National Movements for Quality and Productivity Improvement with Local Adaptation: The Experience of Japan and Singapore

Abstract

Japan and Singapore are two countries that have successfully learned management technologies for quality and productivity improvement from abroad, with local adaptation, and organized national movements for their diffusion. Japan introduced productivity and quality control methods from the United States in the early post-World War II era, and quickly assimilated and developed these as its own management practice (which came to be known as Kaizen). Singapore was the first country to receive Japan’s comprehensive technical cooperation (1983–1990) in this field, and successfully internalized and institutionalized the Productivity Movement. Nevertheless, the two countries adopted different approaches. In Japan, the private sector took the initiative to create the core organizations responsible for promoting a national movement for quality and productivity improvement. In contrast, the Singaporean Productivity Movement was led by the government. This chapter focuses on the experience of national movements for quality and productivity improvement in Japan and Singapore, from the viewpoint of translative adaptation. It also analyzes the key factors for their successes and draws implications for today’s developing countries. The experience of Japan and Singapore suggests that national movements, if properly designed and implemented, are an effective way to promote societal learning and transform the popular mindset toward industrial society.

This chapter is based on the authors’ published papers [18,19,20], with additional research and updated information. It also relies on the work by Kikuchi [14], Woon and Loo [32], and Yanagihara et al. [33].

1 Introduction

Japan and Singapore have successfully learned foreign management technologies to improve quality and productivity, with local adaptation, and promoted them as a national movement [18, 20, 33]. Such national movements contributed to helping the industry and business of both countries productive and competitive in international markets in the late twentieth century [8]. What were the concrete mechanisms and factors that enabled Japan and Singapore to initiate, localize, and sustain such national movements? This is the central theme of this chapter.

After World War II (WWII), Japan learned productivity movement and quality control (QC) methods from the United States (US) and developed these as its own management method. The adapted method—which came to be known as Kaizen¹—emphasized a process orientation and participatory approach and spread rapidly among Japanese companies. Subsequently, the Singaporean Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, requested the Japanese government to introduce the Japanese model of quality and productivity movement to Singapore, and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) provided large-scale technical cooperation to the country throughout the 1980s. Learning from Japan, Singapore established its own institutional mechanisms for the productivity movement. Unlike the Japanese approach, which was led by the private sector, the Singaporean productivity movement was led by the government, and campaigns were promoted not only in the business sector but also in the public sector, linked with a civil service reform program.

The experiences of the two countries suggest the importance of ‘translative adaptation’ by latecomer countries when absorbing advanced knowledge and technologies in their catch-up processes, as emphasized in Chap. 1 of this book. This also shows the process of the diffusion of learning from the US to Japan, and then to Singapore.

National movements are nationwide engagements involving the entire population for a decade or more, to transform the popular mindset toward hard work, teamwork, and creativity [18]. Particularly, the movement for quality and productivity improvement requires a national effort by many public and private stakeholders to attain economic and social progress, involving the active participation of business, industry, workers, government, academia, community groups, and other interested parties [23]. In a sense, this can be seen as one way of creating a ‘learning society’ as emphasized by Stiglitz and Greenwald [27]. To be successful, these movements require a self-sustaining system of principles, implementing mechanisms, and necessary resources backed by strong passion and deep commitment, involving everyone from top to bottom in a society.

This chapter attempts to address the question of how, with special attention to the experience of Japan and Singapore. Following this introductory section, the second and third sections report on case studies of the Japanese and Singaporean experience with national movements for quality and productivity improvement. Special attention is given to the processes of how the two countries learned foreign models and developed locally owned practices and institutional mechanisms for their diffusion. The fourth section briefly explains the chain of local learning and diffusion of quality and productivity improvements in Japan, Asia, and beyond. The final section discusses key factors for successful design and implementation of national movements based on their experience and analyzes their implications for today’s developing countries.

2 Japan: The Experience of a Private Sector-Led National Movement

In Japan, national efforts to learn foreign production management technologies for industrial drive can be traced back to the pre-World War I time when American Scientific Management methods were introduced in the early 1900s. Celebrated books such as The Principles of Scientific Management by F. W. Tailor [29] and Motion Study by F. Gilbreth [3] were translated into various forms, studied, and practiced enthusiastically among both academic and business circles. This was the time when Japan was striving to strengthen its national industrial capacity as well as military power. Based on decades of accumulated experience, the US-originated Scientific Management method evolved into the Japanese Way of Efficiency (Noritsu Do), which pays greater attention to the human element [30].

During WWII Japan had only limited access to external resources including foreign technologies [24], and the government and the military promoted economic mobilization and rationalization, especially in iron and steel, and munitions (e.g., aircraft and shipbuilding) industries. Efficiency improvement in these industries became a high priority, and it was within this context that the Japan Management Association (JMA) and the predecessor of the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) were asked to support these industries [1, 4].

Then, WWII came to an end. Japan surrendered and completely lost its production capacity. Japan’s national movement for quality and productivity improvement was then driven by a sense of urgency for post-war economic recovery and industrial catch-up. The WWII devastation made it difficult for both the government and business sectors to improve the quality and productivity for exporting processed products. At that time, ‘Made-in-Japan’ was perceived to mean ‘low-price and low-quality,’ and quality and productivity improvement was high on the national agenda. Japanese business and government leaders were eager to learn the quality control (QC) methods developed in the US, as well as the harmonious labor-management relations promoted by the British Productivity Council at that time.²

According to Sasaki [25], there were three paths that postwar Japan used to introduce and diffuse foreign management technologies to Japanese companies. The first path was through the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers (SCAP), which assumed responsibility for implementing policy in occupied Japan including economic democratization.³ The US government and GHQ introduced American management methods, primarily through Japanese consulting organizations such as JMA and JUSE [25]. The second path was the Japan Productivity Center (JPC), which was established in the 1950s, inspired by the productivity movement that had been promoted in Europe by the US as part of the Marshall Plan. The third path was direct technology transfer by individual Japanese companies from the 1950s. The following section will explain the first and second paths, focusing on the role of private organizations. The third path will be briefly discussed in Sect. 4.4.

2.1 Leadership and the Role of Core Organizations

In Japan, the private sector took the initiative to create the core organizations responsible for introducing, adapting, and promoting methods for improving quality and productivity. According to Kikuchi [14], three non-profit, private organizations spearheaded this initiative—JMA, JUSE, and JPC. These organizations facilitated learning, adjusting foreign models to Japanese reality, and dissemination of the modified model to all firms.

The three organizations have different histories. JMA is the oldest among them (established in 1942), dating back to the wartime period. JMA used to be a quasi-governmental organization under the control of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, but after the end of WWII, it became an independent private organization performing consulting activities. JMA contributed to driving the movement of ‘Noritsu’ in Japanese industry. A Japanese word, ‘Noritsu’ means to optimize efficiently the ability of people, the full capacity of equipment and technology, as well as the functionality of industrial materials.⁴ JUSE was created immediately after WWII (in 1946), succeeding several technology associations that were established in the prewar and wartime periods.⁵ JUSE contributed to quality improvement in Japan, with greater emphasis on the transfer and diffusion of production management technology from an industry-wide perspective. JPC was established in 1955, with the influence of the productivity movement in the US and Europe. In this sense, the history of JPC is distinctive from JMA and JUSE, both of which had roots in the wartime period. JPC contributed to the development of productivity improvement movement from a macro-socioeconomic perspective. Table 4.1 summarizes the background for these private organizations.

Table 4.1 Core organizations for quality and productivity improvement

As shown in Fig. 4.1, private organizations played active roles in three critical stages of technology transfer through learning, adaptation, and diffusion [14]. Top management of all three organizations had a strong sense of mission and commitment to developing companies and industries to realize Japan’s postwar economic recovery. Their strong leadership was critical to introducing knowledge and technology from the US and Europe, adapting them, and diffusing quality and productivity improvement movements nationwide [14, 18, 33].

Fig. 4.1

(Source Elaborated by the author, based on Kikuchi [14])

The role of private sector organizations in introduction, development, and diffusion of foreign technologies

The history of the establishment of the JPC exemplifies the strong commitment of visionary leaders of such private organizations. By the early 1950s, Europe was rapidly recovering from the devastation of WWII with US assistance (Marshall Plan) and embarking on a productivity movement based on collaboration between employers and workers. In 1951, Kohei Goshi, who was the executive director and later became the third chairman of JPC, visited Europe as a member of a Keizai Dōyūkai (Japan Association of Corporate Executives)⁶ mission. He was convinced of the need for a productivity movement in Japan and thought that this issue must be broadly shared with the entire business sector. Upon his return, Goshi invited major business organizations (e.g., the Japan Federation of Economic Organizations [Keidanren], the Japan Federation of Employers’ Association [Nikkeiren], and the Japanese Chamber of Commerce) to collaborate in the establishment of JPC.

The Japanese government had also recognized the need for productivity improvement. In 1954, the Cabinet adopted a policy for productivity improvement. The Enterprise Bureau of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) planned to set up a productivity organization. However, business leaders insisted that JPC be created as a private organization. Finally, the JPC was established in March 1955, funded by both public and private sectors, on the premise that the government would not intervene in JPC’s spending policies and personnel affairs. A government-business coordination committee was established in May 1955, attended by vice ministers of various ministries and the JPC-selected private sector members. The coordination committee was chaired by a private sector representative. Importantly, the first coordination committee meeting agreed on the following three guiding principles as the basic productivity philosophy: (i) In the long-run, improvement in productivity should increase employment; (ii) Labor and management must cooperate on an equal footing; and (iii) The benefits of improved productivity should be distributed fairly among management, labor, and consumers. There was no reference to ‘rationalization’ of the workforce in the guiding principles.

Another important aspect of JPC history is the participation of labor unions. After WWII, as part of GHQ/SCAP-led democratization policy, labor unions were established and labor movements became active in Japan. Initially, they were cautious about collaborating with JPC because workers were concerned about a possible lay-off as the result of efficiency and productivity improvements. However, the above three guiding principles gained support from the Japanese Federation of Trade Unions (Sōdōmei), paving the way for its participation in JPC in September 1955 [10]. Gradually, other labor unions followed. In this way the tripartite governing structure of the JPC Board was formed, including representatives of industry, unions, and academia.

2.2 Analysis of the Three-Staged Process of Technology Transfer and Local Learning

2.2.1 Learning Stage

At the first stage of learning, many study missions were dispatched to the US and Europe. Also, foreign experts were invited for lectures. Mission reports and lecture notes were widely disseminated among the organization members. Foreign text books and materials were translated and distributed to companies and researchers, as well.

JUSE took the American method of statistical QC and developed it into a Japanese-style Quality Control Circle (QCC). In July 1950, Kenichi Koyanagi, Managing Director of JUSE, took the initiative to invite W. D. Deming, a renowned American expert on statistical process control, to deliver lectures on quality control.⁷ Deming held a series of lectures and seminars, teaching basic principles of statistical quality control to executives, managers, and engineers of Japanese industries. His transcript of the eight-day course on QC was compiled from stenographic records and distributed for a fee. The lectures inspired many participants, and JUSE immediately established ‘the Deming Prize’ in 1951, with the aim of rewarding Japanese companies for major advances in quality improvement. The awards ceremony is broadcasted every year in Japan on national television. In 1954, J. M. Juran, another American expert, was invited to give lectures on managing for quality. He also met with executives from 10 manufacturing companies. Juran emphasized the importance of quality control in the context of overall management and taught at training courses for Japanese top and middle management. This provided the basis of Company-wide Quality Control (CWQC), which JUSE started to introduce from the latter part of the 1950s.

During 1955–1961, JPC received support from the US government on various activities, such as sending study missions, inviting experts, collecting materials and information, and making movies about technologies.⁸ Figure 4.2 shows the trend of overseas missions organized by JPC. The number of missions and participants increased steadily. Normally, industry, the government, academia, and labor unions formed a team and went overseas together. Also, missions by specialized group (such as top-management, industry-specific groups, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and labor unions) were dispatched. They came from key industries, which became drivers of Japanese high-economic growth in the subsequent years [33]. It is also important to note that SMEs participated actively in this endeavor.⁹ Upon return, mission briefings were intensively organized to share the findings with those who did not go overseas. 170 volumes of Productivity Reports (1956–1966) were published, based on mission findings. It is well noted that even after US support ended in 1961, study missions continued, with more than 40 missions dispatched annually until 1965 (funded by JPC and participating companies). The total number of study missions and the participants amounted to 568 and 6,072 respectively [10].

Fig. 4.2

(Source Elaborated by the author, based on the information of JPC-SED [10])

Trend of study missions abroad by JPC (1955–1965)

These examples show eagerness and strong ownership of the Japanese private sector, policy makers, and academia to acquire foreign knowledge and technologies in the postwar period for industrial catch-up.

2.2.2 Adaptation Stage

At the second stage (adaptation/internalization), various committees and working groups were established, comprised of experts and researchers from industry, government, and academia, to study the adaptability of foreign technologies and make necessary adjustments. In some cases, pilot projects were implemented at manufacturing sites to verify their adaptability and validity [14, p. 27]. So, the private organizations did not simply diffuse Western technologies in their original forms; foreign technologies were adapted to the Japanese context through self-study.

The QC Circle (QCC) movement initiated by JUSE is a good example of how the US-originated concept and techniques of statistical QC mentioned above have been adapted and disseminated nationwide. A QC Circle is a small group consisting of limited members (normally more than 3 and up to 10) working in the same place.¹⁰ In Japan, supervisors act as team leaders. They identify causes of defective products and possibilities for improving products or production methods. The initial goals of QC Circle activities were to enhance management skills and leadership of supervisors and frontline workers, encourage all employers to participate in improvement activities, and implement company-wide QC Circle activities to achieve corporate goals and policies.

JUSE brought together leaders and experts from all of Japan’s major industries and academia so that they could share their best practices. As a member of JUSE, Kaoru Ishikawa (Emeritus Professor of the University of Tokyo and Dean of the Musashi Institute of Technology) took initiative to introduce QC Circle activities in 1962 and actively promoted quality management technology in companies. He organized committees for research, development, and planning and served as the editorial committee chair of various magazines such as the ‘Statistical Quality Control’ and ‘Gemba and QC Circle’ (which was later renamed as FQC Magazine). From the early stages, Ishikawa recognized the need to disseminate Quality Control to front-line workers in the workplace. This was based on his belief that ‘[J]apanese workers are the best in the world with a superior level of educational standard and that [j]ust following the guidelines and manuals would make such people sick.’ So, he suggested that we rather take advantage of their knowledge [12, p. 257]. He listened to the voices of foremen and understood their keen interest in learning quality management. After conducting deliberate discussions with the sub-committee and reviewing questionnaire surveys, he proposed Company-wide Quality Control (CWQC) involving front-line workers. This was quite different from the top-down approach that uses the ladder of office organization, often seen in the United States and in other countries.

The following remarks by Ishikawa at his special lecture at the 7th Quality Control Convention in 1969 exemplify how JUSE’s basic principles reflect the Japanese way to quality improvement based on human-centered approach.

When we started Quality Control in Japan, 20 years ago, we intended to start it with the Japanese way, as the background was different from Japan to that of overseas. Quality Control in the USA is quality control for professionals with a strong aspect of that for, so-called, QC engineers. On the other hand, there was no such professionalism in Japan, which is considered as pros and cons. As we believed that Quality Control with total participation was suitable for Japan, we promoted Quality Control for Top Management and Quality Management at the workplace. Quality Control in the workplace is performed just as a part of Company-wide Quality Control. More specifically, there is Quality Control by Top Management, also by managers, and by staff members. As a part of the chain, the workplace must carry out QC Circle activities in a responsible way. [12, p. 257]

To promote the QC Circle movement, JUSE created nationwide networks at the central and regional and prefectural levels. At the central level, in 1962, the QCC Center was established as a national registration system. Educational materials were developed and distributed through journals and field quality centers (FQC), providing a common framework for workers from different companies. FQC Magazine was a popular journal which started in 1962 as a quarterly publication and became a monthly in 1965. It contained information on case studies of QC Circles and served as an important channel of information sharing on QC Circle activities. Its price was set low (almost the same as the price of a pack of cigarettes) so that ordinary workers could afford it. One can call it as ‘democratization of statistical methods’ [1, p. 278]. In 1963, QCC Conventions began, at which diverse companies and circle members presented their problem-solving successes. Local chapters and regional branches of the QCC Center were also created.

Grass-root, local networks were at the heart of JUSE’s QC Circle activities. There are nine regional branches (shibu) of the QCC Center (including the last, the Okinawa branch, established in 1984). According to the existing literature, regional branches had representatives from 10 companies on their management boards, who provided free service to their regional branch in planning, organizing, and implementing various events [1]. As such, there existed the private sector’s voluntary support to the functioning of the institutional infrastructure of QC Circles at the local level. In addition, local chapters (chiku) were established, largely coinciding with the prefecture level. It was at this chapter level of the QCC Center that much of the normal learning about circles and quality control took place. Each chapter has a senior executive from one of the member companies as its chairman, a board of counselors, and a coordinator who is often a university professor [1]. Chapter activities included running QCC Conventions (held throughout the country) and arranging for factory tour exchanges and various study meetings. The membership unit of the QCC Center was the local factories of national corporations. Large numbers of workers, including shop and office floor workers, were involved in these local-level activities. Through chapter activities, a feeling of solidarity and mutual development has been forged among workers across their companies. QC Circle activity was promoted by broadcasting training programs on radio/TV and publishing journals. In this way, JUSE successfully created mass organizations and networks for the QC Circle movement [1].¹¹

In this way, the QC Circle activities initially introduced at the workshop level were developed into the nationwide QC Circle movement by the 1960s. The basic principles of QC Circle activities fully reveal human capabilities, respect for humanity and contribution to the improvement of company.¹² Similarly, JPC established seven Regional Productivity Centers during 1956–1960. While these Regional Productivity Centers were financially independent of JPC, seven chairpersons sit on the JPC Board and frequent liaison meetings were held to ensure coordination and cooperation. In parallel, Productivity Councils were set up at major cities.

To adapt and promote foreign technologies in the Japanese context, JPC created the Productivity Research Institute in 1956. The research institute published productivity statistics and conducted productivity-related research and surveys. Such research included studies on how to support productivity improvement of SMEs, which led to the formulation and dissemination of a ‘cost-accounting’ system for the use of SMEs. Training programs for SME management consultants were initiated. JPC also established four specialized organizations—the Japan Marketing Association, Japan Institute of Industrial Engineering (JIIE), Japan Consumers’ Association, and Japan Packaging Institute―to study the validity and adaptability of new technologies and methods learned through overseas missions and explore possible ways of diffusion in Japan [33]. The membership of these organizations includes both the private sector and academia.

JMA [9] also attaches paramount importance to the ability of people with virtual unlimited potential.¹³ Such value has been inherited by the Way of Efficiency (Noritsu Do) advocated by Yoichi Ueno, a scholar in management and industrial psychology and founder of SANNO Institute of Management (established in 1925) and others.¹⁴ In this sense, Noritsu is the Japanese adaptation of the scientific management method developed in the US. During WWII, JMA was a quasi-governmental body under the control of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. But, after the end of the war, GHQ advised the Japanese government to withdraw all government funding. So, JMA decided to move toward an independent private organization performing consulting activities. JMA began to provide guidance to key industries designated by GHQ/SCP on a fee-basis—such as railways, communications equipment, mining—to increase production and process management. Such consulting activities were conducted with the knowledge and human resources accumulated prior to WWII [25]. JMA is also known for adapting Western maintenance management into Japanese-style Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). In 1961, a Plant Maintenance Committee was established within JMA, which subsequently developed into the Japan Institute for Plant Maintenance (JIPM) in 1981.¹⁵ After in-depth research, JIPM proposed the concept of TPM, which is about plant maintenance with total participation of management and workers. It focuses on equipment and people, and a maintenance technique that improves productivity to achieve zero losses and reinforces production foundations.¹⁶

2.2.3 Diffusion Stage

At the third stage (scaling-up), various measures were mobilized for diffusing quality and productivity improvement management technologies in companies and developing the private sector capability for providing consultancy on practical productivity improvement methods and techniques. All three private organizations were actively engaged in implementing the following activities [14, 33]:

• Consulting services for guidance and advice;

• Education and training programs for companies to teach technical skills and methods;

• Qualification and certification systems;

• Award systems;

• A nationwide campaign through award ceremonies, conventions, and seminars;

• Newsletters and publications.

Consulting services are a practical and effective form of technology transfer and diffusion. These services enable companies to acquire new management technology by solving specific problems and provide on-the-job training (OJT) opportunities. Especially, JMA has been known for its emphasis on consulting services since its creation in 1942. Mindful of fiscal independence from the Japanese government, JMA conducted its first fee-based factory analysis in January 1946. Factory analyses increased from 35 in 1946 to 44 in 1947 and 73 in 1948. Within JMA, a program to educate and certify consultants was also implemented. The number of consultants increased from 12 in 1946 to 55 in 1950 [25]. Subsequently, JMA established JMA Consultants Inc. (JMAC) in 1980 by converting its consulting division into an independent company. JMA’s consulting approach includes tailor-made services and team work with clients and focuses on three changes: process change, mind change, and culture change.

JPC provides individual companies with consulting services on productivity improvement. It follows its own methods of Kaizen consultation, consisting of three components: resources, manpower, and facilities. Each component cross cuts sales, design, production, and procurement processes as deemed relevant. The main activities of JPC are training on managerial skills, management consultation, productivity research, issuing the Japan Quality Award, and engaging in international cooperation. JUSE has been involved in soft technology through which mathematical and statistical methods can be applied to corporate management.

Various training programs were provided on technical skills and methods. Training courses have been tailored to the level of each target group such as top executives, middle-ranking managers, and workers, with different training programs for different industries. JMA’s training program incorporates human resource management by hierarchy (supervisors, middle, and top management), production process (lean production, TPM, TQM), management skills (plant management, balanced score card, ISO), and management skills by functions (R&D, production, procurement, supply chain management, office process improvement). Usually, JPC runs three-month courses for its management consulting training program. It prepares customized training courses for different levels of productivity facilitators. JUSE gives greater priorities to education and training than to consulting services for companies.

Qualification and certification systems have played an important role in developing private sector capability—particularly professional experts who are engaged in technology transfer—and maintaining their abilities above a higher level. Such systems contribute to increasing customers’ trust in those professional experts, as well. Quality Control Specialist (JUSE), Management Consultant (JPC), and Certified Production Engineer (CPE) Qualification (JMA) are some examples of their qualification and certification systems. JUSE has been involved in global quality affirmation, international conference for quality (ICQ), and international conventions on QC Circles (ICQCC).

The award system aims to recognize companies with outstanding performance in improving quality and productivity, or ‘noritsu,’ in industry. The Deming Prize (JUSE), the Japan Quality Award (JPC), and the JMA Human Resources Development Excellence Award (JMA) are typical examples of this. The awards enable award-winning companies to improve their corporate image and reputation, and in turn motivate other companies to work hard for excellence. As such, the awards contribute to encouraging the broader adoption of good practices.

JUSE, JPC, and JMA all promote nationwide public relations/education activities. JUSE annually organizes the Deming Prize Award Ceremony during its Quality Improvement Month and creates slogans for nationwide quality improvement campaigns. It has published a great number of books on QC Circles, QC storylines, and Total Quality Control (TQC, Japanese Kaizen-based TQM). JPC has produced in-house publications that supported productivity facilitators and also issued ‘declarations’ whenever required. JMA has published various ‘suggestions’ to attract the interest of those working in industry and of the general public. All of them also publish various kinds of information, magazines, and newsletters. These include Quality Management (JUSE, monthly), Productivity Newspaper (JPC, weekly¹⁷), and JMA Management Review (JMA, monthly).

To raise the awareness of business managers, executives, production managers, and employees toward the improvement of quality, productivity, and efficiency, all three organizations hold conventions and symposiums to discuss specific themes. These events provide opportunities for successful companies to present their important achievements. Some of these conventions and symposiums are attended not only by company members but also by the general public.

2.3 The Role of Academia, Industry, and Government in Local Learning and Translative Adaptation Process

Collaboration and close interactions among academia, industry, and government have been a key feature throughout the process of local learning and translative adaptation in the Japanese quality and productivity movement. First, Japanese scholars made very important theoretical and practical contributions. They were actively involved in transferring and customizing management principles, tools, and systems as well as developing new ones. As explained before, Kaoru Ishikawa is a most exemplary figure. He is highly regarded as the ‘founder of quality control in Japan’ and the ‘father of QC Circle.’ Ishikawa worked in industry for eight years and returned to the University of Tokyo in 1947 where he graduated. He started studying statistical methods such as statistical quality controls and joined JUSE in 1949. Ishikawa played a key role in establishing an executive committee for QC conferences and sponsoring the conferences and initiating QC Circle activities in 1962. He was extensively engaged in QC consulting for all types of manufacturing industries and services [6]. Ishikawa is also known as the inventor of the Ishikawa Diagram, a cause and effect analysis diagram [5].

Second, there are a large number of well-known engineers and managers who promoted quality and productivity activities in many Japanese companies. It is fair to say that Japanese companies had personnel with sufficient educational background, technical knowledge, and enthusiasm to absorb foreign technologies and make them Japanese. Subsequently, many companies developed their own systems of Kaizen, including the globally known Toyota Production System (TPS) and jishukanri (self-management) activity in the steel industry. For example, Taiichi Ohno, ex-Vice President of Toyota Motor Company, is one of the most prominent industrial practitioners, known for his contributions to consolidating TPS. Taiichi Ohno graduated from the mechanical engineering department of Nagoya Technical High School in 1943, was hired by Toyota Corporation in February 1943, appointed as machine shop manager in 1946, promoted to director (1954), managing director (1964), senior managing director (1970), and executive vice president (1970) positions, and retired from Toyota in 1978. Ohno was the architect of the Kanban or just-in-time system that evolved out of the need to overcome certain restrictions in the marketplace that required the production of small quantities and many varieties under the condition of low demand, at a higher quality, lower cost and based on customer preferences [22]. Taiichi Ohno’s focus was mainly on Gemba improvement activities at the workshop floor level. He is also known for coining the concepts of Muda, Mura, and Muri and codifying the seven types of Muda commonly known as waste [13]. These efforts laid a solid foundation for establishing the Japanese production management system. Overall, Japanese companies have endeavored to train their workers and have developed in-house systems for quality and productivity improvement.

It is also important to note the role of industrial engineers, who have actively conducted training and consulting services to companies. These included Shigeo Shingo, a consultant for Toyota and Panasonic, among others. Shingo joined the JMA in 1945. He provided 79 rounds of consulting to Toyota from 1955 to 1980 focused on designing and training productivity courses for 3,000 technical personnel and contributed much to the development of TPS [13]. Another prominent engineer is Kunio Shirose, who joined JMA in 1960 after graduating from Hokkaido University with a degree in applied chemistry. Later in 1984, he moved to JIPM where he served as a director and advisor to many companies on plant maintenance. He is the author of ‘TPM for Workshop Leaders’ (1984), editor of the ‘TPM Team Guide’ in 1988, and a contributing author in the ‘TPM Development Program’ published in 1989.

Third, public policy played a supportive role. The Japanese government took a comprehensive approach to quality and productivity improvement. Various national systems were established to support quality and productivity improvement efforts by the private sector. These include:

• Standards system (JIS: Japan Industrial Standards, from 1949);

• Public research organizations (kosetsushi, or testing and research centers that meet the industrial needs of local communities);

• Export inspection system (1957);

• Shindan system (SME management consultants system),¹⁸ and so on.

For example, when certifying products for the JIS label, not only the products themselves but also the factory’s quality management systems and facilities are examined in light of whether they have enough capacity to meet the standards. Also, public research organizations (kosetsushi) conducted tests and inspections and provided technological information to local SMEs (prefectures and municipalities). An export inspection system was introduced to improve the quality of export products. On-site inspections were conducted annually by government organizations. As a result, the percentage of rejected products decreased, and product quality improved. Under the shindan system, advice was provided to SMEs on the adoption of scientific management methods and new technologies. A visiting consulting system was established in 1952. These systems were mutually reinforcing [14, 18].

3 Singapore: The Experience of the Government-Led National Movement

In contrast to Japan, Singapore’s national productivity movement in the 1980s was led by the government. It was executed as top-down policy with the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew as the principal promoter. Initial results were rolled out to a wide range of workplaces—in both the public and private sectors—through official agencies.

Singapore is the first country where JICA provided comprehensive technical cooperation—in a venture called the ‘Productivity Development Project (PDP)’—to transfer Japan’s know-how in quality and productivity improvement. This project was requested by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to the Japanese government. With the Prime Minister’s strong commitment and leadership, the Productivity Movement was launched in 1981. The JICA project supported a substantial part of this initiative by mobilizing Japanese experts during 1983–1990. Singapore successfully internalized, scaled up, and institutionalized the Productivity Movement. Based on this experience, by the 1990s Singapore came to offer technical cooperation for productivity improvement in developing countries.

3.1 Leadership and the Role of Core Organizations

From the early days of independence, productivity was high on the agenda of the Singaporean government. The national productivity organization was first created as a Productivity Unit within the Economic Development Board (EDB) in 1964. Later, both employer groups and labor unions in Singapore jointly developed productivity improvement guidelines (The Charter for Industrial Progress), and the unit was formalized as the National Productivity Center (NPC) in 1967. Since then, national productivity organizations have evolved, according to the stages of development and the needs of the Singaporean economy (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2 History of productivity-related organizations

The NPC was upgraded to a separate agency, the National Productivity Board (NPB) in 1972. In 1981, the government launched the Productivity Movement, and the NPB was designated as the principal agency to implement this national productivity drive. Also, the NPB was appointed as the counterpart agency of the JICA-supported PDP with the aim of promoting the Productivity Movement and studying Japan's experience. Separately, the Singapore Productivity Association (SPA) was established in 1973 as an affiliated body of NPB to promote active involvement of organizations and individuals in the Productivity Movement and spread the idea of productivity and its techniques.

In 1996, the NPB was merged with the Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research (SISIR), a standards board that handles quality standards, to become the Productivity and Standards Board (PSB). In 2002, the PSB spun off its service-providing division, changed its name to the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) and shifted its focus to SME development. In April 2018, SPRING was merged with International Enterprise (IE) to form Enterprise Singapore (ESG). Based on such institutional evolution, since 2018, SPA has become an independent association as the national productivity champion.

Despite more than 15 years of efforts to enhance productivity, the leaders of Singapore felt that the country remained far behind in productivity development. In 1979, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was concerned: ‘Workers here were not as proud of or as skilled in their jobs compared to the Japanese or the Germans.’¹⁹ In early 1981, he met key Japanese employers in Singapore to discuss practices, work attitudes, and productivity in Japan. Immediately, the Committee of Productivity was formed to study Japan’s productivity movement and examine the issues of productivity improvement, work attitudes, and labor management relations. In June 1981, he met with Kohei Goshi, then JPC Chairman, and was strongly convinced of the need for a Productivity Movement. The Committee of Productivity compiled a report that emphasized the importance of ‘human aspects’ or mindset change and proposed the establishment of a high-level council to review productivity efforts and outline future strategy.

Based on this proposal, in September 1981, the National Productivity Council (NPC) was established as an oversight and policy coordination body for the Productivity Movement. NPC was chaired by the State Minister of Labor (from 1986, by the State Minister of Trade and Industry) with about 20 high-level representatives from government, employer groups, unions, and academia. The first action of NPC was to launch the Productivity Movement with NPB as the primary implementing agency. NPB was re-structured and expanded to carry out its mission of inculcating the concept of productivity in every man, woman, and child in Singapore [16].

In this process, the Singaporean government requested the Japanese government for bilateral cooperation for productivity improvement, and the JICA-supported PDP was implemented for seven years. A number of the JPC experts were dispatched by JICA and provided technical cooperation throughout the period.²⁰ Tripartite cooperation among the government, employers, and labor unions is a key institutional feature of Singapore’s Productivity Movement. This was inspired by the Japanese productivity movement experience. As such, the Productivity Movement in Singapore was primarily a nationally driven initiative. The practices of Japanese FDI companies operating in Singapore also served as important benchmarks for assessing Singapore’s productivity level.

3.2 Analysis of Three-Stage Evolution of the Productivity Movement

The Productivity Movement in Singapore evolved in three stages (see Fig. 4.3): (i) awareness stage (1981–1985); (ii) action stage (1986–1988); and (iii) ownership stage (1989–1990s). This categorization is based on the perspectives of the Singaporean counterparts who were involved in the JICA-supported PDP and is consistent with the three stages of local learning and translative adaptation explained in the Japanese experience of the above.

Fig. 4.3

(Source Ohno and Kitaw [19], based on the information provided by Mr. Lo Hock Meng [SPA] in September 2010)

Evolution of the productivity movement in Singapore

3.2.1 Awareness Stage

This first stage aimed at creating widespread awareness of productivity among companies and the workforce. The main focuses were to foster positive attitudes, promote teamwork, and recognition for companies and individuals. Massive productivity campaigns were launched at both the national and company levels. November was designated as ‘Productivity Month,’ in which Lee Kuan Yew delivered annual speeches on productivity for seven consecutive year, beginning in 1981. More specifically, NPB took the following actions:

• Education of the public and massive campaigns;

• Information dissemination and training;

• Strengthening company identification;

• Promotion of labor-management joint consultation; and

• Promotion of productivity in the public sector.

Public education was prompted by the launch of the Productivity Movement, accompanied by the publication of productivity data, media support, and changes in schools and tertiary institutions. To disseminate the spirit of productivity to the public, the NPB created a mascot, named Teamy the Bee (a tiny, cute cartoon bee), which symbolizes hard work, team work, and efficiency. Productivity campaign slogans and posters were created, around the key message ‘Together We Work Better.’²¹

Information dissemination and training were conducted in the form of courses that emphasize human relations, a library of local case studies on good management practices, and a registry of courses on productivity and management. To strengthen workers’ identification with companies, various schemes were introduced such as payments of variable bonuses and special awards for long service employees. Furthermore, labor-management joint consultation was promoted through Work Excellence Committees (WECs)²² and QC Circles.

Singapore introduced the Productivity Movement to both the business and public sectors, aimed at broader impacts on popular mindset change. It is particularly notable that Work Improvement Teams (WITs) were implemented in the public sector as part of the civil service reform program [15]. The public sector was the largest employer in Singapore at that time. A WIT is a group of civil servants from the same work unit, irrespective of divisional status, who meet regularly to solve problems, examine improvement opportunities, and develop problem solving skills. So, a WIT can be seen as a Singaporean adaptation of the Japanese-style QC Circle concept applied to its civil service needs. A productivity campaign was launched in the public sector as well, and the Productivity Working Committee was established in the form of joint committee with management and workers. The Civil Service Institute provided various training courses to promote the WITs movement. WITs emphasized worker involvement, participation, and bottom-up management; team members worked together and focused on tackling problems facing their common work areas. While these features are common to QC approach, WITs had wider scope than QCs with their tools and techniques being geared more to service needs and applied to a variety of themes and projects (Ministry of Finance and Civil Service Institute 1982). They were not restricted to any specific level in the organizational hierarchy.²³

3.2.2 Action Stage

At the action stage, the focus shifted from the national promotion of productivity to company-level promotion. This stage aimed at translating productivity ‘awareness’ into specific action at the workplace through participatory programs. It focused on upgrading the skills of management and workers, and the operational efficiency of companies. In 1986, NPB established a Management Guidance Center to administer various management consultancy programs for local companies [17]. Specific programs and activities implemented under the Center include:

• Model Company Project;

• Management Consultancy Referral Scheme;

• Associate Consultants Scheme;

• Industry-based Consultancy Assistance Scheme; and

• Training of Workforce through the Skills Development Fund (SDF).

The ‘Model Company Project’ was implemented jointly by the Japanese (JICA) experts and their NPB counterparts and provided assistance to companies. This paved the way for OJT of NPB staff to equip them with relevant skills. The ‘Management Consultancy Referral Scheme’ and the ‘Associate Consultants Scheme’ are the systems to mobilize those trained under the JICA project as ‘qualified’ private management consultants. NPB allowed private sector participation in the PDP training fellowship in Japan. Those trained became NPB Associate or Referral Consultants. A pool of over 200 associate and referral consultants was created to supplement NPB’s efforts in reaching out to industries [17]. Furthermore, NPB introduced the ‘Industry-based Assistance Scheme’ in 1986. The scheme was designed to raise the level of productivity in six priority industries and assist companies on an industry-wide basis to impact productivity levels. These industries included food manufacturing, restaurants, hotels, retail, textiles and garment, and finance.

Under the Management Guidance Center, NPB assisted companies, particularly SMEs, in improving their business efficiency and productivity management. Cases of successful companies were highlighted to serve as models for the others. NPB also promoted the growth of management consultancy services for SMEs.²⁴

Besides consultancy, a high priority was placed on productivity-related training programs, and companies were encouraged to send their staff for training. For example, NPB teamed up with reputable companies such as Singapore Airlines (Service Quality Center), Philips Singapore (Industrial Engineering Training Center), and Seiko Instruments (OJT Project) to develop national training programs in specific areas for managers and workers. Additionally, extensive trainings to enhance the skills of the workforce were conducted with support from the SDF.²⁵

3.2.3 Ownership Stage

By 1989, companies and individuals had become actively involved in the Productivity Movement. So, the ownership stage aimed at self-sustaining the national movement to ensure that productivity habits form part of the work ethic. Private and public organizations and individuals are encouraged to lead the Productivity Movement. The government launched various initiatives to promote company-level productivity improvement, which include:

• Annual productivity campaign led by the private sector;

• Singapore Quality Award (1994–); and

• Productivity Activist Scheme (1996–).

For example, NPB promoted the private sector to lead annual productivity campaigns, and employer groups were urged to chair the Campaign Steering Committee. The Singapore Quality Award was introduced in 1994 and given to both private and public sector companies. The Productivity Activist Scheme was launched in 1996. This scheme aims to develop a network to enable member companies to benchmark their productivity against partners and improve their skills and techniques. Key activists (productivity ‘champions’) from the public and private sectors were introduced to lead, organize, and influence other members of the workforce in various productivity activities. Resources are pooled for an effective exchange of information in support of productivity improvement.

3.3 Mechanisms for Stakeholder Engagement in the Productivity Movement

To implement the Productivity Movement, the Singaporean government created a centralized oversight and coordination mechanism and reinforced the existing national productivity organization to perform such operational functions as public campaigns, training, consulting, research, measurement, and industrial relations. As Fig. 4.4 shows, the mechanism was built on strong involvement and support of tripartite key stakeholders (public sector, unions, and employers) to ensure that productivity gains be shared among these stakeholders. These institutional factors greatly contributed to the successful awareness raising and scaling-up of the Productivity Movement. This framework has provided channels for involving various groups and institutions and thus facilitated the scaling-up of the movement. Because Singapore is a city state, there was no need for a local-level coordination mechanism.

Fig. 4.4

(Source Ohno and Kitaw [19], based on the information provided by Low Hock Meng [SPA] in September 2010)

Framework for productivity movement (around the 1980s)

At the policy level, in 1981, as a tripartite council, NPC actively involved key stakeholders, annually reviewed productivity programs and outlined its future strategy. As such, NPC ensured national consensus on key productivity strategies and programs. At the operational level, NPB played a key role as the secretariat of the NPC, and also served as the operational arm spearheading the productivity campaign in both the public and private sectors throughout the three stages of the Productivity Movement. Under the oversight of NPC, NPB coordinated and promoted the diffusion of the Productivity Movement, such as productivity awareness, the improvement of skills connected to productivity management techniques and harmonious labor management relations, and so on. It also provided training and management consultancy, spread QC Circles, promoted the concept of productivity, and administered SDF, which provides financial incentives to the companies to send their staff to productivity-related training.

3.3.1 Channels of Awareness Raising and Scaling-Up

At the awareness stage, the productivity campaign was actively promoted in the public sector. The government, as the largest employer, endeavored to set an example of the private sector to improve productivity, work attitudes, and human resource management. The productivity campaign was linked with civil service reform. The Central Steering Committee was formed immediately after the launch of the Productivity Movement, to oversee the movement within the civil service. Its members also included representatives of the civil service unions. An annual civil service campaign was launched in conjunction with the national productivity campaign. WITs were formed in all ministries to develop plans to promote teamwork spirit and productivity. These voluntary groups met regularly to identify improvements that could be achieved and formulate ways to attain the desired improvements [28].

Regarding labor unions, the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) spearheaded the productivity campaign and created the Productivity Promotion Council. The campaign aimed to inculcate productivity and quality-consciousness at the workplace. Regarding employers groups, the Singapore National Employers’ Federation and Singapore Manufacturers’ Federation supported the Productivity Movement. Both unions and employer groups supported the workforce training, with financial incentives coming from the NPB-administered SDF. Furthermore, productivity-related programs and human resource management contents were promoted at various tertiary educational institutions (including polytechnics) to train the future workforce on productivity awareness. In schools, formal curricula teaching teamwork, human relations, and productivity were introduced in various forms, such as group work, moral education, peer-learning, and school essays on productivity [32].

3.3.2 Singapore Productivity Association (SPA) as a Partner with the Private Sector

The Singapore Productivity Association (SPA), founded in 1973 as an affiliated body of the then NPB, also played an important role. While the NPB is a public organization charged with the Productivity Movement as a national project, the SPA is a private body comprised of representatives from companies that provide training and disseminate information on the Productivity Movement in the private sector [33].²⁶ SPA charges fees to its members (institutional or individuals) and organizes courses and seminars, company visits, study tours, and so on, to promote their knowledge and skills acquisition. The members have access to information, training and seminars, and networking opportunities. SPA has promoted the active involvement of organizations and individuals in the movement and expedited its diffusion and techniques.

In 2018, with the creation of the Enterprise Singapore (ESG) which has broad mandate of SME promotion as a new one stop agency, SPA became independent of ESG as the national productivity champion. Currently, SPA, through its Singapore Productivity Centre (SGPC), offers training and consultancy services to members and the public. SGPC represents Singapore at the Asian Productivity Organization (APO), as the national productivity organization.

4 A Chain of Learning and Diffusion of Quality and Productivity Improvement

As explained earlier, learning from the US, Japan launched productivity and QC movements in the 1950s. Compared to the original US model, which was theoretical and statistical, the modified Japanese method emphasized process orientation, worker participation, and hands-on pragmatism. This method or Kaizen spread rapidly among Japanese companies, large and small, to form a core of the Japanese monozukuri (making things) spirit [20]. Subsequently, the two oil crises of the 1970s drove Japanese companies to integrate energy savings into their efforts to improve quality and productivity [5], and Kaizen activities, while originating in the manufacturing sector, began to spread into the non-manufacturing sectors. A typical example is the expansion of the QC movement. The QC movement was soon introduced in the construction industry (the 1970s), then other industries such as finance and insurance industry, retailers, and hospitals, telecommunications, and railways (the 1980s) [2]. The number of QC Circle registrants reached 200,000 nationwide by the mid-1980s and over 400,000 by the mid-1990s. Now, QC Circle activities can be seen in numerous industries [2].

Based on its own experiences, Japan has been assisting in promoting quality and productivity improvement in many developing countries through private channels such as intra-company technology transfer and support for local suppliers, as well as through public channels such as official development assistance (ODA) and guidance provided by various public organizations. By now, Kaizen assistance has become one of the standard menu items of Japanese industrial support in developing countries.

The regional spread of Kaizen began in the mid-1980s, coinciding with the globalization of Japanese business activities. The sharp appreciation of the Japanese yen after the 1985 Plaza Agreement prompted Japanese manufacturing companies to shift their production bases to East Asia, where the production costs were lower. Japanese firms have attempted to duplicate their quality management systems in their factories abroad. Moreover, as they endeavored to increase local procurement of intermediate inputs, local suppliers were requested to conform to Japan’s quality standards. Japanese companies often assist their local partners in learning Kaizen philosophy and practice. In 2005, Toyota published a circle-level identification and instruction guideline for QC circle leaders to globally disseminate the Kaizen know-how accumulated by its group companies over the decades, focusing on how to develop methods and plans to achieve the education and training of circle members [11]. The guideline identified four levels of knowledge and skill to learn and apply―from least to highest level in steps that incrementally enhanced learning ability and ability to learn.

In addition, various public organizations, such as the Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship (AOTS), APO, and JICA began their active engagement with Kaizen assistance in developing countries. This was the time when JICA started its first project to support the Productivity Movement in Singapore in 1983, at the request of the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. The above-mentioned organizations including JPC and JUSE, often participated in ODA-funded projects by transferring their accumulated expertise as consultants and experts. After learning from Japan, Singapore also came to offer technical cooperation for productivity improvement in developing countries, including the neighboring Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries and some African countries [20].

Currently, Japan is promoting quality and productivity improvement in regions beyond Asia, including Latin America and African countries. For example, JICA began providing Kaizen assistance in 2006 and implemented Kaizen projects in nine African countries. Tunisia and Ethiopia were early adopters and developed their own institutional arrangements to promote quality and productivity improvement (see Chap. 7). More recently, JICA supported the Africa Kaizen Initiative (AKI) in collaboration with the African Union Development Agency-New Partnership for Africa’s Development (AUDA-NEPAD) and the Pan-African Productivity Association (PAPA) [8].

5 Conclusion: Implications for Successful National Movements

Both Japan and Singapore initially introduced foreign knowledge and management technologies but developed their own models and systems for improving quality and productivity through testing, local adaptation, and institutionalization. They eventually succeeded in nationwide diffusion. Local learning and translative adaptation were key. The final section of this chapter discusses the lessons learned and implications of their experiences for today’s developing countries which are keen to learn and develop home-grown national mechanisms for quality and productivity improvement.

5.1 National Movements as Societal Learning

From the perspective of local learning and translative adaptation, three points are worth noting. First, national movements for quality and productivity improvement, if properly designed and implemented, are an effective way to promote societal learning and transform the popular mindset toward industrial society. It is important that the government, industry, academia, the workforce, and a broad segment of society participate in the learning process. Second, a mechanism for systemic learning must be established, linking key stakeholders of the society to foster productivity culture and awareness and translate them into actions. This is because a national movement is nationwide engagement with comprehensive coverage and requires continued effort often for a decade or more. Third, there are diverse approaches to introducing foreign models of national movements. In some cases, the government of a recipient country drives the initial learning process, while in other cases, the private sector assumes the role of its initiator.

Although Japan and Singapore took different approaches to initiating and implementing national movements for quality and productivity improvement, societal learning took place in both cases. In Japan, a national movement was initiated with strong ownership of private organizations. The experiences of JMA, JUSE, and JPC discussed in this chapter provide concrete examples of the three-stage process of technology transfer and local learning, adaptation/internalization, and diffusion (see Fig. 1.2 in Chap. 1). With their support, Japanese companies learned and established in-house production management systems. There was enthusiasm for learning across academia, industrial engineers, and companies, and they collaborated closely to improve the quality of Japanese products and the country’s industrial competitiveness. Private organizations played a key role in the case of Japan.

The Productivity Movement in Singapore was a government-led initiative, in which Japanese support was effectively used, especially in the 1980s. The Singaporean experience confirms the vital importance of visionary top leadership in initiating, spreading, and sustaining the Productivity Movement. The establishment of centralized oversight and coordination mechanisms charged with implementing and monitoring productivity promotion activities was also important. Core organizations such as NPC, NPB, and SPA functioned effectively, with strong involvement and support of key stakeholders (public sector, unions, employers, and academia). They organized massive awareness campaigns, implemented training programs and consultancy to upgrade skills, and developed manuals and training materials. The Singaporean experience also suggests that the three stages of the Productivity Movement—awareness, action, and ownership—can be a useful reference for a country where the cultural awareness of productivity is low. Singapore dedicated five years to awareness raising, conducting massive campaigns to disseminate productivity culture to the public.

The case studies also suggest that the degree of private sector dynamism greatly influences who initiate and promote societal learning. Where a dynamic private sector exists, it can take a lead in initiating, scaling-up, and sustaining a productivity movement, and the government can play a supportive role. This was exactly the case in Japan. However, if the private sector is weak as in the case of many developing countries, the government’s role becomes even more important in the introduction, adaptation, and development of the productivity movement accompanied by grassroot participation. Private sector dynamism also includes the absorptive capacity to learn, adapt, and internalize foreign technology. So, the educational and training level of the general workforce becomes important.

5.2 Six Critical Factors for Successful National Movements

What were the concrete mechanisms and factors that enabled Japan and Singapore to launch, implement, and sustain such national movements? Despite the above-mentioned differences, we can draw certain general lessons as well as common methods and instruments for success. The experience of Japan and Singapore suggests that the following six factors are critical for designing and implementing a national movement that can successfully transform the mindset of the people:

• National commitments for quality and productivity movement;

• Institutional infrastructure for quality and productivity movement;

• Grass-roots awareness raising and participation;

• Standardized training and consulting programs;

• Industry-academia-government partnership for quality and productivity movement; and

• Development of private sector capability to sustain quality and productivity improvement.

First, a national commitment for quality and productivity movement is indispensable. A national movement is nationwide engagement to attain economic and social progress, involving active participation of business, industry, workers, government, academia, and the general public. To orchestrate and sustain national movement, strong commitment by higher officials, organizations, and individuals is required. In Singapore, there was strong commitment and engagement by the top national leader. The deep interest of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was critical in making the Productivity Movement widespread and entrenched in that society. In Japan, a sense of urgency to attain post-war economic recovery and enhance the quality of Japanese industrial products was widely shared among political and business leaders, and even the general public. It was the business leaders that took initiatives to create organizations charged with quality and productivity improvement, with public policy playing a supportive role.

Second, strong institutional infrastructure is needed for a national movement. This includes the establishment of core organizations responsible for implementing and coordinating various activities related to quality and productivity improvement. Since quality and productivity improvement depend on both national (economic and structural policies and the quality of public administration) and micro (the quality of managerial, professional, and labor resources) levels, the institutional mechanism to support the national movement should embrace both aspects [23]. Moreover, supporting institutions and mechanisms must be created at the central and local levels. This could include the establishment of a high-level national council with a central ministry or agency assuming the role of the lead organization (or national productivity organization) and the secretariat to the national council, and regional, district, and community-level mechanisms for productivity promotion [23]. These organizations must be linked with broader members of the society, namely, key stakeholders such as the government, business (including business associations and chambers), labor, and academia. Such mechanism should provide channels to disseminate productivity awareness and translate that awareness into actions in their workplace, training, and education. The neutrality of core organizations (and the secretariat of the national movement) is vital to engage multi-stakeholders who may have different interests and concerns, including business and labor unions.

Third, awareness raising campaigns and participation at the grass-roots level are vitally important. In both countries, an annual campaign was conducted to promote the theme of quality and productivity, together with the launch of campaigns by the Prime Minister or business leaders, development of the nationwide program, and the formation of QC Circles within workplaces. Especially in Singapore, the government put a high priority on the public awareness campaigns in the first five-years to foster positive attitudes, values, and a culture of productivity. Massive awareness campaigns were conducted, targeting not only workers and managers, but also government officials and politicians, professionals, students, and the general public. In both Japan and Singapore, highly visible incentive and recognition mechanisms were implemented at the national and local levels. Various instruments were mobilized, such as TV, public speeches by senior government officials or business leaders, and national conventions. Also, award programs are effective for promoting campaigns to reward good performers and stimulate interest in best practices and corporate efforts to excel.

Fourth, standardized and well-designed teaching materials, training, and consulting programs must be created to educate government officials in charge as well as private leaders and participants of the movement on the frontline of implementation. These include curriculum, courses, textbooks, manuals, visual aids, e-contents, TV programs, movies, and stories describing successful nations, firms, and individuals. These can be translated from foreign sources or created by national experts, and made available to public through various media, publications, and a web portal site. It is also important to provide education and training systems at the central and local levels that teach both theory and practice to managers and workers, as well as a higher training system for their trainers.

Fifth, partnerships among industry, academia (including universities), and the government are also important. The Japanese and Singaporean experiences confirm that such linkages work effectively for: (i) studying various international best practices; (ii) producing a new model most suitable for the domestic context by selecting, adjusting, and combining foreign components; and (iii) conducting practice-and application-oriented training. Such linkages should be also useful for preparing suitably trained graduates to meet the manpower needs of industry and providing internship for students.

Lastly, there is a need to develop a critical pool of private management consultants to self-sustain the national movement. The national movement must continue for a sufficiently long time, typically over a decade or more, with evolving emphases. Japan did not face major problems with the sustainability or development of private sector capability—thanks to the existence of a dynamic private sector and core organizations. Furthermore, the companies’ top management and engineers had adequate knowledge to understand the relevant skills and techniques and the desire to adopt them. Factories also had workers capable of absorbing the new management technologies.

As the Singaporean experience shows, for many developing countries, the national movement can be initiated and led by the government through public agencies, But it must be gradually transferred to the private sector to maintain its sustainability. In the case of Singapore, the JICA-supported PDP undertook capacity development of NPB counterparts, as well as private sector consultants. Under the ‘Management Consultancy Referral Scheme’ and the ‘Associate Consultants Scheme,’ those trained under the JICA project became NPB Associate or Referral Consultants and were mobilized as ‘qualified’ private management consultants [17]. As such, a pool of associate and referral consultants was created to supplement NPB’s efforts in reaching out to industries. Such efforts are critical for fostering a feeling of ownership of the productivity movement by individuals. To this end, it is important for core organizations to train private management consultants so that they support productivity improvement at industry and company levels.