Kaizen and Kaikaku – Win, Lose, or Win/Win?

Can opposing philosophies work together? If asked in political circles (especially in today’s world of sound bites and shouting heads) the answer is a resounding NO!

One of the more famous sayings regarding opposites working together is found in an ancient Indian treatise (the Arthashastra) on statecraft, economic policy and military strategy; “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

The Lean world is littered with terminology, and as various terms morph into buzzwords keeping up with original meanings can become problematic. Further complicating comprehension, some Lean methods are at times represented as opposites.

Regardless of appearances, Kaizen and Kaikaku are less about enemies or opposites and more about synergies.

What are Kaizen and Kaikaku?

As defined by Masaaki Imai, the founder of the Kaizen Institute, Kaizen “means improvement. Moreover, it means continuing improvement.” When used in business or quality settings, it generally means continuous improvement, and is associated with Lean and Six Sigma practices.

Kaizen advocates gradualism. Radical breakthroughs are rare, but everyone can make minor improvements in their sphere of influence. When these small improvements are sustained over time, significant progress will occur. Kaizen also advocates that every aspect of a business needs to be improved. No area is unessential and no area is too good to improve.

It involves everyone in a workforce, from managers to clerks, and is applied every day and at every position. Kaizen also provides a structure of continuous improvement that can be used within an organization at minimal risk and low (or even no) cost.

In contrast, Kaikaku is a revolutionary method and is for those occasions when large changes are needed to remain competitive or solve larger problems. Companies committed to Lean/Six Sigma understandably want to remain consistent with principles and processes they have instilled in their culture. Kaikaku is a way to do so, but with big radical changes.

Kaikaku allows organizations to transform their culture, processes, or even business models by addressing large structural reforms. It is a sizable and wide-ranging initiative that is originated and invested in by the executives and top management. With Kaikaku, results are more immediate but the risks are far greater than seen in Kaizen.

Kaizen vs. Kaikaku

On the surface, the slow steady process of evolutionary change within a company appears to be opposed to a “big bang” approach of radically altering the culture, products, processes, and even vision of a company. However, as with so many things in life, these two approaches are not mutually exclusive.

Whether you implement Lean, Six Sigma, or Kaizen methodologies in your company, the main ingredients to success are top management commitment and employees highly vested in making their area of responsibility consistently better. Obviously there are key steps, which are crucial to follow in each system, but without committed and engaged individuals in both management and the workforce, the systemic processes will fail.

When applying Kaikaku the same elements of Lean are required for success. While Kaizen is both a top down and bottom up approach, radical change requires executives introducing, promoting, and motivating employees about the necessity of the change. Yet it still requires all stakeholders to be committed to doing whatever is necessary to successfully transform.

The primary difference between Kaizen and Kaikaku are the size of the actions taken to achieve Lean objectives, as well as the time involved in realizing a measurable difference from the activities implemented. But both incorporate Lean processes in order to experience improvements within the company.

Is there only one choice between Kaizen and Kaikaku?

One way only has its merits in facilitating traffic, under certain conditions, but it rarely works well when pursuing optimal efficiencies and competitive strategies in business. Adhering to Kaizen when needing to meet customer demands that a competitor is already providing, will result in a company falling farther behind and losing market share.

Likewise, waiting until necessity has become overwhelming, results in a company constantly playing catch-up. This approach not only leaves a company in a permanent second position at best, it also injects undue risk and cost in each and every change.

The real power comes from properly implementing both. In fact, when implementing Kaikaku, there should already be a plan to follow-up implementation with Kaizen. This creates a synergistic power in continuous improvement efforts within any company.

Both Kaizen and Kaikaku are essential strategies, but without a culture of Kaizen, a Kaikaku initiative is highly unlikely to succeed. Especially since most major transformations fail because of a corporate culture ill-prepared for sustained improvement.

There is a saying that without Kaizen you are building Kaikaku on sandy foundations. You could also say that without Kaikaku it is highly unlikely the building will ever be constructed. Moreover, its possible that companies not seeing bottom line improvements to their Lean initiatives such as Kaizen are experiencing shortcomings because of a lack of Kaikaku initiatives.

Without Kaikaku, Kaizen can become a series of small improvements that ultimately fail to align with the long-term direction or vision of the business. Additionally, Kaizen can easily overlook possibilities of new technologies or new lines of business, and be less efficient than Kaikaku for a company’s long-term survival.

Conclusion

Kaizen and Kaikaku are both ways to approach Lean methodologies. However, while they are both important, they are also different. Understanding the strengths of each and the key processes and strategies to both, and then implementing accordingly will propel companies to greater success.