See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266064646

EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION SYSTEM (KAIZEN TEIAN) THE BOTTOM-UP

APPROACH FOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT

Article

CITATIONS READS

14 765

2 authors:

Lavinia Nicoleta Neagoe Vladimir Mărăscu-Klein

Universitatea Transilvania Brasov Universitatea Transilvania Brasov
10 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lean and Industry 4 View project

Active learning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lavinia Nicoleta Neagoe on 22 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSN 1582 - 0246
R E C E N T® Vol. 10 (2009), no. 3(27)

RECENT is a Registered Mark of Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania

Journal type B according to the National University Research Council, Romania
Published by “Transilvania” University
RECENT journal is scientifically sustained by
Press, Brasov, Romania
www.unitbv.ro/faculties/biblio/Editura Romanian Association for Nonconventional Technologies,
editura@unitbv.ro Brasov Branch

Journal address:
Mihai Viteazul 5, All rights reserves. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
Brasov, 500174, Romania distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval
Tel / Fax. 0268-477113 system, without the prior written consent of RECENT journal, including, but
e-mail: recent@unitbv.ro not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or
www.recentonline.ro broadcast for distance learning.

Editorial Board
Scientific Board
PhD.Prof.Eng.Ec. Ioan ABRUDAN, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania, President of AMIER
PhD.Prof.Eng. Lubomir DIMITROV, Technical University of Sofia, Bulgaria
PhD.Prof.Eng. Nicolae Valentin IVAN, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania
PhD.Prof.Eng. Teodor MACHEDON-PISU, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania
PhD.Prof.Eng. Niculae Ion MARINESCU, POLITEHNICA University of Bucharest, Member of
Unconventional Technologies Committee of Romanian Academy, Timisoara
Branch, President of Bucharest Branch
PhD.Prof.Eng. Alexandru D. MUNTEANU, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania
PhD.Prof.Eng. Gheorghe OBACIU, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania, Member of
Unconventional Technologies Committee of Romanian Academy, Timisoara
Branch
PhD.Prof.Eng. Ileana ROŞCA, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania
PhD.Eng., Dipl. Phys. Hans-Peter SCHULZE, Otto von Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Germany

Honorific Members
PhD.Prof.Eng. Ion VIŞA, Rector of Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania
Karl FEHRINGER, Editor in Chief of ERLAFTAL-BOTE, Austria
PhD.Prof.Eng. Vasile BEJAN, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania

Technical Staff
PhD.Eng. Romeo CIOARĂ Editor in Chief
PhD.Eng. Cristian PISARCIUC Senior Editor
PhD.Eng. Vladimir MĂRĂSCU-KLEIN Scientific Secretary
PhD.Eng. Ioan MILOŞAN Scientific Secretary
PhD.Eng.Ec. Cătălin GHEORGHE Staff Secretary
PhD.Eng. Flavius SÂRBU Marketing & PR Management
PhD.Eng. Andrea DEACONESCU Linguistic Administrator
PhD.Eng. Daniel MUNTEANU Member

The 27th issue of RECENT journal was edited and multiplied with support of
Transilvania University of Brasov and
Brasov County Council (by Scientific Activities, Education, Culture, Cults Committee)

RECENT, Vol. 10, no. 3(27), November, 2009

 Proceedings of the
th
5 International Conference on
Economic Engineering and Manufacturing Systems
ICEEMS 2009
26th – 27th November, 2009
Brasov, Romania
Organized by:
Transilvania University of Brasov
Economic Engineering and Manufacturing Systems Department

With the support of:

Ministry of Education, Research and Innovation
Machines and Manufacturing Systems Research Center
Scientific papers in the fields Organising Committee
Innovating Materials, Processes and Products PhD Assoc. Prof. Catrina CHIVU – chairman
Environment Protection PhD Prof. Mariana DELIU
Sustainable Development PhD Assoc. Prof. Mihai IONESCU
CAD/CAM/CAPP/CAE Systems PhD Prof. Vladimir MĂRĂSCU-KLEIN
Machines and Equipment PhD Prof. Tudor DEACONESCU
Manufacturing Systems Reliability PhD Assoc. Prof. Cristian PISARCIUC
Quality Engineering PhD Prof. Andrea DEACONESCU
Systems Management and Logistics PhD Prof. Adriana FOTA
PhD Lecturer Cătălin CHIVU
Lecturer Georgiana LIMBĂŞAN
PhD Lecturer Cristina GĂVRUŞ
Lecturer, Izabella ICHIM

International Scientific Committee

PhD Prof. Ioan ABRUDAN, Romania PhD Prof. Nicolae V. IVAN, Romania
PhD Prof. Traian AURITE, Romania PhD Prof. Søren JENSEN, Denmark
PhD Prof.Gheorghe BONCOI, Romania PhD Prof. Vladimir MĂRĂSCU KLEIN, Romania
PhD Prof. Gavrilă CALEFARIU, Romania PhD Prof. Liviu MORAR, Romania
PhD Prof. Dumitru CATRINA, Romania PhD Prof. Gheorghe OBACIU, Romania
PhD Prof. Romeo CIOARĂ, Romania PhD Assoc. Prof. Rosa Maria RIO BELVER, Spain
PhD Prof. Tudor DEACONESCU, Romania PhD Prof. LaurenŃiu SLĂTINEANU, Romania
PhD Prof. Mariana DELIU, Romania PhD Prof. Eugen STRĂJESCU, Romania
PhD Prof. Lubomir DIMITROV, Bulgaria PhD Prof. Kamran TABESHFAR, England
PhD Prof. Adrian GHIONEA, Romania PhD Prof. Ion TUREAC, Romania
PhD Prof. Axel GRÄSER, Germany PhD Prof. Ion VIŞA, Romania
PhD Prof. Sorin IGNAT, France PhD Prof. Snejana YORDANOVA, Bulgaria
PhD Prof. Constantin ISPAS, Romania

Editorial Board
PhD. Assoc.Prof. Eng. Catrina CHIVU
PhD. Prof. Eng. Mariana DELIU
PhD. Assoc.Prof. Eng. Cristian PISARCIUC
RECENT, Vol. 10, no. 3(27), November, 2009
 CONTENTS
Vol.10, no. 3(27), November, 2009

Authors Presentation 160

Magdalena BARBU, Gheorghe BONCOI
Tool Management in the Production System 171
Diana BĂRGLĂZAN, Anca DRĂGHICI, Mihaela VARTOLOMEI
Eco-Efficiency – The New Dimension of Economic Efficiency 175
Ionela BUCŞE, Ion CIUPITU, Adela IONESCU
The Analysis of the Technologic Parameters Influence in Obtaining the Alloyed Sintered
Steels by Two-Steps Sintering 181
Gavrilă CALEFARIU, Adriana FOTA, Cristina GĂVRUŞ, Flavius SÂRBU,
Magdalena BARBU, Nicolae BOIAN
Management of Manufacturing Systems’ Adapting and Dynamic State Times 187
Dumitru CATRINA, Ştefan VELICU, Lucian MIHAI, Alexandru VELICU
Knife Threading on Multi-Axis Automatic Lathe and CNC Lathe 191
Dumitru CATRINA, Marius PARASCHIV
Unfolded Profile of Cylindrical Cams of Multispindle Automatic Lathe 195
Cătălin-Iulian CHIVU, Catrina CHIVU
New Matlab Functions Applied to Mechatronic Systems 199
Cătălin-Iulian CHIVU
Systems Movement Data Acquisition 203
Daniela COMAN, Adela IONESCU, Mihaela FLORESCU
Manufacturing System Modeling Using Petri Nets 207
Daniel CRISTEA, Cristian IONESCU, Alexandru MUNTEANU, Daniel MUNTEANU
The Corrosion Characterization of Ti-Si-C Thin Films Obtained by Magnetron Sputtering
Deposition 213
Ioan CRISTIAN
Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Simulation of Coulomb Friction 219
Ioan CRISTIAN
Influence of Spool Supplied Flow Non-Linearity on the Behaviour of the Hydraulic Motor 223
Alexis DAJ, Andreea CHIRCA
Digital Marketing Instruments: Using Online Communities for Product Innovation 227
Alexis DAJ, Andreea CHIRCA
Marketing Strategies: Innovative Financial Services – Determining or Overcoming the Crisis 233
Tudor DEACONESCU, Andrea DEACONESCU, Georgiana LIMBĂŞAN,
Izabella ICHIM, Cristina GĂVRUŞ
Pneumatic Muscle Actuated Equipment for the Passive Exercising of Inferior Limb Bearing Joints 237
Gheorghe DELIU, Mariana DELIU
Rolling Disk Dynamics 241
Gheorghe DELIU, Mariana DELIU
Monowheel Dynamics 245
Konstantin DIMITROV
Fault Detection in Industrial Air - Processing Sensors Controlled System 249

RECENT, Vol. 10, no. 3(27), November, 2009 157

 Contents
Dumitru DUMITRU, Eugen STRĂJESCU
Theoretical Considerations Concerning the Determination of Value for the Critical Speed of
the Ball Screws from Numerical Axes Structure 255
Aurel FRATU, Laurent VERMEIREN, Jean-Francois BRETHÉ
Study of the Assembly Motion for a Virtual Assembly System 259
Vanessa GARCÍA
Teaching in English “Manufacturing Systems” to Students Whose Mother Tongue is not English 265
Cristina GĂVRUŞ, Adriana FOTA, Gavrilă CALEFARIU
Original Software Package for Calculating the Selling Price of Industrial Products 269
Cătălin GHEORGHE
Some Aspects Regarding Economical and Financial Analysis Contribution to the Branch of
Economics 273
Cătălin GHEORGHE
Way of Financial Crisis Transmission in Romania 277
Adrian GHIONEA, Dumitru CATRINA, Nicolae PREDINCEA, Lidia Florentina PARPALĂ
Generation Features of Polygonal Areas on Lathes 281
Roxana GREJDĂNESCU, Eugen STRĂJESCU, Valeriu AVRAMESCU
Considerations Regarding the Complex Surfaces Processing by Using CNC Machine Tools 285
Petr HRABĚ, Rostislav CHOTĚBORSKÝ, Monika NAVRÁTILOVÁ
Influence of Welding Parameters on Geometry of Weld Deposit Bead 291
Izabella ICHIM
Experimental Determination of Connecting Pipe Length Influence to the Data Acquired 295
Izabella ICHIM
Experimental Determination of Pneumatic Muscle Inflation and Deflation Time 299
Adela IONESCU, Daniela COMAN
Improving the Behavior Quality of Excitable Media Phenomena Using Recent Computational
Tools 303
Tudor IRIMIAŞ, Adrian PÎSLĂ
The Contribution of Change Management on the Sustainable Development 309
Tudor IRIMIAŞ, Adrian PÎSLĂ
The Presence of Change Management in the System Management Processes 313
John KECHAGIAS, Vassilis IAKOVAKIS, George PETROPOULOS,
Stergios MAROPOULOS
Α Parameter Design in Turning of Copper Alloy 317
Vladimir MĂRĂSCU KLEIN
Life Cycle Costs of Products 321
Vladimir MĂRĂSCU KLEIN, Claudiu COVRIG, Cristina FILIP, Luciana STAN
Technical–Economic Evaluation Subsystems Energy Production Systems within the Light
Parameter "Energy Intensive" 325
Jan KRMELA, Miroslav MÜLLER, Vladimíra TOMANOVÁ, Soňa RUSNÁKOVÁ
Using of Computational Modelling to Long-Fibre Composite 329
Jan KRMELA
The Computational Modelling of Tire 333

158 RECENT, Vol. 10, no. 3(27), November, 2009

 Contents
Georgiana LIMBĂŞAN, Ion TUREAC
Considerations upon the Possibilities of Applying the Value Analysis Method in Manufacturing
Rolling Contact Bearings 337
Georgiana LIMBĂŞAN
Applications of Value Analysis within Bearing Industry 343
Miroslav MÜLLER, Jan KRMELA, Juraj RUŽBARSKÝ
Influence of Adhesive Bonded Surface Texture on Adhesive Bonding Process 349
Gabriel MUNTEANU, Adrian GHIORGHE
A Comprehensive Static and Modal Analysis of ”5R” Kinematic Chains Using Virtual Techniques 355
Lavinia Nicoleta NEAGOE, Vladimir MĂRĂSCU KLEIN
Employee Suggestion System (Kaizen Teian) the Bottom-up Approach for Productivity
Improvement 361
Cristina Ileana PASCU, Iulian POPESCU
Research about Roughness for Mating Members of a Cylindrical Fine Fit after Turning with
Small Cutting Feeds 367
Ioana PETRE, Tudor DEACONESCU
Isokinetic Equipment Designed for Therapeutic Exercises 373
Ioana PETRE, Dan PETRE
Studies on the Applicability of the Pneumatic Muscle in Industry 377
George PETROPOULOS, John KECHAGIAS, Vassilis IAKOVAKIS,
Stergios MAROPOULOS
Surface Roughness Investigation of a Reinforced Polymer Composite 381
Cristian PISARCIUC
Information Systems Architecture for e-Learning 385
Corina POP, Gabriela MAILAT
Radio Frequency Technology in Libraries 391
Iulian POPESCU, Cristina Ileana PASCU
Aesthetic Surfaces Based on Epicycloids and Orthocycloids, Generated by Vibro-Rolling 397
Maria POPESCU, Simona LACHE
Entrepreneurship in University 401
Maria POPESCU, Mircea NEAGOE
Entrepreneurship in University Research 407
Rosa Maria RIO-BELVER, José Maria BERENGUER, Zuriñe GOMEZ DE BALUGERA
Re-engineering the Knowledge Management Process. The Case of the University College of
Engineering 413
Yanko SLAVCHEV
Some Aspects of the Lifting Dynamics of Fork Lift Trucks 419
Galina TODOROVA, Valentin DIKOV
Reliability of the FEM Calculations of the Fracture Mechanics Parameters 425
Marian Nicolae VELEA, Simona LACHE
Thermoplastic Sandwich Forming - Numerical and Experimental Research 431

Electronic version of RECENT® Journal, ISSN 2065-4529, could be accessed at: www.recentonline.ro

RECENT, Vol. 10, no. 3(27), November, 2009 159

 International Conference on Economic Engineering and Manufacturing Systems
Braşov, 26 – 27 November 2009

EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION SYSTEM (KAIZEN TEIAN)

THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH FOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT
Lavinia Nicoleta NEAGOE, Vladimir MĂRĂSCU KLEIN
Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania

Abstract. In a globalization environment, the organizations’ competitive advantage is determined by the products’
cost/quality ratio which is in direct correlation with the employees’ knowledge, attitude and commitment, at all the
levels of the company. The creative ability is present in everyone, needing only to be developed through adequate and
accessible systems, known as Employees Suggestion System (the English interpretation of Japanese system name:
Kaizen Teian). This article aims to give the essential guidance in order to draw up and implement such a system that
helps develop the motivation and creativity of all the members and a bottom-up approach for productivity increase of
each organization. Based on Japanese and Western countries experiences, are presented the potential areas of
improvement, how to encourage people to participate and work, motivating tools and awards, review and evaluation
possibilities. An implementation model is presented. In the last part, as result of ten years of experience in this field of
activity in Romanian companies, are presented the key points for a good implementation.

Keywords: suggestion system, Kaizen Teian, employees’ involvement, continuous improvement, cost saving

1. Introduction the company vision, mission and strategy, long

Nowadays, the companies have access to term objectives and local conditions (management
new technologies and systems. Then, what will style, national and organizational culture) [1, 3, 4].
make the difference? More and more, the Romanian companies start to implement
organization efforts are oriented to theirs peoples such systems with their own efforts or, through
and new organizational methods. Each company know-how transfer. The process results are
must select and put in practice a pool of tools to different; the main influences are coming from the
helps develop the motivation and creativity of all management commitment and resources allocated.
the members and increase productivity. It is a
known fact that the employees, who are close to an 2. General frame
operation, process or function, are often in a Every job has two important components.
position to observe how things might be improved. One of them is standardization, or support of the
Varying degrees of savings can be achieved when daily status quo, and the other is destroying the
such ideas are brought forward and implemented. status quo in order to improve. Standardization
For more than 25 years, the Japanese means maintaining present levels, the present
concept of Kaizen (continuous improvement), and character of the work. On the other side, it is also
the managerial techniques behind it, has been crucial to incorporate into the company structure a
universally accepted all over the world. The system for breaking away from the existing
international standard ISO TS 16949 requests to all circumstances, so that the company can surpass
employees “to consider continuous improvement present performance levels.
as their permanent duty, by proposing, evaluating Successful companies are those that are able
and gradually implementing small improvements, to strike an effective balance between the element
directly in their own workplace” [1, 2]. of standardization and the innovative forces
The companies, from all industries, but represented by innovation and Kaizen (continuous
especially those from automotive industry, put in improvement).
practice different employee’s suggestion systems, Major innovations bring about remarkable
adapted to their needs. The efforts to draw-up the results, but they require the spending of large sums
system and the implementation process itself of money. They may involve development of new
should take into account basic system principles, products, or large investment in equipment; it also

RECENT, Vol. 10, no. 3(27), November, 2009 361

 Employee Suggestion System (Kaizen Teian)
takes a lot of material and time. compelling measures and targets will get positive
On the other hand, continuous improvement results quickly, at least in the short term. They are
through employees’ suggestions represents an definitely necessary in the initial period, until
incremental, ongoing process as one small desired working habits have been established.
invention is added to another. It is something that Campaigns and events represent more subtle
everyone can participate in, using common sense methods. People naturally become interested when
to make logical improvements. When a constant they see displays of improvement examples with
stream of small improvements flows from all the positive results and when they can experience for
employees, a powerful force is set in motion. This themselves the meaning of continuous
is why Kaizen, has become one of the most improvement. Such methods are helpful in shaping
important tools of managerial strategy. a public consensus about Kaizen activities. Other
While all areas of the company will be open tools can also play an important role, such as
for suggestions, the principal focus will reside in lectures on suggestion activities or articles in the
the following areas: company newsletter or reference manuals.
- Productivity and Quality: how might we
improve a design, an operation, a function, the use 3.2. Motivate Employee to Write Proposals
of, or substitution of materials? One of the principles, controlling our world
- Product Design: can we improve, change, is the “2-6-2” rule. According to this statistical
modify or alter a design so as to build it more cost- principle, in any group of ten people, there will be
effectively with superior quality performance? A two who have very positive attitudes and will be
design that needs less energy consumption? full of enthusiasm. Another two people in this
- Purchasing: what changes can we bring to group will be very uncooperative and will oppose
our purchasing practices that will save us money? anything. The remaining six will have no
Material and component substitutions? Volume particularly positive attitudes but will not be
purchased? Multiple versus fewer suppliers? uncooperative. This middle group can be swayed
Domestic versus imported materials/ components? in either direction, depending on the atmosphere
- Administrative: what changes can we bring to and climate around them.
any of our varied administrative practices, which Some 20 percent of employees (the positive-
will save us money? attitude group) will usually think about innovative
changes, whether a suggestion system is in place or
3. Proposed approached not. Another 20 percent will never come up with
Basically, each suggestion system should any innovation. The remaining 60 percent will
represent a cycle with four major components: participate in creative continuous improvement if a
- Encouraging people to participate system for doing so is in place. If we want to set
- Motivating them to write proposals (either them in motion and bring out their potential, we
implemented or unimplemented ideas). have to create a system that motivates everyone
- Review, evaluation, implementation and that builds innovative activity into the
- Award payments and commendations. company climate.
If this cycle flows smoothly, the proposal This is the purpose behind the requirement
activity will also run smoothly, one idea will lead that every improvement idea of every employee
to another, and continuous improvement will should be submitted in written form. Only after
translate into improved productivity. Making something is written down as a proposal, someone
improvement suggestions is an activity that should else can understand the actual conditions of the
take place on a daily basis in our jobs. That is why workplace and the improvement that was made.
the system and its rules must be simple and easily
applicable. The simpler the tools, the easier they 3.3. Review, evaluation and guidance
are to use, and the fewer problems we will have The biggest obstacles in the suggestion cycle
[1, 4, 5]. lie in the area of review, evaluation and guidance.
When people submit their ideas for evaluation and
3.1. Encouraging People to Participate never receive feedback from the examiners, they
People must be influenced from outside by feel dejected and frustrated. Insensitive comments
various methods which nudge them in the desired of proposal reviewers can sometimes kill an
direction of suggestion activity. Methods that use employee’s improvement initiative. Even if the

362 RECENT, Vol. 10, no. 3(27), November, 2009

 Employee Suggestion System (Kaizen Teian)
evaluator means no harm in a written answer if his 3.4. Award Payments
or her intent is not clearly communicated, it invites Numerous reward systems operate within
to negative misinterpretations. organizations, often used as a key management
When the review evaluation and guidance tool that can contribute to a firm’s effectiveness by
aspect of the system functions properly, it can be a influencing individual and group behaviour. The
great motivating force that will attract many design of these systems may include pay for
excellent proposals. The suggestion activity will individual performance, pay for individual
never function properly when this component of development, rewards based on the performance of
the process is neglected. This is the most important small groups or teams and finally rewards based on
part of the innovation process. division or organizational performance.
So, who should review the suggestions? The increasing of improvement activities
Some companies assign a Suggestion Committee and joint problem solving has led to questions
who reviews the proposal, makes decisions about the rewards that the employees should
whether it should be adopted or not and informs receive for this work. Companies face choices
the author of the decision. If adopted, the regarding the type of reward (financial or non-
Committee instructs the management to implement financial), the amount, and the frequency with
the suggestion, and decides what award should be which rewards are provided and collective or
given to the person who submitted the suggestion. individual rewards. These choices are summarized
If the number of suggestions is growing, the in the Figure 1.
Committee might find it unable to keep processing
all of them centrally, and could delegate the FACTOR CHOICES
authority to process them to the department Individual
manager. Recipient of reward
Collective
Other companies consider that the persons in Financial
charge of the workplace, right there, should Type of reward Non - Financial
examine suggestions on the spot. The colleagues Large
and the supervisor are the persons who know the Size of reward
Small
workplace better than anybody else does. They
Regularly
know about potential problems and where the Frequency of reward
Occasionally
difficulties are likely to be encountered.
Figure 1. Reward factor and choices
It is not recommended for examination to be
done only by the direct manager. Sometimes, a one
It is well known that some Japanese
person evaluation could be biased. Some reviewers
companies pay a nominal fee for each suggestion,
are indulgent, while others are overly strict; this is
once it is submitted, and credit is given, even if the
only natural. However, it would not be fair to leave
suggestion is not implemented. This is based on
some people at the mercy of very strict
the premise that preparing a suggestion is a
supervisors. It is important to have some type of
learning experience itself and has an educational
mechanism to prevent the harm that could come
value.
from such behaviour. It is possible to maintain a
There are a number of potential problems
system of direct appeal to the upper management,
that are posed by rewarding suggestion. The first is
but only as a supplementary system. This will
the extent to which rewards are actually effective
enable employees to appeal if they feel their
in encouraging employees to contribute with ideas
suggestion have been rejected unfairly.
and participate in the improvement process. The
For suggestions which require important
second problem is whether rewards should be
technical changes, the process engineer must be
awarded to individuals or teams.
consulted, in order to be sure that the
Companies differ in the reward given. Some
implementations do not negatively affect other
give none; others give one-off standard payments,
process elements. The change will be reflected in
regardless of the impact of the suggestion, some
the process documents, which must be updated (i.e.
make a one-off payment, the size of which depends
FMEA, Control plans, control instructions and
on the savings made. Other rewards include bonus
working standards)
“points”, by awarding those making the
suggestions with a number of “points”, depending
on the savings made by that suggestion. These

RECENT, Vol. 10, no. 3(27), November, 2009 363

 Employee Suggestion System (Kaizen Teian)
points are being accumulated and exchanged for 3. can be implemented
gifts from catalogues or other payoffs. 4. has already been implemented
Beyond monetary award, other types of 5. represents a major idea
awards could be considered, such as: 6. is “ingenious”
- petrol vouchers; 7. eliminates the causes of problems
- paid holidays in a seaside resort, beauty 8. corresponds to the goals of the company
spot or spa; 9. solves problems that affect all employees
- dinner in a restaurant with the family; 10. does not cost a lot of money.
- free day-trips to places of interest; When the objective of the suggestion
- different products: watches, T-shirts, ties, activity is simply effectiveness or good results,
wallets, cameras, cosmetics, bags, etc. then the quality in a suggestion means simply that
Some HR researchers point out that direct it is effective, saving big costs or making big pro-
financial rewards in proportion to the value of the fits. In some companies, the suggestion systems
suggestion – the basis of many “traditional” are bound to promote participation (thereby
suggestion schemes, are not particularly effective. energizing the workplace), the development of
They suggest that this is because such systems tend skills (thereby creating employees that think) and
to encourage the submission of “big” ideas, since effectiveness.
only these are seen to have high potential reward. Many companies use evaluation standards
They consider that most recognition systems like those shown in figure 2. They often include
should reward the behaviour itself, rather than the evaluation points such as “efficiency”, “novelty of
suggestion, and often involve giving a token ideas”, or “effort”. Each of these categories is
reward for every idea, no matter how simple, and assigned with a certain number of points; the total
whether the idea is implemented or not. [1, 4, 5] score will determine the grade or class of the
proposal and the corresponding award amount.
3.5. Evaluation Standards However objective and analytical it may be,
Executive managers and suggestion system this method is time consuming and confusing for
promoters give various answers when asked what reviewers. Even when reviewers gain a sense of
determines the quality of a suggestion. A good the suggestion’s worth on first reading, they must
suggestion, they say, is one that: still go through the motions of assigning the points
1. is effective to arrive at the grand total [1, 3, 5].
2. has a wide range of applications

Evaluation Standards *)

EvaluationFactors Principal Review Items and Evaluation Points

Very significant Considerable Small Not significant
Effect (40) 40 38 36 34 30 28 26 24 20 18 16 14 10 6 4 0
Can be creatively applied with Similar examples elsewhere; hot
Quite original, offering a wide
Highly novel and creative some help; creative when widely very creative or insightful, but
Originality (25) sfere of application
applicable has reference value
25 23 20 18 16 14 12 10 86 4 2 0
Just a lucky strike, very little
Required a great deal of effort Required quit a bit effort Required some effort
Effort (20) effort
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Will require a lot of further study;
Can be implemented Still some room for improvement
Possibility of Requires a preparation period hard to tell if proposal has much
immediately and more thinking
implementation (15) future
15 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Class of proposal and award payment

Class
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
90 80 70 60 50 40 30
Total points
or more or more or more or more or more or more or more

Award, USD
200 130 70 20 13 7 4

*) Adapted from Nichii Co., Ltd., Japan

Figure 2. Evaluation standards

364 RECENT, Vol. 10, no. 3(27), November, 2009

 Employee Suggestion System (Kaizen Teian)
4. Implementation model example The suggestion is promptly evaluated,
In this chapter, it is presented a suggestion especially when the top award for the suggestion
system implementation model, drawn-up is in the region of 20 USD, or less. The
according the criteria described in the previous implementation will be realized with the
chapters. maintenance department support.
For larger award amounts, the Suggestion
4.1. Suggestion form and evaluation criteria Committee is informed, in order to have the
In Figure 3, the suggestion form is proposal properly evaluated.
presented. A condensed evaluation chart is The same committee examines employees’
presented in Figure 4. appeals against first reviewer’s decisions, if their
The accepted suggestions are evaluated on suggestions are considered unfairly rated or
a five-grade scale, from “not bad” to “excellent”. rejected. The Suggestion Committee meets once a
The minimum award is 5 USD, and is meant to month, so that any suggestion gets a final decision
reward suggestions that identify and point out a in max. 30 days.
problem, without proposing countermeasures or
solutions. The maximum award is 100 USD, for 4.3. Suggestions’ follow-up and promotion
very valuable, implemented suggestions. In this The number of issued and realized
case, the Suggestion Committee revaluates the suggestions is a good indicator for each
suggestions. department. A follow-up chart is completed and
the figures are reported in order to have the big
4.2. Suggestions’ process picture of the company. The indicators tell about
Any employee, who has a suggestion, people involvement and management support and
obtains the suggestion form from his/ her direct commitment.
supervisor. The form, when completed, is Quarterly, the organization presents to a big
submitted to the first reviewer (i.e. the direct group of people, from all departments, the most
supervisor and workplace colleagues) during creative implemented suggestions. The
workgroup weekly meetings. The supervisor Suggestion Board presents all suggestion in
previously advises the applicant how to fill in the before-after sketches, mentioned the creative ideas
form or to make an estimate of the potential and the savings.
savings / benefits arising from the suggestion.

SU G G E S T IO N F O R M
W orkplace : E m plo yee nam e : B adge no: D ate of subm ission

Suggestion / Idea: A lread y im plem ented ?

N ot yet im plem ented ?
P urpose of suggestion: problem -solving im provem ent ? cost saving ? restructuring ?
D escription & E ffect (P lease describe concretely, specifying the If suggestion proposes changes to
value in financial term s, if possible): product, process, m aterials, suppliers,
please sub m it it for approval to:
T echnical D ept.: C ode no. ________
C oncurred by ___________________
D ate ________ Signature__________
C o m m ercial D ept.: C ode no. ______
C oncurred by ___________________
For m ore detailed description please use separate sheets D ate ________ Signature__________
C o m m ents / P roposal of First R evie w er (to be com pleted C o m m ents and D ecision o f S uggestion C o m m ittee
in m ax 10 days after sub m ission): (to be com pleted in m ax 10 days after sub m issio n):

R ating A w ard: N am e: Final D ecision E m plo yee A ckno w led gem ent:
(see belo w): U SD D ate: A w ard: D ate:
Signature: U SD Signature:

Figure 3. Suggestion form

RECENT, Vol. 10, no. 3(27), November, 2009 365

 Employee Suggestion System (Kaizen Teian)

EVALUATION STANDARDS
The suggestion conflicts with the The suggestion is quite creative,
department policy and objectives, or is not applicable and feasible. Benefits are
feasible, or has no efficiency / benefit, or is fairly significant, although the proposal Good
Rejected
not very useful, or falls within the requires further study. Can be used (G)
(R)
employee’s normal job responsibilities, or extensively within the company. 20 USD
do not represent actual improvement (i.e.
demands, grievances, complaints, etc.)
The suggestion is confined to simply The suggestion is quite original and very
pointing out a problem, a shortcoming, an creative and can be implemented
Not bad
inappropriate process or procedure, a waste immediately. The anticipated effect is Very
(NB)
of resource, or other business inadequacies. considerable and significant benefits are good
It does not propose countermeasures or expected, as the idea has a wide range of (VG)
5
solutions, but has reference value and could applicability. 50 USD
USD
be used as starting point for effective
improvements.
The suggestion can be creatively applied Excellent idea, already implemented
with some help. The anticipated effect is Acceptable
with extraordinary effect and benefit. Excellent
small, but the proposal can be implemented (A) The author worked very hard and made (E)
immediately. There is still some room for 10 very strong efforts to overcome all 100
improvement and more thinking. USD problems involving implementation. USD
Can be widely used
Note 1: Suggestions considered to deserve awards equal to, or higher than USD 50, will be examined and rated
by the Suggestion Committee.
Note 2: If some suggestions exceed, or doesn’t meet the criteria of the grade, the reviewer can add “plus” or
“minus” to the rating and increase or decrease the amount of the award.
Figure 4. Evaluation standards

5. Key points notice through the in-house communication

There are many other aspects that could be channels, periodical meetings and ceremonies, and
taken into consideration when a suggestion scheme the company newsletter.
is thought out, such as: The main influence for a successful
- What should be the route through which implementation is the management commitment
proposals are submitted (suggestion boxes, and resources allocated.
submission to direct supervisor, direct petition to
top management, etc.)? References
- How does one recognize the dividing line 1. Amabile, T.M.: How to Kill Creativity. Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 76, No. 5, September, 1998, p. 18-24, ISSN
between his or her basic job responsibilities and 0017-8012, Boston, USA
those involving creative improvements? 2. Drucker, P.F.: The discipline of innovation. Harvard
- Should suggestions that apply to other Business Review, Vol. 76, No. 6, August 2002, p. 5-11,
departments be accepted? ISSN 0017-8012, Boston, USA
- Should suggestions that require for 3. Hagardon, A., Sutton, R.I.: Building an innovation factory.
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, No. 3, 2000, p. 1-3,
implementation the involvement of a large number ISSN 0017-8012, Boston, USA
of staff, and big investments be accepted? 4. Japan Human Relations Association: Kaizen Teian 1 -
- How to deal with suggestions already Developing System for Continuous Improvement Through
implemented in other departments? Employee Suggestions. Productivity Press, ISBN 1-56327-
186-9, Portland, Oregon, USA, 1997
Attempts to answer all these questions 5. Kerrin, M., Oliver, N.: Collective and individual
could generate very complex and sophisticated improvement activities: the role of reward system. Emerald
suggestion systems. Personnel Review, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2002, p. 320-337, ISSN
In the Romanian company, at the beginning, 0048-3486, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK
the monetary award was taken into consideration.
It had the most powerful impact and encourages
people to identify areas for improvement and make
adequate suggestions.
Those who were awarded for their
suggestions were brought to the other employees’

366 RECENT, Vol. 10, no. 3(27), November, 2009

View publication stats