Bibliometric Analysis of Kaizen Research Trends in Scopus Database

Bibliometric Analysis of Kaizen Research Trends in Scopus Database

Fidlizan Muhammad¹*, Mohd Yahya Mohd Hussin¹, Azila Abdul Razak¹, Nurul Fadly Habidin², Mad Ithnin Salleh², Nor Azrin Md Latip², Salwa Amirah Awang³

¹Department of Economics, Faculty of Management and Economics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.

²Department of Business and Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Management and Economics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.

³Department of General Studies, Politeknik Sultan Azlan Shah, Behrang Stesen, Perak, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.ICAME2409

Received: 06 December 2024; Accepted: 16 December 2024; Published: 25 December 2024

ABSTRACT

This article aims to analyze the research trends and publication patterns of Kaizen studies indexed in the Scopus database. Using the article title keyword “Kaizen”, information such as authors, citation count, institutions, keywords, and others can be obtained systematically. This bibliometric study employs several analysis tools, including biblioMagika, based on Microsoft Excel, for frequency data analysis, while Biblioshiny and VOSviewer are used for data visualization. Based on the analysis results, the publication of Kaizen research began to be indexed in the Scopus database from 1948 until now. A total of 669 documents were obtained using the term “Kaizen” as the article title. A total of 1,465 authors have produced research related to Kaizen, with 170 authors publishing a total of 193 documents individually. The United States is the country with the most authors researching this field, followed by authors from Japan and India. The application of Kaizen is not limited to the manufacturing sector but is also implemented in the health, education, and other sectors. Studies on Kaizen have attracted the interest of researchers from various disciplines, with active involvement from experts who have been in the field for a long time as well as the presence of new authors who enrich the discourse of Kaizen research with new perspectives and approaches. The results of the bibliometric analysis show that Kaizen is not only related to continuous improvement in the context of production but has also evolved to encompass broader management strategies, innovation, and modern technology, making it a relevant concept in various fields and industrial applications.

Keywords: Kaizen; Contionuous improvement; Productivity; Bibliometric; Citations

INTRODUCTION

Kaizen is a Japanese term composed of two parts: “Kai” meaning change and “Zen” meaning improvement (Newitt, 1996). In essence, Kaizen is an organizational philosophy that emphasizes continuous improvement, focusing on gradual changes within an organization to achieve higher quality and efficiency. This concept has become popular in the context of business management and production, especially in the manufacturing sector. Although originating in Japan, Kaizen is now widely practiced worldwide. It is not limited to the manufacturing industry but also applied in fields such as education, healthcare, and the service sector.

Implementation of Kaizen-based organizational practices have had a significant impact on the global business world, particularly in optimizing productivity, reducing waste, and improving product and service quality. Moreover, it promotes higher standards among employees through increased individual responsibility and a culture of cooperation within the organization. Technological advancements and digital transformation have not sidelined the Kaizen philosophy; instead, Kaizen implementation has evolved to suit contemporary environments, making it relevant in addressing the dynamic challenges of the global market. For instance, the digital application of Kaizen helps management and team members to track progress and collaborate on projects in real-time, even when working remotely. Wang et al. (2023) explain that technologies such as automation, artificial intelligence (AI), and data analytics are used to support employees in performing their tasks and allow them to focus on higher-value activities like problem-solving and innovation. As a result, organizational productivity increases with a good collaboration between humans and technology.

Given the successful application and positive impact of Kaizen on many organizations and industries, it is essential to determine the extent to which this concept is documented and discussed academically and empirically. In this regard, the bibliometric analysis method is a relevant approach to examining the evidence of this concept being accepted and applied in various fields through academic publications (Donthu et al., 2021; Passas, 2024). This analysis aims to identify publication patterns, author collaborations, and to identify the most productive journals or authors as well as current research themes in Kaizen studies.

The main contribution of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of the development of Kaizen research from a bibliometric perspective. Through this analysis, this study can identify research trends, and the main themes discussed. This study will also help researchers understand how the Kaizen concept has evolved in terms of author geography and disciplines and open space for further in-depth studies.

The results of this bibliometric analysis are expected to have significant implications not only for the field of literature but also for industry practitioners interested in implementing Kaizen in their organizations. By understanding the research that has been done, future researchers can identify potential research that has not yet been explored. Furthermore, this study contributes to the existing literature by providing a clear picture of the impact of Kaizen in various industries and fields of study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This section focuses on the conducted bibliometric analysis of Kaizen research. Based on a search in the Scopus database using the keywords “Kaizen” AND “bibliometric”, two documents applying the bibliometric method were found and are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Bibliometric Studies on Kaizen in the Scopus Database

Note: n/a (not stated)

Source: Derived from the Scopus database

Bibliometric analysis has expanded into various fields, but based on Table 2, it remains underexplored in the context of Kaizen. While previous studies, such as Lordelo et al. (2018) and Álvarez-García et al. (2018), have contributed valuable insights, significant gaps in the research persist. Lordelo et al. (2018) applied bibliometric analysis to examine Kaizen in the healthcare industry, and Álvarez-García et al. (2018) investigated Kaizen studies in the Scopus database from 1989 to 2017. However, these studies did not comprehensively cover the evolution of Kaizen research across broader sectors or consider how its applications have diversified over time.

Although there are parallels between this study and Álvarez-García et al. (2018), key differences highlight the unique contributions of this research. First, while Álvarez-García et al. (2018) focused on a fixed period (1989 to 2017), this study extended the search period to October 4, 2024, allowing for the identification of trends and developments in Kaizen research beyond 2017. By not restricting the starting data period for the Scopus database search, this study captures potential early contributions to Kaizen research that may have been overlooked. The analysis of 138 documents from 1989 to 2017, combined with additional studies up to 2024, offers a more comprehensive understanding of Kaizen’s evolution.

Furthermore, this study employs a qualitative bibliometric method to address gaps in previous research, particularly by identifying current themes and key areas of focus that have emerged in recent years. This qualitative approach enables a deeper exploration of the context, thematic diversity, and collaborative dynamics of Kaizen research. It also examines the productivity and relevance of authors and article titles across different time periods, providing insights into the continuity and shifts in scholarly contributions. By addressing these gaps and employing qualitative bibliometric analysis, this study advances the understanding of Kaizen research, highlighting how its application has broadened across various sectors and evolved to align with contemporary challenges and opportunities.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The term “bibliometric” is a rebranding of the term “statistical bibliography” first introduced by Hulme in 1922 (Pritchard, 1969). Since Pritchard coined the term “bibliometric” in 1969, bibliometric analysis has evolved rapidly (Moral-Muñoz et al., 2020) and is now applied across various fields of study (Öztürk et al., 2024). When conducting a bibliometric analysis, researchers commonly use two methodological approaches: utilizing a single database or combining two or more databases. According to Öztürk et al. (2024), the choice of approach does not compromise the quality of the results, as major databases like Scopus and WoS tend to contain overlapping or similar information. Selecting one robust database, such as WoS or Scopus, is typically sufficient to achieve research objectives by providing access to relevant documents. Bibliometric analysis’ reliance on large datasets offers a distinct advantage by allowing researchers to determine the global position of a topic, identify gaps in the literature, and uncover opportunities for future research (Zahra et al., 2021; Donthu et al., 2021).

In this study, the researcher opted to use only the Scopus database for bibliometric analysis, supported by prior research highlighting Scopus’s advantages. Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database, offering global coverage and broad researcher access to scientific journals and conference proceedings. It ensures high-quality data through rigorous content selection and evaluation processes. Scopus also provides detailed metadata records and comprehensive profiles of authors and institutions (Aidi, 2021; Jeflea et al., 2022; Suraya et al., 2024). These features make Scopus an optimal choice for conducting an in-depth bibliometric analysis (Jeroen et al., 2020; Chin & Chew, 2021; Alharthi, 2023; Ardiansyah et al., 2024).

The bibliometric analysis procedure followed a structured approach (Passas, 2024; Öztürk et al., 2024). The first step involved selecting, collecting, and curating a relevant dataset. At this stage, the researcher defined the research topic—Kaizen—based on three justifications. First, Kaizen’s emphasis on continuous improvement through the participation of all organizational members makes it an important concept for evaluation. Bibliometric analysis allows researchers to gauge the extent to which Kaizen has been explored across fields and industries. Second, bibliometric analysis provides insights into research trends, patterns, and collaborations by examining variables such as article titles, author countries, and thematic focus areas. Third, the findings offer a comprehensive summary of the literature, facilitating knowledge dissemination and enabling practitioners, researchers, and institutional managers to access relevant studies and implement Kaizen principles in practice.

Figure 1. Literature Search Process Chart

Source: Alam et al. (2023), Altarawneh et al. (2023), Ahmi et al. (2020)

The process of obtaining documents for this bibliometric study is depicted in Figure 1. As shown, the search strategy was executed using the Scopus database on October 4, 2024, employing a TITLE search to retrieve documents pertinent to the research topic (Altarawneh et al., 2023). The exported data, in a comma-separated values (.csv) format, contained metadata such as source type, year, language, subject, journal title, keywords, abstracts, countries, affiliations, citations, authors, and co-authors. The data were subsequently analyzed using Bibliomagika (Excel format) developed by Ahmi (2024).

To visualize the results, web-based applications such as Biblioshiny (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017) and VOSviewer were employed. These tools generated visual publication maps that elucidated relationships between document data (Al Husaeni & Nadiyanto, 2022; Effendy et al., 2021). Visual elements such as node size, line thickness, and color variations depicted the significance and connections of keywords or items. These visualizations made the data relationships and patterns within the dataset more accessible and interpretable (Alam et al., 2023; Altarawneh et al., 2023).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analysis of Kaizen field information obtained from the Scopus database is shown in Table 1 below.

General Literature Information, Kaizen Field, Subject, and Language

Table 1: General Information on Kaizen Research Literature

Source: Generated by the author(s) usingBibliomagika (Ahmi, 2024) & Biblioshiny (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017)

Based on Table 1, from general information regarding Kaizen studies from 1948 to 2024, a total of 669 documents have been produced by 1,465 authors. Among them, 170 single authors have individually produced 193 documents, while the rest were co-authored, with an average of 2 to 3 authors per document. About 13.89% of documents by authors involved multiple countries. The average age of each document is 9.86 years, indicating that research on Kaizen has a long history and continues to evolve over time. Additionally, the average citation per document is 9.61, suggesting that works in this field have a significant impact on the research community. In terms of document types, Kaizen studies are largely published as journal articles, with 339 documents, followed by conference papers totaling 231 documents. The remaining 99 documents are other types, such as book chapters, editorials, seminar papers, and notes. This reflects that Kaizen research is not only published in academic journals but also widely presented at conferences, with efforts to disseminate it through various publication mediums. A total of 1,187 keywords have been used by authors researching this field, reflecting the multidimensional nature of Kaizen and its application in various contexts and industries.

Table 2: Subject Area on Kaizen

Source: Generated by the author(s) using Bibliomagika (Ahmi, 2024) & Biblioshiny (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017)

Table 2 shows that Kaizen research focuses on four main subjects: Engineering; Business, Management, and Accounting; Computer Science; and Decision Science. Kaizen’s application in these fields is crucial for organizations to produce more efficient, effective, and high-quality products or services. Implementing Kaizen allows organizations to identify issues and optimize decision-making processes by making small, continuous improvements. This helps enhance decision outcomes, improve strategic planning processes, and create a more efficient work culture through continuous improvements involving all employees, which ultimately helps organizations reduce costs and increase productivity.

Kaizen studies in the field of Medicine are also gaining attention. Kaizen in healthcare focuses on continuous improvement in patient care quality, resource management, and safety. This approach helps hospitals and clinics reduce waiting times (Epistola et al., 2023), avoid waste, and improve workflow (Nino et al., 2020), including equipment use and supply management. By involving all staff in improvement processes, Kaizen fosters a collaborative work culture that enhances job satisfaction and creates a safer and more efficient healthcare environment. Through consistent small changes, Kaizen helps reduce treatment errors, accelerate clinical processes, and ensure that each patient receives high-quality care (Yuliati & Andriani, 2021).

In addition to the five related fields, Kaizen elements have also expanded to attract interest in new areas such as Social Sciences, Economics and Business, Mathematics, and others. This demonstrates that Kaizen’s principles can be applied across various fields due to its universal objective of achieving better quality and efficiency.

Table 3: Language Categories in Publications

Source: Generated by the author(s) using Bibliomagika (Ahmi, 2024) & Biblioshiny (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017)

Table 3 shows the languages used by authors in Kaizen-related publications. Most authors publish their Kaizen research in English (95.5%). Meanwhile, 10 documents are published in both German and Spanish, 6 in French, 4 in Portuguese, and other languages such as Arabic, Persian, and Thai each have only one document. This indicates that English is the primary language for research and scholarly communication on Kaizen, reflecting its global role as the lingua franca in academia and professional fields. The dominance of English also facilitates researchers from various countries in sharing and accessing information more widely.

Trends in Kaizen Publications and Citations

The results of the analysis on the number of publications and citations in the field of Kaizen are shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Trends in Kaizen Research Publications and Citations

Source: Generated by the author(s) usingBibliomagika (Ahmi, 2024) & Biblioshiny (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017)

Based on Figure 2, several observations can be made. The number of Kaizen study publications (represented by blue bars) shows a gradual increase from 1989 to 2006, with the highest publication count recorded in 1997, totaling 13 publications. Starting in 2007, the number of publications doubled compared to the previous year, reaching 22 publications in 2007. By 2017, the highest publication count was in 2012, with 32 publications. In 2018, the publication count doubled again from the previous year. Between 2018 and 2023, the peak publication year was 2020, with 54 publications.

The citation trend (shown by the orange line) follows a similar pattern to the number of publications. The first phase, from 1989 to 2007, shows over 200 citations in 1997, 1998, 2003, and 2005. In the second phase, from 2008 to 2017, citations increased, with notable spikes in 2009, 2011, and 2015. In the third phase, 2018 saw the highest citation count, reaching 838 citations.

Overall, the data indicates a growing global interest in Kaizen studies, especially during the last two phases. Although both publications and citations show a downward trend in recent years, interest in the field remains, with a consistent number of publications.

Kaizen Publications by Country

Based on Figure 3, publication data by country is color-coded, with purple representing the highest number of publications and yellow representing the lowest. The United States (USA) leads with the highest publication count, totaling 385 publications. Japan, considered the origin of the Kaizen concept, follows with 191 publications, and then India (135), Brazil (88), Mexico (78), and Indonesia (76). Kaizen research has also attracted authors from other countries, including the UK (70), Spain (53), China (36), Portugal (31), and Turkey (28). Authors from other nations have made moderate contributions to Kaizen research, including Australia (9), New Zealand (8), and some African countries. Overall, the United States, Japan, and India are the leading countries in Kaizen research publications, while other countries also contribute at a more moderate level.

Figure 3: Kaizen Publications by Country of Authors

Source: Generated by the author(s) usingBibliomagika (Ahmi, 2024) & iipmaps

Authors and Highly Cited Documents

Figure 4: Production Over Time

Source: Generated by the author(s) using Biblioshiny (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017)

Figure 4 above shows the 20 most productive authors in Kaizen research. Based on Figure 4, authors such as Van Aken E.M., Farris J.A., Suárez-Barraza M.F., and Doolen T.L. are among the most productive, with consistent publication output over time. Their active contributions to the Kaizen literature reflect their expertise in the field. Larger bubble sizes represent the years in which they had a higher number of publications and were widely cited by other researchers.

Additionally, authors like Singh B. and Kumar S. have shown an increase in publications in recent years, indicating their growing interest and research in Kaizen. Emerging researchers, such as Garza-Reyes J.A. and Ramis-Pujol J., are becoming increasingly prominent in publishing Kaizen-related studies.

Overall, this figure illustrates the continuous evolution of Kaizen research with contributions from both established and new authors. It also indicates that the Kaizen topic remains relevant and attracts researchers from various disciplines, with active involvement from longstanding experts and the presence of new authors who enrich Kaizen studies with fresh perspectives and approaches.

Table 4: Top 20 Most Highly Cited Articles

Note: TC (Total Citations), C/Y (citation per year)

Source: Generated by the author(s) using Bibliomagika (Ahmi, 2024) & Biblioshiny (Aria & Cuccurullo,2017)

Based on Table 4, it is observed that one article has the highest citation count of 200, seven articles have over 100 citations, and 12 articles have more than 60 citations. The article by Brunet and New (2003), titled “Kaizen in Japan: An empirical study” in the International Journal of Operations and Production Management, has the highest citation count of 200 and an annual citation rate (C/Y) of 9.09. This article discusses the origins and application of Kaizen in Japan, the country that introduced the concept. The second-highest cited article is by Farris et al. (2009), discussing the importance of improving human resource quality to achieve maximum productivity objectives. This article has been cited 170 times with a higher annual citation rate of 10.63 compared to the first.

Looking at the annual citation rates, the article by Kumar, Dhingra, and Singh (2018) has the highest rate at 13.29, titled “Process improvement through Lean-Kaizen using value stream map: a case study in India,” published in the International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. The application of Kaizen in new fields and countries has garnered significant attention and citations from researchers. For example, the studies by Barraza et al. (2009) and Barraza and Ramis-Pujol (2010) on applying lean-kaizen to improve efficiency and quality in the public sector in Spain and Mexico received high citation counts of 113 and 112, respectively. Aoki’s (2008) study on the impact of Kaizen practices in manufacturing in Japan applied to a factory in China also received a high citation count of 112. The study by Baril et al. (2016) demonstrates how the Kaizen concept is applied in the healthcare sector, adding a new dimension to the understanding of Kaizen applications outside of the manufacturing industry.

Overall, these studies reflect the diverse approaches and applications of Kaizen across various industry sectors, from manufacturing to public services and education. The focus on human resources and the adaptation of Kaizen in different contexts makes these articles crucial references for researchers and practitioners looking to understand and implement Kaizen in their organizations. The 20 most highly cited articles show that Kaizen research has evolved into a multidimensional approach that includes cultural aspects, technological innovation, sustainability, and strategic applications in various industries worldwide. The sustained interest in Kaizen research, with its high and increasing citation rates, proves that the concept remains relevant and continues to evolve, adapting to modern needs and changes in the current global landscape.

The diversity of research fields applying the Kaizen concept is also influenced by authors from various countries producing publications, as illustrated in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5: Co-authorship

Source: Generated by the author(s) using VosViewer

Figure 5 illustrates the collaboration or relationships between authors from various countries in publishing Kaizen-related articles. To provide statistical evidence for the research results, a network analysis was conducted to quantify the strength and influence of collaborations within this network. Key metrics such as node size, degree centrality, and betweenness centrality were computed to highlight the roles of specific countries in the global Kaizen research network.

The results reveal that the United States emerges as the central hub in this collaborative network, supported by the high degree centrality and betweenness centrality values of its authors. The large size of the nodes representing the United States and the extensive connections confirm its significant influence and role as a key contributor to Kaizen studies. Statistically, authors from the United States are involved in a larger number of co-authorship connections compared to other countries, with collaboration frequency particularly high with Japan, the United Kingdom, and India.
In addition to the United States, Japan, India, and the United Kingdom also show high involvement in research collaboration, as evidenced by their notable centrality measures. Japan, as the origin country of the Kaizen concept, exhibits strong collaborations with other Asian countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and India. The network analysis shows that Japanese authors often act as key intermediaries, bridging collaborations between different countries within the region. European countries, such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and Spain, are also prominently positioned in the co-authorship network. Their moderate-to-high centrality metrics indicate significant engagement in Kaizen research and applications, particularly within the European context.

The statistical analysis further underscores the global nature of Kaizen research. Countries from Latin America, such as Brazil and Mexico, though relatively smaller in node size, demonstrate emerging contributions and collaborations. This finding aligns with the observation that Kaizen is no longer confined to the manufacturing industry but has been adopted across various sectors globally. The calculated metrics for these countries show a growing trend in network connectivity and influence.

Overall, the co-authorship network diagram, supported by statistical evidence, illustrates that Kaizen research is a product of global efforts involving authors from diverse countries. The metrics reinforce the notion that such collaboration facilitates the exchange of ideas and broadens approaches by combining perspectives and experiences from different geographical and cultural contexts. This synergy is critical to advancing the application of Kaizen worldwide

Keywords and Current Research Trends in Kaizen

The analysis of keywords used by authors in a publication can provide readers with an overview of the author’s research field, research patterns, relationships between topics, as well as the direction and potential of future research. In this regard, the keyword analysis is presented through word cloud analysis, co-occurrence keyword analysis, and trend topic analysis

Figure 6: Wordcloud

Source: Generated by the author(s) using Biblioshiny (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017)

Based on Figure 6, which is a word cloud visualizing terms associated with Kaizen, statistical evidence from a term frequency analysis highlight that “continuous improvement” appears with the highest frequency. This prominence underscores its central role in Kaizen, emphasizing an ongoing process of enhancing quality, efficiency, and productivity within organizations. Co-occurrence analysis reveals that these concepts are strongly linked with terms such as “lean manufacturing” and “lean production,” both of which feature prominently in the word cloud. The lean methodology focuses on reducing waste while maximizing value for customers, a principle closely aligned with Kaizen.

Statistical data further demonstrates the frequent association of the term “kaizen events” with Kaizen practices. These events, characterized by intensive sessions aimed at driving significant short-term changes, contribute to workflow optimization and productivity enhancement. Additionally, terms like “quality management” and “process improvement” exhibit high term frequency and co-occurrence values, reflecting their strong connection to Kaizen. This indicates the role of Kaizen in fostering consistent quality practices and facilitating process improvements through systematic analysis and iterative enhancements.

Moreover, terms such as “kaizen blitz” and “six sigma” frequently co-occur with Kaizen, signifying the integration of these methodologies to reduce defects and optimize production processes. This highlights the synergy between Kaizen and other process improvement frameworks, which collectively provide comprehensive solutions for streamlining business operations. The quantitative term analysis reinforces the view of Kaizen as a holistic approach, encompassing both incremental changes and large-scale strategic initiatives to achieve continuous improvement across organizations.

The frequent appearance of terms like “total quality management,” “productivity,” and “data-driven” in the word cloud points to Kaizen’s integration into modern management practices aimed at enhancing organizational effectiveness. These findings are further substantiated by the co-occurrence keyword analysis presented in Figure 7, which offers deeper insights into the interconnectedness of these terms within the Kaizen research landscape.

Figure 7: Co-Occurance Keyword

Source: Generated by the author(s) using VosViewer

Based on Figure 7, statistical analysis of the co-occurrence keyword network reveals that the term “Kaizen” occupies a central position, highlighting its strong interconnections with various related concepts. Metrics such as degree centrality confirm that “continuous improvement” and “lean” are the two most closely related keywords to Kaizen. This underscores the frequent application of Kaizen principles alongside the lean methodology to drive continuous enhancement of business processes and operations. Additionally, terms such as “lean manufacturing” and “lean production” emerge as key nodes, further validating Kaizen’s extensive use in manufacturing contexts to minimize waste and boost efficiency.

The network analysis also identifies significant associations with terms like “process improvement,” “quality management,” and “value stream mapping,” reflecting Kaizen’s emphasis on optimizing processes and enhancing quality across multiple sectors. The statistical strength of these connections supports Kaizen’s role as a pivotal approach to process efficiency and quality improvement.

Moreover, keywords such as “5S,” “six sigma,” and “total quality management” exhibit strong co-occurrence values with Kaizen, indicating their complementary use in achieving substantial performance advancements. Emerging terms like “innovation,” “sustainability,” and “industry 4.0” in the network signal the evolution of Kaizen to incorporate modern industry trends, including advanced technologies and environmentally sustainable practices. The connections between Kaizen and terms like “healthcare” and “hospitals” highlight its application beyond manufacturing, demonstrating its versatility in enhancing efficiency and quality in non-industrial contexts.

Overall, the co-occurrence keyword network analysis, supported by statistical evidence, illustrates that Kaizen extends beyond its traditional association with continuous improvement in production. It has evolved to encompass broader management strategies, foster innovation, and integrate modern technologies, solidifying its relevance across diverse fields and industrial applications.

Based on Figure 8, which presents the trend of topics in the Kaizen field from 2004 to 2024, a clear increase in the diversity of keywords related to Kaizen is evident over time. Statistical analysis of term frequencies shows that between 2004 and 2010, Kaizen-related topics were relatively narrow in scope, predominantly focusing on terms such as “lean manufacturing,” “management,” and “quality management.” However, post-2010, there is a noticeable rise in the occurrence of terms such as “continuous improvement,” “lean,” and “process improvement,” reflecting a growing emphasis on industrial efforts to enhance processes and efficiency.

Figure 8: Trend Topics in the Kaizen Field

Source: Generated by the author(s) using Biblioshiny (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017)

This trend continues into the 2020s, with the emergence of more contemporary topics such as “industry 4.0,” “youth,” “sustainability,” and “healthcare,” indicating the broader and evolving applications of Kaizen. Analytical approaches and data-driven methodologies have also gained prominence, as evidenced by the increased frequency of terms like “six sigma,” “value stream mapping,” and “data envelopment analysis.” This marks a shift towards integrating advanced analytical tools and data management strategies to improve quality and productivity. Keywords such as “innovation,” “change management,” and “lean principles” display a consistent upward trend, highlighting the integration of Kaizen into modern management practices and organizational innovation strategies.

Overall, the trend analysis of topics underscores the development, adaptability, and sustained relevance of the Kaizen concept across various industries and global contexts over time. The statistical evidence supports the conclusion that Kaizen is no longer confined to its origins in Japan but has become a globally embraced framework. Its widespread implementation across diverse sectors demonstrates its critical role in achieving organizational objectives and contributing to sustainable development goals.

CONCLUSION

A bibliometric analysis of Kaizen document publications in the Scopus database has revealed several key findings. First, this study shows that research and publications on Kaizen began as early as 1948. Originating as an organizational philosophy in Japan, Kaizen emphasizes continuous improvement to enhance quality and productivity. Today, Kaizen contributes to advancements across various sectors beyond just manufacturing, including education, healthcare, tourism, and more.

Indexed publications on Kaizen studies demonstrate a steady increase over time. Interestingly, Kaizen research has undergone significant evolution. It is now not solely associated with incremental improvements but serves as a foundational methodology to achieve broader organizational objectives, incorporating aspects like cost, innovation, sustainability, technology, and others. While Kaizen began in Japan, much of the research on it is now conducted by scholars in the United States, indicating Kaizen’s adaptability across various sectors and countries.

Currently, Kaizen publications focus on emerging themes such as Industry 4.0, waste reduction (muda), and Six Sigma. These newer themes are linked with traditional ones like total quality management, continuous improvement, and management. This blend of old and new themes highlights Kaizen’s evolution and its continued relevance, adapting to various contexts, sectors, and needs. This study offers deeper insights into Kaizen’s publication dynamics and how it interacts with the global context.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to express gratitude to the Research and Innovation Center (RMIC), UPSI, and the Faculty of Management and Economics (FPE), UPSI, for the indexed publication incentives provided to promote the publishing culture.

REFERENCES

1. Ahmi, A. (2021). Bibliometric Analysis for Beginners-A starter guide to begin with a bibliometric study. Malaysia, No publisher
2. Ahmi, A. 2024. Biblio Magika, available from https://bibliomagika.com. Retrieved on September,15, 2024.
3. Al Husaeni, D. F., & Nandiyanto, A. B. D. (2022). Bibliometric using VOS viewer with publish or perish (using google scholar data): from step-by-step processing for users to the practical examples in the analysis of digital learning articles in pre and post COVID-19 pandemic. ASEAN Journal of Science and Engineering. 2(1), 19–46. https://doi.org/10.17509/ ajse.v2i1.37368
4. Alam, A., Fianto, B. A., Ratnasari, R. T., Ahmi, A., & Handayani, F. P. 2023. History and Development of Takaful Research: A Bibliometric Review. SAGE Open. 13(3),1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231184852
5. Alharthi, R.H., Nor Zafir, Md. S., Mazilah, A., Adnan, A., Faisal, F., & Roshazlizawati, M. N. (2023). Research trends, developments, and future perspectives in brand attitude: A bibliometric analysis utilizing the Scopus database (1944–2021). Heliyon. 9, e12765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12765
6. Altarawneh, M., Alhmood, M. A., Mansour, A. Z., & Ahmi, A. 2023. Comprehensive Bibliometric Mapping of Publication Trends in Earnings Management. Economic Studies (Ikonomicheski Izsledvania). 32(5),179-203.
7. Álvarez-García, J., Durán-Sánchez, A. & del Río-Rama, M.D.I.C. (2018). Systematic bibliometric analysis on Kaizen in scientific journals”, The TQM Journal. 30(4), 356-370. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2017-0171
8. Aoki, K. (2008). Transferring Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants in China. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 28(6), 518-539. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570810875340
9. Ardiansyah, W., Suparto, R.M. & Amri, P. (2024). Bibliometric analysis and visualization of state administrative law in Scopus database from 2017-20121. Cogent Social Sciences. 10(1), 2310935. https://doi.org/10.1080/23321886.2024.2310935
10. Aria, M. & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics. 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.
11. Baril, C., Gascon, V., Miller, J. & Côté, N. (2016). Use of a discrete-event simulation in a Kaizen event: A case study in healthcare. European Journal of Operational Research. 249(1), 327-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.036
12. Brunet, P. A. & New, S. (2003). Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 23(12), 426-446. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570310506704
13. Chin, H., & Chew, C. M. (2021). Profiling the research landscape on electronic feedback in educational context from 1991 to 2021: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Computers in Education. 8(4), 551–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692- 021-00192-x
14. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W.M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research.133, 285–296.
15. Effendy, F., Gaffar, V., Hurriyati, R., & Hendrayati, H. (2021). Analisis Bibliometrik Perkembangan Penelitian Penggunaan pembayaran Seluler Dengan vosviewer. Jurnal Interkom: Jurnal Publikasi Ilmiah Bidang Teknologi Informasi Dan Komunikasi. 16(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.35969/interkom.v16i1.92
16. Epistola, R., Ho, B., Leong, S., Ali, S., Germono, R., Kummerfeldt, C., Gutierrez, G., Shim, J., Lee, J.M. & Yeh, J.J. (2023). Applying Lean Kaizen to Improve Timely Computed Tomography Scan Appointments for Oncology Patients in a Safety Net Hospital. JCO Oncology Practice. 19(4), E465-E469. https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.22.00393.
17. Jeflea, F. V., Danciulescu, D., Sitnikov, C. S., Filipeanu, D., Park, J. O., & Tugui, A. (2022). Societal technological megatrends: A bibliometric analysis from 1982 to 2021. Sustainability. 14(3), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031543
18. Jeroen, B., Michiel, S., Andrew, P., Grégoire, C. & Reza, K. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies. 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
19. Kumar, S., Dhingra, A.K. & Singh, B. (2018). Process improvement through Lean-Kaizen using value stream map: a case study in India. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 96, 2687–2698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1684-8
20. Lordelo, S.A.V., Nogueira, S.M.S., de Farias Filho, J.R., Costa, H.G., Barbosa, C.L., Calado, R.D. (2021). Kaizen and Healthcare: A Bibliometric Analysis. In: Dolgui, A., Bernard, A., Lemoine, D., von Cieminski, G., Romero, D. (eds) Advances in Production Management Systems. Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable and Resilient Production Systems. APMS 2021. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 631. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85902-2_34
21. Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. Profesional De La información, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
22. Newitt, D. J. H. (1996). Beyond BPR and TQM- managing the processes: Is KAIZEN enough? In Proceedings Industrial Engineering, London, Institution of Electric Engineers,1–5.
23. Nino, V., Claudio, D., Valladares, L. & Harris, S. (2020). An enhanced kaizen event in a sterile processing department of a rural hospital: A case study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 17(23), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238748.
24. Passas, I. (2024). Bibliometric Analysis: The Main Steps. Encyclopedia. 4, 1014–1025. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4020065
25. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation. 24, 348-349.
26. Suarez Barraza, M.F., Smith, T. and Mi Dahlgaard‐Park, S. (2009). Lean‐kaizen public service: an empirical approach in Spanish local governments. The TQM Journal. 21(2), 143-167. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542730910938146
27. Suárez‐Barraza, M.F. and Ramis‐Pujol, J. (2010). Implementation of Lean‐Kaizen in the human resource service process: A case study in a Mexican public service organization. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 21(3), 388-410. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381011024359
28. Suraya, A., Noor Emilina, M. N., Syafiq, A.H.H., & Nur Syuhada, A. (2024). A Bibliometric Analysis: Navigating Publication Trends in Academic Dishonesty in Higher Education. Akademika. 94(2), 419-437. https://doi.org/10.17576/akad-2024-9402-24
29. Wang, J., Xing, Z. & Zhang, R. (2023). AI technology application and employee responsibility. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 10, 356. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01843-3
30. Yuliati, V., & Andriani, H. (2021). Implementation of Lean Kaizen to Reduce Waiting Time for the Indonesian Health Social Security Agency Prescription Services in Hospital Pharmacy Installation Implementation of Lean Kaizen to Reduce Waiting Time for the Indonesian Health Social Security Agency Prescription Services in Hospital Pharmacy Installation. Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 9(E),1495-1503 https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2021.7610.
31. Zahra, A. A., Nurmandi, A., Tenario, C. B., Rahayu, R., Benectitos, S. H., Mina, F. L. P., & Haictin, K. M. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of trends in theory-related policy publications. Emerging Science Journal. 5(1), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-2021-01261
32. Öztürk, O., Kocaman, R. & Kanbach, D.K. (2024). How to design bibliometric research: an overview and a framework proposal. Rev Manag Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0.