ARTICLE IN PRESS

Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Int. J. Production Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

Critical success factors for human resource outcomes in Kaizen

events: An empirical study
Jennifer A. Farris a,, Eileen M. Van Aken b, Toni L. Doolen c, June Worley c
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
b
Grado Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
c
School of Mechanical, Industrial, & Manufacturing Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Kaizen events are an increasingly common organizational improvement mechanism
Received 9 January 2008 aimed at work area transformation and employee development. While many anecdotal
Accepted 29 August 2008 design prescriptions exist, there is little empirical evidence of which input and process
Available online 17 September 2008
factors are most strongly related to Kaizen event outcomes in practice. This paper uses
Keywords: results from a field study of 51 events in six manufacturing organizations to identify the
Lean production set of input and process factors that most strongly relate to the development of
Teams employee attitudinal outcomes and problem-solving capabilities in Kaizen events.
Productivity improvement These results are used to develop guidelines for organizations and identify directions for
Quality management
future work.
Manufacturing companies
& 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1 week or shorter) (Farris et al., 2008b). In addition to

The study of improvement programs has long been a
focus of the operations management (OM) and industrial
engineering community (e.g., Chan et al., 2005; Dar-El,
1997; Guimaraes, 1997; Gunasekaran et al., 1994; Hales
and Chakravorty, 2006; Herron and Braiden, 2006;
Launonen and Kess, 2002; McIntosh et al., 2001; Van
Landeghem, 2000; Vits and Gelders, 2002). Recently, lean
manufacturing (Womack et al., 1990) has become a—if not
the—dominant improvement paradigm, leading to a
variety of studies examining this topic (e.g., Matusi,
2007; Panizzolo, 1998; Simons and Taylor, 2007;
Warnecke and Huser, 1995).
Within lean manufacturing, one increasingly utilized
mechanism is the Kaizen event, a focused and structured
continuous improvement project, using a dedicated cross-
functional team to address a targeted work area, to
achieve specific goals in an accelerated timeframe (usually
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 806 742 3543; fax: +1 806 742 3411.
E-mail address: jennifer.farris@ttu.edu (J.A. Farris).
potential, direct improvements in the target work area,
Kaizen events are purported to serve as a ‘‘just-in-
time’’ training mechanism for participating employees
(Drickhamer, 2004a), helping these employees develop
new problem-solving capabilities and increased motiva-
tion to participate in future improvement activities.
However, despite their popularity and potential benefits,
Kaizen events have not been widely studied to date
(Bateman, 2005; Melnyk et al., 1998). Many guidelines for
Kaizen event design exist, primarily in the practitioner
literature; however, these guidelines do not appear to
have been tested through empirical research. Until the
determinants of Kaizen event outcomes are well under-
stood, organizations will not be able to systematically
manage Kaizen events to consistently achieve positive
results. This paper presents findings from a field study of
51 Kaizen events in six manufacturing organizations,
where multiple regression was used to test the relation-
ships between Kaizen event input and process factors and
employee attitudinal and problem-solving capability out-
comes. Findings are used to develop design guidelines for
organizations using Kaizen events and to lay a foundation

0925-5273/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.08.051
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65 43

for future research. Section 2 reviews the literature related needed to determine which lean system designs produce
to this topic, Section 3 presents the research methodology, the most positive outcomes.
Section 4 presents results, and Section 5 discusses study
findings, limitations, and directions for future research.
2.2. Kaizen event research literature

2. Literature review Kaizen events appear to have originated with Toyota,

who purportedly used them to train their suppliers in the
1970s (Sheridan, 1997). However, they did not become
2.1. Employee development within lean manufacturing
popular in the US until the 1990s (Schonberger, 2007) and
do not appear in the literature until that time. Key
Samson and Whybark (1998) issued a general charge to
publications from the current research literature on
the OM and industrial engineering community to put
Kaizen events are summarized in Table 1. In addition to
more focus on ‘‘softer’’ human resource issues, and recent
the limited number of studies, there is no clear agreement
research suggests that many are answering this call
on which factors determine either initial outcomes or
(e.g., Jun et al., 2006; Kathuria and Partovi, 1999;
results sustainability. The methodologies used in the
Korhonen and Pirttila, 2003; Polychronakis and Syntetos,
studies also present certain limitations. Three studies,
2007; Tranfield et al., 2000). In lean manufacturing
Bateman and David (2002), and Bateman and Rich (2003),
research, human resource practices, such as employee
and Miller (2004), do not focus on the relationship
participation in continuous improvement programs,
between input and process factors and event-level out-
cross-functional teams, employee training, and job rota-
comes, but instead on Kaizen event program-level effects.
tion systems, are acknowledged to form core components
Half of the remaining studies (Farris et al., 2008b;
of a lean manufacturing program, at least in theory
Montabon, 2005; Patil, 2003) are based upon the analysis
(e.g., Dankbaar, 1997; deTreville and Antonakis, 2006;
of a single event, while Bradley and Willett (2004) based
Niepce and Molleman, 1996; Panizzolo, 1998; Shah and
their conclusions on interviews with participants from 12
Ward, 2003, 2007; Warnecke and Huser, 1995).
events in a single company, Doolen et al. (2008) studied
Several studies have reported a relationship between
two events in a single company, and Melnyk et al. (1998)
the degree of implementation of human resource prac-
do not link their conclusions to the study of any specific
tices and lean manufacturing success (Huber and Brown,
events. Only Bateman (2005) studied multiple events
1991; Matusi, 2007; Olorunniwo and Udo, 2002; Sawhney
within multiple organizations. All of the studies except
and Chason, 2005; Schonberger, 2007). Other work has
Doolen et al. (2008) and Farris et al. (2008b) focus on the
addressed the relationship between lean implementation
relationship between event characteristics and technical
and employee satisfaction. Findings have been mixed,
performance outcomes, without empirically measuring
with several authors suggesting a negative relationship
human resource outcomes. Finally, most of the studies
between lean implementation and employee satisfaction
rely heavily on qualitative data and do not include
(e.g., Bailey and Rose, 1988; Delbridge, 1998; Delbridge
investigation of the quantitative relationships between
et al., 1992; Fucini and Fucini, 1990; Klein, 1989; Parker
outcomes, input factors and process factors. Doolen et al.
and Slaughter, 1988; Sewell and Wilkinson, 1992), while
(2008); Farris et al. (2008b) and Patil (2003) quantified
others argue that the relationship is positive (e.g., Adler
certain outcomes, input factors, and process factors in
1993a, b; deTreville and Antonakis, 2006; Womack et al.,
their studies but, due to their small sample sizes, only
1990), null (Huber and Hyer, 1985), or ambivalent (Jackson
very limited conclusions about quantitative relationships
and Mullarkey, 2000; Shafer et al., 1995). In addition, the
can be drawn. Only, Bateman (2005) empirically investi-
majority of this work has been theoretical or anecdotal,
gated the quantitative relationships between work area
rather than empirical. (Notable exceptions include Huber
and organizational characteristics and the sustainability
and Hyer, 1985; Jackson and Mullarkey, 2000; Shafer
of event outcomes across a larger number of events. Thus,
et al., 1995.) Further, potential reciprocal effects between
there is clearly a need for additional empirical research on
specific lean implementation activities and employee
Kaizen events.
outcomes do not appear to have been systematically
investigated. Positive attitudinal outcomes from specific
lean implementation activities, such as Kaizen events, 2.3. Kaizen events in the context of team effectiveness
could increase employee commitment to the lean program research
as a whole, ultimately improving the program’s success
and sustainability (Adam et al., 1997; Co et al., 1998; A Kaizen event team represents a specific type of
Keating et al., 1999). Similarly, participation in Kaizen team—a short-duration (generally, 1 week or shorter),
events or other problem-solving activities could help to dedicated project team—which does not appear to have
develop operations employees’ problem-solving capabil- received much attention in empirical research, although
ities, which is crucial to the success of lean systems teams in general have been widely studied (e.g., Campion
(Biazzo and Panizzolo, 2000; Brown and Mitchell, 1991; et al, 1993; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Hyatt and
Dankbaar, 1997; Huber and Hyer, 1985; Safayeni and Ruddy, 1997; Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; Kolodny and
Purdy, 1991). Thus, the relationships between lean Kiggundu, 1980; Pinto et al., 1993; Sundstrom et al., 1990;
production implementation activities and employee out- Vinokur-Kaplan,1995). Furthermore, as Pagell and LePine
comes are not fully understood, and additional research is (2002) note, there are relatively few empirical studies of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
44 J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65

Table 1
Previous research on Kaizen events

Source Study type Sectors Event outcomes Factors related to outcomes

measured

Melnyk et al. (1998) Empirical, Various None Short/finite duration, narrow focus, low capital
observation investment, team-based nature, action orientation, use
of specific and verifiable metrics, repetition
Bateman and David (2002) Empirical, Automotive Proposes a framework None
observation for measuring
sustainability of
technical results
Bateman and Rich (2003) Empirical, field Automotive Sustainability of Resource availability, recognition of need for change,
study of 21 technical results at culture that supports change, consistency of focus on
organizations organization level improvement, Kaizen program champion quality, team
leader quality, management support, employee
turnover, communication quality, measurement system
alignment, ability to financially justify events
Patil (2003) Empirical, case Aerospace Sustainability of Employee involvement, job security, training, employee
study in single technical results needs surveys, standard operating procedures (SOPs),
organization follow-up reviews, time for completion of action items,
strategic alignment, knowledge sharing
Bradley and Willett (2004) Empirical, case Mechanical None Problem complexity, team tool knowledge, team
study in single products process knowledge, team leader experience, facilitator
organization experience, effective internal processes, goal clarity,
organizational stability, team functional heterogeneity,
event scope, lack of manipulation, lack of competition,
rewards for participation, flexibility in approach, action
item list, historical performance data
Miller (2004) Empirical, field Various None Expectancy beliefs, task value beliefs, achievement
study in 4 behaviors
organizations
Bateman (2005) Empirical, field Automotive Sustainability of 5S, performance measurement, employee problem-
study of 40 events technical results solving systems, work area manager support, employee
in 21 empowerment, full-time Kaizen event coordinator,
organizations training in new work methods, work area management
involvement in Kaizen events, top management support
for PI, strategic alignment
Montabon (2005) Empirical, case Durable goods None Team functional heterogeneity
study in single
organization
Doolen et al. (2008) Empirical, case Electronics Initial levels and Goal difficulty, management support
study in single sustainability of goal
organization achievement,
perceived success, and
human resource
impacts
Farris et al. (2008b) Empirical, case Large Initial goal Goal clarity, team functional representation, team
study in single transportation achievement, autonomy
organization equipment perceived success,
human resource
impacts

teams in an operations management (OM) context and
even fewer involving operations personnel.
Likely due to the diversity of team types and contexts,
there is a lack of consensus in the team literature on the
exact set of variables that determines team effectiveness
(Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Salas et al., 2005). However,
there is some consistency in the types of factors identified
(see Table 2). Many studies utilize the input-process–out-
put framework (Guzzo and Shea, 1992; McGrath, 1964), in
which process variables are assumed to at least partially
mediate the relationships between inputs and outcomes.
The research model for this study (Fig. 1) is based on the
input-process–output framework and, particularly, the
team effectiveness model by Cohen and Bailey (1997)
and the team chemistry model by Nicolini (2002). The
model contains five basic factor groups:
 Kaizen event design antecedents, which are the group
design and task design input factors describing the
internal characteristics of a given event.
 Organizational and work area antecedents, which are the
input factors describing the context of the event, e.g.,
the support and constraints supplied by other organi-
zational entities.
 Kaizen event process factors, which describe group
activities and intermediate psychosocial traits arising
from team member interactions.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65 45

Table 2
Previous studies of team effectiveness

Source Type of study Factors related to outcomes

McGrath (1964)
Kolodny and Kiggundu (1980)
Gladstein (1984)
Hackman (1987)
Pinto and Slevin (1987)
Sundstrom et al. (1990)
Susman and Dean (1992)
Ancona and Caldwell (1992)
Campion et al. (1993)
Katzenbach and Smith (1993)
Pinto et al. (1993)
Vinokur-Kaplan (1995)
Cohen et al. (1996)
Belassi and Tukel (1996)
Cohen and Bailey (1997)
Hyatt and Ruddy (1997)
Janz (1999)
Bailey (2000)
Stewart and Barrick (2000)
Nicolini (2002)
Pagell and LePine (2002)
Lemieux-Charles et al. (2002)
Linderman et al. (2006)
Theoretical Group composition; Group structure; Task and environment; Group processes
Empirical Leadership and supervision; Organizational arrangements; Task conditions; Group characteristics;
Technical skills; Group interactions
Empirical Group composition; Group structure; Resource availability; Organization structure; Group processes;
Task design
Theoretical Group design; Organizational context; Group synergy; Group processes (effort, knowledge, task
strategies); Resource availability
Empirical Project mission; Top management support ; Project schedule/plan; Client consultation; Personnel;
Technical tasks; Client acceptance; Monitoring and feedback; Communication; Trouble-shooting
Theoretical Organizational context; Boundaries; Team development
Theoretical Integrative mechanisms; Group processes; Codification/computerization; Project risk; Goal difficulty
Empirical Frequency of external communication Ambassador activities; Task coordination; Scouting; Guarding;
Internal processes; Cohesion
Empirical Job design; Group interdependence; Group composition; Organizational context; Group processes
Empirical Group skills; Group accountability; Group commitment
Empirical Superordinate goals; Physical proximity; Accessibility; Project team rules and procedures;
Organizational rules and procedures; Cross-functional cooperation
Empirical Group structure and composition; Task clarity; Organizational context; Training availability; Physical
environment; Effort; Knowledge application; Task strategies
Empirical Group task design; Encouraging supervisory behaviors; Group characteristics (composition, beliefs,
processes); Employee involvement context
Empirical Factors related to the project; Factors related to the project manager; Factors related to project team
members; Factors related to the organization; System response variables (process variables)
Theoretical Task design; Group composition; Organizational context External group processes; Internal group
processes; Group psychosocial traits; Environmental factors
Empirical Process focus; Work group support; Goal orientation; Work group confidence; Customer orientation;
Internal processes
Empirical Organizational climate; Autonomy; Cooperative learning; Team development
Empirical Task dependence; Training; Autonomy; Supportiveness; Rewards; Performance Feedback;
Communication; Conflict; Cohesion
Empirical Interdependence; Team self-leadership; Task type; Intrateam processes
Theoretical Project level antecedents; Business environment and organizational antecedents; Project chemistry
(group processes and psychosocial traits)
Empirical Team composition; Task and team structure; Technology; Trust; Novel problems to solve;
Operational interdependence
Empirical Organizational context; Quality improvement practices; Team norms; Process strategies; Decision-
making process
Empirical Goal difficulty; Adherence to task strategy (Six Sigma)

 Social system outcomes, which describe the human
resource impacts of the event, e.g., problem-solving
capability development and affective outcomes.
 Technical system outcomes, which describe the impact
of the event on the technical performance of the target
work area, e.g., goal achievement and perceived
success.
Environmental factors related to the external market
context of the organization were not included in the
research, as they were not expected to vary substantially
at the event level, i.e., within organizations, during the
short time horizon of the research. However, data
describing each organization’s external environment were
collected though an organization-level Kaizen program
interview, and each organization was monitored for
sudden changes in its environment. Further, due to scope
constraints, this paper focuses on social system outcomes
only. However, technical system outcomes are included in
Fig. 1 to make the full structure of the research model
clear.
In accordance with many of the previous input-
process–outcome models (e.g., Cohen and Bailey, 1997;
Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom et al., 1990; Susman and Dean,
1992), the model further hypothesizes that input factors
can impact outcomes both indirectly and indirectly via
group processes. Thus three types of relationships are of
interest, which can be framed as three broad research
hypotheses:
Hypothesis H1. Input variables (Kaizen event design
antecedents and organizational and work area antece-
dents) have a direct relationship to social system out-
comes.
Hypothesis H2. Kaizen event process variables have a
direct relationship to social system outcomes.
Hypothesis H3. Kaizen event process variables mediate
the effect of input variables on social system outcomes.
To identify the specific variables to be studied in this
research, published accounts of Kaizen events were reviewed
in addition to the studies of team effectiveness. While there
has been little empirical research on Kaizen events to date
(see Table 1), there have been numerous anecdotal publica-
tions, primarily in non-refereed journals, conference pro-
ceedings, industry magazines and newsletters, professional
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
46 J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65
Input Factors Process Factors
Kaizen Event Design Antecedents
- Goal Clarity
- Goal Difficulty
- Team Autonomy
- Team Kaizen Experience Kaizen Event Process Factors
- Team Leader Experience
- Team Functional Heterogeneity - Action Orientation
- Affective Commitment to Change
- Intemal Processes
Organizational and Work Area - Tool Quality
Antecedents - Tool Appropriateness
- Management Support
- Event Planning Process
- Work Area Routineness
Fig. 1. Initial research model.
society magazines and newsletters, websites, and news-
papers. These publications typically describe the phenom-
enon, design suggestions, and example results. To date,
the authors have reviewed over 80, primarily anecdotal,
sources on Kaizen events published between 1993 and
2007. The next sections discuss how findings from the
team effectiveness literature and published Kaizen event
accounts were used to identify the specific variables
studied in this research (Fig. 1).
2.3.1. Kaizen event design antecedents
The design of a given Kaizen event can be described in
terms of the design of the target task and the design of
the Kaizen event team. Task design factors include both
task structure characteristics, e.g., team autonomy, and
task content characteristics, e.g., scope and complexity
(Campion et al., 1993), while group design factors describe
the characteristics of team members and the team leader
(Cohen and Bailey, 1997). In the context of Kaizen events,
three task design factors appear to be of particular
interest: team autonomy, goal clarity, and goal difficulty.
Similarly, three group design factors also appear to be of
particular interest: team functional heterogeneity, team
kaizen experience, and team leader experience.
High team autonomy, typically including actual
authority to implement changes during the event, is
frequently cited as one of the key task design character-
istics contributing to Kaizen event effectiveness (e.g.,
Adams et al., 1997; Bicheno, 2001; Bradley and Willett,
2004; Foreman and Vargas, 1999; Kumar and Harms,
2004). Conversely, lack of implementation authority
(autonomy) has been suggested as one of the reasons
that some continuous improvement mechanisms, such as
Outcomes
Social System Outcomes
- Understanding of CI
- Skills
- Attitude
Technical System
Outcomes
- Goal Achievement
- Impact on Area
- Overall Perceived Success
quality circles, failed in the US (Lawler and Mohrman,
1985, 1987). Thus, many Kaizen event practitioners
suggest that the higher autonomy in Kaizen events makes
these projects more successful than older improvement
structures. The empirical team literature generally sup-
ports a positive relationship between team autonomy and
team outcomes (Cohen and Ledford, 1994; Wall et al.,
1986), although a few studies have failed to find a
relationship (e.g., Janz, 1999).
Most Kaizen event accounts suggest that goal clarity
(i.e., specific, well-defined goals) is another key task
design characteristic promoting event effectiveness (e.g.,
Adams et al., 1997; Bradley and Willett, 2004; Rusiniak,
1996). Generally, the accounts have further suggested the
use of measurable targets or benchmarks (e.g. Bradley and
Willett, 2004; Foreman and Vargas, 1999; Heard, 1997;
Martin, 2004; Melnyk et al., 1998; Treece, 1993; Vasilash,
1993). However, a few Kaizen event accounts have
suggested using loosely defined goals, including allowing
the team to develop the goals and even identify the target
work area during the event (e.g., Kumar and Harms, 2004;
Wittenberg, 1994). The empirical team literature generally
supports a positive relationship between goal clarity and
team outcomes (e.g., Doolen et al., 2003a; Koch, 1979;
Pritchard et al., 1988; Van Aken and Kleiner, 1997),
although a few studies have failed to find a relationship
(e.g., Gladstein, 1984). The goal-setting literature, which
has typically focused on the individual level rather than
the group level (Linderman et al., 2006), also lends some
support for the importance of clear, specific goals,
although it has generally reported that the relationship
between goal specificity and performance is moderated by
goal difficulty (Locke and Latham, 2002). The project
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65
management literature has more consistently identified
goal clarity as a key factor affecting team success (e.g.,
Pinto and Slevin, 1987).
Kaizen event accounts acknowledge goal difficulty as
an important task design characteristics, but present
conflicting design recommendations. Many suggest a
positive relationship between goal difficulty and Kaizen
event outcomes (e.g. Bicheno, 2001; Cuscela, 1998; Kumar
and Harms, 2004; LeBlanc, 1999; Minton, 1998; Tanner
and Roncarti, 1994; Treece, 1993). However, others suggest
that the problems targeted by Kaizen events must not be
too complex and must be suitable for well-known and
simple lean tools (e.g. Harvey, 2004; Sheridan, 1997), and
some accounts contain both, potentially conflicting,
suggestions (e.g. Bradley and Willett, 2004; Gregory,
2003; Rusiniak, 1996). Literature on goal setting has
typically reported a positive relationship between goal
difficulty and task performance (Locke and Latham, 1990;
Locke et al., 1981; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1994). However,
some authors have suggested that this relationship might
not hold at high levels of goal difficulty (Erez and Zidon,
1984; Locke and Latham, 1984, 1990). In addition, goal-
setting research has generally centered on the relationship
between researcher-assessed levels of goal difficulty
and task performance in controlled experiments where
extensive training on the task was provided prior to
experimental manipulation. It is not clear that this
relationship holds for other measures of goal difficulty
and other contexts. For instance, Martin et al. (1999)
reported a negative relationship between respondent-
perceived goal difficulty and task performance when goals
also had high researcher-assessed goal difficulty. Earley
et al. (1989) found that, when training on the specific
tactics and strategies needed to achieve the goals was
omitted, subjects with high researcher-assessed levels of
goal difficulty had lower task performance than subjects
without assigned goals. Similarly, Linderman et al. (2006)
found that, while goal difficulty had a positive relation-
ship with team performance for Six Sigma teams who
closely adhered to the Six Sigma methodology, goal
difficulty was negatively related to performance in teams
that did not.
Cross-functional heterogeneity is frequently cited as
one of the group design characteristics determining event
effectiveness (Bradley and Willett, 2004; Melynk et al.,
1998; Montabon, 2005). The Kaizen event literature
generally recommends that the team consist of a cross-
spectrum of the organization and, particularly, the target
process (operators, managers, support personnel, etc.).
A variety of more specific suggestions regarding team
composition also exist, such as the inclusion of partici-
pants unfamiliar with the target process or work area (e.g.,
Bradley and Willett, 2004; Cuscela, 1998; David, 2000;
Foreman and Vargas, 1999; LeBlanc, 1999; Martin, 2004;
McNichols et al., 1999; Minton, 1998; Melnyk et al., 1998),
and the inclusion of process suppliers or customers (e.g.,
Adams et al., 1997; Heard, 1997; Larson, 1998; McNichols
et al., 1999; Melnyk et al., 1998; Tanner and Roncarti,
1994). Previous team research has found that cross-
functional teams may make better decisions (Jackson,
1992; Jehn et al., 1999; Lovelace et al., 2001; McGrath,
47
1984), but typically experience lower levels of enjoyment
in working together (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Amason
and Schweiger, 1994; Baron, 1990), suggesting a mixed
effect of functional heterogeneity in terms of team
outcomes.
Team and team leader task experience are other group
design characteristics, which may contribute to event
effectiveness (e.g., Bradley and Willett, 2004). A key
proposition in Bradley and Willett (2004) is that teams
require at least one experienced individual, who may or
may not be the team leader. Similarly, based on their
study of business process reengineering (BPR) teams,
Launonen and Kess (2002) suggest that it is the respon-
sibility of the team leader to supply, either directly or
indirectly, any needed problem-solving skills not present
among other team members. In addition, the role of the
team leader is consistently emphasized in the project
management literature (e.g., Belassi and Tukel, 1996;
Nicolini, 2002: Pinto and Slevin, 1987), as well as the
team literature (e.g., Salas et al., 2005).
Two other Kaizen event design factors ultimately not
included in the research model are worthy of brief
mention. The relatively short duration of Kaizen events
is a task characteristics commonly mentioned as one
of the defining characteristics of Kaizen events, possibly
contributing to success as compared with longer-duration
improvement mechanisms (e.g. Adams et al., 1997;
Bicheno, 2001; Bradley and Willett, 2004; Heard, 1997;
Melnyk et al., 1998). For instance, the organizational
change literature has emphasized the need for short term,
visible improvements to generate longer-term support for
improvement programs (e.g., Keating et al., 1999; Kotter,
1995). Event duration was ultimately not included in the
research due to expected limited variation across events.
The final sample supported this assumption, as events
ranged from 2 to 7 days, with 86% of the events lasting
between 3 and 5 days. Post-hoc analyses were used
to determine whether event duration was significantly
related to Kaizen event outcomes, after accounting for the
effects of other variables, and no significant relationships
were found. In addition, many published accounts make
some recommendation regarding team size, a group
design characteristic. The range of recommended team
sizes is relatively small, from three to five members
(Rusiniak, 1996) to 14 to 15 members (Laraia 1998; Larson,
1998), and reasons for specific recommendations are
generally unclear. Team size was ultimately not included
in the research model due to an expected limited range of
variation. The final sample supported this assumption,
with team sizes ranging from three to 22, and only eight
teams having more than 10 members. Post-hoc analyses
were conducted to determine whether team size had a
significant effect, after controlling for the other variables
studied, and no significant relationships were found.
2.3.2. Organizational and work area antecedents
Organizational design factors (or organizational con-
text factors) describe the organizational environment in
which the team operates. Typically, this includes struc-
tures such as reward systems, training programs, resource
provision, and supervisory systems (Cohen and Bailey,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
48 J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65
1997). While clearly identified in theoretical models as
potential determinants of team effectiveness, organiza-
tional context factors have received less attention in
previous research than other, more locally controllable
variables (e.g., task design, group design) (Doolen et al.,
2003a; Pagell and LePine, 2002). However, some previous
research has identified positive relationships between
organizational context and team outcomes (e.g., Campion
et al. 1993; Doolen et al., 2003a; Hyatt and Ruddy, 1997;
Pinto and Slevin, 1987). Published accounts of Kaizen
events frequently discuss several characteristics related to
organizational context, including:
 rewards provided for Kaizen event teams after the
event (e.g., Adams et al., 1997; Foreman and Vargas,
1999; Larson, 1998; Martin, 2004; Melnyk et al., 1998;
Tanner and Roncarti, 1994; Taylor and Ramsey, 1993);
 resources provided for the Kaizen event team during
the event (e.g., Adams et al., 1997; Bicheno, 2001;
Bradley and Willett, 2004; Kumar and Harms, 2004;
Martin, 2004; McNichols et al., 1999; Sheridan, 1997;
Tanner and Roncarti, 1994; Taylor and Ramsey, 1993);
 time and other resources allocated for planning the
event (e.g., Sheridan, 1997; Bradley and Willett, 2004;
Heard, 1997; Gregory, 2003; Foreman and Vargas,
1999);
 training provided to the team (e.g., Foreman and Vargas,
1999; Heard, 1997; Larson, 1998; McNichols et al., 1999;
Melnyk et al., 1998; Minton, 1998; Tanner and Roncarti,
1994; Taylor and Ramsey, 1993; Treece, 1993).
This research studied the resources provided during the
event (management support), as well as the total hours of
support provided prior to the event (event planning process).
Team-level reward mechanisms were not included, as they
do not appear likely to vary much across teams within the
same organization. Training was not directly studied due to
the fact that many events occurring within the same
organization appear to receive similar training, although
training may at times be customized to the type of event,
and some organizations do omit training or conduct it
before the formal start of the event (Bicheno, 2001; Gregory,
2003; McNichols et al., 1999). However, data on organiza-
tional-level reward mechanisms and on training processes
were collected during this research, thus enabling potential
future post-hoc analyses involving these variables.
In addition to support from the larger organization,
Kaizen event accounts also discuss the importance of
context factors in the target work area, including the
stability or routineness of the target work area (e.g.,
Bradley and Willett, 2004; LeBlanc, 1999) and work area
buy-in to the changes identified (e.g., Bicheno, 2001;
Gregory, 2003; Sheridan, 1997). This research studied the
effect of work area routineness. Commitment from work
area employees not on the event team was not studied, as
it appears to relate more to sustainability than to initial
results (Bateman 2005; Patil, 2003).
2.3.3. Kaizen event process factors
Group process factors describe the interactions be-
tween members of the group, and between members of
the group and outside personnel, while group psychoso-
cial characteristics are shared knowledge, beliefs and
attitudes, such as team mental models, group norms and
team affect (Cohen and Bailey, 1997), which arise from
team processes. Kaizen event accounts identify several
process-related variables, which appear important to the
study of event outcomes: action orientation, tool appro-
priateness, tool quality, internal processes and affective
commitment to change.
Team action orientation, or the extent to which the
team focuses on implementation rather than analysis, is
frequently cited as one of the key determinants of event
success (e.g., Adams et al., 1997; Bicheno, 2001; Foreman
and Vargas, 1999; Larson, 1998a; Martin, 2004; Melnyk
et al., 1998; Sheridan, 1997; Smith, 2003; Tanner and
Roncarti, 1994; Taylor and Ramsey, 1993; Treece, 1993;
Vasilash, 1993). Published Kaizen event accounts suggest
that events that emphasize ‘‘hands-on,’’ implementation-
focused activities, such as moving equipment during the
event to implement a future state, will be more effective
than events which focus primarily on analysis or planning.
However, it appears that action orientation has not yet
been studied in the team or project literature.
Two other process variables that appear important to
the study of Kaizen event teams are the appropriateness
of team tool selection and the quality of tool use (e.g.,
Bradley and Willett, 2004; Kumar and Harms, 2004;
Minton, 1998; Tanner and Roncarti, 1994; Vasilash, 1993).
Few studies have explicitly included the quality of team
tool use, although a few have studied the relationship
between improvement process adherence and outcomes,
generally reporting a positive relationship (Douglas and
Judge, 2001; Ghosh and Sobek, 2007; Handfield et al.,
1999; Linderman et al., 2006).
The quality of team coordination processes, or the
internal process dynamics of the team, is also frequently
mentioned as a contributor to event success (e.g., Bradley
and Willett, 2004; Foreman and Vargas, 1999; Tanner
and Roncarti, 1994; Vasilash, 1993; Wheatley, 1998).
Team research has typically suggested that internal team
coordination is related to attitudinal outcomes and to
team perceptions of team effectiveness (e.g., Bailey, 2000;
Jehn, 1995; Pinto et al., 1993; Vinokur-Kaplan, 1995), but
not to objective performance (e.g., Bailey, 2000; Jehn,
1995; Vinokur-Kaplan, 1995). (One notable exception is
Hyatt and Ruddy, 1997.)
Finally, one group psychosocial trait explicitly men-
tioned is team member buy-in for the goals of the event
(Bradley and Willett, 2004; McNichols et al., 1999; Melnyk
et al., 1998; Taylor and Ramsey, 1993; Wheatley, 1998).
Indeed, the organizational change literature suggests that
affective commitment to change from participants is vital to
transformation effort success (Keating et al., 1999). Team
member commitment has also been emphasized in
studies focused specifically on the effectiveness of lean
manufacturing tools (e.g., Chan et al., 2005).
2.3.4. Social system outcomes
The team literature has studied a variety of outcomes,
both technical and social (e.g., Cohen and Bailey, 1997).
Published Kaizen event accounts also consistently mention
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65 49

the importance of both technical and social system
outcomes, but have rarely attempted to measure social
system outcomes. In fact, the development of participat-
ing employee attitudes, knowledge and skills is often a
formal objective of Kaizen events (Sheridan, 1997; Melnyk
et al., 1998; Laraia et al., 1999), although these effects
have not been validated empirically. In alignment with
the knowledge, skills, and attitude framework from
the industrial and organizational psychology literature
(Muchinsky, 2000), as well as published Kaizen event
accounts, this research aimed to study two outcomes
related to employee problem-solving capability develop-
ment, understanding of continuous improvement and skills,
and one outcome measuring employee attitude toward
Kaizen events.
Published Kaizen event accounts suggest that Kaizen
events can serve as a ‘‘just-in-time’’ training mechanism
(Drickhamer, 2004a), impacting employee knowledge and
skills related to continuous improvement. Team members
typically receive training on the improvement tools
needed to address their goals as a formal part of the
event and then are empowered to immediately apply
those tools, with a trained facilitator available to provide
coaching and to guide the team through the solution
process (Bicheno, 2001; Foreman and Vargas, 1999; Heard,
1997; Melnyk et al., 1998; Minton, 1998; Perry, 1995).
Thus, it is suggested that participating employees develop
new knowledge, skills, and abilities that they may apply to
subsequent problem-solving tasks, as well as to the
current Kaizen event (e.g., Adams et al., 1997; Bradley
and Willett, 2004; David, 2000; Drickhamer, 2004b;
Foreman and Vargas, 1999; Jusko, 2004; Laraia et al,
1999; Martin, 2004; McNichols et al., 1999; Melnyk et al.,
1998; Minton, 1998; Smith, 2003; Tanner and Roncarti,
1994; Watson, 2002).
Many published accounts of Kaizen events further
suggest that the visibility of changes made during the
events, along with the direct employee participation,
create employee enthusiasm for and buy-in to the lean
manufacturing program (Bradley and Willett, 2004;
Butterworth, 2001; Heard, 1997; Melnyk et al., 1998;
Watson, 2002; Tanner and Roncarti, 1994). Thus, published
accounts suggest that Kaizen events can be intrinsically
motivating, impacting employee attitudes by creating the
desire for participation in future improvement activities
(Bicheno, 2001; David, 2000; Hasek, 2000; Heard, 1997;
Kumar and Harms, 2004; McNichols et al., 1999; Rusiniak,
1996; Tanner and Roncarti, 1994; Wittenberg, 1994).
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample selection
This research used a multi-site cross-sectional field
study of six manufacturing organizations (Table 3).
Organizations were non-randomly selected, due to the
need for access to data from multiple events, as well as
certain organization-level data, requiring top manage-
ment buy-in and longer-term commitment to the study.
However, several selection criteria (Table 4) were applied
to increase the reliability and validity of study results (Yin,
1994; Eisenhardt, 1989). Within each organization, Kaizen
events were randomly selected during a 9 month study
period (October 2005–June 2006). Three organizations
agreed to provide data for all events conducted during the

Table 3
Characteristics of study organizations

Org. A Org. B Org. C Org. D Org. E Org. F

Org. description Secondary Electronic motor Secondary Manufacturer Specialty Steel component
wood products manufacturer wood products of large equipment manufacturer
manufacturer manufacturer transportation manufacturer
equipment

SIC code 2434 3621 2434 3731 3843 3443

Public/private Public Public Public Public Private Private
Year founded 1946 1985 1946 1939 1964 1913
No. employees 560 700 500 18,000 950 3500
First Kaizen event 1998 2000 1992 1998 2000 1995
Event rate during research 2–3 per month 1 per month 2 per month 5–6 per month 6–8 per month 1 per month
Percent of org. experiencing 100 90 Data not 85 100 20
events available
Major processes targeted Operations Operations, sales and Operations Engineering All areas of Manufacturing, order
marketing, customer and related organization entry, accounts
service and technical activities receivable,
support, product distribution, vendors,
design, production engineering product
planning and development
inventory control,
process design
Percent of events in Almost 100% 75% manufacturing Almost 100% 70% non- Data not 80–85%
manufacturing areas manufacturing manufacturing manufacturing available manufacturing
No. events sampled (retained) 15(15) 8(8) 11 (7) 4(4) 12(11) 6(6)
Percent of events sampled 100 56 100 13 33 24
during study period
Target sampling percentage 100 100 100 25–33 50 60
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
50 J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65

Table 4 the organization does not appear to bias the sample due to
Selection criteria for study participants the fact that the withdrawing organization was from the
same industry as two of the other participating organiza-
Criterion Description Purpose
tions (secondary wood products) and sample size was
Organization All participating To provide baseline sufficient without including events from this organization.
type organizations similarities in focus, Data were initially collected on 56 events. However,
manufacture products of fundamental processes five events were ultimately excluded due to incomplete
some type. However, and metrics used to
organizations in measure performance
data, leaving the final sample size of 51. Thus, only a
different industries were relatively small percentage of data was ultimately ex-
recruited to increase the cluded due to partial response (8.9% of original sample),
generalizability of leaving a sufficient sample size for regression modeling.
results
Comparisons of the excluded events with the included
Kaizen event All participating To minimize learning
experience organizations had been curve effects from events on their known characteristics (e.g., duration, size,
conducting Kaizen organizations just types of goals, type of target area) did not reveal any
events for at least 1 year starting to implement systematic differences, even within Organization C, which
prior to the start of the Kaizen events and thus contributed four out of five excluded events, suggesting a
study to increase the
reliability, i.e.,
lack of bias.
representative nature, of
the internal sample
Systematic All participating To indicate senior 3.2. Instruments and measures
use of Kaizen organizations use management
events Kaizen events as part of commitment to the
a formal organizational Kaizen event program, Five data collection instruments were used in the
improvement strategy, and systematic and research. All instruments were developed in accordance
rather than as a ‘‘single strategic planning of with commonly accepted principles for questionnaire and
use’’ change mechanism Kaizen events interview script design (e.g., Dillman, 2000), based on
Kaizen event All participating To enable an adequate
frequency organizations conduct sample size of Kaizen
previously existing instruments where possible, and
Kaizen events relatively events to be drawn from revised based on pilot research, which included feedback
frequently, i.e., at least each organization on usability and initial analysis of Cronbach’s a for survey
one event per month on within a reasonable scales. Table 5 summarizes the administration sequence
average length study period
and content of the data collection instruments.
For each organization, the mid-level manager respon-
sible for coordinating the Kaizen event program (Kaizen
study period, enabling a census approach; the other three event program coordinator) served as the contact person
organizations requested a lower data collection frequency, responsible for working with the authors to coordinate
requiring a systematic sampling procedure (Scheaffer, data collection. For each event studied, data were directly
et al., 1996). For most organizations, the actual sampling collected by the facilitator of the event. The use of internal
frequency was somewhat lower than the target sampling organizational personnel increased the naturalism of the
frequency due to non-response (see Table 3). Comparison data collected and enabled the collection of data from
of known characteristics (event type, facilitator, etc.) of multiple concurrent events within multiple organizations.
responding events versus non-responding events did not A standard data collection protocol was used to ensure
clearly indicate any differences. consistency across facilitators and organizations. In addi-
Organizations were initially identified through prior tion, standard training was provided to facilitators in how
contact in university–industry partnerships, conferences to collect the data, and data collection instruments were
and word of mouth. The selection criteria were then designed to be as stand-alone as possible, such that the
applied to determine which organizations should be facilitator’s interaction with the team during data collec-
invited to participate. As incentive to participate, organi- tion was minimal. All questionnaires, i.e., kickoff ques-
zations were provided with a description of the study tionnaire, team activities log, report out questionnaire and
objectives and the benefits to the organization. Each event information sheet, included a cover page with
organization was provided with a short feedback report instructions, description of the study motivation, and
for each event, as well as a summary of findings within contact information for the researchers and their institu-
and across participating organizations (provided after tional review boards.
study conclusion). Seven organizations initially agreed to The kickoff questionnaire and report out question-
participate. However, one organization withdrew after naires were distributed to the team by the event
providing data for only one Kaizen event which was not facilitator, who also read a short standard script with
included in the analysis due to insufficient within- brief instructions, which were repeated in the question-
organization sample size. The seventh organization with- naire cover letter, and then left the room for a pre-
drew due to shifting internal priorities, as well as the specified period of time. An envelope was available to
turnover of a key individual, a general manager, who had collect the surveys of the team members who wished to
strongly supported the research. The authors did not participate. The sealed envelope was then collected by
receive any negative feedback on the data collection the facilitator and returned to the researchers via mail.
methods as a reason for withdrawal. The withdrawal of The team activities log included an instruction page and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65 51

Table 5
Summary of data collection instruments

Instrument Frequency Timing Respondents Method Length Measures

Kaizen Once per Commencement of Kaizen event Semi-structured 38 items Organizational characteristics,
program organization study participation coordinator telephone or in- approach to conducting events,
interview person interview perceived benefits from Kaizen
event programa
Kickoff Once per End of kickoff All Kaizen Group 19 close- Goal clarity, goal difficulty,
questionnaire event meeting at beginning event team administered ended items affective commitment to change,
of event members questionnaire team kaizen experience
Team Once per Ongoing during event, One Kaizen Self-administered One page High-level description of event
activities log event begins immediately event team questionnaire template activities broken down by days
following kickoff members and by half hour incrementsb
meeting
Report out Once per End of report out All Kaizen Group 37 closed- Attitude, understanding of CI,
questionnaire event meeting at end of event team administered ended items, skillsc, team autonomy,
event members questionnaire 2 open-ended management support, action
items orientation, internal processes
Event Once per Initial request sent Kaizen event Self-administered 15 items, Team functional heterogeneity,
information event immediately facilitator questionnaire or primarily team leader experience, event
questionnaire following notice of telephone factual and planning process, work area
end of event interview open-ended routineness, tool
appropriateness, tool quality

a
These interviews were not used to draw inferences about individual Kaizen events, but to collect data on organizational characteristics (see Table 3)
and to better understand the organizational context of the events studied.
b
Data from the team activities log were not directly used in the analyses presented in this paper, but were used to help the research team better
understand the context and activities of each event.
c
Note that the understanding of CI and skills scales were ultimately combined in the kaizen capabilities scale.

two examples of completed logs. At the end of the event, a
team member volunteer returned the completed activities
log to the facilitator in a sealed envelope.
The team facilitator was asked to complete the event
information questionnaire electronically and return it to
the research team within 1 week of receiving it. Reminder
emails were sent if the event information questionnaire
was not received within 2 weeks of the initial request. In
cases where the event information questionnaire was still
not received 4 weeks after the reminders, a follow-up via
phone was made to collect the data using an alternative
method (phone interview). As the data collected via the
event information questionnaire are largely factual, this
mixed method approach appears warranted and unlikely
to create undue bias in the data.
In addition to the data collected through the five
instruments, a copy of the actual report out presentation
created by each team was collected. The report out
presentations were not directly used in the analyses
reported in this paper; however, they were reviewed by
the researchers to verify the accuracy of data collected for
certain variables, e.g., team functional heterogeneity, team
goals, to provide more detailed descriptions of events for
post-hoc analyses, and to create feedback reports for
participating organizations.
Most variables were operationalized as multi-item
scales, which, where possible, were based on previously
existing instruments. Several of the variables measured
through perceptual scales, e.g., affective commitment to
change, are inherently perceptual in nature and cannot be
accurately measured through other means. Other vari-
ables measured through perceptual scales, e.g., manage-
ment support and action orientation, are more objective in
nature but difficult to measure through other means or to
normalize across events. Finally, some variables, i.e., team
functional heterogeneity, team kaizen experience, team
leadership experience, event planning process, were mea-
sured through factual (objective) data. The potential for
bias due to the use of perceptual measures was addressed
by using multiple types of measures (perceptual and non-
perceptual), multiple data sources (facilitator and team
members), multiple respondents per team, and previously
tested instruments, as well by cross-validating data,
conducting tests of reliability and validity, and analyzing
the consistency of responses for individuals within the
same team.
3.3. Construct validity
Exploratory factor analysis was used to evaluate the
construct validity of the multi-item scales. All factor
analyses were conducted using principal components
extraction with oblique (direct quartimin) rotation, to
allow correlation between factors hypothesized to be
related (Fabrigar et al., 1999, Finch, 2006). The established
heuristic of extracting all factors with eigenvalues greater
than 1.0 (Field, 2005; Johnson, 1998) was used to
determine the number of factors in each analysis. In the
factor analyses, individual items were considered to have
loaded onto a given factor when the primary loading was
0.500 or greater and all cross-loadings were less than
0.300 (Kline, 1994).
The initial data set contained 347 kickoff question-
naires and 305 report out questionnaires. Prior to
performing further analyses, individual-level data were
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
52 J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65

screened for evidence of systematic response bias and for Table 8

missing data at the item level. This screening resulted in Pattern matrix for factor analysis of report out questionnaire outcome
scalesa
the removal of a small proportion of individual-level data
(o1% for the kickoff questionnaire and 8% for the report Component
out questionnaire). Three factor analyses were performed:
kickoff questionnaire measures, report out questionnaire 1 2 3
input and process measures, and report out questionnaire
UCI1 0.829 0.000 0.031
outcome measures. Tables 6–8 present the results of the SK3 0.804 0.207 0.028
factor analyses. For each item label in the tables, the SK1 0.780 0.032 0.094
letters refer to the scale name, while the number refers to UCI4 0.767 0.107 0.012
the item ID. For instance, GC1 refers to the first item in the AT1 0.759 0.078 0.014
UCI3 0.755 0.067 0.010
original goal clarity scale (see the Appendix A for a full list
UCI2 0.713 0.040 0.172
of items by scale). In cases where all the items in a given AT3 0.707 0.164 0.032
scale failed to load onto a single factor, or items from IMA4 0.571 0.299 0.055
different scales loaded onto a single factor, content IMA2 0.118 0.835 0.082
IMA3 0.031 0.808 0.218
IMA1 0.018 0.741 0.272
SK2 0.445 0.489 0.161
Table 6 AT4 0.004 0.001 0.848
Pattern matrix for factor analysis of kickoff questionnaire scalesa AT2 0.205 0.009 0.712
SK4 0.105 0.173 0.607
Component
a
Bold text indicates that the item loads onto the given component.
1 2 3

ACC6 0.774 0.128 0.022

ACC1 0.770 0.019 0.061
ACC5 0.756 0.079 0.055
analysis was used to verify the loading patterns and
ACC4 0.722 0.019 0.154 propose interpretations for the resulting factors. Con-
ACC3 0.715 0.086 0.077 firmatory factor analysis was also used to verify the final
ACC2 0.711 0.081 0.130 scales (Farris, 2008a).
GDF2 0.060 0.862 0.059
As shown in Table 6, in the kickoff questionnaire factor
GDF1 0.043 0.843 0.026
GDF3 0.003 0.747 0.074 analysis, three underlying factors were extracted, and
GDF4 0.122 0.723 0.025 these factors exactly matched the content of the three
GC3 0.013 0.046 0.881 multi-item scales as originally designed. Thus, the original
GC1 0.024 0.030 0.875 constructions of all three scales (goal clarity, goal difficulty,
GC4 0.098 0.026 0.808
GC2 0.001 0.007 0.754
and affective commitment to change) were used in further
analyses.
a
Bold text indicates that the item loads onto the given component. As Table 7 shows, the factor analysis of the report out
questionnaire input and process factors measures gener-
ally supported the construction of the scales but
Table 7 suggested some revisions to the original constructions.
Pattern matrix for factor analysis of report out questionnaire input and In the factor analysis, all five of the internal processes items
process scalesa
(IP1–IP5) loaded onto a single factor (component one),
Component supporting the initial construction of this scale. Mean-
while, three of the five management support items (MS3,
1 2 3 4 MS2, and MS5) loaded onto a single factor (component
two), three of the four team autonomy items (TA1, TA2, and
IP3 0.882 0.096 0.152 0.055
IP2 0.872 0.051 0.041 0.004
TA3) loaded onto a single factor (component four), and
IP4 0.850 0.094 0.015 0.109 two of the four action orientation items (AO1, AO2) loaded
IP5 0.617 0.075 0.102 0.085 onto a single factor (component two), suggesting the need
IP1 0.591 0.158 0.060 0.201 to remove the other items from these scales (see the
AO4 0.423 0.066 0.119 0.028
Appendix A).
AO2 0.090 0.861 0.062 0.036
AO1 0.223 0.733 0.169 0.059 As Table 8 shows, the loading pattern produced by the
MS3 0.025 0.046 0.891 0.029 factor analysis of report out questionnaire outcome
MS2 0.021 0.033 0.839 0.003 measures was the most complex in the study, but also
MS5 0.115 0.148 0.655 0.121 generally supported the scale construction. The report out
MS1 0.160 0.009 0.396 0.350
questionnaire originally contained three scales designed
TA3 0.037 0.054 0.014 0.830
TA2 0.132 0.139 0.013 0.794 to measure the human resource outcomes of Kaizen
AO3 0.001 0.301 0.235 0.763 events:
TA1 0.054 0.052 0.276 0.508
MS4 0.153 0.181 0.280 0.481
 understanding of continuous improvement (UCI), designed
TA4 0.025 0.003 0.266 0.479
to measure the increase in team members’ knowledge of
a
Bold text indicates that the item loads onto the given component. the philosophy of continuous improvement;
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65 53

 skills (SK), designed to measure the increase in team
members’ problem-solving skills; and
 attitude (AT), designed to measure impact on team
members’ motivation.
However, the factor analysis suggested only two
underlying dimensions. All the items related to affective
response toward Kaizen event participation (AT2, AT4, and
SK4) loaded onto a single factor (component three). This
revised scale measures employee affect for Kaizen event
activities and thus the original attitude (AT) name was
retained. A second factor (component one) also emerged,
consisting of items related to growth in employee
problem-solving capabilities, including understanding of
continuous improvement, problem-solving skills, moti-
vation to examine daily work, and ability to work in
problem-solving teams (UCI1, UCI2, UCI3, UCI4, SK1, SK3,
AT1, AT3, and IMA4). Although the emergent factor
consisted of items from different scales, it appeared to
contain a consistent focus on employee problem-solving
capability development. To differentiate it from the
previous knowledge (UCI) and skills (SK) scales, a new
label, kaizen capabilities (KC), was developed. The only
item that did not load cleanly onto any factor was SK2,
which was therefore removed from further analyses.
Although examination of the items in the final attitude
and kaizen capabilities scales (Table 9) supports the
content validity of the revised scales, the scales should
be tested in future research, and it is possible that further
revisions may be warranted. The factor analysis also
included a fourth scale from the report out questionnaire,
impact on area (IMA), designed to measure event impact
on the target work area, a technical system outcome. A
third factor (component three), including three out of four
IMA items, also emerged from the factor analysis.

3.4. Reliability
Table 9
Final construction of attitude and kaizen capabilities scales
Following the factor analyses, Cronbach’s a (Cronbach,
Kaizen capabilities (KC) Attitude (AT) 1951) was used to evaluate the reliability of the final,
revised scales. The a values (see Table 10) were evaluated
 Overall, this Kaizen event increased our team  Most of our
against the commonly applied thresholds of 0.70 for
members’ knowledge of what continuous team members
improvement is. (UCI1) liked being established scales (Nunnally, 1978) and 0.60 for newly
 In general, this Kaizen event increased our part of this developed scales (deVellis, 1991). All scales except one
team members’ knowledge of how Kaizen event. had a values greater than 0.70 and most scales (six out of
continuous improvement can be applied. (AT2)
nine) had a values of 0.80 or greater. The final action
(UC2)  Most members
 Overall, this Kaizen event increased our team of our team
orientation scale had an a of 0.64. Although this a value is
members’ knowledge of the need for would like to acceptable for newly developed scales, particularly given
continuous improvement. (UCI3) be part of the small number of items in this scale (two), this value
 In general, this Kaizen event increased our Kaizen events suggests that the action orientation measure could benefit
team members’ knowledge of our role in in the future.
from further refinement in future research.
continuous improvement. (UCI4) (AT4)
 Most of our team members can communicate  In general, our
new ideas about improvements as a result of Kaizen event 3.5. Team-level properties
participation in this Kaizen event. (SK1) team members
 Most of our team members gained new skills are
as a result of participation in this Kaizen comfortable The theoretical unit of analysis in this research was the
event. (SK3) working with team. To support inferences at the team level, all study
 In general, this Kaizen event motivated the others to measures used the team as the referent. However, for the
members of our team to perform better. (AT1) identify
measures of team perceptions, questionnaires were
 Overall, this Kaizen event increased our team improvements
members’ interest in our work. (AT3) in this work administered to all members within a team to increase
 Overall, this Kaizen event helped people in area. (SK4) the reliability of the data collected (Chan, 1998). Thus, it
this area work together to improve was necessary to verify that the actual data collected
performance. (IMA4)
demonstrated evidence of shared, team-level properties.

Table 10
Summary of psychometric properties of multi-item scales

Measure Low. prim. load. Cron. a ICC(1) (p) Avg.rwg Percentage rwg 40.70

Goal clarity (GC) 0.754 0.86 0.060 (0.046) 0.88 94

Goal difficulty (GDF) 0.723 0.81 0.216 (o0.001) 0.83 88
Affective commitment to change (ACC) 0.711 0.86 0.173 (o0.001) 0.94 96
Internal processes (IP) 0.591 0.86 0.326 (o0.001) 0.97 100
Management support (MS) 0.655 0.80 0.125 (0.003) 0.88 90
Team autonomy (TA) 0.508 0.79 0.185 (o0.001) 0.88 98
Action orientation (AO) 0.733 0.64 0.373 (o0.001) 0.76 75
Kaizen capabilities (KC) 0.571 0.93 0.121 (o0.001) 0.98 100
Attitude (AT) 0.607 0.74 0.300 (o0.001) 0.90 96
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
54 J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65
Interrater agreement (rwg) (James et al. 1984, 1993) and
the intraclass correlation coefficient (1), ICC(1), were used
to determine whether the data collected on individual
team members via the kickoff and report out question-
naires demonstrated evidence of shared team-level prop-
erties, and therefore could justifiably be aggregated.
Interrater agreement, rwg, was evaluated using the
commonly applied threshold of 0.70, which is interpreted
as strong within-group agreement (George, 1990; Klein
and Kozlowski, 2000; Van Mierlo et al., 2006). For each
study variable, both the average rwg and the proportion of
teams with rwg greater than 0.70 were analyzed. As Table 10
indicates, all kickoff and report out survey variables had
an average rwg value greater than 0.70, and further had at
least 75% of individual team rwg values greater than 0.70.
In addition, for seven out of nine teams, 90% or more of
individual team rwg values were greater than 0.70. Thus,
an examination of rwg supports the existence of team-
level properties for all kickoff and report out questionnaire
variables. In addition, the range of rwg within each team
was examined to determine whether any teams displayed
low rwg on more than 50% of the perceptual measures,
which might suggest that the team be removed from
the research, as aggregation of individual-level data to the
team level might not be appropriate in such a case.
However, no such cases were found.
ICC(1) was calculated using the Bartko (1976) formula-
tion, where MSB is the between-team mean square, MSW
is the within-team mean square and k is the average team
size from analysis of variance (ANOVA). As the data set
contained two levels of nesting (teams within organiza-
tions), a nested ANOVA was used to control for error
due to correlation between teams within a given organi-
zation (Jetten et al., 2002). A significant ANOVA with
team as the main effect indicates that ICC(1) is signi-
ficant (Bliese, 2000; Klein and Kozlowski, 2000), support-
ing the presence of shared team-level properties for
the given measure. In addition, the magnitude of ICC(1)
was evaluated using the commonly applied thresholds of
0.200, indicating strong team-level properties (Molleman,
2005), and 0.100, indicating weaker team-level properties
(James, 1982; Molleman, 2005; Schneider et al., 1998). As
shown in Table 10, except for one variable, all kickoff and
report out questionnaire variables had significant ICC(1)
values that were greater than 0.100. In addition, four out
of nine variables had ICC(1) values greater than 0.200. For
one variable, goal clarity, the ICC(1) value was lower than
the threshold of 0.100 but still significant. This, combined
with the rwg values, led the authors to conclude that the
inference of team-level properties was justified for goal
clarity on the balance of the evidence.
MSB  MSW
ICCð1Þ ¼
MSB þ ½ðk  1Þ  MSW
4. Results
Regression modeling was used to identify which event
input and process factors were most strongly related to
each of the two human resource outcomes (attitude and
kaizen capabilities). Multiple regression was used to test
direct relationships (H1–H2), while mediation analysis
(Judd and Kenny, 1981; Baron and Kenny, 1986; Kenny
et al., 1998) was used to test indirect relationships (H3).
Due to the nested structure of the data, it could not be
assumed that the data for teams within a given organiza-
tion were uncorrelated (Kenny and Judd, 1986), a funda-
mental and necessary assumption of multiple regression
using ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation (Neter et al.,
1996). Correlations between observations can result in
biased standard error estimates and, therefore, spurious
statistical test results, although estimates of the regres-
sion parameters themselves remain asymptotically un-
biased (Hox, 1994; Lawal, 2003).
Therefore, generalized estimating equations (GEE)
(Liang and Zeger, 1986), executed in SAS 9.1.3 using PROC
GENMOD, were used to account for correlation between
teams within the same organization. GEE is a quasi-
likelihood estimation procedure, which can be used with
regression models where the response variable comes
from a distribution within the exponential family (Horton
and Lipsitz, 1999). The GEE procedure uses a correlation
matrix to model the association between clustered
observations in the data set, e.g., repeated measures data,
individuals within groups, etc., when developing para-
meter and standard error estimates, often resulting in
differences in the estimates for parameter standard errors
for GEE versus OLS. However, since the parameter
estimates are asymptotically unbiased for both OLS and
GEE, GEE models usually produce similar parameter
estimates to OLS regression models. GEE has seen recent,
growing use in the life and social sciences (Hardin and
Hilbe, 2003), e.g., Pickering and Kisangani (2005), Szino-
vacz and Davey (2001), Whitford and Yates (2003), where
hierarchically nested data are common. For each regres-
sion in this research, the GEE model used a Gaussian link
function, assuming a normally distributed dependent
variable, and an exchangeable correlation matrix, assum-
ing equal correlation between all observations within a
given cluster, i.e., teams within a given organization. Other
options for modeling the correlation matrix include
autoregressive and similar time-based correlation struc-
tures, none of which appeared to be strictly applicable to
the current data set, especially given differences in timing,
i.e. the interval between events, across organizations.
Other approaches for modeling nested data include
SEM (e.g., Koufteros and Marcoulides, 2006) and hier-
archical linear modeling, HLM (e.g., Raudenbush and Byrk,
2002), both of which require larger sample sizes, e.g.,
50–100 observations per level. Due to the exploratory
nature of this research, a relatively large number of
candidate predictors were tested, and the sample size was
fairly small at the organization level.
(1) Sections 4.1 and 4.2 describe the regressions used to
identify direct and indirect predictors, respectively. Prior
to building the regression models, the distributions of all
study variables were examined to determine whether any
variables demonstrated severe departures from normality.
In the cases of three variables, team leader experience,
team kaizen experience, and event planning process, a log
transformation was used to reduce the variance and
absolute distance to outlying observations. The variance
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65 55

inflation factor (VIF) was also calculated for all 14 input Table 11
and process variables to determine whether multi- Regression analysis for direct predictors of attitude (AT) and kaizen
capabilities (KC)
collinearity appeared to be problematic in the current
data set. A single VIF greater than 10.00 (Neter et al., 1996) Variable Model 1 (y ¼ AT) Model 2 (y ¼ KC)
or an average VIF greater than 3.00 is generally taken to
_ _
indicate a multi-collinearity problem. In the current b
p
b
p
research, the maximum VIF was 2.91, while the average
VIF was 1.83. Thus, multi-collinearity was deemed not to Intercept 0.467 0.447 0.219 0.687
Team functional heterogeneity 0.547 0.012
be problematic. The VIF values were also calculated for the
Management support 0.250 0.013
variables in each final regression model, and these values Internal processes 0.694 o0.001 0.465 o0.001
were also well below the suggested thresholds. Goal difficulty 0.119 0.032
Team autonomy 0.234 0.014
Team kaizen experience 0.398 o0.001
4.1. Identification of direct predictors of outcomes Team leader experience 0.195 0.020
Work area routineness 0.094 0.002
Affective commitment to change 0.222 0.049
Due to the exploratory nature of this research, no R2 0.605 0.706
established hierarchy of predictor variable importance R2a 0.580 0.658
a
existed. Therefore, an exploratory regression (e.g. Olor- r 0.019 0.071

unniwo and Udo, 2002) with a variable selection proce- a

dure was used to build the models. A backward selection
procedure was used, because it is less likely to result in
the exclusion of important variables than a forward or
stepwise selection procedure (Neter et al., 1996; Field,
2005). At each step in the selection procedure, if the
p-value for one or more variables was greater than
a ¼ 0.10/k, where k is the number of parameters in the
model (i.e., the number of predictor variables plus one),
the variable with the largest p-value was removed. This
procedure was repeated until all remaining variables were
significant at the a ¼ 0.10/k level.
After the initial model was developed, auxiliary search
methods, e.g., automated OLS-based searches using Cp, R2,
and adjusted R2, were used to test the robustness of
the final solution and to identify additional models for
consideration. A candidate model was considered to be
viable if all variables had p-values less than 0.05 and most
had p-values less than 0.10/k. A conservative approach, i.e.,
using small p-values, was used due to the fact that
an overall test for the significance of the regression cannot
be accurately calculated for quasi-likelihood estimation
methods such as GEE in standard statistical software
(Hardin and Hilbe, 2003; SAS Institute Inc., 2006).
Following each regression, R2, adjusted R2, and residual
analysis were used to examine model fit. Potential
departures from linearity and normality were evaluated
through the examination of residual plots and partial
regression plots and through Wald–Wolfowitz runs tests,
all of which have been recommended for use with GEE
models (Chang, 2000; Hardin and Hilbe, 2003). The
Wald–Wolfowitz test is a nonparametric sign test which
analyzes the degree to which regression residuals follows
a random distribution (Field, 2005). The residual plots,
partial regression plots and Wald–Wolfowitz test did
not indicate any apparent departures from linearity or
normality for the final models. In addition, all standar-
dized residual values for both models were less than
3.0 and all but a few (three for the attitude model
and two for the kaizen capabilities model) were less
than 2.0.
Table 11 shows the final regression models for the two
outcome variables: attitude and kaizen capabilities. As
This value is the intraclass correlation coefficient, which measures
the extent of correlation between model residuals from teams within the
same organization.
shown, three variables were significant predictors of
employee attitude toward events:
 internal processes (b ¼ 0.694, po0.001);
 management support (b ¼ 0.250, p ¼ 0.013); and
 team functional heterogeneity (b ¼ 0.547, p ¼ 0.012).
The attitude model R2 was 0.61 and the adjusted R2
was 0.58, indicating that the model explains approxi-
mately 60% of the variance in the outcome. The three-
and two-way interactions of the predictors in the final
model were also tested to determine whether there were
any significant interaction effects; however, none were
found.
As shown in Table 11, seven variables were significant
predictors of kaizen capabilities:
 internal processes (b ¼ 0.465, po0.001);
 team autonomy (b ¼ 0.234, p ¼ 0.014);
 affective commitment to change (b ¼ 0.222, p ¼ 0.049);
 goal difficulty (b ¼ 0.119, p ¼ 0.032);
 work area routineness (b ¼ 0.094, p ¼ 0.002);
 team kaizen experience (b ¼ 0.398, po0.001); and
 team leader experience (b ¼ 0.195, p ¼ 0.020).
The kaizen capabilities model R2 was 0.71 and the
adjusted R2 was 0.66, indicating that the model explained
approximately 70% of the variance in the outcome. Due to
the larger number of predictors in the final model, the
two-way and higher-order interactions were not tested for
significance.
 Thus, overall, H1 and H2 were partially supported in
that each social system outcome was significantly
predicted by at least one input factor and at least one
process factor.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
56 J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65

4.2. Mediation analysis to identify indirect predictors of Table 12

outcomes Mediation analysis results for attitudea

Step l (y0 ¼ IP, separate regression) a p

Mediation analysis was used to test indirect relation-
ships. A mediation model hypothesizes that a variable (x) Goal clarity 0.571 o0.0001*
indirectly influences a second variable (y) by acting Goal difficulty 0.031 0.7342
though a third variable (z), which is called the mediating Team autonomy 0.408 0.0001*
variable or mediator (Baron and Kenny, 1986). This Team functional heterogeneity 0.088 0.7745
Team kaizen experience 0.117 0.4650
mediating variable is typically a process variable, whereas Team leader experience 0.004 0.9767
the first variable, x, can be an input variable or another Management support 0.336 0.0036*
process variable. Several methods of testing mediation Event planning process 0.212 0.0759
models are currently available (MacKinnon et al., 1995). Work area routineness o0.001 0.9892
Although the approaches differ somewhat in the estima-
tion methods and the statistical tests used, they all involve Step 2 (y0 ¼ AT, separate regression) b p c0 p
jointly or separately testing the regression paths involving
Internal processes 0.725 o0.0001*
x, y, and z. In the current analysis, a modified version of
Goal clarity 0.147 0.2762
Judd and Kenny (1981) and Baron and Kenny’s (1986) Internal processes 0.701 o0.0001*
classic approach, as presented in Kenny et al. (1998) and Team autonomy 0.185 0.0988
Kenny (2006), was used. This approach includes testing Internal processes 0.678 o0.0001*
three regression coefficients in two equations (see steps 1 Management support 0.285 0.0068

and 2 below). Since each regression coefficient is tested

separately, a Bonferroni correction (a ¼ 0.05/3 ¼ 0.0167) Step 3 (y0 ¼ IP, simultaneous regression) a0 p
is needed to account for the increased chance of type-I
Goal clarity 0.445 o0.0001*
error (Kenny, 2006). All significant process variables from
Team autonomy 0.154 0.2176
the regression models for director predictors (see Table 11) Management support 0.096 0.3984
were tested as potential mediators: Calculated effect of goal clarity on attitudeb 0.414

 Step 1: The mediating process variable (z) was
separately regressed on each of the nine input
variables (x) and the resulting coefficient (a) was
tested for significance.
 Step 2: If a significant relationship was demonstrated in
step one, the outcome variable (y) was regressed on
both the input variable (x) and the mediating process
variable (z), and the resulting regression coefficients
were tested for significance. A significant relation-
ship between the mediating process variable (z) and
the outcome (y) (coefficient b) suggests a mediation
relationship. The relationship between the outcome
variable (y) and the input variable (x) (coefficient c0 )
can be either significant (partial mediation) or non-
significant (full mediation).
 Step 3: After the two preceding steps were accomplished
for all nine input variables, the mediating process
variable (z) was simultaneously regressed on all the
input variables (xi) significant in step one. This step was
performed to confirm whether each input variable (xi)
was a significant unique predictor of the mediator (z),
after controlling for the other input variables.
Table 12 shows the mediation analysis results for
attitude, while Table 13 shows the mediation analysis
results for kaizen capabilities. The mediation analysis
suggests the following:
 Internal processes is a significant mediator of the effect
of goal clarity on both attitude and kaizen capabilities
(see Tables 12 and 13), accounting for an estimated 57%
of the direct effect of internal processes.
 Affective commitment to change is not a significant
mediator of the effect of any of the input variables on
a
An asterisk indicates a significant relationship.
b
Based on a  b; a closer estimate is a  bIP in Table 11, or 0.396.
kaizen capabilities. Although three input variables were
significant in the first step of the mediation analysis,
subsequent steps failed to provide clear support for
mediation effects.
 Thus, H3 was partially supported with one significant
mediation effect for each outcome variable.
5. Conclusions
5.1. Discussion of findings
Following the conclusion of the study, findings were
reported to the participating organizations to evaluate the
validity of study conclusions and to allow the organiza-
tions to benefit from the results. In general, participating
organizations found the study results convincing and used
study feedback to evaluate the effectiveness of their
current practices and to identify potential changes. As
mentioned, the study provided partial support for the
three broad research hypotheses. Specific findings of the
study are as follows:
 Internal processes and goal clarity were the strongest
predictors of both kaizen capabilities and attitude.
 Management support and team functional heteroge-
neity were significant predictors of attitude, but not
kaizen capabilities.
 Team autonomy, affective commitment to change,
goal difficulty, work area routineness, team kaizen
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65 57

Table 13
Mediation analysis results for Kaizen capabilitiesa

Step l (y0 ¼ z., separate regression) z ¼ IP p z ¼ ACC p

A a

Goal clarity 0.571 o.0001* 0.663 o.0001*

Goal difficulty 0.031 0.7342 0.168 0.0556
Team autonomy 0.408 0.0001* 0.350 0.0013*
Team functional heterogeneity 0.088 0.7745 0.269 0.3913
Team kaizen experience 0.117 0.4650 0.051 0.7641
Team leader experience 0.004 0.9767 0.005 0.9646
Management support 0.336 0.0036* 0.338 0.0043*
Event planning process 0.212 0.0759 0.119 0.3377
Work area routineness o.001 0.9892 0.032 0.4917

Step 2 (y0 ¼ KC, separate regression) b p c0 p b p c0 p

Mediator variable (z) 0.610 o.0001* 0.254 0.1317

Goal clarity 0.227 0.0770 0.357 0.0424
Mediator variable (z) 0.500 o.0001* 0.230 0.0489
Team autonomy 0.382 o.0001* 0.495 o.0001*
Mediator variable (z) 0.614 o.0001* 0.334 0.0139*
Management support 0.250 0.0142* 0.338 0.0059*

Step 3 (y0 ¼ z., simultaneous regression) a0 p b p

Goal clarity 0.445 o.0001* 0.603 o.0001*

Team Autonomy 0.154 0.2176 0.046 0.6858
Management Support 0.096 0.3984 0.066 0.5178
Calculated effect of Goal clarity on Kaizen capabilitiesb 0.348 N/a

a
An asterisk indicates a significant relationship.
b
Based on a  b; a closer estimate is a  bIP in Table 11, or 0.266.

experience and team leader experience were signifi-
cant predictors of kaizen capabilities but not attitude.
 Some variables proposed to affect Kaizen event out-
comes, i.e., action orientation, tool quality, tool appro-
priateness, and event planning process, showed no
significant relationship to either outcome in this
study.
Internal processes was by far the strongest predictor of
both attitude (b ¼ 0.694) and kaizen capabilities
(b ¼ 0.465), suggesting that maintaining positive group
dynamics may be the most important factor for generat-
ing employee motivation to participate in future improve-
ment activities and for developing employee problem-
solving capabilities. This result is aligned with previous
empirical team research, which has consistently reported
a positive relationship between internal processes and
human resource outcomes (e.g., Bailey, 2000; Jehn, 1995;
Pinto et al., 1993; Vinokur-Kaplan, 1995).
Acting indirectly through internal processes, goal clarity
is also one of the strongest predictors of attitude and
kaizen capabilities, accounting for approximately 60% of
the direct effect of internal processes. This finding is
aligned with several previous studies in team effective-
ness reporting a positive relationship between goal clarity
and effectiveness (e.g., Doolen et al, 2003a; Koch, 1979;
Pritchard et al., 1988; Van Aken and Kleiner, 1997). This
finding also supports the majority of published Kaizen
event accounts, which have suggested using clear and
specific goals (e.g., Adams et al., 1997; Bradley and Willett,
2004; Rusiniak, 1996), and contradicts the few that have
suggested using more loosely defined goals (Kumar and
Harms, 2004; Wittenberg, 1994).
The finding that management support had a significant
positive relationship to attitude, but not to kaizen
capabilities, partially supports the consistent emphasis
on management support in published Kaizen event ac-
counts (e.g., Adams et al., 1997; Bateman, 2005; Bicheno,
2001; Bradley and Willett, 2004; Kumar and Harms, 2004;
Martin, 2004; McNichols et al., 1999; Patil, 2003;
Sheridan, 1997; Tanner and Roncarti, 1994; Taylor and
Ramsey, 1993). In addition, it agrees with previous team
studies which have reported a positive relationship
between management support and team effectiveness
(e.g., Campion et al. 1993; Doolen et al., 2003a; Hyatt
and Ruddy, 1997; Pinto and Slevin, 1987).
The finding that team functional heterogeneity had a
significant negative relationship to attitude, but not to
kaizen capabilities, is aligned with previous team research
suggesting that cross-functional teams may experience
lower levels of enjoyment in working together (Ancona
and Caldwell, 1992; Amason and Schweiger, 1994; Baron,
1990). However, the mediation analysis showed no
significant relationship between team functional hetero-
geneity and internal processes, suggesting that more
diverse teams were still able to develop effective com-
munication processes (Azzi, 1993; Earley and Mosakowski,
2000). This appears to agree with team research indicat-
ing that cross-functional teams may experience high
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
58 J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65
quality decision-making processes (e.g., Jackson, 1992;
Jehn et al., 1999; Lovelace et al., 2001; McGrath, 1984).
The finding that team autonomy had a significant
positive relationship to kaizen capabilities, but not to
attitude, partially supports the assertions in the published
Kaizen event accounts that autonomy promotes positive
outcomes (e.g., Adams et al., 1997; Bicheno, 2001; Bradley
and Willett, 2004; Foreman and Vargas, 1999; Kumar and
Harms, 2004). Some empirical team studies have similarly
reported a positive relationship between autonomy and
outcomes (Cohen and Ledford, 1994; Wall et al., 1986).
The finding that affective commitment to change had a
significant positive relationship to kaizen capabilities, but
not to attitude, partially supports the emphasis in the
published Kaizen event accounts on creating team buy-in
for the improvements targeted by the event (Bradley and
Willett, 2004; McNichols et al., 1999; Melnyk et al., 1998;
Taylor and Ramsey, 1993; Wheatley, 1998). In addition,
this finding is aligned with the organizational change
literature, which suggests a relationship between partici-
pant commitment and change initiative effectiveness
(Chan et al., 2005; Keating et al., 1999).
The finding that goal difficulty had a significant positive
relationship to kaizen capabilities, but not to attitude,
suggests that, from the standpoint of employee learning,
the more challenging the goals, the more positive the skill
development results, which would support the Kaizen
event accounts that advocate using highly challenging
goals (e.g. Bicheno, 2001; Bradley and Willett, 2004;
Cuscela, 1998; Gregory, 2003; Kumar and Harms, 2004;
LeBlanc, 1999; Minton, 1998; Rusiniak, 1996; Tanner and
Roncarti, 1994; Treece, 1993). However, findings related to
technical system outcomes revealed negative relation-
ships between goal difficulty and technical success out-
comes (Farris et al., 2008a), suggesting a trade-off
between technical and skill development outcomes.
Meanwhile, the finding that work area routineness had
a significant positive relationship to kaizen capabilities, but
not to attitude, supports the suggestions in published
Kaizen event accounts that less complex work areas
provide favorable ‘‘learning laboratories’’ for skill devel-
opment (LeBlanc, 1999; Bradley and Willett, 2004), and
aligns with findings in the organizational learning
literature (Vits and Gelders, 2002). This effect may be
due to the fact that more predictable work areas allow
more complete implementation of lean practices.
The finding that team kaizen experience had a sig-
nificant negative relationship to kaizen capabilities, but not
to attitude, is consistent with the well-known learning
curve effect (Wright, 1936), which predicts decreasing
incremental gains in learning from each successive
attempt at a given application.
The finding that team leader experience had a signifi-
cant negative relationship to kaizen capabilities, but not to
attitude, is unexpected and warrants further investigation.
A manager in one of the participating organizations
suggested that, based on his experience, teams with more
seasoned leaders tended to skip or hurry through steps in
the Kaizen event process, under the paradigm that they
‘‘already know what they are doing.’’ In this study,
although data were collected on the activities of the team
through the team activities log, there was no formal
measure of the extent to which teams adhered to the
formal Kaizen event process. Recent literature has in-
dicated a link between process adherence and team and
organizational outcomes (Douglas and Judge, 2001; Ghosh
and Sobek, 2007; Handfield et al., 1999; Linderman et al.,
2006), although some published Kaizen event guidelines
propose a less rigid adherence to the organization’s Kaizen
event format (e.g., Bradley and Willett, 2004), including
even omitting training in some cases (e.g., Bicheno, 2001;
Gregory, 2003; McNichols et al., 1999). Teams with high
team leader experience might also be more likely to jump
to solutions similar to those used in previous events that
the leader has conducted, thus limiting team creativity
and team member participation in designing solutions. Or,
more experienced leaders might tend to adopt a more
directive leadership style, allowing individual team mem-
bers less role in shaping the solution. Such directive
leadership has been shown to be negatively related to
team effectiveness in at least one study (Durham et al.,
1997). Finally, it is possible that in teams with less
experienced leaders the Kaizen event facilitator, who is
typically highly experienced in problem-solving tools and
applications, may tend to become more involved in
coaching the team through the solution process, providing
on-the-floor training, etc., thus contributing to greater
learning. Future research on the relationship between
team leader experience, team process adherence, team
creativity, leadership style, facilitator involvement, and
kaizen capabilities is clearly needed.
Finally, some variables hypothesized to affect out-
comes, i.e., action orientation, tool quality, tool appropriate-
ness, and event planning process, showed no significant
relationship to either outcome in this study. This finding
does not prove that these variables are unimportant to the
development of attitude and kaizen capabilities, although it
does suggest that they might be less important than other
variables. It should also be noted that these variables may
be related to technical system outcomes or to social
system outcomes not studied in this research. Although
admittedly preliminary, the findings of this research can
be further used to develop initial guidelines for organiza-
tions (to be tested in future research), including the
following:
 To obtain maximum impact on both employee attitude
and problem-solving ability development, these results
suggest that organizations should seek to maintain a
high level of positive internal team dynamics, through
the use of structured mechanisms (e.g., team ground
rules, ice breakers, training, charters) and facilitator
coaching. A key structural mechanism is the develop-
ment of explicit goal statements in advance of the event.
 To further develop employee motivation to participate
in events, these results suggest that organizations must
maintain strong and visible management support
during events. Meanwhile, organizations should re-
cognize that cross-functional heterogeneity may have a
negative impact on team member affect toward events,
and potentially compensate for this effect through
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65
other variables, e.g., internal processes, management
support.
 To further increase team problem-solving capability
development, these results suggest that teams should
be allowed a high degree of autonomy and that the
organization should use mechanisms designed to
increase participant buy-in for the event (e.g., clearly
describing the reasons for the event, demonstrating
how the event will positively impact both individual
and organizational interests). Organizations should
also recognize that the use of difficult goals could
increase team learning, although other findings sug-
gests that goal difficulty may compromise technical
system results (Farris et al., 2008a).
 Finally, these results suggest that organizations should
recognize that more complex work area may contri-
bute to a lower degree of team learning, and poten-
tially compensate for this effect through other
mechanisms, e.g., autonomy, goal clarity, etc. Organi-
zations should also recognize that greater team and
team leader experience do not necessarily result in
greater team learning, and should consider compensat-
ing for this effect through other mechanisms or
through using less experienced personnel.
5.2. Limitations and future research
To the authors’ knowledge, this study was the first to
empirically investigate the quantitative relationships
between input and process variables and initial human
resource outcomes in Kaizen events, using multiple events
from multiple organizations. Additional research is
needed to confirm and extend these findings. Other study
limitations include:
 Although data were collected from 51 Kaizen events
and over 300 participants, the sample represented only
six organizations. Furthermore, the selection criteria
deliberately resulted in the selection of manufacturing
organizations that were relatively experienced in the
strategic use of Kaizen events. Thus, it is possible that
findings might not generalize to markedly different
organizational contexts. However, the six organizations
spanned a variety of industries and approximately 16%
of the events were in non-manufacturing work areas.
 Events were selected using a random sampling process
designed to capture the mixture of events occurring
naturally within the participating organizations; the
researchers did not attempt to control the percentages
of specific event types sampled. Most of the events in
this research (71%) were general processes improve-
59
ment events, often using the ‘‘standard work’’ metho-
dology. A smaller number of events were of other
types: total productive maintenance (TPM) (14%),
single minute exchange of die (SMED) (8%), 5S (6%)
and value stream mapping (VSM) (2%). (Note, these
percentages total 101% due to rounding.) In addition,
most events included implementation of the solution
during the event (75%), targeted manufacturing pro-
cesses or work areas (84%), and were highly successful
with 100% goal achievement (69%). Thus, it is possible
that findings might not generalize to events of
markedly different types.
 This research only included event-level variables. It is
possible that some organizational-level effects also
contribute to event-level outcomes. While GEE ac-
counts for correlation in regression residuals between
teams within the same organization, it also assumes
uniformity of regression slopes across organizations.
Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) has the capability
to model differences in effects of both organization and
event-level variables across organizations. However, as
noted, a larger data set are needed to construct models
of any size (Raudenbush and Byrk, 2002).
 Finally, this research only investigated the determi-
nants of initial event outcomes, while sustainability
of both human resource and technical outcomes is
of great interest, and many organizations appear to
struggle to sustain initial gains from Kaizen events
(e.g., Bateman and David, 2002; Bateman 2005; Laraia
et al, 1999).
In summary, this research has systematically investi-
gated the empirical relationships between input and
process variables and human resource outcomes using a
sample of 51 events from six organizations. In closing, the
authors reiterate the call from Melnyk et al. (1998)
regarding the need for additional research on this topic.
If the proliferation of books, websites, conference pro-
ceedings and non-refereed articles is any indication,
organizational interest in Kaizen events only appears to
have increased since the late 1990s, and little scholarly
research has been conducted to date. It is the responsi-
bility of the operations management and industrial
engineering research community to help organizations
better understand this phenomenon and how it contri-
butes to longer-term organizational success.
Appendix A
See Table A1 for summary of study variables and
measures.
 60
Table A1
Summary of study variables and measures

Scale Instrument Itemsa Sources Meas. scale Value

Goal clarity (GC) Kickoff Our team has clearly defined goals. (GC1) Van Aken and Kleiner 6-point Likert Team average for
questionnaire The performance targets our team must achieve to fulfill our goals are clear. (GC2) (1997) and Wilson et type scale
Our goals clearly define what is expected of our team. (GC3) al. (1998)
Our entire team understands our goals. (GC4)
Goal difficulty Kickoff Our team’s improvement goals are difficult. (GDF1) Ivancevich and 6-point Likert Team average for
(GDF) questionnaire Meeting our team’s improvement goals will be tough. (GDF2) McMahon (1977) and type scale
It will take a lot of skill to achieve our team’s improvement goals. (GDF3) Hart et al. (1989)
It will be hard to improve this work area enough to achieve team’s goals. (GDF4)
Affective Kickoff In general, members of our team believe in the value of this Kaizen event. (ACC1) Herscovitch and 6-point Likert Team average for
commitment to questionnaire Most of our team members think that this Kaizen event is a good strategy for this work area. (ACC2) Meyer (2002) type scale
change (ACC) In general, members of our team think that it is a mistake to hold this Kaizen event. (REVERSE CODED IN

J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65

FACTOR ANALYSIS) (ACC3)
Most of our team members that this Kaizen event will serve an important purpose. (ACC4)
Most of our team members think that things will be better with this Kaizen event. (ACC5)
In general, members of our team believe that this Kaizen event is needed. (ACC6)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Internal processes Report out Our team communicated openly. (IP1) Hyatt and Ruddy 6-point Likert Team average for
(IP) questionnaire Our team valued each member’s unique contributions. (IP2) (1997) type scale
Our team respected each others’ opinions. (IP3)
Our team respected each others’ feelings. (IP4)
Our team valued the diversity in our team members. (IP5)
Management Report out Our team had enough contact with management to get our work done. (MS1)* Doolen et al. (2003a) 6-point Likert Team average for
support (MS) questionnaire Our team had enough materials and supplies to get our work done. (MS2) type scale
Our team had enough equipment to get our work done. (MS3)
Our team had enough help from our facilitator to get our work done. (MS4)*
Our team had enough help from others in our organization to get our work done. (MS5)
Team autonomy Report out Our team had a lot of freedom in determining what changes to make to this work area. (TA1) Kirkman and Rosen 6-point Likert Team average for
(TA) questionnaire Our team had a lot of freedom in determining how to improve this work area. (TA2) (1999), Groesbeck type scale
Our team was free to make changes to the work area as soon as we thought of them. (TA3) (2001), and Hayes
Our team had a lot of freedom in determining how we spent our time during the event. (TA4)* (1994)
Action orientation Report out Our team spent as much time as possible in the work area. (AO1) Original to this 6-point Likert Team average for
(AO) questionnaire Our team spent very little time in our meeting room. (AO2) researchc type scale
Our team tried out changes to the work area right after we thought of them. (AO3)*
Our team spent a lot of time discussing ideas before trying them out in the work area. (REVERSE CODED IN
FACTOR ANALYSIS) (AO4)*
Understanding of Report out Overall, this Kaizen event increased our team members’ knowledge of what continuous improvement is. Original to this 6-point Likert N/ab
CI (UCI) questionnaire (UCI1)* researchd type
In general, this Kaizen event increased our team members’ knowledge of how continuous improvement
can be applied. (UCI2)*
Overall, this Kaizen event increased our team members’ knowledge of the need for continuous
improvement. (UCI3)*
In general, this Kaizen event increased our team members’ knowledge of our role in continuous
improvement. (UCI4)*
Skills (SK) Report out Most of our team members can communicate new ideas about improvements as a result of participation Original to this 6-point Likert N/a
questionnaire in this Kaizen event. (SK1)* researchc type
Most of our Kaizen event team members are able to measure the impact of changes made to this work
area. (SK2)*
Most of our team members gained new skills as a result of participation in this Kaizen event. (SK3)*
In general, our Kaizen event team members are comfortable working with others to identify
improvements in this work area. (SK4)*
Attitude (AT) Report out In general, this Kaizen event motivated the members of our team to perform better. (AT1)* Original to this 6-point Likert Team average for
questionnaire Most of our team members liked being part of this Kaizen event. (AT2) researchd type scale
Overall, this Kaizen event increased our team members’ interest in our work. (AT3)*
Most members of our team would like to be part of Kaizen events in the future. (AT4)
Team kaizen Kickoff Not including this event, how many Kaizen events total have you participated in? N/a Continuous Team average
experience questionnaire plus one
(TOTKE)
Team functional Event Please fill-in the number of team members in each job category. (choices: operator, technician, engineer, Shannon (1948) and Continuous H index value
heterogeneity information manager, supervisor, other) Teachman (1980)
(FUNHET) questionnaire
Calculated as follows, where pi is the proportion of team members from each functional category
P
H¼ pi ðlogð1=pi ÞÞ
i
Team leader Event Including this event, how many Kaizen events total has the team leader led or co-led in the past three N/a Continuous Unadjusted
experience information years? response value
(LDREXP) questionnaire
Work area Event The work the target work area does is routine. (WAC1) Perrow (1967), 6-point Likert Average for four

J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65

routineness information The target work area produces the same product (SKU) most of the time. (WAC2) Duncan (1972), type items
(WAC) questionnaire A given product (SKU) requires the same processing steps each time it is produced. (WAC3) Miltenberg (1995),
Most of the products (SKUs) produced in the work area follow a very similar production process. (WAC4) Withey et al. (1983),
and Gibson and

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Vermeulen (2003)
Tool Event (Respondents first listed the problem-solving tools used by the team). For each tool, please rate the team’s N/a 6-point Likert Average rating for
appropriateness information use of the tool on appropriateness of using this tool to address the team’s goals type all tools listed
(TAPP) questionnaire
Tool quality Event (Uses the same tool list above.) For each tool, please rate the quality of the team’s use of this tool. N/a 6-point Likert Average rating for
(TQUAL) information type all tools listed
questionnaire
Event planning Event How many hours total did you and others spend planning and doing other pre-work for this event? N/a Continuous Unadjusted
process (HRSPLN) information response value
questionnaire

a
An asterisk indicates that the item was removed from its original scale following the factor analysis (see Section 3.3).
b
The understanding of CI and skills variables were ultimately replaced by the kaizen capabilities variable (see Section 3.3), the value of which is the team average for the scale.
c
The items in this scale were newly developed, i.e., original to this research stream; however, the concept of team action-orientation was informed by the concepts of personal initiative (Frese et al., 1997)
and individual-level action orientation (Kuhl, 1992).
d
The items in this scale were newly developed, i.e., original to this research stream; however, pilot study items and statistics were reported in Doolen et al., 2003b and Doolen et al., 2008.

61
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
62 J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65
References
Adam, E.E., Corbett, L.M., Flores, B.E., Harrison, N.J., Lee, T.S., Rho, B.H.,
Ribera, J., Samson, D., Westbrook, R., 1997. An international study of
quality improvement approach and firm performance. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management 17 (9), 842–873.
Adams, M., Schroer, B.J., Stewart, S.K., 1997. QuickstepTM process
improvement: Time-compression as a management strategy. En-
gineering Management Journal 9 (2), 21–32.
Adler, P.S., 1993a. The new ‘‘learning bureaucracy’’: New United Motor
Manufacturing Inc. In: Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research
in Organizational Behavior, vol. 15. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 111–194.
Adler, P.S., 1993b. Time-and-motion regained. Harvard Business Review
71 (1), 97–108.
Amason, A.C., Schweiger, D.M., 1994. Resolving the paradox of conflict,
strategic decision making and organizational performance. Interna-
tional Journal of Conflict Management 5, 239–253.
Ancona, D., Caldwell, D.F., 1992. Demography and design: Predictors of
new product team performance. Organization Science 3, 321–341.
Azzi, A.E., 1993. Implicit and category-based allocations of decision-
making power in majority–minority relations. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology 29, 203–228.
Bailey, D.E., 2000. Modeling work group effectiveness in high-technology
manufacturing environments. IIE Transactions 32 (4), 361–368.
Bailey, J.E., Rose, R.L., 1988. Maybe Winnebago just wasn’t ready for big
city bosses. Wall Street Journal 17 (17 October), 1.
Baron, R.A., 1990. Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The
relative efficacy of four interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology
75, 235–245.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic
and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 51, 1173–1182.
Bartko, J.J., 1976. On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients.
Psychological Bulletin 83 (5), 762–765.
Bateman, N., 2005. Sustainability: The elusive element in process
improvement. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 25 (3), 261–276.
Bateman, N., David, A., 2002. Process improvement programmes: A
model for assessing sustainability. International Journal of Opera-
tions and Production Management 22 (5), 515–526.
Bateman, N., Rich, N., 2003. Companies’ perceptions of inhibitors and
enables for process improvement activities. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management 23 (2), 185–199.
Belassi, W., Tukel, O.I., 1996. A new framework for determining critical
success/failure factors in projects. International Journal of Project
Management 14 (3), 141–151.
Biazzo, S., Panizzolo, R., 2000. The assessment of work organization in
lean production: The relevance of the worker’s perspective. Inte-
grated Manufacturing Systems 11 (1), 6–15.
Bicheno, J., 2001. Kaizen and Kaikaku. In: Taylor, D., Brunt, D. (Eds.),
Manufacturing Operations and Supply Chain Management: The
LEAN approach. Thomson Learning, London, pp. 175–184.
Bliese, P.D., 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and
reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: Klein,
K.J., Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research and
Methods in Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 349–381.
Bradley, J.R., Willett, J., 2004. Cornell students participate in Lord
Corporation’s Kaizen projects. Interfaces 34 (6), 451–459.
Brown, K.A., Mitchell, T.R., 1991. A comparison of just-in-time and batch
manufacturing: The role of performance obstacles. Academy of
Management Journal 34 (4), 906–917.
Butterworth, C., 2001. From value stream mapping to shop floor
improvement: A case study of Kaikaku. In: Taylor, D., Brunt, D.
(Eds.), Manufacturing Operations and Supply Chain Management:
The LEAN Approach. Thomson Learning, London, pp. 185–193.
Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., Higgs, A.C., 1993. Relations between work
group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing
effective work groups. Personnel Psychology 46, 823–850.
Chan, D., 1998. Functional relationships among constructs in the same
content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of
composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (2), 234–246.
Chan, F.T.S., Lau, H.C.W., Ip, R.W.L., Chan, H.K., Kong, S., 2005.
Implementation of total productive maintenance: A case study.
International Journal of Production Economics 95, 71–94.
Chang, Y., 2000. Residual analysis of the generalized linear models for
longitudinal data. Statistics in Medicine 19 (10), 1277–1293.
Cohen, S.G., Bailey, D.E., 1997. What makes teams work: Group
effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite.
Journal of Management 23 (3), 239–290.
Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E., 1994. The effectiveness of self-managing
teams: A quasi-experiment. Human Relations 47 (1), 13–43.
Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E., Spreitzer, G.M., 1996. A predictive model of
self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations 49 (5),
643–676.
Co, H.C., Patuwo, B.E., Hu, M.Y., 1998. The human factor in advanced
manufacturing technology adoption, an empirical analysis. Interna-
tional Journal of Operations and Production Management 18 (1),
87–106.
Cronbach, L., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychiatrika 16, 297–334.
Cuscela, K.N., 1998. Kaizen blitz attacks work processes at Dana Corp. IIE
Solutions 30 (4), 29–31.
Dankbaar, B., 1997. Lean production: Denial, confirmation or exten-
sion of sociotechnical systems design? Human Relations 50 (5),
567–583.
Dar-El, E.M., 1997. What we really need is TPQM!. International Journal of
Production Economics 52, 5–13.
David, I., 2000. Drilled in Kaizen. Professional Engineering 13 (9), 30–31.
Delbridge, R., 1998. Life on the Line in Contemporary Manufacturing.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Delbridge, R., Turnbull, P., Wilkinson, B., 1992. Pushing back the
frontiers: Management control and work intensification under
JIT/TQM factory regimes. New Technology, Work and Employment
7 (2), 97–106.
deTreville, S., Antonakis, J., 2006. Could lean production job design be
intrinsically motivating? Contextual, configurational, and levels-of-
analysis issues. Journal of Operations Management 24 (2), 99–123.
deVellis, R.F., 1991. Scale Development: Theory and Application. Sage
Publishing, Newbury Park, CA.
Dillman, D., 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design
Method. Wiley, New York.
Doolen, T.L., Hacker, M.E., Van Aken, E.M., 2003a. The impact of
organizational context on work team effectiveness: A study of
production teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50
(3), 285–296.
Doolen, T.L., Worley, J., Van Aken, E.M., Farris, J., 2003b. Development of
an assessment approach for kaizen events. In: 2003 Industrial
Engineering and Research Conference, Portland, OR.
Doolen, T.L., Van Aken, E.M., Farris, J., Worley, J., Huwe, J., 2008. A field
study of kaizen events and organizational performance. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, in press.
Douglas, T.J., Judge, W.Q., 2001. Total quality management implementa-
tion and competitive advantage: The role of structural control and
exploitation. Academy of Management Journal 44 (1), 158–169.
Drickhamer, D., 2004a. Just-in-time training. Industry Week 253 (7), 69.
Drickhamer, D., 2004b. Braced for the future. Industry Week 253 (10),
51–52.
Duncan, G.M., 1972. Characteristics of organizational environments and
perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quar-
terly 17, 313–327.
Durham, C.C., Knight, D., Locke, E.A., 1997. Effects of leader role, team-set
goal difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72 (2), 203–231.
Earley, P.C., Mosakowski, E., 2000. Creating hybrid team cultures: An
empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of
Management Journal 43 (1), 26–49.
Earley, P.C., Connolley, T., Ekegren, G., 1989. Goals, strategy development
and task performance: Some limits on the efficacy of goal setting.
Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (1), 24–33.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case studies. Academy of
Management Review 14, 532–550.
Erez, M., Zidon, I., 1984. Effect of goal acceptance on the relationship of
goal difficulty to performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 69,
69–78.
Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., Strahan, E.J., 1999.
Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological
research. Psychological Methods 4 (3), 272–299.
Farris, J., Van Aken, E.M., Doolen, T., Worley, J., 2008a. Identifying the
determinants of Kaizen event success: An empirical investigation.
Working Paper.
Farris, J., Van Aken, E.M., Doolen, T.L., Worley, J., 2008b. Learning from
less successful Kaizen events: A case study. Engineering Manage-
ment Journal 20 (3), 10–20.
Field, A., 2005. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, second ed. Sage
Publications Ltd., London.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65
Finch, H., 2006. Comparison of the performance of varimax and promax
rotations: Factor structure recovery for dichotomous items. Journal
of Educational Measurement 43 (1), 39–52.
Foreman, C.R., Vargas, D.H., 1999. Affecting the value chain through supplier
Kaizen. Hospital Materiel Management Quarterly 20 (3), 21–27.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., Tag, A., 1997. The concept of
personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two
German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology 70, 139–161.
Fucini, J.J., Fucini, S., 1990. Working for the Japanese: Inside Mazda’s
American Plant. The Free Press, New York.
George, J.M., 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of
Applied Psychology 75, 107–116.
Ghosh, M., Sobek, D., 2007. Fostering second-order problem-solving in
healthcare. In: 2007 Industrial Engineering and Research Conference,
Nashville, TN.
Gladstein, D.L., 1984. Groups in context: A model of task group
effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 29 (4), 499–517.
Gibson, C., Vermeulen, F., 2003. A healthy divide: Subgroups as a
stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quar-
terly 48 (2), 202–239.
Gregory, A., 2003. Haring for change. Works Management 56 (5), 18–21.
Groesbeck, R., 2001. An empirical study of group stewardship and
learning: Implications for work group effectiveness. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Grado Department of Industrial and Systems
Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.
Guimaraes, T., 1997. Empirically testing the antecedents of BPR success.
International Journal of Production Economics 50, 199–210.
Gunasekaran, A., Korukondab, A.R., Virtanerf, I., Yli-Olli, P., 1994.
Improving productivity and quality in manufacturing organizations.
International Journal of Production Economics 36, 169–183.
Guzzo, R.A., Shea, G.P., 1992. Group performance and intergroup relations
in organizations. In: Dunnette, M.D., Hough, L.M. (Eds.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 3. Consulting Psycho-
logists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 269–313.
Hackman, J.R., 1987. The design of work groups. In: Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.), The
Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, pp. 315–342.
Hales, D.N., Chakravorty, S.S., 2006. Implementation of Deming’s style of
quality management: An action research study in a plastics company.
International Journal of Production Economics 103, 131–148.
Handfield, R., Jayaram, J., Ghosh, S., 1999. An empirical examination of
quality tool deployment patterns and their impact on performance.
International Journal of Production Research 37 (6), 1403–1426.
Hardin, J.W., Hilbe, J.M., 2003. Generalized Estimating Equations. Chap-
man and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Hart, S.H., Moncrief, W.C., Parasuraman, J., 1989. An empirical investiga-
tion of salespeople’s performance, effort and selling method during a
sales contest. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 17 (1),
29–39.
Harvey, J., 2004. Match the change vehicle and method to the job. Quality
Progress 37 (1), 41–48.
Hasek, G., 2000. Extraordinary extrusions. Industry Week 249 (17),
79–80.
Hayes, B.E., 1994. How to measure empowerment. Quality Progress 27
(2), 41–46.
Heard, E., 1997. Rapid-fire Improvement with Short-cycle Kaizen.
American Production and Inventory Control Society, Washington, DC.
Herron, C., Braiden, P.M., 2006. A methodology for developing sustain-
able quantifiable productivity improvement in manufacturing
companies. International Journal of Production Economics 104,
143–153.
Herscovitch, L., Meyer, J.P., 2002. Commitment to organizational change:
Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy 87 (3), 474–487.
Horton, N.J., Lipsitz, S.R., 1999. Review of software to fit generalized
estimating equation regression models. The American Statistician 53
(2), 160–169.
Hox, J.J., 1994. Hierarchical regression models for interviewer and
respondent effects. Sociological Methods and Research 17 (1),
300–316.
Huber, V.L., Brown, K.A., 1991. Human resource issues in cellular
manufacturing: A sociotechnical analysis. Journal of Operations
Management 10 (1), 138–159.
Huber, V.L., Hyer, N.L., 1985. The human factor in cellular manufacturing.
Journal of Operations Management 5 (2), 213–228.
Hyatt, D.E., Ruddy, T.M., 1997. An examination of the relationship
between work group characteristics and performance: Once more
into the breach. Personnel Psychology 50 (3), 553–585.
63
Ivancevich, J.M., McMahon, J.T., 1977. A study of task-goal attributes,
higher order need strength, and performance. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal 20 (4), 552–563.
Jackson, S., 1992. Team composition in organizations. In: Worchel, S.,
Wood, W., Simpson, J. (Eds.), Group Process and Productivity. Sage,
London, pp. 1–12.
Jackson, P.R., Mullarkey, S., 2000. Lean production teams and health in
garment manufacture. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5,
231–245.
James, L.R., 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement.
Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (2), 219–229.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., Wolf, G., 1984. Estimating within-group
interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of
Applied Psychology 69, 3–32.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., Wolf, G., 1993. rwg: An assessment of within-
group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (2),
306–309.
Janz, B.D., 1999. Self-directed teams in IS: Correlates for improved
systems development work outcomes. Information and Management
35, 171–192.
Jehn, K., 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and
detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly
40 (2), 256–282.
Jehn, K., Northcraft, G., Neale, M., 1999. Why differences make a
difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in
workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (4), 741–763.
Jetten, J., Duck, J., Terry, D.J., O’Brien, A., 2002. Being attuned to
intergroup differences in mergers: The role of aligned leaders for
low-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (9),
1194–1201.
Johnson, D.E., 1998. Applied Multivariate Methods for Data Analysis.
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, CA.
Judd, C.M., Kenny, D.A., 1981. Process analysis: Estimating mediation in
treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review 5, 602–619.
Jun, M., Cai, S., Shin, H., 2006. TQM practice in Maquiladora: Antecedents
of employee satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 24, 791–812.
Jusko, J., 2004. Lonely at the top. Industry Week 253 (10), 58–59.
Kathuria, R., Partovi, F.Y., 1999. Work force management practices for
manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Operations Management 18,
21–39.
Katzenbach, J.R., Smith, D.K., 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the
High Performance Organization. Harvard Business School Press,
Boston.
Keating, E.K., Oliva, R., Repenning, N.P., Rockart, S., Sterman, J.D., 1999.
Overcoming the improvement paradox. European Management
Journal 17 (2), 120–134.
Kenny, D.A., 2006. Mediation. White paper. Available URL: /http://
davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htmS, November 7, 2006.
Kenny, D.A., Judd, C.M., 1986. Consequences of violating the indepen-
dence assumptions in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin 99
(3), 422–431.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., Bolger, N., 1998. Data analysis in social
psychology. In: Gilbert, D., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The Handbook
of Social Psychology, vol. 1. McGraw-Hill, Boston, pp. 233–265.
Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., 1999. Beyond self-management: Antecedents
and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management
Journal 42 (1), 58–74.
Klein, J.K., 1989. The human costs of manufacturing reform. Harvard
Business Review 67 (2), 60–66.
Klein, K.J., Kozlowski, S.W.J., 2000. From micro to meso: Critical steps in
conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational
Research Methods 3 (3), 211–236.
Kline, P., 1994. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. Routledge, London.
Koch, J.L., 1979. Effects of goal specificity and performance feedback to
work groups on peer leadership, performance, and attitudes. Human
Relations 33, 819–840.
Kolodny, H.F., Kiggundu, M.N., 1980. Towards the development of a
systems model in woodlands mechanical harvesting. Human Rela-
tions 33, 623–645.
Korhonen, K., Pirttila, T., 2003. Cross-functional decision-making in
improving inventory management decision procedures. International
Journal of Production Economics 81–82, 195–203.
Kotter, J., 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard
Business Review 73 (2), 59–67.
Koufteros, X., Marcoulides, G.A., 2006. Product development practices
and performance: A structural equation modeling-based multi-
group analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 103,
286–307.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
64 J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65
Kuhl, J., 1992. A theory of self-regulation: Action versus state orientation,
self-discrimination, and some applications. Applied Psychology 41
(2), 97–129.
Kumar, S., Harms, R., 2004. Improving business processes for increased
operational efficiency: A case study. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 15 (7), 662–674.
Laraia, A., 1998. Change it NOW. Manufacturing Engineering 121 (4), 152.
Laraia, A.C., Moody, P.E., Hall, R.W., 1999. The Kaizen Blitz: Accelerating
Breakthroughs in Productivity and Performance. The Association for
Manufacturing Excellence, New York.
Larson, M., 1998. Lantech’s Kaizen diary: Monday through Friday. Quality
37 (6), 40.
Launonen, M., Kess, P., 2002. Team roles in business process re-
engineering. International Journal of Production Economics 77,
205–218.
Lawal, B., 2003. Categorical Data Analysis with SAS and SPSS Applica-
tions. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., London.
Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A., 1985. Quality circles after the fad. Harvard
Business Review 85 (1), 64–71.
Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A., 1987. Quality circles: After the honeymoon.
Organizational Dynamics 19, 15–26.
LeBlanc, G., 1999. Kaizen at Hill-Rom. Center for Quality of Management
Journal 8 (2), 49–53.
Lemieux-Charles, L., Murray, M., Baker, G.R., Barnsley, J., Tasa, K., Ibrahim,
S.A., 2002. The effects of quality improvement practices on team
effectiveness: A mediational model. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 23, 533–553.
Liang, K.Y., Zeger, S.L., 1986. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized
linear models. Biometrika 73, 13–22.
Linderman, M., Schroeder, R.G., Choo, A.S., 2006. Six Sigma: The role of
goals in improvement teams. Journal of Operations Management 24,
779–790.
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., 1984. Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique
That Works. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task
Performance. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal
setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychol-
ogist 57 (9), 705–717.
Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M., Latham, G.P., 1981. Goal setting and
task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin 90 (1),
125–152.
Lovelace, D., Shapiro, D.L., Weingart, L.R., 2001. Maximizing cross-
functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint
adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of
Management Journal 44 (4), 779–793.
MacKinnon, D.P., West, G., Dwyer, J.H., 1995. A simulation study of
mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research 30 (1),
41–62.
Martin, K., 2004. Kaizen events: Achieving dramatic improvement
through focused attention and team-based solutions. Society for
Health Systems Newsletter August 2004, 6–7.
Martin, B.A., Snell, A.F., Callahan, C.M., 1999. An examination of
individual differences in the relation of subjective goal difficulty to
performance in a goal-setting model. Human Performance 12 (2),
115–135.
Matusi, Y., 2007. An empirical analysis of just-in-time production in
Japanese manufacturing companies. International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics 108, 153–164.
McGrath, J.E., 1964. Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction. Hold
Rinehart and Winston Inc., New York.
McGrath, J.E., 1984. Groups: Interaction and Performance. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McIntosh, R.I., Culley, S.J., Mileham, A.R., Owen, G.W., 2001. Changeover
improvement: A maintenance perspective. International Journal of
Production Economics 73, 153–163.
McNichols, T., Hassinger, R., Bapst, G.W., 1999. Quick and continuous
improvement through Kaizen blitz. Hospital Materiel Management
Quarterly 20 (4), 1–7.
Melnyk, S.A., Calantone, R.J., Montabon, F.L., Smith, R.T., 1998. Short-term
action in pursuit of long-term improvements: Introducing Kaizen
events. Production and Inventory Management Journal 39 (4),
69–76.
Miltenberg, J., 1995. Manufacturing Strategy. Productivity Press, Portland,
OR.
Miller, B.D., 2004. Achievement behaviors within kaizen blitz from an
expectancy-value perspective: An empirical study. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Industrial Engineering, Uni-
versity of Houston, Houston, TX.
Minton, E., 1998. Profile: Luke Faulstick—‘Baron of blitz’ has boundless
vision of continuous improvement. Industrial Management 40 (1),
14–21.
Molleman, E., 2005. The multilevel nature of team-based work research.
Team Performance Management 11 (3–4), 113–124.
Montabon, F., 2005. Using Kaizen events for back office processes: The
recruitment of frontline supervisor co-ops. Total Quality Manage-
ment and Business Excellence 16 (10), 1139–1147.
Muchinsky, P.M., 2000. Psychology Applied to Work, sixth ed. Wads-
worth/Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA.
Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., Wasserman, W., 1996. Applied
Linear Statistical Models, fourth ed. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.,
New York.
Nicolini, D., 2002. In search of ‘project chemistry’. Construction Manage-
ment and Economics 20 (2), 167–177.
Niepce, W., Molleman, E., 1996. A case study: Characteristics of work
organization in lean production and sociotechnical systems. Inter-
national Journal of Operations and Production Management 16 (2),
77–90.
Nunnally, J.D., 1978. Psychometric Theory, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Olorunniwo, F., Udo, G., 2002. The impact of management and employees
on cellular manufacturing implementation. International Journal of
Production Economics 76, 27–38.
O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Martocchio, W., Frink, D.D., 1994. A review of the
influence of group goals on group performance. Academy of
Management Journal 37 (5), 1258–1301.
Pagell, M., LePine, J.A., 2002. Multiple case studies of team effectiveness
in manufacturing organizations. Journal of Operations Management
20, 619–639.
Panizzolo, R., 1998. Applying the lessons learned from 27 lean
manufacturers. The relevance of relationships management. Inter-
national Journal of Production Economics 55, 223–240.
Parker, M., Slaughter, J., 1988. Choosing Sides: Unions and the Team
Concept. South End Press, Boston, MA.
Patil, H., 2003. A standard framework for sustaining Kaizen events.
Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Industrial and Manu-
facturing Engineering, Wichita, KS.
Perrow, C., 1967. A framework for the comparative analysis of organiza-
tions. American Sociological Review 32, 194–208.
Perry, L., 1995. Effective facilitators—A key element in successful
continuous improvement processes. Training for Quality 3 (4), 9–14.
Pickering, J., Kisangani, E.F., 2005. Democracy and diversionary military
intervention: Reassessing regime type and the diversionary hypoth-
esis. International Studies Quarterly 49, 23–43.
Pinto, J.K., Slevin, D.P., 1987. Critical factors in successful project
implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 34
(1), 22–27.
Pinto, M.B., Pinto, J.K., Prescott, J.E., 1993. Antecedents and consequences
of project team cross-functional cooperation. Management Science
39 (10), 1281–1297.
Polychronakis, Y.E., Syntetos, A.A., 2007. ‘Soft’ supplier management
related issues: An empirical investigation. International Journal of
Production Economics 106, 431–449.
Pritchard, R.D., Jones, S., Roth, P., Stuebing, I.C., Ekeherg, S., 1988. Effects
of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational
productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology 73 (2), 337–358.
Raudenbush, A.S., Byrk, S.W., 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applica-
tions and Data Analysis Methods, second ed. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Rusiniak, S., 1996. Maximizing your IE value. IIE Solutions 28 (6), 12–16.
Safayeni, F., Purdy, L., 1991. A behavioral case study of just-in-time
implementation. Journal of Operations Management 10 (2), 213–228.
Samson, D., Whybark, D.C., 1998. Tackling the ever so important ‘soft’
issues in operations management. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 17, 3–7.
SAS Institute Inc., 2006. Generalized Linear Models Theory. SAS/STAT
User’s Guide, SAS OnlineDocs 9.1.3. Available URL: /http://support.
sas.com/onlinedoc/913/docMainpage.jspS, November 7, 2006.
Sawhney, R., Chason, S., 2005. Human behavior based exploratory model
for successful implementation of lean enterprise in industry.
Performance Improvement Quarterly 18 (2), 76–96.
Schonberger, R.J., 2007. Japanese production management: An evolu-
tion—With mixed success. Journal of Operations Management 25,
403–419.
Scheaffer, R.L., Mendenhall, W.III., Ott, R.L., 1996. Elementary Survey
Sampling, fifth ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA.
Schneider, B., White, S., Paul, M.C., 1998. Linking service climate and
customer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model,.
Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (2), 150–163.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.A. Farris et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 117 (2009) 42–65
Sewell, G., Wilkinson, B., 1992. Someone to watch over me: Surveillance,
discipline and the just in time labour process. Sociology 26 (2),
271–289.
Salas, E., Sims, D.E., Burke, C.S., 2005. Is there a ‘‘big five’’ in teamwork?
Small Group Research 36 (5), 555–599.
Shafer, S.M., Tepper, B.J., Meredith, J.R., Marshall, R., 1995. Comparing the
effects of cellular and functional manufacturing on employees
perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Operations Management 12,
63–74.
Shah, R., Ward, P.T., 2003. Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles,
and performance. Journal of Operations Management 21 (2),
129–149.
Shah, R., Ward, P.T., 2007. Defining and developing measures of lean
production. Journal of Operations Management 25, 785–805.
Shannon, C., 1948. A mathematical theory of communications. Bell
Systems Technical Journal 27, 397–423, 623–656.
Sheridan, J.H., 1997. Kaizen blitz. Industry Week 246 (16), 18–27.
Simons, D., Taylor, D., 2007. Lean thinking in the UK red meat industry:
A systems and contingency approach. International Journal of
Production Economics 106, 70–81.
Smith, B., 2003. Lean and Six Sigma—A one–two punch. Quality Progress
36 (4), 37–41.
Stewart, G.L., Barrick, M.R., 2000. Team structure and performance:
Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderat-
ing role of task type. Academy of Management Journal 43 (2),
135–148.
Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K.P., Futrell, D., 1990. Work teams: Applications
and effectiveness. American Psychologist 45 (2), 120–133.
Susman, G.I., Dean, J.W., 1992. Development of a model for predicting
design for manufacturability effectiveness. In: Susman, G.I. (Ed.),
Integrating Design and Manufacturing for Competitive Advantage.
Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 207–227.
Szinovacz, M.E., Davey, A., 2001. Retirement effects on parent–adult child
contacts. The Gerontologist 41 (2), 191–200.
Tanner, C., Roncarti, R., 1994. Kaizen leads to breakthroughs in
responsiveness—And the Shingo Prize—At Critikon. National Pro-
ductivity Review 13 (4), 517–531.
Taylor, D.L., Ramsey, R.K., 1993. Empowering employees to ‘just do it’.
Training and Development 47 (5), 71–76.
Teachman, J.D., 1980. Analysis of population diversity. Sociological
Methods and Research 8 (3), 341–362.
Tranfield, D., Smith, S., Foster, M., Wilson, S., Parry, I., 2000. Strategies for
managing the teamworking agenda: Developing a methodology for
team-based organization. International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics 65, 33–42.
65
Treece, J.B., 1993. Improving the soul of an old machine. Business Week
3342, 134.
Van Aken, E.M., Kleiner, B.M., 1997. Determinants of effectiveness for
cross-functional organizational design teams. Quality Management
Journal 4 (2), 51–79.
Van Landeghem, R., 2000. Experiences with a concurrent engineering
self-assessment tool. International Journal of Production Economics
64 (1–3), 295–309.
Van Mierlo, H., Vermunt, J.K., Rutte, C.G., 2006. Composing group-level
constructs from individual-level survey data. Working Paper. Available
URL: /http://www.spitswww.uvt.nl/vermunt/mierlo2006.pdfhttp://
spitswww.uvt.nl/vermunt/mierlo2006.pdfS, October 4, 2006.
Vasilash, G.S., 1993. Walking the talk of Kaizen at Freudenberg-NOK.
Production 105 (12), 66–71.
Vinokur-Kaplan, G.S., 1995. Treatment teams that work (and those that
don’t): An application of Hackman’s group effectiveness model to
interdisciplinary teams in psychiatric hospitals. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 31 (3), 303–327.
Vits, J., Gelders, L., 2002. Performance improvement theory. International
Journal of Production Economics 77, 285–298.
Wall, T.D., Kemp, N.J., Jackson, P.R., Clegg, C.W., 1986. Outcomes of
autonomous workgroups: A long-term field experiment. Academy of
Management Review 29 (2), 280–304.
Warnecke, H.J., Huser, M., 1995. Lean production. International Journal of
Production Economics 41, 37–43.
Watson, L., 2002. Striving for continuous improvement with fewer
resources? Try kaizen. Marshall Star, 28 November 2002, vol. 1, 4 pp.
Wheatley, B., 1998. Innovation in ISO registration. CMA 72 (5), 23.
Whitford, A.B., Yates, J., 2003. Policy signals and executive governance:
Presidential rhetoric in the war on drugs. The Journal of Politics 65
(4), 995–1012.
Wilson, L., Van Aken, E.M., Frazier, D., 1998. Achieving high performance
work systems through policy deployment: a case application. In:
Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference on Work Teams.
Withey, M., Daft, R.L., Cooper, W.H., 1983. Measures of Perrow’s work unit
technology: An empirical assessment and a new scale. Academy of
Management Journal 26 (1), 45–63.
Wittenberg, G., 1994. Kaizen—The many ways of getting better.
Assembly Automation 14 (4), 12+ (6pp.).
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., Roos, D., 1990. The Machine that Changed the
World. Harper Perennial, New York.
Wright, R., 1936. Factors affecting the cost of airplanes. Journal of
Aeronautical Sciences 3, 122–128.
Yin, R.K., 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage
Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.