IMPROVING KAIZEN SUCCESS IN CIS COUNTRIES: A 4M–7W–5K CHECKLIST TO ELICIT IDEAS FROM MANAGERS AND WORKERS Tetsuji UEMURA 1 ・Yoshio KANI 2 ・Toshihiro YAMADA 3 ・Kenichi HAMAMOTO 4 ・Alina Dmitrievna ILYINA 5 ・Sergey Davidovich MILLER 6 ・Andrey Andreevich RODIONOV 7 ・ Hisashi ONO 8 1 Member of S-GB, Nomura Research Institute, Sustainability Business Consulting Department, Senior Researcher (1-9-2, Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 〒100-0004 Japan) E-mail: [email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected]2 Toyota Engineering Corporation, Senior Consultant (5-45-1, Nagato-cho, Showa, Nagoya, Aichi, 〒466-0848 Ja- pan) E-mail: [email protected]3 Toyota Engineering Corporation, Senior Consultant (5-45-1, Nagato-cho, Showa, Nagoya, Aichi, 〒466-0848 Ja- pan) E-mail: [email protected]4 NRI System Techno, Ltd. (134, Godo-cho, Hodogaya, Yokohama, 〒240-0005 Japan) E-mail: [email protected]5 Nomura Research Institute Moscow Branch, Consultant (Ducat Place II, 7 Gasheka Street, Office 940 Moscow, Russia 123056) E-mail: [email protected]6 Nomura Research Institute Moscow Branch, Assistant (Ducat Place II, 7 Gasheka Street, Office 940 Moscow, Rus- sia 123056) E-mail: [email protected]7 Nomura Research Institute Moscow Branch, Branch Director (Ducat Place II, 7 Gasheka Street, Office 940 Mos- cow, Russia 123056) E-mail: [email protected]8 Nomura Research Institute, Partner (1-9-2, Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 〒100-0004 Japan) E-mail: [email protected]There are many activities to improve production efficiency, such as the Toyota Production System (TPS) and the Lean Production System (LPS). These activities involve the use of many specific tools, like Kanban and Just-in-Time (JIT), and are often introduced into factories in developing and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, although they do not necessarily result in satisfactory achievement. This is because managers and workers might intro- duce many TPS and LPS solution tools in parallel without considering the relationship between waste and solution tools. Factories will have a better chance of achieving satisfactory improvements in production efficiency and quality with Kaizen when they have a fuller understanding of the relationship between “waste” and “waste solutions”, as clarified in this study. Also provided is a 4M–7W–5K checklist to elicit from managers and workers their own Kaizen ideas. Furthermore, the use of video recording of daily activities is discussed as an effective tool. Key Words: elicitation technique, waste, business analysis, Toyota production system, lean production system 1. INTRODUCTION (1) Background Recently, many Japanese companies have expanded their overseas business. Some of the countries where Jap- anese companies have already conducted business have introduced the obligation of a local procurement rate in- crement to develop their own local manufacturing indus- tries. This has led to the need for Japanese companies to 10 / Global Business Journal, Vol.7 No.1, 2021
Transcript
IMPROVING KAIZEN SUCCESS IN CIS COUNTRIES: A 4M–7W–5K CHECKLIST TO
1 Member of S-GB, Nomura Research Institute, Sustainability Business Consulting Department, Senior Researcher (1-9-2, Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 〒100-0004 Japan)
8 Nomura Research Institute, Partner (1-9-2, Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 〒100-0004 Japan) E-mail: [email protected]
There are many activities to improve production efficiency, such as the Toyota Production System (TPS) and the Lean Production System (LPS). These activities involve the use of many specific tools, like Kanban and Just-in-Time (JIT), and are often introduced into factories in developing and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, although they do not necessarily result in satisfactory achievement. This is because managers and workers might intro-duce many TPS and LPS solution tools in parallel without considering the relationship between waste and solution tools.
Factories will have a better chance of achieving satisfactory improvements in production efficiency and quality with Kaizen when they have a fuller understanding of the relationship between “waste” and “waste solutions”, as clarified in this study. Also provided is a 4M–7W–5K checklist to elicit from managers and workers their own Kaizen ideas. Furthermore, the use of video recording of daily activities is discussed as an effective tool.
Key Words: elicitation technique, waste, business analysis, Toyota production system, lean production system
1. INTRODUCTION
(1) BackgroundRecently, many Japanese companies have expanded
their overseas business. Some of the countries where Jap-anese companies have already conducted business have introduced the obligation of a local procurement rate in-crement to develop their own local manufacturing indus-tries. This has led to the need for Japanese companies to
explore local suppliers to cope with these regulatory re-quirements.
The production quality and efficiency of manufactur-ers in developing or CIS countries are not as high as Jap-anese companies expect.[1] Accordingly, improvements are essential when Japanese companies are considering procuring parts from them. This situation is fully under-stood by local companies, and this is why multiple com-panies are voluntarily working on Kaizen activities (TPS/LPS). The managers of these companies sometimes study the TPS/LPS by reading books[2][3] and try to intro-duce Kaizen activities into their own workplaces.
However, books and articles (and, in some cases, Kai-zen consultants) do not necessarily contribute fully to the introduction of Kaizen activity into workplaces. This is because most of them only focus on the solution tools of Kaizen, like JIT, Jidoka, Kanban, and so on.
People who are motivated by Kaizen sometimes intro-duce these solutions without understanding the feature of “waste” because their definition of “waste” is often sim-ple and separate from the definition of solution tools[2][3] and thus merely provides information on how to find “waste”. For example, Kaizen consultants often start with 2S (Sort (Seiri), Set in order (Seiton)) and pursue Kaizen in seconds, but this start sometimes disappoints managers because of the naturalness of the activity.
As is well known, 2S is the first step of Kaizen activity. It can be considered that managers are disappointed not because they do not understand the improvement activi-ties but because Kaizen consultants cannot fully explain the reason for and purpose of the 2S activities. What ex-planations are necessary to offer management a proper understanding and ensure good collaboration during im-provement activities? This question is the starting point of this study.
Elicitation and collaboration constitute one of the key knowledge areas of business analysis.[4] The situation mentioned above suggests that there is a lack of tools that can smoothly elicit Kaizen ideas from managers and workers in factories. (2) Aim
This study aims to develop a tool for promoting the elicitation of Kaizen ideas from managers and workers in factories and collaboration within the Kaizen team by finding “waste” more easily, associating solutions to re-duce “waste” more effectively, and accumulating Kaizen experience more comprehensively. The tool is proposed
in the form of a 4M–7W–5K checklist.
2. FRAMEWORK OF THE DISCUSSION
The discussion considers the following three points: • The reclassification of TPS/LPS tools • The tendency to produce waste by production type • The association between waste and solution tools First, the reclassification of TPS/LPS tools is neces-
sary because of the parallel introduction of many of them. These tools were developed more for visualizing, analys-ing, or solving waste problems than for discovering them.
Second, the occurrence of waste depends on the pro-duction type, like small-variety mass production, multi-ple-variety small-lot production, and individual order production. The different production types tend to have different composition ratios of production time among “value-adding time”, “affiliated work time”, and “waste time”,[5] while manufacturing time can typically be di-vided into waste time and activity time.[6] This study dis-cusses the tendencies of the three different production types and three different manufacturing times.
Third, a possible reason why people at manufacturing sites who read books on the TPS and LPS cannot apply tools well is that these books do not clearly explain the correspondence between waste and solution tools. Here, the relationship between waste and 4M (man–machine–material–method) and the relationship between waste and Kaizen tools are rearranged into a 4M–7W–5K checklist to clarify the relationship between 4M, waste, and TPS/LPS tools. 3. Discussion (1) Reclassification of TPS/LPS tools
Here, typical TPS/LPS tools are reclassified as “find-ing”, “analysis”, and “solution” tools, as shown in Table 1. Most TPS/LPS tools that have already been introduced in previous research,[7] like value stream mapping,[8] are classified as a “solution” or “analysis”. Even quality con-trol’s (QC) seven tools, like the Pareto chart and cause–effect diagram, are intended not for finding waste but for visualizing it. Obviously, it is difficult to achieve the Kai-zen effect when the waste cannot be found appropriately or when an unsuitable solution tool is applied to it. There-fore, this study focuses on the waste-finding tools avail-able to managers and workers in a Kaizen team to pro-mote Kaizen activity.
11 / Global Business Journal, Vol.7 No.1, 2021
Table 1 Classification of TPS/LPS tools Finding Analysis Solution
Education Seven wastes
Cause–effect (fishbone) diagram Histogram Control chart Time-based mapping Value stream mapping Pareto chart
Just-in-Time Kanban Pull system Level out the workload (Heijyunka) Build a culture of stopping to fix problems (Jidoka) Standardized tasks Takt time setting Visualization (Andon) Multiple tasking Multiple machine operation 2S (Sort, Set in order) 5S (Sort, Set in order, Shine and clean, Standardize, Sustain) Karakuri (Automata) Small-lot production Single-minute exchange of die
(2) Premises of waste finding a) Understanding the manufacturing character-istics of the target product
Discussions on the TPS/LPS have concerned the dif-ferences in industries[6][8][9][11], but it seems that few dis-cussions have focused on the differences in the product types of the target products. Based on the authors’ expe-rience, waste is likely to occur for particular production types, namely “small-variety mass production”, “multi-ple-variety small-lot production”, and “individual order production”.
Table 2 explains the features of production types by workforce types, namely people and machines.
In the mass production of a small variety of products, small extra movements in the assembly process tend to accumulate into a considerable amount of waste time. In contrast, in the case of machining, a defective product may occur in large amounts due to a malfunction. Pre-venting these situations is important and is known as Ji-douka (autonomation). In the case of multiple-variety small-lot production, there is a tendency for waste to arise when changing work, whether manually or using machines and equipment.
For “individual order production”, it is difficult to im-prove productivity because there is less repetitive work at first glance. For this product type, increasing the reso-lution in each processing and assembling process, such as “drilling” and “screw fastening”, is necessary. Then, shortening the production time from the design stage, standardizing sizes with similar parts, and so on can be-come solutions for productivity improvement.
On the other hand, production methods can be broadly divided into mass production (conveyor production) and cell production (street stall-type workplaces). The con-veyor production method sets a takt time, sets standard work within the takt time, and repeats the work. On the other hand, the cell production method involves one per-son assembling a product in a process until completion or semi-completion. In each case, the ideal approach is to produce items one by one.
There are two main reasons for performing so-called “single production”, even in mass production. First, the work progress and the delay or advance of the work plan can be grasped easily. Second, there is no accumulated inventory in the workspace, so the work efficiency per work area is better.
Table 2 Examples of typical “waste” by product types and workforce types
Product types Small-variety mass produc-
tion Multiple-variety small-lot
production Individual order production
Work-force types People
Lot production increases the total time of production and increment in lots of interme-diate stocks in the manufac-turing process
Since the work time varies depending on the product type, low operation workers are likely to occur
A learning effect is less likely to occur
Machine/ equipment
The operator stays with the machine while the machine is in production
It is easy to waste time when changing the settings (inter-nal set-up time and machine adjustment time)
It is easy to waste time when changing the settings (internal set-up time and machine adjustment time)
12 / Global Business Journal, Vol.7 No.1, 2021
Table 3 Definition and classification of working times and their direction for Kaizen Definition Target Direction of Kaizen Net added-value time
The time it takes to process and assemble parts in the process of creating added value for products
Work time is re-duced while reduc-ing the workload
Improve workability by using jigs (Karakuri)
Affiliated work time
Time for preparatory work, such as fit-ting the product into the jig and warming it to a temperature at which it can be pro-cessed
Try to save as much time as possible
Save time by setting up exter-nally, reviewing the design, creat-ing jigs, changing the layout, and thoroughly implementing 2S
Non-value-adding time (waste)
Time that does not contribute to the added value of products, such as walking time to search for or pick up tools
Aim for zero Visualize and eliminate by visual-ization
When discussing productivity with shop floor workers
and managers, they often mention efficiency given the current workspace. However, considering that the space used for work is also a production good (asset), it is de-sirable to save not only the process time but also the workspace as much as possible to improve the asset effi-ciency. In particular, when there is a large difference in orders due to the season and sales during the busy season must be earned to pay the fixed costs during the off sea-son, it is necessary to maximize the asset productivity during the busy season. From this viewpoint, effective utilization of space is an important issue. Not only can the process time be shortened by consolidating the excess space and shortening the production line but, if another production team can be put into the vacant space, the pro-duction volume will increase dramatically.
It is generally said that lot production should be avoided. However, sometimes it is necessary to use a crane in the process to handle heavy or large parts, and the preparation and use of the crane take time. Otherwise, if the work process time is short, lot production might be efficient. In such a case, it may be better to look for waste as a variation of a cell production system in which many cells are handled by a small number of people rather than engaging in lot production.
The selection of production methods should be made before starting Kaizen activities in the existing manufac-turing process. b) Understanding three types of time in produc-tion It should be noted that production time can be divided into “value-adding time”, “affiliated work time”, and non-value-adding time (“waste time”) (Table 3).
The value-adding time is expected to be shortened by maintaining the quality of production while improving the workability using jigs and Karakuri in the TPS. On the other hand, the affiliated work time is not work on adding value itself but is the time required to perform
value-adding work, and it is desirable for it to be as short as possible. In contrast, the non-value-adding time is waste time itself and it is necessary to aim to eliminate this entirely.
As shown in Table 2, the different product types re-sult in different compositions of these three types of time. Multiple-variety small-lot production and individ-ual order production tend to derive more set-up time of affiliated work time than small-variety mass production. On the other hand, small extra movements in small-vari-ety mass production accumulate and create a huge amount of waste time, but this type of waste time occurs less in the other two product types because repeated movements do not happen so often.
When working to improve productivity, not only should non-value-adding time be eliminated but value-adding time and affiliated time should be reduced. To shorten the value-adding time and the affiliated work time, it is necessary to reduce the value-adding time in seconds for the purpose of smoothing the movement of eyes, hands, and feet. Workers and managers of overseas local companies are often less aware of the latter’s short-ening of value-adding time and affiliated work time, but it is necessary to be aware of it when considering waste.
(3) Relationships among 4M, 7 Wastes, and 5 Kaizen Fields a) Understanding the relationship between 4M and 7 Wastes
4M (man, machine, material, method) is well known as a framework for quality control of machining, analysis of the causes of accidents, and so on.[9] It also provides a useful perspective for identifying waste. For Kaizen, workers further analyse the movements of the eyes, the hands, and the legs.
Table 4 is a newly developed table for this study based on our experience and shows 4M and seven types of
13 / Global Business Journal, Vol.7 No.1, 2021
waste: “waste of movement”, “waste of defective prod-ucts/correction”, “waste of transportation”, “waste of waiting”, “waste of overproduction”, “unnecessary pro-cessing”, and “waste of inventory”.[3][5][10] Waste gener-ated by people is “waste of movement”, “waste of defec-tive/collection”, “waste of transportation”, and “waste of waiting”. Waste caused by machines is “overproduction” and “unnecessary processing”. Waste produced by mate-rials is “overproduction” and “waste in inventory”. Lastly, waste caused by the manufacturing method is considered to be “waste of waiting”, “waste of overpro-duction”, “unnecessary processing”, and “waste of in-ventory”.
Importantly, not every element of 4M is associated with every form of waste. In particular, the movement of “man” has nothing to do with “waste of inventory”, “waste of overproduction”, and “unnecessary pro-cessing”. “Method” (the manufacturing method) is not related to “waste of operation” and “waste of defective products/correction”. “Material” is not related to “waste of operation”, “waste of defective products/correction”, “waste of transportation”, “waste of waiting”, or “unnec-essary processing”. “Machine” (movement of equip-ment) has nothing to do with “waste of operation”, “waste of defective products/correction”, “waste of trans-portation”, “waste of waiting”, and “waste of inventory”.
In this way, considering the relationship between 4M and 7 Wastes, we classify the working time related to 4M as a starting point, examine the possibility of shortening the value-adding time and affiliated work time, and clar-ify the non-value-adding time. Through this process, so-
called waste (the target time for shortening the value-adding time and affiliated work time as well as for cutting the non-value-adding time) can be discovered more effi-ciently and concretely for productivity improvement. b) Understanding the relationship between 7 Wastes and 5 Kaizen Fields (waste solutions)
Table 5 is also newly developed in this study based on our experience and shows the relationship between 7 Wastes and 5 Kaizen Fields as waste solution tools in the TPS and LPS. It should be noted that 7 Wastes and 5 Kai-zen Fields are not exhaustive, like the relationship be-tween 4M and 7 Wastes. For example, to solve the prob-lems of waste of movement and waste of defective prod-ucts/correction, 5S and visualization of the manufactur-ing process of workplace Kaizen, completion of the com-pany’s own process of quality Kaizen, establishing stand-ard work of work Kaizen, and outer set-up of inner set-up of equipment Kaizen can become solution tools. On the other hand, the parts delivery instruction based on construction start information, scheduled indefinite quantity transportation, and Kanban methods of logistics Kaizen cannot become solution tools.
Similarly, waste of defective products/correction can-not be eliminated by workplace Kaizen and logistics Kai-zen. “Waste of transportation” cannot be eliminated by quality Kaizen and equipment Kaizen. In addition, “wait-ing for waste” is difficult to eliminate with workplace Kaizen and quality Kaizen. It is hard to solve the problem of waste of inventory with workplace Kaizen, quality Kaizen, work method Kaizen, and equipment Kaizen.
Table 4 4M and 7 Wastes
Note: ◎ indicates the main cause of waste; 〇 indicates a cause of waste.
-Start-up inspection-Time-basedmaintenance-Condition-basedmaintenance-Optimization of spareparts inventory
Waste ofmovement ⤴ ⤴ ⤴ ⤴ ⤴ ⤴
Waste of defectiveproducts/correctio
n⤴ ⤴ ⤴
⤴ ⤴ ⤴ ⤴ ⤴
⤴ ⤴ ⤴ ⤴ ⤴Waste of waiting ⤴ ⤴ ⤴ ⤴ ⤴
⤴ ⤴ ⤴ ⤴ ⤴
⤴ ⤴ ⤴
⤴ ⤴ ⤴
⤴ ⤴ ⤴ ⤴
⤴ ⤴
⤴
Unnecessaryprocessing
Excessive precision isrequired
Equipment abnormality hasoccurred
Waste ofinventory
There is a long-terminventory
WIP or min-max inventorysettings are not appropriate
Waste ofoverproduction
Producing more thannecessary production
Intermediate product staysbetween processes
Temporary placement,transshipment, etc. haveoccurred
Carrying a longer distancethan necessary
Waiting time is occurring
Field
Tools
Types of Waste Explanation
7 W
aste
s
Some work does not addvalue
Correction process is set
Waste oftransportatin
5 Kaizen fieldsWorkplace Kaizen Work method Kaizen Logistics Kaizen Machine and Equipment Kaizen
５S Visualization ofmanufacturing process
Machine and equipmentmaintenance
Own processcompletion
Establishing standardwork
Way of acceptingprocured items
Logistics in the factory Kanban method Shorter setup changetime
15 / Global Business Journal, Vol.7 No.1, 2021
Note: The shaded boxes in the figure are the parts that are targeted by the waste analysis and solution tools that have been discussed in previous studies.
Fig. 1 Flow of waste finding
Similarly, it is difficult to solve the problem of “waste of overproduction” using workplace Kaizen and equip-ment Kaizen. “Unnecessary processing” problems may be difficult to solve using workplace Kaizen and logistics Kaizen. Hence, applying the appropriate Kaizen tools to the various types of waste at hand is a prerequisite for improving productivity. (4) Proposal for a waste-finding flow and check-list a) Waste-finding flow
To summarize the concept of waste finding and the re-lationship between 4M, 7 Wastes, and 5 Kaizen Fields, which are newly introduced in this paper, the following Figure 1 illustrates the flow in an actual Kaizen project. It is possible to detect waste efficiently.
It is important to confirm the manufacturing character-istics and production method of the products before start-ing to find waste and trying to undertake Kaizen activi-ties. This is because, as mentioned above, the tendency to generate waste and the priority of waste detection dif-fer depending on the manufacturing characteristics.
Moreover, the direction of efficiency improvement
differs depending on the production method. In the case of conveyor-type production, since the takt time is deter-mined, it is necessary to prioritize the levelling of the work and the reduction of the value-adding time and af-filiated work time so that the takt time can be achieved. On the other hand, in the case of the cell production method, the priority is placed on the efficient arrange-ment of tools, jigs, and parts around the workbench.
In addition, changing the production method requires a considerable amount of preparation, such as changing the factory layout, adding jigs, and suspending produc-tion. It is difficult to implement this change during the busy season, so it is necessary to wait for the off season, and it becomes necessary to consider the timing of Kai-zen solution implementation. For these reasons, it is de-sirable to consider the production system as a given con-dition for the discovery of current waste and to consider it only when the production system has to be changed as a result of carrying out some Kaizen activities.
At manufacturing sites where lot production is cur-rently performed, space efficiency is reduced due to “waste of inventory” and “waste of transportation”, so first it is important to divide the manufacturing process and level the work time. It is necessary to set the standard work and then shift to the cell production system by pro-cess. After that, it is considered desirable to work on the discovery of finer waste in manufacturing cells by the process.
Next, it is important to reconfirm the latest manufac-turing procedure. Work procedures are in place at many manufacturing sites, but often the work procedures have not been updated and may have changed during site op-eration. In addition, serial work and parallel work may not be properly divided. Since it is necessary to analyse the work time, create a workload chart, and discuss work levelling based on the work procedure manual, the latest work procedure manual in which serial work and parallel work are properly classified should be prepared before starting video recording and analysis of the current work process for the Kaizen activity.
Finally, the procedure after video recording is as fol-lows. First, work time is classified into value-adding time, affiliated work time, and non-value-adding time (waste time). Then, referring to Table 4, the types of waste time that can be used to reduce the net time, incidental time, and non-value-adding time are tied to the proper type of waste.
Feature of Manufacturing
Start
Small-variety mass-production
Multiple-variety small-lot-production
Individual order production
Focus on the whole process
Focus on setting up
Focus on common work and
common parts
Production methods
Conveyor system Cell production system
Video shoot
3 categories of production time
Organize relationships between 4M and 7 Wastes
Organize relationships between 7 Wastes and 5
Kaizen Fields
Implementation of Kaizen
Visualization and examination with waste analysis tools
End
Cont
inuo
us a
ctiv
ity
Und
erst
andi
ng th
e ch
arac
teris
tics o
f pro
duct
ion
sites
(Con
ditio
ning
of K
aize
n di
scus
sion)
Kaize
n Ac
tivity
Confirmation of manufacturing procedure
16 / Global Business Journal, Vol.7 No.1, 2021
After classification, the waste analysis tools intro-duced earlier, such as pie charts, process ratio charts, Pa-reto charts, and causal relationship diagrams using fish-bone diagrams, are used to identify waste time and time ratios to visualize the waste in the manufacturing process. Referring to Table 5, the solutions for each type of waste are identified and then ways to implement them are con-sidered after identifying the trends of the waste.
When the countermeasures (Kaizen) selected through the above process are implemented at the manufacturing site and the results are confirmed, the work procedure manual should be updated and a further video recording made, enabling the Kaizen team members to understand the results quantitatively through the visualization of the waste time. b) Checklist of waste finding and solutions
Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9 contain waste-finding/solution check sheets for “man”, “method”, “ma-terial”, and “machine”, respectively. These tables make it possible to produce a checklist for finding waste that is likely to occur in each of the elements of 4M, identifying appropriate solutions to be implemented after finding waste, and setting the deadline for their implementation.
4M, waste, and waste solution tools are three inde-pendent axes, which were originally three-dimensional but are projected onto a table to make them easier to un-derstand and to use in the Kaizen activity of the manu-facturing process. As mentioned above, 4M, 7 Wastes, and 5 Kaizen Fields are not exhaustive. Therefore, in Ta-ble 6, Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9, the waste that is closely related to the 4M elements and their solutions is summarized.
By conducting video analysis with these four tables, finding waste, selecting a corresponding solution tool, and embodying it, manufacturing site workers and man-agers can implement systematic productivity improve-ment (Kaizen) activities.
It should be noted that the table includes “others”. When users of this table notice new waste and solution tools in addition to the listed waste and solutions in the four tables, they can improve and customize the checklist. c) Utilization of the video recording and waste-finding checklist
A production site with abundant experience in Kaizen activities will be able to discover various types of waste while carrying out its daily manufacturing activities. It is effective for the parties concerned to record and conduct waste detection by video analysis as a QC activity. It is
well known that the power of video analytics lies in the unfamiliar waste of time and familiar practice as facts are recorded and objectively reflected on retrospectively, making it possible to discover waste time.
In production sites outside Japan, cameras are often in-stalled to record the entire workplace from the viewpoint of anti-theft measures and labour management, but the video recording here is different. So-called waste occurs along the 4M elements. In the case of a human, it is caused by eye movement, hand movement, and foot movement. In the case of a machine, it is caused by the operating status of the equipment. The method is associ-ated with the layout and the flow of goods in the factory. For this reason, it is necessary to record the person (eye movement, hand movement (hand), and foot movement (walking), equipment operation, and material flow by video.
Consequently, it is important to shoot at a resolution that allows the viewer to determine the actual situation of eye movements, hand movements (hands), foot move-ments (walking), processing and assembly of equipment, objects being transported, and so on rather than picking them up vaguely from a distance. It is expected that, sub-sequently, the check sheet will be used to discuss and write down the kind of waste that is generated in each of the elements of 4M using the above video recording and its analysis and the kind of solution tool corresponding to the waste that can be used by the Kaizen team.
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS (1) Summary
In this paper, we restructured the framework of Kaizen activities based on the knowledge obtained from our productivity improvement activities in Russia.[1] Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, and Figure 1 have been rearranged.
This study pointed out that the existing TPS and lean manufacturing tools are biased towards solution tools. However, as explained, it is difficult to achieve a Kaizen effect without combinations of “waste” and “solution” tools.
Oddly enough, Toyota’s slogans in 1966 were “quality assurance with all Toyota” and “eliminating waste of goods and time”.[12] When it comes to the TPS and lean production methods, attention should be focused not on the solution tools but on the “waste” itself. From this per-spective, it can be said that this study is a throwback to
17 / Global Business Journal, Vol.7 No.1, 2021
the origin of Kaizen activity.
(2) Further tasks In this paper, the discussion was developed by “elicit-
ing” information from the workers and managers. At that
time, “7 Wastes” was used as framework, but the same idea can also be applied to the different definition of “8 Wastes” (excess motion, excess transportation, underuti-lized people, inventory, defects, overproduction, waiting, and overprocessing).[11]
Table 6 4M–7W–5K checklist for “man”
Types of waste Explanation of wasteCheckbox
Waste movementrecorded in video (foundas a result of directobservation of themanufacturing process)（Free entry）
Temporary placement,transshipment, etc. haveoccurred
□Workmethod Workability
improvement
Workabilityimprovement
Others
Workabilityimprovement
Waste oftransportation
Carrying for a longerdistance than necessary
□ Workmethod Workability
improvement
Temporary placement,transshipment, etc. haveoccurred
□
Legmovement
Waste ofmovement
Some work does not addvalue
□
18 / Global Business Journal, Vol.7 No.1, 2021
Next, motivation management of the workers is important in actually promoting the Kaizen activities. Generally, a reward system for Kaizen proposals is adopted as a method of motivation management, but what is important for local companies is the manage-ment of the results of the workers’ production activ-ities. Local companies often have a pay-per-output system. The pay-per-output system does not improve workers’ awareness of quality control because
wages are paid for the products regardless of whether they are good or bad. For this reason, it is indispensable to introduce self-process completion, a pay-per-good-quality output wage system, and a reward system for Kaizen proposals/results. These are beyond the scope of this paper, but it can be said that they are kinds of driving force encouraging the utilization of the 4M–7W–5K checklist.
Table 7 4M–7W–5K checklist for “method”
Types of waste Explanation of wasteCheckbox
Waste movementrecorded in video (foundas a result of directobservation of themanufacturing process)（Free entry）
