Kaizen vs. Chabuduo: Contrasting Japanese and Chinese Quality
When my parents were young, the phrase "Made in Japan" had essentially the same connotations as "Made in China" does today. It meant the product was of low quality and would be prone to breakdown. Japanese quality has come a long way since then. But this article is not about Japanese quality culture or W. E. Deming -- there are plenty of material on that subject. Rather, this is about a stark difference in quality philosophy between Japan and its neighbor to the West.
Those of you who are familiar with Japanese quality philosophy will know the term Kaizen, which literally means "change for better", but in the context of quality, now translates to "continuous improvement". Personally though, I think of it as "continuously striving toward perfection".
Now let me introduce the corresponding term in Chinese (Mandarin): Chabuduo, which roughly translates to "good enough".
They are diametrically opposite philosophies.
The following story exemplifies the Japanese philosophy:
Ford Motor Company was simultaneously manufacturing a car model with transmissions made in Japan and the United States. Soon after the car model was on the market, Ford customers were requesting the model with Japanese transmission over the US-made transmission, and they were willing to wait for the Japanese model. As both transmissions were made to the same specifications, Ford engineers could not understand the customer preference for the model with Japanese transmission. Finally, Ford engineers decided to take apart the two different transmissions. The American-made car parts were all within specified tolerance levels. On the other hand, the Japanese car parts were virtually identical to each other, and much closer to the nominal values for the parts—e.g., if a part was supposed to be one foot long, plus or minus 1/8 of an inch—then the Japanese parts were all within 1/16 of an inch, less variation. This made the Japanese cars run more smoothly and customers experienced fewer problems.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming#Overview
And this one by James Palmer, a British expat in Beijing, exemplifies the Chinese philosophy:
In our apartment in central Beijing, we fight a daily rearguard action against entropy. The mirror on my wardrobe came off its hinges six months ago and is now propped up against the wall, one of many furnishing casualties. Each of our light fittings takes a different bulb, and a quarter of them are permanently broken. In the bedroom, the ceiling-high air-conditioning unit runs its moisture through a hole knocked in the wall, stuffed with an old cloth to avoid leakage, while the balcony door, its sealant rotted, has a towel handy to block the rain when it pours through. On the steps outside our door, I duck my head every day to avoid the thick tangle of hanging wires that brings power and the internet; when the wind is up, connections slow as cables swing.
Source: https://aeon.co/essays/what-chinese-corner-cutting-reveals-about-modernity
Chabuduo is a mindset not just limited to China. Getting something to the "barely working" stage and moving onto other things is pervasive in South Asia as well. Perfection is often frowned upon as a waste of time. The results, I believe, speak for themselves.
If we truly want to change our quality culture, adoption of Kaizen is not the answer, but rather, a wholehearted repudiation of the disease that is Chabuduo.
Head of Engineering, Market Infrastructure Technology, LSEG
7yI do see it as a confusion in the minds of the producer as to where the value surplus (above cost) is actually perceived by the consumer. Another gradual shift from previous generation to current times is the notion of 'durables' becoming 'disposables', which to me, is still fine as long as the consumers value it. Perhaps the Chinese bulb is soo cheap one is ought not to use it for too long. Another comparison is I could think of is that we produce defence grade / space grade electronics that cost multiples than consumer electronics to manufacture. "Good-enough" is perhaps the deciding factor as long as the consumer values it the same! Unfortunately in many failure cases, it appears not the approach, but failing to understand the consumer, or even worse, not knowing who the consumers are ...