Research Article | Open Access | Download PDF
Volume 43 | Number 1 | Year 2017 | Article Id. IJETT-V43P217 | DOI : https://doi.org/10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V43P217
Applying the KAIZEN Philosophy for building the Business Success in Indian Small & Medium Manufacturing Enterprises
Harvinder Lal, Manpreet Singh
Citation :
Harvinder Lal, Manpreet Singh, "Applying the KAIZEN Philosophy for building the Business Success in Indian Small & Medium Manufacturing Enterprises," International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT), vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 102-108, 2017. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V43P217
Abstract
The Kaizen management originated in the best Japanese management practices and is dedicated to the improvement of productivity, efficiency, quality and, in general, of business excellence. The KAIZEN methods are internationally acknowledged as methods of continuous improvement, through small steps, of the economical results of companies. The small improvements applied to key processes will generate the major multiplication of the company’s profit, while constituting a secure way to obtain the clients’ loyalty/fidelity. The KAIZEN management represents a solid, strategic instrument, with a view to reach and surpass the company’s objectives. With Globalization, today’s markets economy has posed new challenges to all manufacturing organizations irrespective of their size and infrastructure for effective use of continuous improvement strategies for sustaining their enhanced productivity. This study attempts to assess the performance of various continuous improvement strategies for strategic success by using AHP and VIKOR. Results of investigation demonstrated that customer relationship plays a most significant role in improving the performance of manufacturing organizations. The overall success rate of CI strategies for enhancing the performance of organization is about 73 percent.
Keywords
KAIZEN, Globalization and Productivity etc.
References
3.Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1980.
4.Saaty, T.L. (1994). Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the AHP. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A.
5.Russel JS. Contractor failure: analysis. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE 1991;5(3):163±80.
6.Saaty, T.L. and Ozdemir, M. (2003) “Why the Magic Number Seven Plus or Minus Two”, Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 38: 233-244.
7.Belton, V. and Gear, T. (1983). On a Short-coming of Saaty`s Method of Analytic Hierarchies. Omega, 228-230.
8.Saaty, T.L., and Gholamnezhad, H. (1982), ‘High-level nuclear waste management: analysis of options’, Environment and Planning B, 9(1): 181-196.
9.Cheng, E.W.L. and Li, H. (2001) ‘Information priority-setting for better resource allocation using analytic hierarchy process (AHP)’, Information Management and Computer Security, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.61–70.
10.Katayama, H. and Bennett, D.J. (1999) ‘Agility, adaptability and leanness: a comparison of concepts and a study of practice’, Int. J. Production Economics, Vols. 60/61, pp.43– 51.