Using Kaizen to Reduce Waste and Prevent Pollution

Kaizen is a Japanese

word meaning grad-

ual, orderly, contin-

ual improvement.

The Kaizen business

strategy involves

everyone in an

organization work-

ing together to

make incremental improvements without large

capital investment. Unlike many business

improvement strategies practiced in the United

States, which require radical change, Kaizen is an

evolutionary approach.

Kaizen is a workforce development methodol-

ogy that can help companies implement pro-

grams aimed at reducing waste. Two of the most

familiar waste-reduction approaches—lean man-

ufacturing and pollution prevention—can both

benefit from Kaizen methods. Using Kaizen as a

foundation for pollution prevention and lean

manufacturing can create sustainable results

through total enterprise involvement.

Kaizen is a culture of sustained continual

improvement that focuses on eliminating waste in

all systems and processes of an organization.

Kaizen can only succeed with constant attention

to people and their contributions to organization-

al improvement. Leadership is asked to guide—not

direct—the workforce toward continually develop-

ing their ability to meet expectations of high qual-

ity, low cost, and

on-time delivery.

Kaizen also takes

programs that may

be seen as having

ownership in one

department and

makes them every-

one’s responsibility.

Kaizen can help companies systematically

reduce pollution volume and severity. Kaizen

provides companies committed to pollution pre-

vention with a way to focus on enterprise solu-

tions, while moving away from concepts of radi-

cal innovation. A systems focus on pollution

prevention makes a program broadly supported

and results-driven—in other words, sustainable.

In this article, we describe the origins of

Kaizen concepts, and outline the management

styles that Kaizen requires. We explain the differ-

ence between Kaizen methods and the “radical

innovation” approach that has become prevalent

among American companies. We explain how

Kaizen can promote continual improvement, and

suggest a three-phase process that companies can

follow to reach the goal of continual waste reduc-

Environmental Quality Management / Spring 2002 / 23

© 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI: 10.1002/tqem.10026

Conrad Soltero and

Gregory Waldrip

Using Kaizen to Reduce Waste andPrevent Pollution

Continual improvement through

small steps

Conrad Soltero and Gregory Waldrip24 / Spring 2002 / Environmental Quality Management

tion. We also offer some ideas for getting the

most from your Kaizen program.

The Roots of KaizenDuring the American occupation of Japan

after World War II, General Douglas MacArthur

was faced with the task of rebuilding the coun-

try’s economy into one based on free markets.

The deep mistrust between the U.S. military and

the Japanese made management difficult. More-

over, the surviving remnants of the Japanese pre-

war industrial complex had deep roots in a feudal

organizational structure. Management was based

more on hierarchical relationships and less on

objective information.

U.S. forces introduced “democratizing” market

reform programs. Walter Shewart and W. Edwards

Deming introduced business approaches that

emphasized employee involvement, and fact-based

decision making that

relied heavily on statis-

tical methods. These

principles are universal

tenets for continual

improvement.

The Japanese were

willing to adopt these

methods in order to rebuild their society. Neces-

sity may have ultimately been the mother of

Kaizen.

The United States played a cultural role in

democratizing not only Japan’s governance, but

also its industrial structure. This is the critical link

with respect to Kaizen. Kaizen democratizes the

improvement process, which ultimately dictates

how management practices are carried out.1

Some Useful Definitions The term “Kaizen” can mean several differ-

ent things depending on whom you talk to and

what you’re talking about. Suffice it to say that

a comprehensive approach to Kaizen should

include a continual stream of tangible and

immediate improvement projects carried out by

those most closely associated with the system in

question.

Described below are some useful Kaizen-relat-

ed terms:

• “Kaizen teian”—Teian literally means “sugges-

tion,” but cultural idiosyncrasies can’t be easi-

ly translated. The authors of a book on the

subject prefer to express the concept of teian

in English as “proposal.” The reason has less

to do with the meaning of the word “sugges-

tion” than with the way that American man-

agers traditionally implement “suggestion sys-

tems”—that is, by focusing on significant

innovation and big financial gains. Kaizen

teian focuses on small daily improvements

that pay off over the long haul.2

• “Kaizen blitz”—The Association for Manufac-

turing Excellence (AME) developed the Kaizen

blitz in the United States during the early

1990s. Because their Kaizen teams were made

up of AME members who were diverse both

geographically and in their ability to con-

tribute time, their Kaizen events were forced

into three-day “blitzes.” These three-day ses-

sions showed that appreciable gains could be

made in very short periods of time.3

Hopefully, these quicker versions of Kaizen

can help short-circuit management’s proclivity to

postpone the implementation of an improvement

when a seemingly more pressing problem arises.

Management Styles and Kaizen Organizational management styles can be

placed on a spectrum ranging from those that are

entirely dependent on a single individual to

those that rely on the group as a whole. The least

vulnerable—and thus most desirable—condition

clearly is the latter.

“Kaizen” can mean several differ-ent things depending on whom youtalk to.

Environmental Quality Management / Spring 2002 / 25Using Kaizen to Reduce Waste and Prevent Pollution

who perform the work. Workers must be empow-

ered by management to learn to manage them-

selves. Management must provide the tools, get

out of the way, and reward results.

Some important issues must be addressed

when introducing Kaizen within a company: Do

confident, well-adjusted adults operate the busi-

ness? Does top management reward creativity

and inquiry? Is communication at all levels

honest, open, and nonthreatening? If so, Kaizen

is the vehicle for moving the enterprise to the

next level.

Resistance to ChangeA stable status quo can be a hurdle to initiat-

ing Kaizen. A business

that has a stable mar-

ket in which to oper-

ate may have little

motivation to improve

in order to make a

profit. Such businesses

sometimes succeed in spite of themselves, rather

than because of anything they are doing.

In many instances, the company’s goal is sim-

ply to maintain processes, not to improve them.

When times are good, no motivation for change

may exist. When times are bad, it may be too late

to change.

In smaller companies, the most common

form of control is management fiat. This form of

organization can, and commonly does, work

well. The drawbacks are its dependence on an

elite group of decision makers, and the chal-

lenges that arise when the enterprise grows. Even

under the best of circumstances, the inevitable

uncertainties of human existence can often

cause major disruptions to the company; if vital

managers are displaced, the organization can

face ruin.

Companies that are run efficiently through

management fiat are good candidates for Kaizen

Small companies often have management dif-

ficulties because their owners usually control all

operations and desire to keep the enterprise close-

ly held. Conversely, a large corporation may be

vexed with the problems of rigid compartmental-

ization, highly vertical organizational charts that

are not conducive to low-level decision making,

and plain bureaucratic stasis.

The most desirable organization is one that

constantly enhances itself as it operates by push-

ing decision-making authority down to the low-

est practical levels. This creates an organization

that depends more equally on all its human

resources.

In order to evolve into the type of desirable

organization just described, certain cultural qual-

ities are necessary. Management must cultivate

an atmosphere of open communication and pro-

mote creative thinking among the workforce.

These cultural qualities lie outside the engineer-

ing and business solutions that consultants gen-

erally sell. But as almost any consultant will

agree, a company’s culture is the largest deter-

mining factor in project success. Company cul-

ture reflects how top management behaves. If top

management is fundamentally dysfunctional, no

amount of technology or technique will help.

Kaizen requires a democratic workplace. In a

world-class operation, Kaizen thrives because

managers are proactive, receptive, and empower-

ing. Unfortunately, many companies are not able

to create a Kaizen environment in their opera-

tions. Some managers refuse to give up the con-

trol that they have carefully cultivated. Others

devalue their employees’ education, morals, or

culture. Some even claim that their business sec-

tor is inconsistent with “that type” of manage-

ment style. Inflexibility and top-down control are

the banes of Kaizen.

Traditionally, Kaizen has provided a mecha-

nism for mining the intellectual wealth at all lev-

els of an organization, especially among those

Kaizen requires a democraticworkplace.


as long as management is willing to hand over

the reins of the operation to the workforce. Man-

agement must understand that, over time and in

a systematic way, the goal of creating a self-

adjusting, permanent organization can be

achieved through workforce development, hard

work, and perseverance.

Benefits of KaizenKaizen is a low-cost, people-based, continual

improvement strategy that is aimed at simplify-

ing work methods in order to increase work flow.

Kaizen’s continual improvement approach can

harness individuals’ strengths into a collective

effort. Kaizen involves,

and depends on, all of

the human assets

within the organiza-

tion, thus increasing

the likelihood that the

system will be sus-

tained during person-

nel changes.

Kaizen also allows

top management more time to focus on their

most important task—that is, strategic planning.

Eliminating micro-management enhances the

“peripheral vision” necessary for staying ahead of

the competition.

A successful Kaizen launch requires total

employee involvement; it does not involve the

capital-intensive technological advancement

generally overseen by management. This is not to

imply that management need not take part in

Kaizen, however. In fact, management vigilance

is the only way Kaizen can succeed.

The benefits of Kaizen become even more

compelling when you realize that any new revo-

lutionary technology being considered by your

organization is most likely also being offered to

your competition. The only thing an average

company can rely on to outclass the competition

is a bona fide incremental continual improve-

ment program—that is, Kaizen. If you don’t have

sole rights to some innovative technology, you’d

better have a leaner/meaner business system.

Kaizen is the way.

Kaizen and InnovationAmerican industry has always prided itself on

its ability to innovate, and rightly so. Innovation

can dramatically improve productivity. And in the

United States, emphasis is placed on the word “dra-

matic.” We want payback, and we want it now!

Since innovation-driven increases in produc-

tivity can be large and immediate, a technology

fix can be quite alluring. But if two competitors

have the same or equal technology, how does

either outcompete the other and win market

share? Kaizen can provide the edge by organizing

work better, motivating employees, and provid-

ing encouragement to challenge the status quo.

If American-style innovation is viewed as an

immediate quantum leap in technology, then an

appropriate characterization of Kaizen might be

as baby-step improvements in methods over an

extended period of time (see Exhibit 1).4 In an

era of fiscal uncertainty, which approach involves

less risk? Which approach provides the workforce

with immediate feedback on their contributions?

Which approach allows more flexibility when

market conditions change?

The continual improvement process has been

compared to a two-wheeled cart. One wheel of

the cart is innovation, and the other is Kaizen.

With both of the wheels engaged, an enterprise is

equipped to at least compete with, and perhaps

beat, the competition.5

The P2 ConnectionFor too long, continual improvement pro-

grams such as pollution prevention (P2) have

relied heavily on innovation for progress. They

have in effect been using only one wheel of the

The continual improvement processhas been compared to a two-wheeled cart. One wheel of the cartis innovation, and the other isKaizen.


1960s, when Toyota was growing, and as they

began to compete in the 1970s, their American

competition had the same, if not superior, pro-

duction technology. But Toyota’s external focus

was on increasing sales by delighting the buying

customer, while its internal focus was on reduc-

ing cost by harnessing the creative inspirations of

workers in the gemba (the place of real work).6

Pollution prevention professionals should

grasp Toyota’s message: Continual incremental

improvements can be powerful, and often pro-

vide greater competitive advantage than episodic

investments in equipment.

cart. Journal articles and other sources of informa-

tion on pollution prevention emphasize new

technologies and improvements to single opera-

tions. The discussions are usually dichotomous:

The original technology was bad, the new is good.

But rarely do these discussions consider the

systems in which the technologies are placed. As

a result, paybacks are usually “local” and do not

improve the overall bottom line. The shortcom-

ing here is a lack of systems thinking.

Incremental changes to a manufacturing sys-

tem can often provide a bigger payoff than major

technological innovation. During the 1950s and

Exhibit 1. Kaizen vs. Innovation

*Major innovations are shown in italics. Other improvements are Kaizen-based.


Pollution prevention’s traditional preoccupa-

tion with exploiting newer, more productive,

and less wasteful processing technologies has

produced results. But have these results been

widely adopted and applied? The decision to

purchase newer equipment should come as a

natural outcome of a Kaizen culture that looks

to process improvements first, and then to

equipment upgrades only as returns on invest-

ment diminish.

Other common P2 strategies, such as chang-

ing material specifications, also require alter-

ations to the process as a matter of course. Any

changes made in processing technology will

always take the same organizational resources—

namely, capital and

time (in the form of a

learning curve). Kaizen

does not lower initial

capital outlays for new

equipment. However,

using Kaizen in rela-

tion to P2 forces the organization to focus on

time and timing.

In this setting, Kaizen becomes the logical

tool for implementing P2 and continual

improvement since the initial Kaizen event can

center on selecting equipment that most closely

fits into the organization’s business strategy,

assuming the organization embraces a truly pro-

gressive P2 policy. The whole of the project can

then proceed with a series of further Kaizen

events. A good Kaizen event sequence would

require that the organization’s intellectual capi-

tal be utilized appropriately toward achieving

planned outcomes.

For an organization to realize better systems,

widespread training is essential. Of course, com-

panies can successfully reduce pollution at the

source without the whole organization fully

understanding or buying into the concept. Prop-

er project management can also help ensure suc-

cess. However, process experts, operators, man-

agers, and others taking part on the Kaizen teams

must be willing to learn about and understand

any new technologies that are considered.

Upgrades in processing technology tend to be

the main drivers for innovation in P2. By con-

trast, upgrades in methods should be the main

drivers for Kaizen in P2. Kaizen is especially effec-

tive at creating positive results during tough eco-

nomic times, since Kaizen means change.

Kaizen should be fostered by management

and utilized by all parts of the organization as a

matter of course. Kaizen-driven pollution pre-

vention activities should be the rule, not the

exception.

Kaizen for Continual Improvement When adopting a continual improvement

approach, Kaizen is probably the first cultural

characteristic that a business should incorporate

(see Exhibit 2A). Once the Kaizen culture is

established, the introduction of other initiatives

becomes easier—whether it’s management sys-

tem development or lean manufacturing. Even

Six Sigma programs are better served when

employees are conditioned to challenge current

conditions and seek new ways of doing business.

With Kaizen in place, the company can utilize

a three-phase approach to continual improve-

ment. Such an approach will undeniably make a

difference within an enterprise. However, remem-

ber that success comes not from teaching every-

one how to behave, but by creating systems that

are self-sustaining. Companies want to arrive at a

point where Six Sigma quality is the norm, and

the organization enjoys a self-correcting manage-

ment system.

Kaizen serves as the catalyst that will allow

the continual improvement initiative to succeed.

It allows organizations to be inclusive, focus on

what’s important, and make quick, noticeable

gains. Kaizen’s application occurs in discrete,

Kaizen is especially effective atcreating positive results duringtough economic times.


any type of variation will produce waste. Thus,

eliminating variation reduces waste.

Phase One: Standardizing ProcessesThe first phase involves standardizing all cur-

rent processes, both production and support. The

main point in this phase is to get everyone to do

things the same way. This gives the organization

a foundation from which uniform correction can

occur (see Exhibit 2B). When a process comes

up for review during the standardization phase,

deliberate improvements. This allows manage-

ment a chance for reflection and provides for cor-

rection during regular intervals. Such an

approach helps companies limit risk while

achieving incremental gains.

The three-phase approach discussed here

helps the organization build on its investment in

Kaizen. Each of the three phases emphasizes

slightly different aspects within the organization,

but all with the goal of reducing process varia-

tion. In manufacturing processes, we know that

Exhibit 2. Kaizen—The Foundation for a Three-Phase Continual Improvement Approach


wasteful process steps should be eliminated, or at

least minimized.

Several approaches are available for accom-

plishing standardization. The most widely known

is ISO 9000, the international quality manage-

ment standard, but many others also exist within

various industry sectors. Conveniently, most

industry-specific standards are being aligned with

ISO 9000.

Conformance to ISO 9000 produces standard-

ized work and a uniform method for corrective

action. ISO 9000 also gives its users a standard

foundation of good business practices to abide by.

An organization might

begin the three-phase

approach by choosing

to become ISO 9000

registered.

ISO 9000 imple-

mentation also pro-

vides a good training ground for Kaizen. ISO 9000

requires internal audits of selected issues, imple-

mentation of timely corrective actions indicated

by the audit, and management review of the

organization’s progress.

Theoretically, after ISO 9000 registration, the

number of conformance-driven corrective actions

should drop. At the same time, the number of

preventive actions in support of continual

improvement should rise.

ISO 9000 requirements can be adopted into a

Kaizen framework. The audit, corrective action,

and effectiveness check elements of ISO 9000 are

virtually the same sequence of events that occurs

with Kaizen. In addition, the ISO 9000 preventive

action process follows the Kaizen sequence: It

begins with an improvement proposal; then a

step-by-step plan is developed, the action is

implemented, and effectiveness is determined.

Learning to use the Kaizen “quick strike”

approach will produce the timeliness required by

ISO 9000, keep you on schedule for registration,

and, most of all, instill in the organization the

project management skills needed for phases two

and three.

In earlier versions of the ISO 9000 standard,

some interpretations emphasized quality control

and documentation. By contrast, the most recent

update of ISO 9000 emphasizes compulsory con-

tinual improvement as the means of satisfying

customer expectations. Previous versions

required extensive documentation to assure stan-

dardization. The new version has reversed this

trend by requiring only six procedures to be doc-

umented. The new standard emphasizes behavior

and de-emphasizes documentation.

The current ISO 9000 version also increases

flexibility by allowing “tribal” (undocumented)

procedures. This is in line with the lean enter-

prise approach, which seeks to eliminate non-

value-added processes, such as unnecessary doc-

umentation.

The new standard additionally requires that

quality objectives be quantitative, and that

progress be made toward these numeric goals. It

thus has similarities to Six Sigma, which requires

the collection of quantitative data in order to

conduct statistical analysis from which knowl-

edge-based decisions can be made.7

Systems like ISO 9000 can be considered

entry-level vehicles for continual improvement

systems. Businesses can use implementation

and registration as the first steps toward

improving their business. For companies that

use these systems to their full potential, work

becomes standardized.

ISO 9000’s requirement of audits, corrective

action, and management reviews also adds a

project-management feature to the package. This

feature can and should be used to teach Kaizen

to the organization. If a management system is

an organization’s first glimpse of continual

improvement, using Kaizen to implement it is a

wise decision. Future improvement projects will

ISO 9000 requirements can beadopted into a Kaizen framework.


The National Institute of Standards and Tech-

nology’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership

(NIST MEP) defines “lean” in the following way:

“Lean manufacturing is a systematic approach to

identifying and eliminating waste (non-value-

added activities) through continual improvement

by flowing the product at the pull of the customer

in pursuit of perfection.” Lean manufacturing

approaches waste reduction through a set of meth-

ods focused primarily on lead-time reduction,

work simplification, and preventive maintenance.

While lean manufacturing includes an empha-

sis on activities that waste time, pollution preven-

tion focuses on the

waste of materials and

energy (see Exhibit3). Both seek to avoid a

particular waste—the

waste of opportunity.

Both recognize that, by

changing current con-

ditions, new opportu-

nities may be gained or lost. The role of manage-

ment is to consider the possible outcomes of any

action or change. Good management anticipates

negative outcomes and adjusts conditions to min-

imize them.

Kaizen was described above as taking “baby

steps,” and this is certainly true of a mature Kaizen

program. However, western companies have often

applied Kaizen within lean manufacturing as a way

of bringing about huge gains. A typical initial proj-

ect reconfigures a production line to foster com-

munication and improve movement of materials

towards the finished product stage.

Such a project generally gets everyone’s atten-

tion, and can give both lean and Kaizen a big ini-

tial boost. However, most companies fail to build

on this success by creating a continuing, sustain-

able program. Hopefully, a company that has

used Kaizen for ISO 9000 implementation will

learn to feel comfortable with the continual

be easily implemented using the (by then) famil-

iar Kaizen format.

Kaizen is generally conducted in two stages—

analysis and implementation. The same two-

stage methodology can be followed with an ISO

9000 corrective action. First, conduct the audit

and process the resulting corrective action up to

the point that a particular course of action is

decided upon. Second, implement the solution,

and then reanalyze for effectiveness. Kaizen can

keep ISO 9000–required audit programs from

stagnating. The organization will come to recog-

nize Kaizen as the way the company deals with

these issues.

It seems that the current version of ISO 9000

was written as a blueprint for implementing

world-class methods and techniques. Any organ-

ization that wants to survive during bad times,

and grow during times of plenty, would be well

advised to follow the standard’s path: first stan-

dardize, then simplify, and, finally, eliminate any

remaining variation.

Phase Two: SimplificationSimplification methodologies seek to elimi-

nate wasteful practices (see Exhibit 2C). Both

lean manufacturing and P2 are examples of such

methodologies, and both teach the lesson that

“less is often more.”

• Lean Manufacturing Lean manufacturing is the most recent name

used to describe the Toyota Production System.

Two foundational works that helped codify the

term were James Womack’s books The Machine

That Changed the World and Lean Thinking.

Other terms for the same concept include

Flow or Synchronous Flow Manufacturing, One-

Piece or Piece Part Flow Manufacturing, World

Class Manufacturing, Just in Time (JIT) Manufac-

turing, and Demand Flow Technology. They all

mean the same thing.

Western companies have oftenapplied Kaizen within lean manufac-

turing as a way of bringing abouthuge gains.


improvement approach, and will then apply it

consistently to lean manufacturing.

A key focal point in lean manufacturing is

flow. The NIST MEP definition quoted above

emphasizes the importance of smooth product

flow. Most often companies are persuaded to

adopt a lean production line because it offers

increased flexibility, minimization of waste, and

recognition of employee contributions.

It should be noted here that lean manufactur-

ing and Kaizen are not one and the same. Instead,

lean manufacturing is a set of tools and method-

ologies that are bound together by Kaizen (see

Exhibit 4). Companies can use lean methods to

improve performance, but without Kaizen, these

efforts will be sub-optimal.

• Pollution PreventionPollution prevention also uses a variety of

methodologies to reduce material waste. In fact,

some of the same methodologies used in lean

should be used for P2 (see Exhibit 5). Method-

ologies that reduce setup time and waste, prevent

machine failures, and organize work better all

lead to significant reductions in wasted materials

and energy. In addition, lean’s attention to inven-

tory reduction has secondary benefits, such as

reduced use of warehouse space and less move-

ment of materials. All these changes reduce activ-

ities that consume resources needlessly and add

no value to the product.

Phase Three: Eliminating Remaining Variation Phases one and two are “comprehensive”

steps since improvement projects are dealt with

from an organizational perspective, and focus on

the enterprise and systems. By contrast, phase

three uses “sniper’s tactics” (single precise strikes)

to eliminate any remaining variation in processes

(see Exhibit 2D).

Exhibit 3. Waste Category Emphasis of Lean Manufacturing & Pollution Prevention


industrial problems are multivariable, and can

only be understood using statistical and experi-

mental techniques. Such situations go beyond

the scope of Kaizen in that managers will be

recruited to implement the solution, and opera-

tors could be left out of the process.

In addition, Six Sigma solutions may take

weeks or even months to implement if they

involve a change in technology. As already noted,

changing technology is an example of taking a

quantum leap as opposed to the baby steps that

characterize Kaizen. Even here, however, Kaizen

techniques could still be helpful, and so are

explored in this section.

Six Sigma methodology uses tools that have

been known to statisticians and manufacturing

engineers for years. But Six Sigma goes further by

asking the practitioner to identify the “critical to

Six Sigma methodology is useful here. Six

Sigma relies on statistical tools and employee

input to achieve error- and waste-free manufac-

turing. Six Sigma is an excellent tool for identify-

ing, analyzing, and designing solutions to specif-

ic problems.

If the organization has already committed to

Kaizen, the employee input necessary for Six

Sigma will come easily and will provide imme-

diate benefits. The consulting industry now

even uses the term “Kaizen Sigma,” which

means employing Kaizen to implement a Six

Sigma project.

There are some complicating factors that

could disrupt a Kaizen Sigma event. The problems

most easily addressed by Kaizen techniques gen-

erally are linear and can be addressed by chang-

ing operating procedures. Unfortunately, many

Exhibit 4. Lean House


quality” features that directly impact customer

satisfaction. The primary tools used in character-

izing the problem and determining appropriate

action are Pareto analysis and cause-and-effect

diagramming.

Action to address a problem could include

any number of applicable statistical tools for fur-

ther problem analysis. Since an appropriate

response usually requires changing a specific, dis-

crete action, Kaizen methodology is easily

applied at this stage. However, more complex

multivariable problems may prolong the initial

Kaizen analysis phase.

“Critical to customer quality” decisions may

reach a point that a change in design or technol-

ogy is required. These changes are shifts in behav-

ior, and require focused, long-term planning. In

order to maintain the “quick strike” approach of

Kaizen, the project may be dissected into multi-

ple Kaizen events.

Working through the project in parts, and

using different individuals in successive Kaizen

events, is a better approach than trying to man-

age a lengthy project with the same people, who

may lose their urgency and allow the project to

grow stale. However, such a tactic would neces-

sitate excellent project management techniques.

Proper project management would include

input for critical path planning from human

resources, operations, engineering, and other

departments.

Kaizen Sigma is a good idea that has applica-

tion in many Six Sigma projects. However, care

must be taken to ensure that projects of longer

duration are divided into multiple Kaizen events

in order to avoid stagnation.

Exhibit 5. Clean House (P2)


importance of hearing everyone’s ideas. An

overview of Kaizen can then follow, or smaller

“introduction to Kaizen” training groups can be

scheduled.

Next, focus on the part of your organization

that is contributing most to the bottom line. In

lean manufacturing parlance, you would focus

on “value-added activities.” The management or

supervisors who are immediately responsible for

the “value adders” must receive the most

intense training on Kaizen. Since these supervi-

sors have the most contact with the value

adders, they will ultimately bear the burden of

Kaizen success.

These individuals’ supervisory role must

evolve from one of authority to one of facilitator,

mentor, and informa-

tion gatherer. Remem-

ber, removing manage-

ment fiat is the goal,

and qualified decision

making from those

most involved is the

means.

Supervisors’ primary focus should be on the

solicitation of proposals. Their training should

include positive methods to elicit employee par-

ticipation, including use of monetary rewards as

part of positive reinforcement.

Rewards for ideas can be as little as pocket

change or as much as several hundred dollars.

The average over the long term should be in the

$5 range. Prizes such as movie tickets or dinner

passes can be given for “Best Proposal of the

Month.” In this context, “best” means easiest to

implement, most elegant, or most novel—not

necessarily the proposal that returns the biggest

payback.

The criteria you use here should continually

evolve. This evolutionary process should begin

upon arrival of the first proposal containing a

complaint: Make it known that complaints are

Applying Kaizen

It’s Not Just for Lean As already noted, it is instructive to view

Kaizen in the context of lean manufacturing.

Kaizen focuses on incremental continual

improvement, while lean focuses on the elimina-

tion of waste. Together, on a quest to eliminate all

waste, and with the resolve to continually

improve, lean and Kaizen have been shown to

have a dramatic effect in productivity.

The problem is that many American compa-

nies assume that Kaizen applies only to lean man-

ufacturing—just as some assume that ISO 9000 is

for quality only, and belongs solely in the quality

department. Typically, management decides that

lean techniques would be good for the company’s

bottom line, and decides to implement them.

Whoever introduces the company to lean is

charged with implementing Kaizen.

Such notions are self-defeating in the long

run. Kaizen efforts undertaken in connection

with lean techniques do generally provide initial

productivity improvements. However, without a

fully developed Kaizen movement, the organiza-

tion’s efforts to eliminate waste and compress

lead times will eventually start to backslide.

Getting the Most from KaizenSo what is a fully developed Kaizen move-

ment, and how is it implemented? In the discus-

sion that follows, we discuss some steps you need

to take to get the most from Kaizen.

Initially, you should hold a company-wide

meeting to explain the need for Kaizen. Explain

that Kaizen involves a two-pronged strategy of

maintenance and improvement. That is, the

organization needs to maintain an operation’s

status quo, while simultaneously challenging

and reconfiguring it in order to realize improve-

ment. It is also crucial to stress the interdepend-

ence of everyone in the company, and the

Rewards for ideas can be as littleas pocket change or as much as

several hundred dollars.


“dead on arrival.” In addition, irrelevant or non-

sensical proposals must be weeded out and not

rewarded.

Note here that participation and contribution

should be viewed as separate concepts. Participa-

tion should always be rewarded, no matter how

poor the idea. By contrast, proposal approval is

always based on the potential benefits to the

business as a whole.

Note also that there are qualitative differences

between proposing a change in one’s own job,

and proposing a change in someone else’s. You

know your job better, you can implement a self-

generated change faster because it’s your vision,

and you have a stake

in the success of your

idea. By contrast, sug-

gesting a change to

another job function or

department can come

dangerously close to

being perceived as a complaint.

The idea of Kaizen is to fully engage the intel-

lectual capital of the employee in contributing to

the total profitability of the enterprise. Employ-

ees can best fulfill this goal by focusing improve-

ment efforts on their own jobs.

Proposals to other departments are accept-

able, but should be held to a higher standard.

Since complaints are taboo, a lot of thought must

be given not only to the proposal itself and its

means of implementation, but also to the word-

ing of the proposal.

In this respect, Kaizen promotes fairness. If

someone has a suggestion for other parts of the

operation, they better do their homework. Addi-

tionally, it’s inherently unfair to profit from an

idea when the true value to the organization is in

the idea’s implementation. An idea not imple-

mented bears no fruit. Thus, the proposal writer

should be nominally rewarded for the idea if and

when it is fully implemented by others, and

shown to be effective.

Clearly, Kaizen does not offer much incentive

for improvements outside the employee’s own

area of expertise. This poses little problem, how-

ever, since more broad-based innovations gener-

ally are sought out and implemented strategical-

ly within higher levels of the organization.

At first, the supervisor will probably have to

participate proactively in the solicitation of pro-

posals. This may not be easy because it’s not a

habit, and habit takes a few iterations in order to

take hold. The idea is to make the proposal

process as simple as possible initially, and then

slowly raise the bar as the situation dictates.

The first proposals will probably be sugges-

tions scribbled on blank paper, and the supervisor

will be responsible for document control upon

receipt. The proposal system could eventually

evolve into a standardized form with defined

approval criteria, point assignment for idea cate-

gory, and maybe even a defined reward structure.

Watch for individuals who may not have the

confidence to contribute. These people must be

mentored and reassured by management. You

may even need to redefine and refocus the

process in order to bring them in. The important

thing is to keep trying. A consistent Kaizen move-

ment over the long term will eventually bring

these people into the fold.

At some point, the well of ideas will seem to

dry up, and the number of ideas proposed will

start to drop. This is a point at which manage-

ment must be prepared to act. This is a prime time

to introduce the work force to lean manufacturing

and P2, if you have not already done so. It might

be a good idea to hold training on source reduc-

tion or 5S. (5S refers to a set of Japanese terms that

can be translated as Sort, Set in Order, Shine, Stan-

dardize, and Sustain. 5S is a methodology for cre-

ating an organized, clean, and productive work-

An idea not implemented bears nofruit.


environment that encourages challenges to cur-

rent conditions, companies can expect to see sus-

tained results.

ConclusionTypically, a major improvement in process-

ing technology spreads through an industry sec-

tor like wildfire. It isn’t long until everyone

associated with the industry is at least familiar

with the new technology, thus reducing its com-

petitive advantage to any individual company. A

technological breakthrough can also be very

expensive, especially

for those firms that

are the first to try it.

Innovation-based

approaches such as

pollution prevention

often must wait for the

next technological advance in order to get any

real decreases in material waste. P2 activity tradi-

tionally has had to rely on “state of the art” inno-

vation, and thus continual improvement pro-

grams for P2 haven’t been continual at all. They

rely more on episodic market introductions of

breakthrough technologies. Even then, adoption

is slow because capital costs may be high or resist-

ance to radical change cannot be overcome by

promises of financial or social returns.

If anything was learned from the Japanese

miracle of the 1970s and 1980s, it is that consis-

tent “baby steps” ultimately lead to the best

improvements. Top management will take care

of the “big stuff” (that is, technological

changes). For everyone else, it should be the lit-

tle stuff that matters.

A great opportunity for preventing waste and

pollution exists in those organizations whose

managers make source reduction a concern for

the whole organization. Kaizen can be used to

initiate a P2 program that includes everyone in

place.) Immediately following the training, a

renewed emphasis should be placed on proposals.

Kaizen becomes a workforce development

tool since it teaches the “value adders” how to

implement ideas, whether original or derived

from training. Too often, managers feel they are

not getting sufficient benefit from employee

training. Kaizen can help employees implement

what they have learned, and can create a regime

in which well-trained employees can flourish.8

Kaizen and the P2 FrameworkSince pollution prevention opportunities by

definition fall within the gemba, it stands to rea-

son that Kaizen can work well within a P2 frame-

work. Since P2 and lean are both about eliminat-

ing waste, can P2 be implemented through

Kaizen in the same way as lean?

Typically, lean focuses on providing aware-

ness training; the employee usually is intro-

duced to lean by participating in a hands-on

production flow simulation. The orientation to

lean emphasizes “seeing the flow.” When intro-

duced to lean techniques, people often report

feeling that the whole concept simply revolves

around common sense. Depending on the par-

ticipant’s level within the organization, addi-

tional lean training may later be given on a

“need to know” basis.

Similarly, implementing pollution prevention

within a Kaizen framework would necessitate

some sort of awareness training particular to the

subject. P2 training modules are available through

various training providers. In order to be effective,

choose one that directs participants to find hid-

den material wastes and understand their impact

on enterprise success. Hands-on simulations, shop

floor exercises, or visual training props can all

help employees gain a solid foundation in P2.

With awareness among employees, manage-

ment committed to improvement, and a work

Consistent “baby steps” ultimatelylead to the best improvements.


the organization. Using an environmental man-

agement system (such as ISO 14000) as a guide,

environmental “aspects” can be identified that

lead to opportunities for improvement. These

opportunities can be addressed using Kaizen

teams. If quantitative data is available, Kaizen

Sigma teams can even be formed.

It is best if the organization pursues process

standardization with an environmental empha-

sis, based on a system such as ISO 14000, EMAS,

or BS 7750. However, it is not necessary to do so.

Use of Kaizen in connection with ISO 9000 and

lean manufacturing supplies the organization

with the tools necessary to accomplish its pollu-

tion prevention goals.

All in all, Kaizen has been shown to be an

excellent tool for developing the workforce’s con-

tinual improvement skills. Industry has much to

gain by integrating Kaizen into its efforts to

reduce waste and pollution.

NOTES1. Robinson, A. (Ed.). (1991). Continuous improvement inoperations (pp. 9–26). Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

2. Japan Human Relations Association. (Ed.). (1992). KaizenTeian (p. 15). Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

3. Laraia, A.C., Moody, P.E., & Hall, R.W. (1999). The Kaizenblitz: Accelerating breakthroughs in productivity and per-formance (p. xvi). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

4. Kaizen Teian (note 2 above), pp. 9–13.

5. Kaizen Teian (note 2 above), p. 11.

6. Kaizen Teian (note 2 above), p. 26.

7. Schmidt, S.R., Kiemele, M.J., & Berdine, R.J. (1996). Knowl-edge based management (p. 5). Colorado Springs, CO: AirAcademy Press & Associates.

8. Imai, M. (1997). Gemba Kaizen (p. 13). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Conrad Soltero is an extension agent with the Texas Manufacturing Assistance Center in El Paso. Gregory Waldrip is asenior technical advisor in manufacturing systems with the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Manufactur-ing Extension Partnership in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Documents

Using Kaizen to Reduce Waste and Prevent Pollution