdquoEcological Indicators vol 17 pp 4ndash13 2012

[42] T Schoenherr ldquoThe role of environmental management insustainable business development amulticounty investigationrdquoInternational Journal Production Economics vol 140 no 1 pp116ndash128 2011

[43] T Q Nguyen N T Long and T Nguyen ldquoImpacts of corporatesocial responsibility on the competitiveness of tourist enter-prisesrdquo Tourism Economics 2018

[44] S Iwao ldquoRevisiting the existing notion of continuous improve-ment (Kaizen) literature review and field research of Toyotafrom a perspective of innovationrdquo Evolutionary and Institu-tional Economics Review vol 14 no 1 pp 29ndash59 2017

[45] J Miller M Wroblewski and J Villafuerte Creating a KaizenCulture McGraw Hill NY USA 2014

[46] D CarnerudC Jaca and I Backstrom ldquoKaizen and continuousimprovement ndash trends and patterns over 30 yearsrdquo The TQMJournal vol 30 no 4 pp 371ndash390 2018

[47] M Imai Gemba Kaizen A Common Sense Approach to aContinuous Improvement Strategy McGraw-Hill EducationNew York NY USA 2nd edition 2012

[48] J Singh and H Singh ldquoContinuous improvement philosophyndash literature review and directionsrdquo Benchmarking An Interna-tional Journal vol 22 no 1 pp 75ndash119 2015

[49] S Isenberg ldquoMerging education and business models to createand sustain transformational changerdquo International Journal ofAdult Vocational Education and Technology vol 1 no 4 pp 31ndash47 2010

[50] A Styhre ldquoKaizen ethics and care of the operations manage-ment after empowermentrdquo Journal of Management Studies vol38 no 6 pp 795ndash810 2001

[51] J A Farris E M Van Aken T L Doolen and J WorleyldquoCritical success factors for human resource outcomes inKaizenevents An empirical studyrdquo International Journal of ProductionEconomics vol 117 no 1 pp 42ndash65 2009

[52] J Ma Z Lin and C K Lau ldquoPrioritising the enablers for thesuccessful implementation of Kaizen in Chinardquo InternationalJournal of Quality amp Reliability Management vol 34 no 4 pp549ndash568 2017

[53] M F Suarez-Barraza and J Ramis-Pujol ldquoImplementation ofLean-Kaizen in the human resource service process A casestudy in a Mexican public service organisationrdquo Journal ofManufacturing Technology Management vol 21 no 3 pp 388ndash410 2010

[54] D Jurburg E Viles M Tanco and R Mateo ldquoWhat motivatesemployees to participate in continuous improvement activi-tiesrdquo Total Quality Management amp Business Excellence vol 28no 13-14 pp 1469ndash1488 2017

[55] N Rodrıguez-Padial MMarın and R Domingo ldquoAn approachto integrating tactical decision-making in industrial mainte-nance balance scorecards using principal components analy-sis and machine learningrdquo Complexity vol 2017 Article ID3759514 15 pages 2017

[56] P Alexander and J B Fadden ldquoA value-streammapping successstory mba recruiting process improvementsrdquo in Proceedings ofthe 4th International Conference on Lean Six Sigma for HigherEducation pp 40ndash49 2017

[57] B K Jeong and T E Yoon ldquoImproving IT process managementthrough value streammapping approach A case studyrdquo Journalof Information Systems and TechnologyManagement vol 13 no3 pp 389ndash404 2016

[58] F E Ciarapica M Bevilacqua and G Mazzuto ldquoPerformanceanalysis of new product development projectsrdquo InternationalJournal of Productivity and Performance Management vol 65no 2 pp 177ndash206 2016

[59] A Kuiper R van deHoefMWesseling B A Lameijer andR JDoes ldquoQuality quandaries Improving a customer value streamat a financial service providerrdquo Quality Engineering vol 28 no1 pp 155ndash163 2016

Complexity 19

[60] M A Lewis ldquoLean production and sustainable competitiveadvantagerdquo International Journal of Operations and ProductionManagement vol 20 no 8 pp 959ndash978 2000

[61] M A Idris and M Zairi ldquoSustaining TQM A synthesis ofliterature and proposed research frameworkrdquo Total QualityManagement amp Business Excellence vol 17 no 9 pp 1245ndash12602006

[62] J Pullin ldquoRoom for improvementrdquo Professional Engineeringvol 18 no 15 pp 38ndash138 2005

[63] D I Prajogo and A S Sohal ldquoThe sustainability and evolutionof quality improvement programmes - An Australian casestudyrdquo Total Quality Management amp Business Excellence vol 15no 2 pp 205ndash220 2004

[64] N Bateman and N Rich ldquoCompanies perceptions of inhibitorsand enablers for process improvement activitiesrdquo InternationalJournal of Operations amp Production Management vol 23 no 2pp 185ndash199 2003

[65] J J Garcia-Sabater and J A Marin-Garcia ldquoCan we stilltalk about continuous improvement Rethinking enablers andinhibitors for successful implementationrdquo International Journalof Technology Management vol 55 no 1-2 pp 28ndash42 2011

[66] A G Robinson and D M Schroeder Ideas Are Free HowThe Idea Revolution Is Liberating People and TransformingOrganizations Berrett-Koehler Publishers USA 2004

[67] S Nakajima Introduction to TPM Total Productive Mainte-nance Massachusetts Productivity Press Cambridge MassUSA 1988

[68] R Domingo and S Aguado ldquoOverall environmental equipmenteffectiveness as a metric of a lean and green manufacturingsystemrdquo Sustainability vol 7 no 7 pp 9031ndash9047 2015

[69] S Kumar A K Dhingra and B Singh ldquoKaizen selectionfor continuous improvement through VSM-FUZZY-TOPSIS insmall-scale enterprises An Indian case studyrdquo in Advances inFuzzy Systems vol 2018 p 10 2018

[70] J L Garcıa A A Maldonado A Alvarado and D G RiveraldquoHuman critical success factors for kaizen and its impacts inindustrial performancerdquoThe International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 70 no 9-12 pp 2187ndash2198 2014

[71] Y F Chen and D Tjosvold ldquoParticipative leadership by Ameri-can and Chinese managers in China The role of relationshipsrdquoJournal of Management Studies vol 43 no 8 pp 1727ndash17522006

[72] J Mendoza-Fong J Garcıa-Alcaraz J Dıaz-Reza J SaenzDiez Muro and J Blanco Fernandez ldquoThe role of greenand traditional supplier attributes on business performancerdquoSustainability vol 9 no 9 article no 1520 2017

[73] M E Pullman M J Maloni and C R Carter ldquoFood forthought Social versus environmental sustainability practicesand performance outcomesrdquo Journal of Supply Chain Manage-ment vol 45 no 4 pp 38ndash54 2009

[74] M F Suarez-Barraza J Ramis-Pujol and L KerbacheldquoThoughts on kaizen and its evolutionThree different perspec-tives and guiding principlesrdquo International Journal of Lean SixSigma vol 2 no 4 pp 288ndash308 2011

[75] J Womack D Jones and D Roos The Machine That Changedthe World Published Simon amp Schuster New York NY USA2007

[76] A Hiam Motivational Management Inspiring Your People forMaximum Performance American Management AssociationNew York NY USA 2003

[77] M G Maarof and FMahmud ldquoA review of contributing factorsand challenges in implementing kaizen in small and mediumenterprisesrdquo Procedia Economics and Finance vol 35 pp 522ndash531 2016

[78] J L Garcıa-Alcaraz M Oropesa-Vento and A AMMaldonado-Macıas ldquoLiterature reviewrdquo in Kaizen PlanningImplementing and Controlling Management and IndustrialEngineering pp 23ndash31 Springer International Publishing 2017

[79] J L Garcıa-Alcaraz M Oropesa-Vento and A A Maldonado-Macıas ldquoMethodologyrdquo in Kaizen Planning Implementing andControlling Management and Industrial Engineering pp 59ndash78 Springer International Publishing 2017

[80] L Avelar-Sosa J Garcıa-Alcaraz and J Castrellon-Torres ldquoTheeffects of some risk factors in the supply chains performance Acase of studyrdquo Journal of Applied Research and Technology vol12 no 5 pp 958ndash968 2014

[81] J L Garcıa D G Rivera and A A Iniesta ldquoCritical success fac-tors for Kaizen implementation in manufacturing industries inMexicordquo The International Journal of Advanced ManufacturingTechnology vol 68 no 1-4 pp 537ndash545 2013

[82] M Oropesa-Vento J L Garcıa-Alcaraz L Rivera and D FManotas ldquoEffects of management commitment and organiza-tion of work teams on the benefits of Kaizen Planning stagerdquoDYNA vol 82 no 191 pp 76ndash84 2015

[83] J Dıaz-Reza J Garcıa-Alcaraz L Avelar-Sosa J Mendoza-Fong J SaenzDiez-Muro and J Blanco-Fernandez ldquoThe role ofmanagerial commitment and TPM implementation strategiesin productivity benefitsrdquo Applied Sciences vol 8 no 7 articleno 1153 2018

[84] N Bateman ldquoSustainability The elusive element of processimprovementrdquo International Journal of Operations and Produc-tion Management vol 25 no 3 pp 261ndash276 2005

[85] R Cooney and A Sohal ldquoTeamwork and total quality man-agement A durable partnershiprdquo Total Quality Management ampBusiness Excellence vol 15 no 8 pp 1131ndash1142 2010

[86] C Rapp and J Eklund ldquoSustainable development of improve-ment activitiesndashthe long-term operation of a suggestion schemein a Swedish companyrdquo Total Quality Management vol 13 no7 pp 945ndash969 2010

[87] D Goodridge G Westhorp T Rotter R Dobson and B BathldquoLean and leadership practices development of an initial realistprogram theoryrdquo BMC Health Services Research vol 15 no 12015

[88] M Al-Najem H Dhakal and N Bennett ldquoThe role of cultureand leadership in lean transformation A review and assessmentmodelrdquo International Journal of Lean Thinking vol 3 no 1 pp119ndash138 2012

[89] V Crute YWard S Brown andAGraves ldquoImplementing Leanin aerospace - Challenging the assumptions and understandingthe challengesrdquo Technovation vol 23 no 12 pp 917ndash928 2003

[90] K J Fryer J Antony and A Douglas ldquoCritical success factorsof continuous improvement in the public sector A literaturereview and some key findingsrdquoThe TQMMagazine vol 19 no5 pp 497ndash517 2007

[91] A Trostel and A Light ldquoCarrier Mexico SA De CVrdquo Journalof Business Research vol 50 no 1 pp 97ndash110 2000

[92] KMAlvarado-Ramırez VH Pumisacho-Alvaro J AMiguel-Davila and M F Suarez Barraza ldquoKaizen a continuousimprovement practice in organizationsrdquoThe TQM Journal vol30 no 4 pp 255ndash268 2018

20 Complexity

[93] C Soltero and G Waldrip ldquoUsing Kaizen to reduce waste andprevent pollutionrdquo Environmental Quality Management vol 11no 3 pp 23ndash38 2002

[94] U Kumar V Kumar D de Grosbois and F Choisne ldquoCon-tinuous improvement of performance measurement by TQMadoptersrdquoTotal QualityManagement amp Business Excellence vol20 no 6 pp 603ndash616 2009

[95] S Vinodh and S K Chintha ldquoLeanness assessment usingmulti-grade fuzzy approachrdquo International Journal of ProductionResearch vol 49 no 2 pp 431ndash445 2011

[96] K Ariga M Kurosawa F Ohtake M Sasaki and S YamaneldquoOrganization adjustments job training and productivityEvidence from Japanese automobile makersrdquo Journal of theJapanese and International Economies vol 27 no 1 pp 1ndash342013

[97] A Day and K D Randell ldquoBuilding a foundation for physicallyhealthy workplaces and well-beingrdquo in Workplace Well-BeingHow to Build Psychologically Healthy Workplaces A Day E KKelloway and J J Hurrell Eds pp 3ndash26 John Wiley amp SonsLtd Chichester 2014

[98] I Beltran-Martın and J C Bou-Llusar ldquoExamining the interme-diate role of employee abilities motivation and opportunitiesto participate in the relationship between HR bundles andemployee performancerdquo BRQ Business Research Quarterly vol21 no 2 pp 99ndash110 2018

[99] A M Sharma and A Shirsath ldquoTraining ndashAmotivational toolrdquoIOSR Journal of Business andManagement vol 16 no 3 pp 27ndash35 2014

[100] T P Sung G C S Yee A Bahron and I H A Rahim ldquoTheinfluence of training employee engagement and performanceappraisal on turnover intention among lecturers in Sabahprivate higher education institutionsrdquo Journal of Global Businessand Social Entrepreneurship (GBSE) vol 1 no 3 pp 89ndash98 2017

[101] F A Malik and Y Rubina ldquoRole of human resource practiceson employee performance Mediating role of employee engage-mentrdquo Science International vol 27 no 6 pp 6403ndash6412 2015

[102] A J ldquoDeterminants of employee engagement and their impacton employee performancerdquo International Journal of Productivityand Performance Management vol 63 no 3 pp 308ndash323 2014

[103] A Paradise ldquoInfluences engagementrdquo ASTD Training Develop-ment vol 62 no 1 pp 54ndash59 2008

[104] A Realyvasquez A A Maldonado-Macıas J Garcıa-AlcarazG Cortes-Robles and J Blanco-Fernandez ldquoStructural modelfor the effects of environmental elements on the psychologicalcharacteristics and performance of the employees of manufac-turing systemsrdquo International Journal of Environmental Researchand Public Health vol 13 no 1 article no 104 2016

[105] M A Quddus and A M M Nazmul Ahsan ldquoA shop-floorkaizen breakthrough approach to improve working environ-ment and productivity of a sewing floor in RMG industryrdquoJournal of Textile andApparel Technology andManagement vol8 no 4 pp 1ndash12 2014

[106] A Skalli I Theodossiou and E Vasileiou ldquoJobs as Lancastergoods Facets of job satisfaction and overall job satisfactionrdquoJournal of Socio-Economics vol 37 no 5 pp 1906ndash1920 2008

[107] S Gazioglu and A Tansel ldquoJob satisfaction in Britain Individ-ual and job related factorsrdquo Applied Economics vol 38 no 10pp 1163ndash1171 2006

[108] A Sousa-Poza and A A Sousa-Poza ldquoWell-being at work Across-national analysis of the levels and determinants of jobsatisfactionrdquo Journal of Socio-Economics vol 29 no 6 pp 517ndash538 2000

[109] H Zareh M Golverdi A H S Nasab and A A RashidldquoEngagement at work Approaches benefits and guidelinesapplied mathematics in engineeringrdquo Management and Tech-nology vol 2 no 4 pp 83ndash92 2014

[110] J Liker and J Franz ldquoThe Toyota way Helping others helpthemselvesrdquoManufacturing Engineering vol 149 no 5 pp 87ndash95 2012

[111] S Aguado R Alvarez and R Domingo ldquoModel of efficientand sustainable improvements in a lean production systemthrough processes of environmental innovationrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 47 pp 141ndash148 2013

[112] D Stadnicka and K Sakano ldquoEmployees motivation andopenness for continuous improvement Comparative study inpolish and japanese companiesrdquo Management and ProductionEngineering Review vol 8 no 3 pp 70ndash86 2017

[113] A Gravells Principles and Practices of Teaching and TrainingA Guide for Teachers and Trainers in The FE and Skills SectorLearning Matters Exeter UK 2017

[114] T Ferdous and B Razzak ldquoImportance of Training needsassessment in the banking sector of Bangladesh A case studyon national bank limited (nbl)rdquo International Journal of Businessand Management vol 7 no 10 pp 63ndash73 2012

[115] J Carlisle R Bhanugopan and A Fish ldquoTraining needs ofnurses in public hospitals in Australia Review of currentpractices and future research agendardquo Journal of EuropeanIndustrial Training vol 35 no 7 pp 687ndash701 2011

[116] A N Abdelhafiz Elbadri ldquoTraining practices of Polish com-panies An appraisal and agenda for improvementrdquo Journal ofEuropean Industrial Training vol 25 no 2 pp 69ndash79 2001

[117] W J Glover J A Farris E M Van Aken and T L DoolenldquoCritical success factors for the sustainability of Kaizen eventhuman resource outcomes An empirical studyrdquo InternationalJournal of Production Economics vol 132 no 2 pp 197ndash2132011

[118] J L Arquero C Fernandez-Polvillo T Hassall and J JoyceldquoVocation motivation and approaches to learning a compar-ative studyrdquo Education + Training vol 57 no 1 pp 13ndash30 2015

[119] C Stringer J Didham and P Theivananthampillai ldquoMotiva-tion pay satisfaction and job satisfaction of front-line employ-eesrdquo Qualitative Research in Accounting amp Management vol 8no 2 pp 161ndash179 2011

[120] D Conrad A Ghosh and M Isaacson ldquoEmployee motivationfactorsrdquo International Journal of Public Leadership vol 11 no 2pp 92ndash106 2015

[121] S Organ D Proverbs and G Squires ldquoMotivations for energyefficiency refurbishment in owner-occupied housingrdquo Struc-tural Survey vol 31 no 2 pp 101ndash120 2013

[122] A Keshwar Seebaluck and T Devi Seegum ldquoMotivation amongpublic primary school teachers in Mauritiusrdquo InternationalJournal of Educational Management vol 27 no 4 pp 446ndash4642013

[123] M Mozes Z Josman and E Yaniv ldquoCorporate social respon-sibility organizational identification and motivationrdquo SocialResponsibility Journal vol 7 no 2 pp 310ndash325 2011

[124] A Furnham A Eracleous and T Chamorro-Premuzic ldquoPer-sonality motivation and job satisfaction Hertzberg meets theBig Fiverdquo Journal of Managerial Psychology vol 24 no 8 pp765ndash779 2009

[125] A Ismail and M R Abd Razak ldquoA study on job satisfaction asa determinant of job motivationrdquo Acta Universitatis Danabiusvol 12 pp 30ndash44 2016

Complexity 21

[126] A Tella C O Ayeni and S O Popoola ldquoWork motivationjob satisfaction and organisational commitment of librarypersonnel in academic and research libraries in Oyo StateNigeriardquo Library Philosophy and Practice vol 2007 no 118 pp1ndash16 2007

[127] B A Hennessey and T M Amabile ldquoExtrinsic and intrinsicmotivationrdquo inOrganizational Behavior NNicholson PAudiaandM Pillutla Eds Blackwell PublishingMaldenMass USA2005

[128] A Nelson and G Quick ldquoThe effects of contingent andnon-contingent rewards and controls on intrinsic motivationrdquoOrganizational Behavior amp Human Performance vol 8 no 2pp 217ndash229 2005

[129] R Yasothai J Jauhar andAG Bashawir ldquoA study on the impactof employee performance The mediating role of appraisalrdquoInternational Journal of Humanities and Social Science vol 3no 1 pp 92ndash104 2015

[130] O P SalauHO Falola and JOAkinbode ldquoInduction and staffattitude towards retention and organizational effectivenessrdquoIOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM) vol 16no 4 pp 47ndash52 2014

[131] P M Muchinsky Psychology Applied toWork Thomson HigherEducation Belmont Nashville Tennessee USA 9th edition2006

[132] L G Bolman and T E Deal Reframing Organizations ArtistryChoice and Leadership Jossey-Bass NJ USA 6th edition 2017

[133] A Erbasi and T Arat ldquoThe effect of financial and non-financialincentives on job satisfaction An Examination of food chainpremises in Turkeyrdquo International Business Research vol 5 no10 pp 136ndash145 2012

[134] R Russell-Bennett J RMcColl-Kennedy and L V Coote ldquoTherelative importance of involvement and satisfaction on brandloyalty in a small business services settingrdquo Journal of BusinessResearch vol 60 no 12 pp 1253ndash1260 2007

[135] R D Stueart and B B Moran Library and Information CenterManagement Libraries Unlimited Westport USA 2007

[136] G Von Dran ldquoHuman resources and leadership strategies forlibraries in transitionrdquo Library Administration and Manage-ment vol 19 no 4 pp 177ndash184 2005

[137] J Cook and A Crossman ldquoSatisfaction with performanceappraisal systems A study of role perceptionsrdquo Journal ofManagerial Psychology vol 19 no 5 pp 526ndash541 2004

[138] H Ganjinia S Gilaninia and R P Sharami ldquoOverview ofemployees empowerment in organizationsrdquo Oman Chapter ofArabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OmanChapter) vol 3 no 2 pp 38ndash43 2013

[139] M S Kahreh H Ahmadi andA Hashemi ldquoAchieving compet-itive advantage through empowering employees An empiricalstudyrdquo Far East Journal of Psychology and Business vol 3 no 2pp 26ndash37 2011

[140] N Karakoc and A K Yilmaz ldquoEmployee empowerment anddifferentiation in companies A literature review and researchagendardquo Enterprise Risk Management vol 1 no 2 12 pages2009

[141] R Wagner and J K Harter 12 The Elements of Great ManagingGallup Press Canada 2006

[142] W H Knol J Slomp R L Schouteten and K LaucheldquoImplementing lean practices in manufacturing SMEs testinglsquocritical success factorsrsquo using Necessary Condition AnalysisrdquoInternational Journal of Production Research vol 56 no 11 pp3955ndash3973 2018

[143] M Dora M Kumar and X Gellynck ldquoDeterminants andbarriers to lean implementation in food-processing SMEs ndash amultiple case analysisrdquo Production Planning andControl vol 27no 1 pp 1ndash23 2015

[144] M Salanova and S Llorens ldquoEmployee empowerment andengagementrdquo in Workplace Well-Being How to Build Psycho-logically Healthy Workplaces A Day E K Kelloway and J JHurrell Eds pp 117ndash141 John Wiley amp Sons Ltd ChichesterUK 2014

[145] J Barrs ldquoFactors contributed by community organizationsto the motivation of teachers in rural Punjab Pakistan andimplications for the quality of teachingrdquo International Journalof Educational Development vol 25 no 3 pp 333ndash348 2005

[146] W W Burke Organization Change Theory and Practice SAGEPublications Calif USA 5th edition 2017

[147] U A Agarwal ldquoExamining the impact of social exchangerelationships on innovative work behaviour Role of workengagementrdquo Team Performance Management vol 20 no 3-4pp 102ndash120 2014

[148] U A Agarwal ldquoLinking justice trust and innovative workbehaviour to work engagementrdquo Personnel Review vol 43 no1 pp 41ndash73 2014

[149] U A Agarwal S Datta S Blake-Beard and S Bhargava ldquoLink-ing LMX innovative work behaviour and turnover intentionsThe mediating role of work engagementrdquo Career DevelopmentInternational vol 17 no 3 pp 208ndash230 2012

[150] M Banihani P Lewis and J Syed ldquoIs work engagementgenderedrdquo Gender in Management An International Journalvol 28 no 7 pp 400ndash423 2013

[151] A A Chughtai and F Buckley ldquoWork engagementAntecedents the mediating role of learning goal orientationand job performancerdquo Career Development International vol16 no 7 pp 684ndash705 2011

[152] S E FawcettG K Rhoads and P Burnah ldquoPeople as the bridgeto competitivenessrdquo Benchmarking An International Journalvol 11 no 4 pp 346ndash360 2004

[153] Y K Park J H Song S W Yoon and J Kim ldquoLearning organi-zation and innovative behaviour- The mediating effect of workengagementrdquo European Journal of Training and Developmentvol 38 no 1 pp 75ndash94 2013

[154] A B Bakker and E Demerouti ldquoTowards a model of workengagementrdquo Career Development International vol 13 no 3pp 209ndash223 2008

[155] C Timms and P Brough ldquoldquoI like being a teacherrdquo Careersatisfaction the work environment and work engagementrdquoJournal of Educational Administration vol 51 no 6 pp 768ndash789 2013

[156] R J Aldag and L W Kuzuhara Organizational Behaviourand Management An Integrated Skills Approach ThomsonLearning South Western UK 2002

[157] E A Locke and G P Latham ldquoWhat should we do aboutmotivation theory Six recommendations for the twenty-firstcenturyrdquo Academy of Management Review (AMR) vol 29 no3 pp 388ndash403 2004

[158] J A Gruman and A M Saks ldquoPerformance management andemployee engagementrdquo Human Resource Management Reviewvol 21 no 2 pp 123ndash136 2011

[159] A Wefald and R Downey ldquoConstruct dimensionality ofengagement and its relation with satisfactionrdquo The Journal ofPsychology Interdisciplinary and Applied vol 143 no 1 pp 91ndash111 2009

22 Complexity

[160] O M Karatepe and G Karadas ldquoDo psychological capital andwork engagement foster frontline employeesrsquo satisfaction astudy in the hotel industryrdquo International Journal of Contempo-rary Hospitality Management vol 27 no 6 pp 1254ndash1278 2015

[161] A B Bakker A Shimazu E Demerouti K Shimada and NKawakami ldquoWork engagement versus workaholism A test ofthe spillover-crossover modelrdquo Journal of Managerial Psychol-ogy vol 29 no 1 pp 63ndash80 2014

[162] S Abraham ldquoDevelopment of employee engagement pro-gramme on the basis of employee satisfaction surveyrdquo Journalof Economic Development Management IT Finance and Mar-keting vol 4 no 1 pp 27ndash37 2012

[163] M Ibrahim and S Al Falasi ldquoEmployee loyalty and engagementin uae public sectorrdquo Employee Relations vol 36 no 5 pp 562ndash582 2014

[164] S Biswas and J Bhatnagar ldquoMediator analysis of employeeengagement Role of perceived organizational support p-o fitorganizational commitment and job satisfactionrdquo Vikalpa TheJournal for Decision Makers vol 38 no 1 pp 27ndash40 2013

[165] Y Brunetto S T T Teo K Shacklock and R Farr-Wharton ldquoEmotional intelligence job satisfaction well-beingand engagement Explaining organisational commitment andturnover intentions in policingrdquo Human Resource ManagementJournal vol 22 no 4 pp 428ndash441 2012

[166] D Swartling and B Poksinska ldquoManagement initiation ofcontinuous improvement from a motivational perspectiverdquoJournal of Applied Economics and Business Research vol 3 no2 pp 81ndash94 2013

[167] S Bisgaard ldquoQuality management and Juranrsquos legacyrdquo Qualityand Reliability Engineering International vol 23 no 6 pp 665ndash677 2007

[168] J Readman and J Bessant ldquoWhat challenges lie ahead forimprovement programmes in the UK Lessons from the CINetContinuous Improvement Survey 2003rdquo International Journalof Technology Management vol 37 no 34 article no 290 2007

[169] F Joslashrgensen H Boer and F Gertsen ldquoDevelopment of ateam-based framework for conducting self-assessment of con-tinuous improvementrdquo Journal of Manufacturing TechnologyManagement vol 15 no 4 pp 343ndash349 2004

[170] C S Dweck Mindset The New Psychology of Success RandomHouse Publishing NY USA 2007

[171] R J Thomas F Harburg and A Dutra ldquoHow employeemindsets can be assessed to improve business performancerdquoOutlook- Accenture vol 2 pp 1ndash6 2007

[172] C S Dweck GMWalton andG L CohenAcademic tenacityMindsets and Skills that Promote Long-Term Learning Bill ampMelinda Gates Foundation Seattle Wash USA 2014

[173] D B Miele L K Son and JMetcalfe ldquoChildrenrsquos naive theoriesof intelligence influence their metacognitive judgmentsrdquo ChildDevelopment vol 84 no 6 pp 1879ndash1886 2013

[174] A Nolan A Taket and K Stagnitti ldquoSupporting resilience inearly years classrooms The role of the teacherrdquo Teachers andTeaching Theory and Practice vol 20 no 5 pp 595ndash608 2014

[175] K Haimovitz S VWormington and J H Corpus ldquoDangerousmindsets How beliefs about intelligence predict motivationalchangerdquo Learning and Individual Differences vol 21 no 6 pp747ndash752 2011

[176] H Takeuchi E Osono and N Shimizu ldquoThe contradictionsthat drive Toyotarsquos successrdquo Harvard Business Review vol 86no 6 pp 96ndash141 2008

[177] N A Mehrzi and S K Singh ldquoCompeting through employeeengagement A proposed frameworkrdquo International Journal ofProductivity and Performance Management vol 65 no 6 pp831ndash843 2016

[178] R Wellins and J Concelman ldquoCreating a culture for engage-mentrdquoWorkforce Performance Solutions vol 4 pp 1ndash4 2005

[179] B Catlette and R Hadden Contented Cows Give Better MilkThe Plain Truth about EmployeeRelations and Your Bottom LineSaltillo Publishing Germantown Md USA 2001

[180] J K Harter F L Schmidt and T L Hayes ldquoBusiness-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction employeeengagement and business outcomes A meta-analysisrdquo Journalof Applied Psychology vol 87 no 2 pp 268ndash279 2002

[181] D A Ortiz W K Lau and H Qin ldquoQuantitative analy-sis of impacts of employee engagement on continuance andnormative commitmentrdquo International Journal of Services andStandards vol 8 no 4 article no 315 2013

[182] C B Agyemang and S B Ofei ldquoEmployee work engagementandorganisational commitmentA comparative studyof privateand public sector organisations in Ghanardquo European Journal ofInnovation and Research vol 1 no 4 pp 20ndash33 2013

[183] A Siddhanta andD Roy ldquoEmployee engagement Engaging the21st centuryworkforcerdquoAsian Journal of Management Researchvol 3 pp 2229ndash3795 2010

[184] S G Cheche S M Muathe and S M Maina ldquoEmployeeengagement organisational commitment and performance ofselected state corporations in Kenyardquo European Scientific Jour-nal vol 13 no 31 pp 317ndash327 2017

[185] S Devi ldquoImpact of employee engagement on organizationalperformance A study of select private sectorrdquo IMS BusinessSchool Presents Doctoral Colloquium pp 10ndash13 2017

[186] E M Mone and M London Employee Engagement- throughEffective Performance Management- A Practical Guide for Man-agers Routledge NY USA 2nd edition 2017

[187] P Kazimoto ldquoEmployee engagement and organizational perfor-mance of retails enterprisesrdquoAmerican Journal of Industrial andBusiness Management vol 6 no 4 pp 516ndash525 2016

[188] M Alagaraja and B Shuck ldquoExploring organizational align-ment-employee engagement linkages and impact on individualperformancerdquo Human Resource Development Review vol 14no 1 pp 17ndash37 2015

[189] M A Z Dajani ldquoThe impact of employee engagement on jobperformance and organisational commitment in the Egyptianbanking sectorrdquo Journal of Business and Management Sciencesvol 3 no 5 pp 138ndash147 2015

[190] A Khalid and S Khalid ldquoRelationship between organizationalcommitments employee engagement and career satisfaction acase of University of Gujrat Pakistanrdquo Journal of South AsianStudies vol 3 no 3 pp 323ndash330 2015

[191] M Geldenhuys K Łaba and C M Venter ldquoMeaningful workwork engagement and organisational commitmentrdquo SA Journalof Industrial Psychology vol 40 no 1 2014

[192] A Imam and M Shafique ldquoImpact of employee engagement inretaining employees throughmediating effect of job satisfactionand organizational commitment and moderating effect of jobstress A Corporate banking sector study of Pakistanrdquo Journalof Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences vol 4 no 12pp 1ndash15 2014

[193] M Shoko and A Z Zinyemba ldquoImpact of employee engage-ment on organizational commitment in national institutionsof higher learning in Zimbabwerdquo International Journal of

Complexity 23

Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences vol 3no 9 pp 255ndash268 2014

[194] S V Marinova C Peng N Lorinkova L Van Dyne andD Chiaburu ldquoChange-oriented behavior A meta-analysis ofindividual and job design predictorsrdquo Journal of VocationalBehavior vol 88 pp 104ndash120 2015

[195] J F Hair W C Black B J Babin and R E AndersonMultivariate Data Analysis Pearson Hoboken NJ USA 2014

[196] J C Nunnally and I H Bernstein Psychometric TheoryMcGraw-Hill New York NY USA 1994

[197] J F Hair R E Anderson R L Tatham and W C BlackMultivariate Data Analysis with Readings Prentice-Hall UpperSaddle River NJ USA 1998

[198] J-B E M Steenkamp and H C M van Trijp ldquoThe use oflisrel in validating marketing constructsrdquo International Journalof Research in Marketing vol 8 no 4 pp 283ndash299 1991

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

MathematicsJournal of


Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Applied MathematicsJournal of


Probability and StatisticsHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Journal of


Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in

Complex AnalysisJournal of


OptimizationJournal of



Engineering Mathematics

International Journal of


Operations ResearchAdvances in

Journal of


Function SpacesAbstract and Applied AnalysisHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences


Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018Volume 2018

Numerical AnalysisNumerical AnalysisNumerical AnalysisNumerical AnalysisNumerical AnalysisNumerical AnalysisNumerical AnalysisNumerical AnalysisNumerical AnalysisNumerical AnalysisNumerical AnalysisNumerical AnalysisAdvances inAdvances in Discrete Dynamics in

Nature and SocietyHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Dierential EquationsInternational Journal of

Volume 2018


Decision SciencesAdvances in


AnalysisInternational Journal of


Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom

2 Complexity

Table 1 Criteria in identifying types of SMEs in Vietnam

Areas Criteria SME types under Decree 392018 SME types under Decree 562009Micro Small Medium Micro Small Medium

Agriculture forestryaquacultureindustry andconstruction



(BV)lowastlowastle 3 le 50 le 200

Trading and Services



(BV)lowastlowast le 10 le 100 le 300

Notes lowast employees lowastlowast Billion Vietnam Dong

by engaging all levels of management and employees forcontinuous improvement

On the other hand the important role of small andmedium enterprises (SMEs) inmost socioeconomic activitieshas been well recognized globally thus it is one of thecommon topics discussed in multilateral cooperation forumsand meetings such as Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation(APEC)Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevel-opment (OECD) AsiandashEurope Meeting (ASEM) and Asso-ciation of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) [23] Especiallyits importance is further affirmed in APEC 2017 as it isone of their four key priorities ldquoStrengthening Micro SMEsrsquoCompetitiveness and Innovation in the Digital Agerdquo

In Vietnam the number of SMEs accounts for about975 of 561064 enterprises of all types operating in Vietnam[24]The new definition of SMEs has been issued in Article 6of DecreeNo 392018ND-CP by theGovernment and comesinto effect since March 11th 2018 SMEs can be classified intothree categories depending on two criteria (1) annual averagenumber of employees contributing Social Insurance (No ofemployees) and (2) annual revenue or total capital registeredThese criteria are somehow different from previous Decree562009ND-CP Table 1 briefly presents details of thesecategories mentioned in the two Decrees

Practically SMEs not only contribute over 40 ofnational GDP and 1726 of the annual national budget butalso employ more than 50 workforce [23] consequentlySMEs are an important contributor to the development ofVietnam economy Comparing between 2017 and 2016 wefound that the number of medium enterprises increasedby 236 small ones increased by 212 and micro onesincreased by 655 But there were also more than 60660enterprises bankrupted in 2016 [23] indicating that SMEsare vulnerable in the competitive marketplace and currenteconomic context due to their limited resources and capacity[25]

However with the small and medium business scaleSMEs have their advantages in flexibly renovating themselvesand adopting new management approaches as well as easilyadapting to the changes in their business environmentTherefore when advanced management approaches such as

Kaizen and 5S are introduced they are always willing to learnand apply as much as they can to improve their operationalefficiency effectiveness and productivity [25] In the currentcontext of international integration the improvement hasbecome notably mandatory since the introduction of ASEANEconomics Community (AEC) in 2015 because the freemovement of goods services and investments as well asfreer flow of capital and skills among the ASEAN countriesresults in more intensive competition on the marketplaceIn such competitive environment providing good prod-uctsservices at reasonable prices becomes critical to thesurvival and growth of the enterprises And Kaizen has beenconsidered as an effective tool to improve the productiv-ity cost-effectiveness profitability efficient use of capitalreduction of operating time and competitive advantage[26]

Kaizen has been well transferred to Vietnam since early1990s Over the years more and more companies locatedthroughout Vietnam are trying their best to implementKaizen in their operationsThough there are some differencesin the practical implementation of Kaizen among Japanese-owned companies Japanese-joint companies and foreignand local onesmany of themhavewell recognized the impor-tance of Kaizen for their development From the trainingworkshops on Kaizen organized in Vietnam practitionersfind that Kaizen approach is suitable to be widely appliedacross the industrial enterprises in Vietnam because it isconsidered simple and inexpensive However its practicalimplementation is actually more complex than expectedConsequently some of them fail to implement Kaizen in theircompanies but some with successful implementation havegained significant benefits in terms of increased efficiency andproductivity Therefore this study is aimed at identifying keydeterminants of the successful Kaizen implementation andtheir impacts on the sustainable performance to encouragemore andmore SMEs in Vietnam to effectively deploy Kaizenapproach to improve their competitiveness

The rest of this paper is organized as follows Section 2reviews relevant literature about Kaizen and organizationalperformance as well as key factors affecting them beforeresearch hypotheses and model are proposed in this study

Complexity 3


2 Literature Review








4 Complexity









Complexity 5


















6 Complexity


















Complexity 7

MESTEAM


Training (T)

Environment (E)

Assessment (A)

Motivation (M)



Mindset(M)

Engagement(E)


H10

H15

H1H3

H5H7

H9H2H4H6 H12

H14

H11

H13

H8







3 Research Method










8 Complexity









Medium 115 540

Ownership Type







4 Empirical Results


Complexity 9



deleted1 2 3 4 5 6 7MIN1 0938

0845


0832


0851


0865

0809 0785ENV3 0858 0721 0823ENV4 0806 0668 0845ENV2 0783 0655 0849MOT1 0885

0811

0787 0735MOT3 0831 0681 0784MOT4 0765 0609 0816MOT2 0738 0590 0823ENG3 0795

0773

0633 0718ENG4 0784 0618 0726ENG1 0763 0582 0744ENG2 0761 0554 0758TRA1 0795

0765






10 Complexity



1 2PER1 0908

0875


0824
















Complexity 11

078071081

075

085

093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

099085082

030

070077080

022

018

026

035

032038

042 031

038044

021

042

024 039

043

012

033

032

031

022

040

029

033

032

037

024

022

027

030

029

044

035

046

043021

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1

b2

b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7

b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2

c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6

c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1

d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5

d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9



078071081

075

085093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

0732

0719

0586

0702

0549

0608

0671

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9c1

c2c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


f1




12 Complexity

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

078071081

075

085

093

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

080075082

078

077

096

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

084

089083082

072

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2c3

071067071061

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

092071080071

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

091066075068

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6

066062076074


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9

088069072

085070076

099085082

070077080


0718

0792

0767

0811

0508

0675

0623

0749

f2










Complexity 13






Enterpriselocation

SUCC 39012 2 210 0022PERF 32636 2 210 0040


Workingposition

SUCC 11278 2 210 0326PERF 06910 2 210 0502






14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA


Square F Sig

Ownershiptype


Total 61866 212


Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation




Enterprisesize




Workingposition








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








Complexity 3


2 Literature Review








4 Complexity









Complexity 5


















6 Complexity


















Complexity 7

MESTEAM


Training (T)

Environment (E)

Assessment (A)

Motivation (M)



Mindset(M)

Engagement(E)


H10

H15

H1H3

H5H7

H9H2H4H6 H12

H14

H11

H13

H8







3 Research Method










8 Complexity









Medium 115 540

Ownership Type







4 Empirical Results


Complexity 9



deleted1 2 3 4 5 6 7MIN1 0938

0845


0832


0851


0865

0809 0785ENV3 0858 0721 0823ENV4 0806 0668 0845ENV2 0783 0655 0849MOT1 0885

0811

0787 0735MOT3 0831 0681 0784MOT4 0765 0609 0816MOT2 0738 0590 0823ENG3 0795

0773

0633 0718ENG4 0784 0618 0726ENG1 0763 0582 0744ENG2 0761 0554 0758TRA1 0795

0765






10 Complexity



1 2PER1 0908

0875


0824
















Complexity 11

078071081

075

085

093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

099085082

030

070077080

022

018

026

035

032038

042 031

038044

021

042

024 039

043

012

033

032

031

022

040

029

033

032

037

024

022

027

030

029

044

035

046

043021

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1

b2

b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7

b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2

c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6

c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1

d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5

d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9



078071081

075

085093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

0732

0719

0586

0702

0549

0608

0671

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9c1

c2c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


f1




12 Complexity

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

078071081

075

085

093

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

080075082

078

077

096

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

084

089083082

072

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2c3

071067071061

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

092071080071

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

091066075068

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6

066062076074


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9

088069072

085070076

099085082

070077080


0718

0792

0767

0811

0508

0675

0623

0749

f2










Complexity 13






Enterpriselocation

SUCC 39012 2 210 0022PERF 32636 2 210 0040


Workingposition

SUCC 11278 2 210 0326PERF 06910 2 210 0502






14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA


Square F Sig

Ownershiptype


Total 61866 212


Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation




Enterprisesize




Workingposition








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








4 Complexity









Complexity 5


















6 Complexity


















Complexity 7

MESTEAM


Training (T)

Environment (E)

Assessment (A)

Motivation (M)



Mindset(M)

Engagement(E)


H10

H15

H1H3

H5H7

H9H2H4H6 H12

H14

H11

H13

H8







3 Research Method










8 Complexity









Medium 115 540

Ownership Type







4 Empirical Results


Complexity 9



deleted1 2 3 4 5 6 7MIN1 0938

0845


0832


0851


0865

0809 0785ENV3 0858 0721 0823ENV4 0806 0668 0845ENV2 0783 0655 0849MOT1 0885

0811

0787 0735MOT3 0831 0681 0784MOT4 0765 0609 0816MOT2 0738 0590 0823ENG3 0795

0773

0633 0718ENG4 0784 0618 0726ENG1 0763 0582 0744ENG2 0761 0554 0758TRA1 0795

0765






10 Complexity



1 2PER1 0908

0875


0824
















Complexity 11

078071081

075

085

093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

099085082

030

070077080

022

018

026

035

032038

042 031

038044

021

042

024 039

043

012

033

032

031

022

040

029

033

032

037

024

022

027

030

029

044

035

046

043021

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1

b2

b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7

b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2

c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6

c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1

d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5

d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9



078071081

075

085093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

0732

0719

0586

0702

0549

0608

0671

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9c1

c2c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


f1




12 Complexity

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

078071081

075

085

093

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

080075082

078

077

096

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

084

089083082

072

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2c3

071067071061

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

092071080071

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

091066075068

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6

066062076074


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9

088069072

085070076

099085082

070077080


0718

0792

0767

0811

0508

0675

0623

0749

f2










Complexity 13






Enterpriselocation

SUCC 39012 2 210 0022PERF 32636 2 210 0040


Workingposition

SUCC 11278 2 210 0326PERF 06910 2 210 0502






14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA


Square F Sig

Ownershiptype


Total 61866 212


Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation




Enterprisesize




Workingposition








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








Complexity 5


















6 Complexity


















Complexity 7

MESTEAM


Training (T)

Environment (E)

Assessment (A)

Motivation (M)



Mindset(M)

Engagement(E)


H10

H15

H1H3

H5H7

H9H2H4H6 H12

H14

H11

H13

H8







3 Research Method










8 Complexity









Medium 115 540

Ownership Type







4 Empirical Results


Complexity 9



deleted1 2 3 4 5 6 7MIN1 0938

0845


0832


0851


0865

0809 0785ENV3 0858 0721 0823ENV4 0806 0668 0845ENV2 0783 0655 0849MOT1 0885

0811

0787 0735MOT3 0831 0681 0784MOT4 0765 0609 0816MOT2 0738 0590 0823ENG3 0795

0773

0633 0718ENG4 0784 0618 0726ENG1 0763 0582 0744ENG2 0761 0554 0758TRA1 0795

0765






10 Complexity



1 2PER1 0908

0875


0824
















Complexity 11

078071081

075

085

093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

099085082

030

070077080

022

018

026

035

032038

042 031

038044

021

042

024 039

043

012

033

032

031

022

040

029

033

032

037

024

022

027

030

029

044

035

046

043021

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1

b2

b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7

b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2

c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6

c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1

d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5

d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9



078071081

075

085093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

0732

0719

0586

0702

0549

0608

0671

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9c1

c2c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


f1




12 Complexity

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

078071081

075

085

093

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

080075082

078

077

096

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

084

089083082

072

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2c3

071067071061

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

092071080071

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

091066075068

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6

066062076074


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9

088069072

085070076

099085082

070077080


0718

0792

0767

0811

0508

0675

0623

0749

f2










Complexity 13






Enterpriselocation

SUCC 39012 2 210 0022PERF 32636 2 210 0040


Workingposition

SUCC 11278 2 210 0326PERF 06910 2 210 0502






14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA


Square F Sig

Ownershiptype


Total 61866 212


Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation




Enterprisesize




Workingposition








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








6 Complexity


















Complexity 7

MESTEAM


Training (T)

Environment (E)

Assessment (A)

Motivation (M)



Mindset(M)

Engagement(E)


H10

H15

H1H3

H5H7

H9H2H4H6 H12

H14

H11

H13

H8







3 Research Method










8 Complexity









Medium 115 540

Ownership Type







4 Empirical Results


Complexity 9



deleted1 2 3 4 5 6 7MIN1 0938

0845


0832


0851


0865

0809 0785ENV3 0858 0721 0823ENV4 0806 0668 0845ENV2 0783 0655 0849MOT1 0885

0811

0787 0735MOT3 0831 0681 0784MOT4 0765 0609 0816MOT2 0738 0590 0823ENG3 0795

0773

0633 0718ENG4 0784 0618 0726ENG1 0763 0582 0744ENG2 0761 0554 0758TRA1 0795

0765






10 Complexity



1 2PER1 0908

0875


0824
















Complexity 11

078071081

075

085

093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

099085082

030

070077080

022

018

026

035

032038

042 031

038044

021

042

024 039

043

012

033

032

031

022

040

029

033

032

037

024

022

027

030

029

044

035

046

043021

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1

b2

b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7

b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2

c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6

c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1

d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5

d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9



078071081

075

085093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

0732

0719

0586

0702

0549

0608

0671

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9c1

c2c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


f1




12 Complexity

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

078071081

075

085

093

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

080075082

078

077

096

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

084

089083082

072

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2c3

071067071061

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

092071080071

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

091066075068

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6

066062076074


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9

088069072

085070076

099085082

070077080


0718

0792

0767

0811

0508

0675

0623

0749

f2










Complexity 13






Enterpriselocation

SUCC 39012 2 210 0022PERF 32636 2 210 0040


Workingposition

SUCC 11278 2 210 0326PERF 06910 2 210 0502






14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA


Square F Sig

Ownershiptype


Total 61866 212


Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation




Enterprisesize




Workingposition








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








Complexity 7

MESTEAM


Training (T)

Environment (E)

Assessment (A)

Motivation (M)



Mindset(M)

Engagement(E)


H10

H15

H1H3

H5H7

H9H2H4H6 H12

H14

H11

H13

H8







3 Research Method










8 Complexity









Medium 115 540

Ownership Type







4 Empirical Results


Complexity 9



deleted1 2 3 4 5 6 7MIN1 0938

0845


0832


0851


0865

0809 0785ENV3 0858 0721 0823ENV4 0806 0668 0845ENV2 0783 0655 0849MOT1 0885

0811

0787 0735MOT3 0831 0681 0784MOT4 0765 0609 0816MOT2 0738 0590 0823ENG3 0795

0773

0633 0718ENG4 0784 0618 0726ENG1 0763 0582 0744ENG2 0761 0554 0758TRA1 0795

0765






10 Complexity



1 2PER1 0908

0875


0824
















Complexity 11

078071081

075

085

093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

099085082

030

070077080

022

018

026

035

032038

042 031

038044

021

042

024 039

043

012

033

032

031

022

040

029

033

032

037

024

022

027

030

029

044

035

046

043021

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1

b2

b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7

b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2

c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6

c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1

d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5

d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9



078071081

075

085093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

0732

0719

0586

0702

0549

0608

0671

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9c1

c2c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


f1




12 Complexity

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

078071081

075

085

093

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

080075082

078

077

096

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

084

089083082

072

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2c3

071067071061

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

092071080071

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

091066075068

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6

066062076074


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9

088069072

085070076

099085082

070077080


0718

0792

0767

0811

0508

0675

0623

0749

f2










Complexity 13






Enterpriselocation

SUCC 39012 2 210 0022PERF 32636 2 210 0040


Workingposition

SUCC 11278 2 210 0326PERF 06910 2 210 0502






14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA


Square F Sig

Ownershiptype


Total 61866 212


Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation




Enterprisesize




Workingposition








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








8 Complexity









Medium 115 540

Ownership Type







4 Empirical Results


Complexity 9



deleted1 2 3 4 5 6 7MIN1 0938

0845


0832


0851


0865

0809 0785ENV3 0858 0721 0823ENV4 0806 0668 0845ENV2 0783 0655 0849MOT1 0885

0811

0787 0735MOT3 0831 0681 0784MOT4 0765 0609 0816MOT2 0738 0590 0823ENG3 0795

0773

0633 0718ENG4 0784 0618 0726ENG1 0763 0582 0744ENG2 0761 0554 0758TRA1 0795

0765






10 Complexity



1 2PER1 0908

0875


0824
















Complexity 11

078071081

075

085

093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

099085082

030

070077080

022

018

026

035

032038

042 031

038044

021

042

024 039

043

012

033

032

031

022

040

029

033

032

037

024

022

027

030

029

044

035

046

043021

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1

b2

b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7

b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2

c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6

c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1

d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5

d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9



078071081

075

085093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

0732

0719

0586

0702

0549

0608

0671

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9c1

c2c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


f1




12 Complexity

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

078071081

075

085

093

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

080075082

078

077

096

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

084

089083082

072

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2c3

071067071061

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

092071080071

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

091066075068

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6

066062076074


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9

088069072

085070076

099085082

070077080


0718

0792

0767

0811

0508

0675

0623

0749

f2










Complexity 13






Enterpriselocation

SUCC 39012 2 210 0022PERF 32636 2 210 0040


Workingposition

SUCC 11278 2 210 0326PERF 06910 2 210 0502






14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA


Square F Sig

Ownershiptype


Total 61866 212


Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation




Enterprisesize




Workingposition








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








Complexity 9



deleted1 2 3 4 5 6 7MIN1 0938

0845


0832


0851


0865

0809 0785ENV3 0858 0721 0823ENV4 0806 0668 0845ENV2 0783 0655 0849MOT1 0885

0811

0787 0735MOT3 0831 0681 0784MOT4 0765 0609 0816MOT2 0738 0590 0823ENG3 0795

0773

0633 0718ENG4 0784 0618 0726ENG1 0763 0582 0744ENG2 0761 0554 0758TRA1 0795

0765






10 Complexity



1 2PER1 0908

0875


0824
















Complexity 11

078071081

075

085

093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

099085082

030

070077080

022

018

026

035

032038

042 031

038044

021

042

024 039

043

012

033

032

031

022

040

029

033

032

037

024

022

027

030

029

044

035

046

043021

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1

b2

b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7

b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2

c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6

c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1

d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5

d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9



078071081

075

085093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

0732

0719

0586

0702

0549

0608

0671

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9c1

c2c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


f1




12 Complexity

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

078071081

075

085

093

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

080075082

078

077

096

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

084

089083082

072

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2c3

071067071061

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

092071080071

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

091066075068

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6

066062076074


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9

088069072

085070076

099085082

070077080


0718

0792

0767

0811

0508

0675

0623

0749

f2










Complexity 13






Enterpriselocation

SUCC 39012 2 210 0022PERF 32636 2 210 0040


Workingposition

SUCC 11278 2 210 0326PERF 06910 2 210 0502






14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA


Square F Sig

Ownershiptype


Total 61866 212


Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation




Enterprisesize




Workingposition








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








10 Complexity



1 2PER1 0908

0875


0824
















Complexity 11

078071081

075

085

093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

099085082

030

070077080

022

018

026

035

032038

042 031

038044

021

042

024 039

043

012

033

032

031

022

040

029

033

032

037

024

022

027

030

029

044

035

046

043021

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1

b2

b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7

b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2

c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6

c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1

d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5

d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9



078071081

075

085093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

0732

0719

0586

0702

0549

0608

0671

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9c1

c2c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


f1




12 Complexity

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

078071081

075

085

093

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

080075082

078

077

096

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

084

089083082

072

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2c3

071067071061

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

092071080071

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

091066075068

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6

066062076074


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9

088069072

085070076

099085082

070077080


0718

0792

0767

0811

0508

0675

0623

0749

f2










Complexity 13






Enterpriselocation

SUCC 39012 2 210 0022PERF 32636 2 210 0040


Workingposition

SUCC 11278 2 210 0326PERF 06910 2 210 0502






14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA


Square F Sig

Ownershiptype


Total 61866 212


Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation




Enterprisesize




Workingposition








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








Complexity 11

078071081

075

085

093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

099085082

030

070077080

022

018

026

035

032038

042 031

038044

021

042

024 039

043

012

033

032

031

022

040

029

033

032

037

024

022

027

030

029

044

035

046

043021

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1

b2

b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7

b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2

c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6

c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1

d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5

d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9



078071081

075

085093

080075082

078

077

096084

089083082

072

071067071061

092071080071

091066075068

066062076074

088069072

085070076

0732

0719

0586

0702

0549

0608

0671

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9c1

c2c3

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


f1




12 Complexity

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

078071081

075

085

093

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

080075082

078

077

096

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

084

089083082

072

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2c3

071067071061

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

092071080071

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

091066075068

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6

066062076074


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9

088069072

085070076

099085082

070077080


0718

0792

0767

0811

0508

0675

0623

0749

f2










Complexity 13






Enterpriselocation

SUCC 39012 2 210 0022PERF 32636 2 210 0040


Workingposition

SUCC 11278 2 210 0326PERF 06910 2 210 0502






14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA


Square F Sig

Ownershiptype


Total 61866 212


Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation




Enterprisesize




Workingposition








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








12 Complexity

Support


a1

a2

a3

a4a5a6

078071081

075

085

093

Mindset


a7

a8

a9

b1b2b3

080075082

078

077

096

Assessment


b4

b5

b6

b7b8

084

089083082

072

Training

TRA1TRA2TRA3TRA4

b9

c1

c2c3

071067071061

Environment

ENV1ENV2ENV3ENV4

c4

c5

c6c7

092071080071

Motivation

MOT1MOT2MOT3MOT4

c8

c9

d1d2

091066075068

Engagement

ENG1ENG2ENG3ENG4

d3

d4

d5d6

066062076074


SUC1SUC2SUC3

d7

d8

d9

SUC4SUC5SUC6

e1

e2

e3


e4

e5

e6

PER4PER5PER6

e7

e8

e9

088069072

085070076

099085082

070077080


0718

0792

0767

0811

0508

0675

0623

0749

f2










Complexity 13






Enterpriselocation

SUCC 39012 2 210 0022PERF 32636 2 210 0040


Workingposition

SUCC 11278 2 210 0326PERF 06910 2 210 0502






14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA


Square F Sig

Ownershiptype


Total 61866 212


Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation




Enterprisesize




Workingposition








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








Complexity 13






Enterpriselocation

SUCC 39012 2 210 0022PERF 32636 2 210 0040


Workingposition

SUCC 11278 2 210 0326PERF 06910 2 210 0502






14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA


Square F Sig

Ownershiptype


Total 61866 212


Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation




Enterprisesize




Workingposition








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








14 Complexity

Table 9 ANOVA


Square F Sig

Ownershiptype


Total 61866 212


Total 67618 212

Enterpriselocation




Enterprisesize




Workingposition








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








Complexity 15

(a) STEAM-ME model












16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








16 Complexity






6 Conclusion




Data Availability


Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








Complexity 17



Acknowledgments




References




























18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








18 Complexity


































Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








Complexity 19


































20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








20 Complexity


































Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








Complexity 21



































22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








22 Complexity



































Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








Complexity 23














Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018















Journal of












Journal of







Volume 2018






Volume 2018








Documents

STEAM-ME: A Novel Model for Successful Kaizen