Quality of teaching

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

ISSN: 1478-3363 (Print) 1478-3371 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

Bringing Kaizen to the classroom: lessons learned in an Operations Management course

Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza & Francisco G. Rodríguez-González

To cite this article: Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza & Francisco G. Rodríguez-González (2015) Bringing Kaizen to the classroom: lessons learned in an Operations Management course, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26:9-10, 1002-1016, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2015.1068594

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1068594

Published online: 31 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 699

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Bringing Kaizen to the classroom: lessons learned in an Operations Management course

Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza a∗

and Francisco G. Rodrı́guez-González b

a Business Management Department, Universidad de las Américas Puebla (UDLAP), Puebla,

Mexico; b EGADE Business School, Campus Ciudad de Mexico, Ciudad de México, Mexico

The managerial approach of Kaizen is used by different organisations around the world in order to improve the performance of their work processes and operations. Both the Total Quality Management literature and Kaizen have shown different efforts to illustrate the application of this approach in the traditional classroom-style business education. Also, business schools have a clear need for showing consistency between what is being taught in the classroom and what is being done in the day-to- day operations of the organisation. The purpose of this article is to describe the systematic application of Kaizen and its learned lessons during the last three years in the Operations Management (OM) course from the Master in Business Administration graduate programme taught at the Mexican Business School. An exploratory qualitative study was conducted. This research project provides empirical evidence of how Kaizen’s continuous improvement cycle (PDCA) enables better results in students who have taken the subject of OM in a business school. The findings in each phase of the cycle show the Kaizen-oriented improvement actions and the results obtained in final grades (exam) and written reports. Finally, the study contributes to the limited existing literature on Kaizen in education and subsequently disseminates this information in order to provide impetus, guidance and support towards improvement in the quality of teaching in a business school.

Keywords: Kaizen; quality in education; process improvement; total quality management

1. Introduction

The managerial approach of Kaizen is used by different organisations around the world to

improve the performance of their work processes and operations (Ortı́z, 2009; Suárez-

Barraza, Smith, & Dalhgaard-Park, 2012). The essence of Kaizen, as told by Imai

(1986), is simple and direct: Kaizen means improvement; nevertheless, it also means invol-

vement including workers and managers. A way of life is assumed at work, at home and

within the society. With this definition, an elemental question arises: Can Kaizen be

applied in an educational environment? The answer is that, at least, the need to

improve the graduate educational programmes of business/management schools rep-

resents a constant pressure to get accredited and certified by international institutions

that pursue the highest standards of quality in education, such as The Association to

Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) (AACSB, 2002, 2011).

Moreover, Total Quality Management (TQM) literature and Kaizen have demon-

strated different efforts to illustrate the application of these approaches in traditional class-

room-style business school education (Dahlgaard, Kristensen, & Kanji, 1995; Emiliani,

2005; Zimmerman, 1991). Also, there exists a strong need by business schools to show

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

∗Corresponding author. Email: manuel.suarez@udlap.mx

Total Quality Management, 2015

Vol. 26, No. 9, 1002 – 1016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1068594

congruence between what is taught and what is applied in the operation itself. For

example, a student who is enrolled in an Operations Management (OM) course expects

that at least the elementary principles such as waste elimination (Muda in Japanese)

can be found in the operating processes of the business school, and, of course, in the

actual OM course. Thus, there must be clear, complete and detailed syllabi; specific,

simple and clear evaluation criteria, and of course, when students are enroling in their

courses, they expect such proceeding to be fast and error-free. The accreditation of

degree programmes in business or management by AACSB International observes excel-

lence as a requirement in their undergraduate and graduate education programmes

(AACSB, 2004), and ‘challenge educators to pursue continuous improvement . . . ’

(AACSB, 2004). One important remark here is that AACSB does not define what ‘continu-

ous improvement’ means, so the term ‘improvement’ stays unclear and in an open field;

this can cause confusion and unclear meanings (Drennan, 1999; Emiliani, 2005; Zimmer-

man, 1991). However, AACSB, like most organisations, subscribe to quality, excellence

and continuous improvement.

Lastly, in Mexico and Latin America, there is a lack in the academic literature that

show continuous improvement efforts such as Kaizen to improve the quality of graduate

programmes and courses at both universities and business schools. The most significant

examples that have been found in the literature on the subject are those from Emiliani

(2005), which describe the application of Kaizen in graduate programmes in the USA,

and the one from Bradley and Willett (2004), where the application of Kaizen projects

by Cornell students is shown. Thus, this investigation contributes to develop and boost

the theoretical construct of the application of Kaizen in the educational field.

In this research, the systematic application of Kaizen in an OM course of the Master in

Business Administration (MBA) graduate programme at EGADE (Escuela de Graduados

en Administración y Dirección de Empresas) Business School, the graduate business

school of the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM) at

its Mexico City site, is shown. The EGADE Business School has the ‘triple crown’ accred-

itation: The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), European

Foundation for Management Development Quality Improvement System (EQUIS) and

Association of MBAs (AMBA), and was recently recertified in 2013.

The OM course at EGADE is a part-time course from the introductory courses of the

MBA programme, where the traditional topics of OM such as elementary theories of OM,

inventory management, linear programming, manufacturing, process management and

improvement, localisation and supplier strategies and supply chain management are

taught, with special emphasis on the topics of Kaizen and Lean Manufacturing. Therefore,

the purpose of this paper is to describe the lessons learned from the application of Kaizen

in the OM course over three years. First, a literature review of the application of Kaizen

and TQM in a learning environment is made. Second, the specific context and character-

istics of the OM course of the MBA programme at EGADE Business School are described

and third, a detailed explanation of how Kaizen is applied in the OM course is presented.

Lastly, the paper is closed with the obtained results, and finally concludes with the lessons

learned in the form of the obtained benefits of its application over three years as well as the

barriers found during the improvement effort.

2. What is Kaizen?

Although Kaizen is defined by Imai in his two books on the subject (1986, 1997), this Japa-

nese word – which means ‘improvement’ – still lacks a detailed explanation that would

Total Quality Management 1003

shed greater light on its theoretical content. Various authors have explained Kaizen from

different perspectives. Imai (1989, p. 23) defined it as ‘a means of continuing improvement

in personal life, home life, social life, and working life. At the workplace, Kaizen means

continuing improvement involving everyone – managers and workers alike’. For Newitt

(1996), Imai’s definition (1986, 1989) of Kaizen stems from two Japanese Kanji: KAI ¼

Change, ZEN ¼ Good (improvement), and from Continuous Improvement or Principle of

Continuous Improvement (Lillrank & Kano, 1989, p. 28). The leaders of some business

understand continuous improvement more formally as: ‘Continuous, incremental

improvement of an activity to eliminate waste, unevenness, and unreasonableness

(called, muda, mura and muri in Japanese) and create more value’, where waste is

defined as: ‘any activity that adds cost but does not add value as perceived by customers

– typically end-use customers)’ (Ohno, 1988; Womack & Jones, 1996).

3. Kaizen and TQM in the education context

Kaizen originated from manufacturing processes (Fujimoto, 1999; Imai, 1986, 1997;

Suárez-Barraza, 2007), and its success in uncovering a problem, making it visible,

looking for its root causes and then eliminating them was of extreme importance in the

development of the manufacturing sector in countries such as Japan and Korea. After

its expansion in the USA by means of the Lean Manufacturing term (Womack, Jones,

& Ross, 1990), Kaizen was globally known. From the nineties, the application of TQM

and Kaizen started to turn towards the services sector (Bowen & Youngdahl, 1998;

Suárez-Barraza & Ramis-Pujol, 2010; Swan, 2003), due to the term Muda that can also

be present in the processes that generate a service as an output.

In this sector, but in the education field, a seminal investigation was developed by

Dahlgaard and co-authors in 1995, starting the debate of the importance of the application

of TQM in education (Kells, 1995; Tofte, 1995; Van Zadelhoff, De Wet, Pothas, & Pet-

rorius, 1995). In this sense, Spanbauer (1995) found that the key elements of the appli-

cation of TQM in higher education are academic leadership, personnel training, the use

of scientific methods and customer focus. Logothethis (1995) goes further by indicating

that in order to apply these methods in education, it is necessary to conform new curricula

and a new kind of professors who pursue quality and continuous improvement at all times.

A summary of this work was presented in the Total Quality Management Journal and it is

shown in Table 1.

More recently, Emiliani (2005) found that the application of Kaizen in an Executive

Management Programme can be very effective to improve the quality of service and

value added to the students. In the same line, Bradley and Willett (2004) report that stu-

dents of the manufacturing course at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at

Cornell University were able to learn the methodology of Kaizen projects to apply it in

benefit of the Lord Manufacturing Corporation. Finally, Lilja (2010) indicates that as a

result of his study, continuous improvement combined with appreciative design can

improve the evaluation and design of graduate courses.

4. Setting the context: the OM course

The Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey was founded in 1943 by

Eugenio Garza Sada. Today, it is a private university with 31 campi along Mexico, about

15 international sites and 4 graduate schools. The EGADE Business School as a graduate

business school started operations since the eighties in Mexico City and was known then as

1004 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

EGA Business School (Escuela de Graduados en Administración), and it expanded to the

rest of the Tecnológico de Monterrey campi where a Master in Management was taught.

However, since 2010, a homologation process was started and only one business school

remained the EGADE Business School. It operates in two cities: Monterrey and Mexico

City.

The OM course of the MBA programme at EGADE Business School is 1 of the 14

courses that comprise the programme. It is considered as an introductory course alongside

the Managerial Economics, Corporate Finance, Marketing Management and Leadership

and Organisational Behavior courses. It is designed in 12 units of three and a half hours

each and it is taught quarterly all year long. Generally, this course has an average of 25

enrolled students for each group, and two or three groups are opened per quarter depending

on the demand. The Kaizen approach for this course is applied in at least two groups of the

ones that are opened per quarter. The course is commonly taught on Tuesday or on Wed-

nesday from 18:30 to 22:00 hours with a 15-minute break at 20:00 hours.

The principal author first knew the Kaizen philosophy during his graduate studies in

Tokyo and Nagoya, Japan. He attended the Universidad de Sophia and worked at the

Table 1. Special issue of total quality management in education (1995).

Author Article Main findings

Dahlgaard, Kristensen, and Kanji

Total Quality Management and Education

The authors presented the TQM pyramid in education. Four main cornerstones are presented: focus in facts, everybody’s participation, continuous improvement and focus on the customer and the employee.

Logothetis Towards quality management of education

Quality management may provide a challenge to an educational institution, but an even greater challenge is the quality management of education within the institution. To meet this challenge, a new breed of educators is required and a new educational curriculum needs to be developed.

Spanbauer Reactivating higher education with TQM: using quality and productivity concepts, techniques and tools to improve higher education

The key elements of TQM in education are leadership, education and training, organisational climate, customer service, scientific management tools, meaningful data and team problem-solving.

Van Zadelhoff, De Wet, Pothas and Pretorius

Quality management principles applied to teaching operations research at a small university

Simple quality management tools and techniques can be implemented in the education process with success. The main target is to increase the motivation for the student of the course to study hard.

Kells Creating a culture of evaluation and self-regulation in higher education organisations

Implementation of TQM in higher education is presented based on an analysis of the culture of such organisations and the factors and strategies found to be related to the implementation of changes therein.

Source: own elaboration.

Total Quality Management 1005

consulting agency CHU-SAN-REN between 1994 and 1995. During this lapse of time, he

had the opportunity to be a disciple of professors who were involved in the philosophy,

such as Akira Takana, Shigeru Mizuno, Naokata Sawada, Masao Nemoto and Masaaki

Imai (who forged the term Kaizen). Since his return to Mexico, he has worked as a

research professor in the field, as well as being an advisor in several companies in

Kaizen application. Since 1996, he has worked supporting several different educational

organisations with the implementation of Kaizen in their work processes, administrative

as well as academic. Since 2010, at EGADE Business School he has redesigned several

educational processes using the Kaizen approach. He had at least two fundamental

objectives:

(1) To reduce the number of operations in academic services processes such as regis-

trations, admissions and grading, among others.

(2) To conform Kaizen project teams that allow solving operational problems related

to course execution.

One of the pilot tests was the application of Kaizen in the OM course, and it is described as

follows.

5. Methodology

A case study methodology was adopted (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994). This approach is

particularly useful when the research needs to answer ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions (Yin,

1994). The methodology is also considered suitable for research on operational manage-

ment (Voss, Sikriktsis, & Frohlic, 2002). In this study, given the nature of the methodology

and the research questions posed, the case of a business school in Mexico is presented. The

case chosen thus had great scope for contributing to theoretical understanding and devel-

opment. Pettigrew (1997) notes that the importance of this kind of sample selection lies not

in the number of cases but in an in-depth study in each case (Pettigrew, 1997, p. 342).

To ensure data consistency, two data-gathering methods were used: (1) direct obser-

vation and (2) document analysis (Yin, 1994). For direct observation, the author and

co-author were present teaching the OM class during three years from 2010 to 2012.

During this stage, snapshots were taken to record Kaizen implementation in the OM

course. This is of great importance in providing study evidence and drawing up the

report. During these visits, documentation was gathered on the application of the

Kaizen approach in the OM course. This documentation included individual written

reports per class, business simulation game’s reports, Kaizen application projects and

Final Exams. Lastly, a case study protocol and a database on the case study were drawn

up to make the study more reliable (Pettigrew, 1997). Our data analysis sought to

ensure the validity of the construct through the use of multiple sources of evidence and

carefully planned data-gathering. We also sought to increase the external validity of the

research by making multiple comparisons with other case studies from the literature

(Yin, 1994).

6. Applying the Kaizen approach in the OM course

Since 2010, the first author began to experiment with the application of Kaizen in the OM

course of the MBA programme. For that to be, the logic that Deming (1986) and Imai

(1986) established for the continuous improvement cycle or PDCA (Plan, Do, Check,

Act) was followed.

1006 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

Following the conceptual framework’s logic of PDCA, the process of Kaizen appli-

cation started with the Plan phase, in which a detailed course programme or syllabus

was designed 100% student-centred (costumer focused). The syllabus contains the

course purpose, the topics being taught detailing how much time each of them takes,

the class dynamics, the exercises, the simulations, the written reports and the lectures

and/or case studies. The syllabus is a vital planning instrument because students receive

it one month before school starts, via the Blackboard platform, with all the corresponding

material. This way students can plan their readings and work exercises; they can even read

in advance topics related to the course. Another important element of the syllabus is the

grading mechanism, which must be clear, detailed and specific at all times for it to be con-

formed as a standard or academic requirement. An example is shown in Table 2.

Over the last three years, the planning phase of the PDCA cycle has allowed students

of the OM course to create a previous scenario in a specific and detailed way, which gen-

erates certainty in each of them before starting the course sessions.

The Do phase of the continuous improvement cycle comes next. During this phase, stu-

dents take each session that comprise the course. During its execution, the application of

Kaizen has allowed to take the OM course to a level of practical experience (learning by

doing) not experienced before with the traditional courses offered by the MBA programme

at EGA Business School (previous to the year 2010, that was the business school name as

stated previously). At least three vital mechanisms were generated for the development of

this practical experience: (1) individual written reports per class, (2) the prism and cylin-

der business simulation and (3) Kaizen application projects.

Let us examine the first mechanism: the individual written reports per class. With these

reports, the OM course students learn at all times the importance of being constant in their

studies of a course from the MBA programme. The mechanism of Kaizen applied to the

individual report works by following the principle that only 30% of the knowledge is

retained when taking a face-to-face class (by presentation) (Garza-Salazar, 2013). As

such, students attend the class and at the end, they elaborate their written report. In

other words, after the professor has explained each subject of the OM class (a posteriori),

students synthetise again the provided information and then they generate a written report.

This way, they read and study what was previously presented in class, and they write down

Table 2. Grading criteria of a written report.

Grade Criterion to consider

50-69 No written report is turned in or it is overdue. 70-79 The written report covers practically nothing of the class content, so that its content is very

poor. The report has no structure and has little creativity; it is a “cut and paste” of the teaching material of the course.

80-89 The written report presents a mild content of the class. It practically covers all the theoretical aspects studied in its synthesis, as well as part of the exercises and simulations conducted in class, but goes no further, adding little value to the written report. It limits itself to comply with what it is requested.

90-96 The written report presents a very good content of the class. It covers completely the theoretical and practical sections of the course (100%) and adds value with personal experiences, points of view, criticizes the topic and even points to additional research that fortifies what is being taught at class.

97- 100

Realizes the previous criterion in a constant and disciplined way during the course, maintaining its level.

Source: Design by own.

Total Quality Management 1007

the concepts again, developing a double reflection. In the written reports, they express

those reflections about the topics seen in class, combining a synthesis of the theoretical

concepts acquired during each class. Moreover, the students add to this synthesis their

work experiences. The individual reports are prepared each week and are turned in the

next session. Regarding the form, they do not have a specific length, it is just asked that

they cover 100% of what is seen in class. During the three years of the application of

this Kaizen mechanism, students feel that the report has helped them to improve the reten-

tion of the topics seen in class and, of course, this has been reflected in their final grades

(see the following chart for the results).

The second mechanism is the prism and cylinder business simulation. This mechanism

follows too the ‘Learning by Doing’ principle. It consists of a game or business simulation

that has the objective of making the participants feel the need to organise their work based

on processes to obtain quality products. Students are grouped in teams of minimum four

participants and a maximum of eight and then are asked to build a prism and a cylinder

(Figure 1). Quality requirements such as measures, symmetry and cut quality are provided

by the professor, who represents the client that ‘buys’ the finished product at the end of the

production cycle from each team. This business simulation game allows students to

experience the different phases of a production process, where a process-focus approach

is needed in order to conclude with products that meet the quality requirements. Over

the last three academic years, students have shown appreciation for this Continuous

Improvement technique, that has been taken from the Kaizen philosophy, such as that

the knowledge derived from the virtual production line that is represented by the simu-

lation is acquired in a direct and experimental way.

The third mechanism that equally applies Kaizen principles is the Kaizen improvement

project at the end of the course. The application of this mechanism has allowed students to

Figure 1. The prism and cylinder business simulation snapshot.

1008 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

develop ‘case study type’ projects, where they have been able to apply Kaizen techniques

and tools in real-life cases and practices in their own organisations. From their point of

view, students have had the great opportunity to present problems or situations in order

to improve them within their work places. Over the last three years, students have

applied these Kaizen tools and techniques in different types of organisations: manufactur-

ing (car assembly plants, cleaning products and food, among others) as well as service

organisations (banks, restaurants, airlines, schools and, until recently, communication

enterprises). The organisations range from small to medium businesses to large

corporations.

The third phase of the PDCA cycle is the validation (check) phase. During this

phase, students get to know the evaluation process in a Kaizen-oriented OM course.

The professor specifies and generates a detailed standard of the way he will evaluate

them. The evaluation is always a detailed feedback and it follows what is indicated in

Table 2 for written reports. With the criteria shown in Table 2 (that is part of the syllabus),

students can validate the standard of their evaluation result. When students hand in their

written reports during class, the professor evaluates it and provides feedback during the

next consecutive class. Each and every one of the evaluations are reported in a specific

way, with a percentage of the grade assigned to each element. Students can see from

the very first day of class what the evaluating mechanisms will be, how that evaluation

will be conducted and the weight each element has. As such, the professor describes

that this evaluation is the execution of the syllabus in class form during the three-

month course.

Finally, the professor indicates that the elements with more weight for the final grade

are the written reports and the Kaizen improvement project due to their focus on the

Kaizen philosophy of ‘learning by doing’. Although the final exam takes a larger percen-

tage of the final grade, it is used only to ratify the acquired knowledge during the practical

part of the course (written reports and Kaizen improvement project).

Each quarter, the PDCA cycle allows to generate the Act phase: the opportunity to

improve the programme and course planning. Following students’ feedback, the course

professor standardises the good practices oriented towards the Kaizen philosophy, in

other words, towards continuous improvement. He also has the opportunity to make cor-

rections to the class topics, the exercises or simulations presented in class, and of course,

getting up to date the case studies. As such, the correction cycle is presented in a continu-

ous way each quarter, in that same order of ideas.

7. Findings and discussion

To extend in a more quantitative way the Kaizen implementation in this OM course, a

comparative diagram (EGA vs. EGADE business schools) of the average final grades

obtained by students with the traditional evaluation mechanism (EGA Business School,

from 2007 to 2009) vs. the new Kaizen approach mechanism (EGADE Business

School, from 2010 to 2013) that includes the individual written reports and final exam

(Table 3 and Figure 2) was made. For each year, the quarters analysed were January –

April, May – July and September – December. The total number of students who partici-

pated in the sample was 301 for the last three years (2010 ¼ 112; 2011 ¼ 95; 2012 ¼ 94).

For the case of the individual written reports, we take the number of students who were

enrolled in the OM course and multiply it by 10, which corresponds to the number of

theoretical and practical sessions that was taught per quarter. Let us remember that each

student has to hand in an individual written report per class. This way, 3010 written

Total Quality Management 1009

reports were analysed. Of course, the grade average per quarter and per year from each

course was obtained. Before the EGADE Business School was constituted, the researchers

took the data of the grading mechanism per class and per quarter. This grade mechanism

was a homework report similar to the individual report without the Kaizen characteristic

values (reflection process – Hansei, create a 100% synthesis of the content of the class and

working examples). The result of the data obtained can be seen in Table 4.

After implementing the previously indicated Kaizen techniques in the new EGADE

Business School OM course, a significant progress could be seen in the grade average

of the individual written report per class, per quarter and per year. The results are

shown in Table 5.

The overall progress of the grade average in the OM course could be observed only

after the study was conducted in the year 2012. In order to avoid a skewing of results,

two peers (experts in OM) were asked to evaluate the individual written reports so as to

have someone external to the professor to conduct the evaluation. A graphic showing

the comparison of traditional grading mechanisms vs. the new Kaizen approach grade

averages is shown here (Figures 2 and 3).

Table 3. Table of the evaluation criteria of the OM course.

Criterion % of Final Grade

† Class participation and presentations 10% † Written reports 20% † “Case study type” Innovation Project presentation 30% † Final Exam 40% Total 100%

Source: Design by own.

Figure 2. Tendencies between traditional and Kaizen grading mechanisms.

1010 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

For the final exams, the same analysis was made. The average grade per quarter and

per year before and after Kaizen was implemented was calculated. In total, 301 final

exams were examined. It can be seen in the following table and graphic that the influence

Table 4. Average grade of traditional grading mechanisms per class, per quarter and per year before Kaizen implementation.

Quarter/Year 2007 2008 2009

January – April 88 a

87 90 May – July 87 86 84 September – December 90 89 88

a The scale goes from 0 to 100 (100 being the maximum grade that can be obtained).

Source: own elaboration.

Figure 3. Tendencies among grades before and after Kaizen implementation.

Table 5. Average grade of individual written reports per class, per quarter and per year after Kaizen implementation.

Quarter/Year 2010 2011 2012

January – April 92 a

94 95 May – July 91 95 98 September – December 92 97 98

a The scale goes from 0 to 100 (100 being the maximum grade that can be obtained).

Source: own elaboration.

Total Quality Management 1011

of Kaizen techniques in the OM course was reflected in the grade average of the final

exams (Table 6 and Figure 3).

The results shown in this investigation coincide with those obtained in a similar field

by Emiliani (2005) and Bradley and Willett (2004) in the USA, by indicating that Kaizen

application can help educational institutions to obtain more effective and efficient

teaching and learning processes from the student’s point of view. This investigation,

unlike the literature on Kaizen and TQM in the education field that was reviewed in

Section 3, presents a case study where management is indicated at the micro level,

where Kaizen promotes and stimulates the student’s knowledge and achievement in

an OM course.

The authors are aware that measuring the increase in students’ knowledge of OM

topics cannot be done easily just because Kaizen was applied to the teaching – learning

process. Thus, the use of written reports and final exams was a measurable and objective

way to do it. Nevertheless, to measure each student’s individual degree of learning would

involve more profound and complex subjects such as experiential learning (Kolb, 1983) or

Knowledge for Action (Argyris, 1993).

A synthesis of Kaizen application is shown in the following table.

Improvement opportunity Improvement made

1. PLAN PHASE – The general course goal and specific objectives

First, a general course goal was established, oriented to learning by doing, an element that was not included before the Kaizen implementation. Second, the general objective is centred on one fundamental element: the reflection the student makes regarding the knowledge gained using Kaizen tools and techniques.

1.2 Course syllabus The ambiguity and unclearness were removed from the syllabus in the grading elements (individual written reports per class, final exam, participation in class and applied Kaizen projects). Standardised tables for evaluating students in an objective way were designed (Tables 2 and 3).

2. DO PHASE – The individual written report

It was implemented as a grading mechanism. It allows the student to review the fundamental theoretical elements seen in the course by way of writing the content of the class at the end of it, thus generating a practical reflection of each topic.

2.2 The prism and cylinder simulation Readings and case studies that did not add value to the student’s learning process were removed. A face-to- face simulation was implemented in which students

(Continued )

Table 6. Average grade of final exams per quarter and per year before and after Kaizen implementation.

Quarter/Grades 2007

before 2010 after

2011 before

2011 after

2012 before

2012 after

January – April 82 92 85 90 88 94 May – July 83 88 82 89 85 95 September – December 82 89 87 93 86 96

Source: own elaboration.

1012 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

Continued.

Improvement opportunity Improvement made

experiment firsthand the process and continuous improvement concepts.

2.3 Applied Kaizen projects This mechanism is one of the main characteristics of the Kaizen application in the OM course. Its design, application and exposition on behalf of the students allow a deep learning process of the contents of the OM course.

The implementation of these three mechanisms has allowed the standardisation of the course contents in a simple and direct way in order to generate ‘learning by doing’, and at the same time unnecessary academic material is eliminated before applying Kaizen.

3. CHECK PHASE – The course grading mechanisms

With the evaluation mechanisms in place, the student had certainty, standardisation and clarity on how he will be evaluated. This mechanism allowed the sequence of the topics for each class to be reordered, and now each class is related to exercises and simulations, as well as to certain reading assignments. For a student with no previous experience in OM, it is a key topic in his learning process.

3.2 Final exam With Kaizen, students obtained an exam centred on the core concept that a manager in an organisation should know about OM. It is not a complex exam; on the contrary, it is simple, practical and direct. It is multiple-choice and presents exercises similar to those seen in class.

4. ACT PHASE – Cause analysis In the last session, a reflection exercise of the knowledge acquired in class is conducted by the students. The tool that is used is the cause-and-effect diagram with the goal to establish a relationship among objectives and learning.

4.2 Incorporated class experience Kaizen allows the professor to set a diversity of mechanisms to establish different methods of learning for adults, allowing at all times to expand the learning experiences of the students in class. One example is the prism and cylinder simulation.

Source: own elaboration.

7. Lessons learned: benefits and main barriers

It is possible to apply Kaizen successfully in a graduate course. Its implementation allows

to improve key elements of the teaching – learning process in an OM course. The benefits

that Kaizen have provided during its implementation in the OM course over the last three

years are the following:

. The professor has the opportunity to plan his course focusing on his ‘client’, the

student, and thus in his learning. The planning instrument is the syllabus; its elabor-

ation is centred on the client and his learning objectives. . The improvements and changes that were and are being made are centred on the

PDCA improvement cycle and it is aligned with the students’ needs. . The course is standardised in sequence, execution and evaluation. This allows to

have a homogeneous improvement platform ready in each quarter.

Total Quality Management 1013

. Kaizen allows to generate multiple improvement and innovation ideas so that the

course is better each following quarter. . For this particular case, higher grades were observed on individual written reports

and on final exams. . For the professor and students, Kaizen represented a positive experience during the

OM course of the MBA programme; they have fond memories when they graduate. . Students who build Kaizen teams during the OM course take the concept and adapt it

to their organisations. At all times, they are energised and motivated by working in a

team that seeks at all times continuous improvement, even if it was simulated during

class. . The process of teaching – learning sustained in the main objective is the focus of con-

tinuous improvement. Before Kaizen, the focus was on results (that students scored

higher passing grades), a wrong and complicated situation because focusing on the

output of the process rendered useless all actions taken to change it. Besides, it gen-

erates a better understanding of the importance of ‘learning by doing’ in each and

every class.

During these three years, different obstacles and barriers were present that tried to block

the Kaizen application effort in the OM course. Universities and business schools are dif-

ficult to deal with when one tries to change their academic processes, especially when

such approaches come from the private sector, and are little understood by academics

centred in other areas of management (Zimmerman, 1991). The faculty ∗∗tries to do few changes all over the years, derived from the ‘academic ego’, and the stability that

protocols and routine in universities generate. Four big barriers that were identified

are the following:

. Change that comes from professors and students at times challenges policies estab-

lished by university administrators. . Faculty peers who fail to see the importance of continuous improvement in the

courses they teach. . Simple and direct application methods such as Kaizen are seen by faculty as ‘lax’

from the scientific point of view. Several professors consider themselves as

‘experts’ in qualitative and quantitative methodologies that solve problems, and

as such, Kaizen is seen as a mere managerial tool. . Implementing a change in a service process is not so simple due to its intangibility,

unlike a change in a manufacturing process. This provokes ‘doubts’ and ‘disbelief’

in professors and academic staff.

Finally, this paper has limitations. It is difficult to generalise the results because only one

MBA course was chosen (OM), and this course is centred in only one Mexican university

and business school. Besides, the course lends itself because it is part of the specialised

management being taught there: OM. There could be other factors that influenced the posi-

tive tendency that was observed: the Professor’s leadership, the teaching – learning process

based on the Professor’s pedagogical experience and, of course, the student’s profile sus-

tained by the MBA admission process. Also, the student’s learning style could be known at

the very beginning of the course and his/her progress could be measured using the Kaizen

approach (Kolb, 1983).

However, the results of this study coincide with studies conducted in other universities

in another country presented in the literature, so a first contribution to the literature of the

1014 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

application of continuous improvement and TQM in the education sector can be estab-

lished in a micro-view way.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

AACSB. (2002). Management education at risk. St. Louis, MO: AACSB International. Retrieved May 28, 2014, from www.aacsb.edu/publications/metf/METFReportFinal-August02.pdf

AACSB. (2004). Eligibility procedures and standards for business accreditation. St. Louis, MO. Retrieved May 31, 2014, from www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp

AACSB. (2011). Accreditation standards. St. Louis, MO: AACSB International. Retrieved May 31, 2014, from www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp

Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bowen, D. E., & Youngdahl, W. E. (1998). “Lean” service: In defense of a production-line approach. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(3), 207 – 225.

Bradley, J., & Willett, J. (2004). Cornell students participate in Lord Corporation’s Kaizen projects. Interfaces, 34(6), 451 – 459.

Dahlgaard, J. J., Kristensen, K., & Kanji, G. (Eds.). (1995). A special issue on ‘total quality in edu- cation. Total Quality Management, 6(5&6), 443 – 619.

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT/CAES. Drennan, L. (1999). Total quality management in the Scottish universities. International Journal:

Continuous Improvement Monitor, 1(4), 1 – 15. Retrieved May 20, 2014, from www.llanes. panam.edu/journal/library/vol1No4/drenna.html

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532 – 550.

Emiliani, M. L. (2005). Using Kaizen to improve graduate business school degree programs. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1), 37 – 52.

Fujimoto, T. (1999). The evolution of manufacturing system at Toyota. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 129 – 172.

Garza-Salazar. (2013). Presentación del Modelo TEC 21, Conferencia impartida en la ciudad de Monterrey, Nuevo León, Junio de 203.

Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen-the key to Japan’s competitive success. New York, NY: Random House. Imai, M. (1989). Kaizen, la clave de la ventaja competitiva japonesa. México, DF: CECSA. (In

Spanish). Imai, M. (1997). Gemba Kaizen. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill. Kells, H. R. (1995). Creating a culture of evaluation and self-regulation in higher education organ-

izations. Total Quality Management, 6(5/6), 457 – 467. Kolb, D. (1983). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Lilja, J. (2010). Putting appreciate design into practice: A case study of a course evaluation and

design process. Journal Business Management, 31(3), 1089 – 1101. Lillrank, P., & Kano, N. (1989). Continuous improvement-quality control circles in Japanese indus-

try. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Logothetis, N. (1995). Towards a quality management of education. Total Quality Management, 6(5/

6), 479 – 486. Newitt, D. J. (1996). Beyond BPR & TQM – managing through processes: Is kaizen enough?

Industrial Engineering. London, UK, IEE Savoy Place. Institution of Electric Engineers, pp. 1 – 38.

Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system. Portland, OR: Productivity Press. Ortı́z, C. (2009). Kaizen and Kaizen events implementation. New York, NY: Prentice Hall Editorial. Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management,

13(4), 337 – 348. Spanbauer, S. J. (1995). Reactivating higher education with total quality management: Using quality

and productivity concepts, techniques and tools to improve higher education. Total Quality Management, 6(5/6), 519 – 537.

Total Quality Management 1015

Suárez-Barraza, M. F. (2007). Kaizen, la filosofı́a de mejora continua e innovación incremental, detrás de la Administración por Calidad Total. México, DF: Panorama.

Suárez-Barraza, M. F., & Ramis-Pujol, J. (2010). Implementation of Lean-Kaizen in the human resource service process. A case study in a Mexican public service organisation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 21(3), 388 – 410.

Suárez-Barraza, M. F., Smith, T., & Dalhgaard-Park, S. M. (2012). Lean service. An analysis and classification. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(3 – 4), 359 – 380.

Swank, C. K. (2003). The lean service machine. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 123 – 130. Tofte, B. (1995). A theoretical model for implementation of total quality leadership in education.

Total Quality Management, 6(5/6), 469 – 478. Van Zadelhoff, C. J., De Wet, A. G., Pothas, A., & Petrorius, P. (1995). Quality management prin-

ciples applied to the teaching of operations research at a small university. Total Quality Management, 6(5/6), 539 – 546.

Voss, C., Sikriktsis, N., & Frohlic, M. (2002). Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195 – 219.

Womack, J., & Jones, D. (1996). Lean thinking. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Womack, J., Jones, P., & Ross, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York, NY:

Rawson & Associates. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research, design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zimmerman, W. J. (1991). Kaizen in search of quality. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education,

39(3), 7 – 10.

1016 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González