The Skill First foundation
Kaizen
Sustainable improvement begins with a concrete problem. Investigate it, try a manageable change and use the result to choose the next step.
- Observe
- Adjust
- Test again
Each loop connects observing, adjusting and testing again. Its small forward shift shows how a tested improvement becomes the starting point for the next cycle.
What keeps happening every session?
After your combination, you keep ending up too close to read your partner's response. You know it happens. You've heard about it several times. Yet it keeps returning. That's a useful starting point for Kaizen: not a general wish to improve, but a problem you can find in ordinary training.
Look at what happens before choosing the solution. Perhaps the distance doesn't fit. Perhaps you step too far forwards or force too much power. The same visible problem can have different causes. Attaching a familiar tip to every situation makes explanation easy, but doesn't necessarily help the learner.
Kaizen asks you to investigate that problem, try a workable change and retain what helps. This might concern execution. It might also concern the explanation, task or organization of the lesson. The learner isn't automatically the person who needs to work harder.
Improvement, not a secret growth formula
Kaizen is often summarized as getting one percent better every day. It sounds appealing, but what's one percent better defense? What if recovery is what you need today? Without answers, improvement can become pressure you can't realistically meet.
The Japanese word kaizen is usually translated as improvement. In management literature it concerns continuing process improvement, involving the people doing the work. Masaaki Imai brought this approach to an international audience through his 1986 book. It belongs to a wider industrial context, including the Toyota Production System.
It isn't an ancient martial secret or a formula that makes sporting performance grow exponentially every day. At Skill First, we apply the idea to training: understand a recurring problem, test a sustainable change and see what it actually contributes. That sporting application is our interpretation. The original sources mainly concern work and organizations, not controlled studies of boxing or grappling.
Changing a boxing task
Suppose several learners stay too close after a combination. The coach can have a short attack followed by a gentle partner response. The boxer then seeks a position from which they can perceive and act again. Contact and pace remain agreed. The problem now has a place in practice without everyone receiving twenty corrections simultaneously.
After a few short rounds, look at what changes. Some learners need only one reminder. Others need to recalibrate distance. Ask the partners what they see too. Their response may reveal why the boxer keeps getting stuck. The coach might discover that the old task simply contained too few genuine choices.
If everyone now only retreats and misses their own opportunities, that's information as well. The problem may have moved. You don't have to defend the adjustment because you invented it. Change what doesn't help. If the task does work, bring it back into ordinary lessons later. Otherwise, useful ideas disappear when attention moves elsewhere.
Keep the starting point recognizable enough to compare. A brief note about the task, partners and problem can suffice. Changing intensity, starting arrangement and every instruction at once makes it difficult to interpret what helped.
Small isn't a mark of quality
A small adjustment can make several later actions easier. It can also do little or create another problem. Don't only ask whether the experiment felt enjoyable. Does the original problem become less frequent under relevant conditions? Can learners genuinely respond again after their combinations?
That doesn't require a complicated dashboard. Observe some exchanges and ask whether the objective has become clearer. Ask about effort and confusion too. A session running faster while everyone feels rushed or uncertain isn't automatically better.
One good round gives you reason to investigate further. A change helping across several sessions earns more confidence. If it works only with an accommodating partner, your conclusion is narrower. Fatigue, experience and another opponent can change the outcome. Kaizen needs repeated observation, not an increasingly attractive success story.
Sometimes remove something. Sometimes change much more.
Continuing improvement doesn't mean turning every session into an optimization project. A quiet lesson, a familiar routine or a recovery day can be entirely appropriate. If the whole training week fits poorly with work, sleep and load, extra technical tips probably aren't the main answer.
A substantial change may be needed too. Small trials can reveal that the starting arrangement doesn't work. Then reconsider it. Endless refinement of an unsuitable exercise, merely to stay loyal to tiny steps, misses the point. You want better practice, not necessarily the smallest possible intervention.
The coach isn't the only person deciding what's better. Learners notice where explanations become confusing. Partners feel which agreements aren't working. That information matters, provided people can share it safely. When everyone mostly reports what they think the coach wants to hear, the improvement process has little useful material.
Marginal Gains considers small improvements across several components. Kaizen mainly concerns the process of identifying problems and assessing changes. Compounding describes earlier gains opening later opportunities, such as better defense enabling more useful practice time. That's a possible consequence, not guaranteed compound growth.
Incremental Learning concerns learning in manageable steps. It can support an improvement, but Kaizen can equally remove something: fewer instructions, less waiting or one unnecessary rule. There doesn't always need to be an addition.
Alongside the other two central models
Shu Ha Ri helps discuss what guidance this task needs. Form to Leave Form examines how learned form becomes available with fewer conscious intermediate steps. Kaizen can keep supporting improvements to tasks and explanations while your relationship with form changes.
At Skill First, the three matter equally. Kaizen isn't just for beginners practicing small things. Experienced athletes still investigate problems and test workable adjustments. Execution can become more intuitive while investigation stays deliberate. None of the three means coaching is ever finished.
Give one problem a week of attention
Choose something that recurs. Describe what you see without claiming certainty about its cause. Agree on one manageable change and keep the rest of the task recognizable. Decide beforehand what would suggest that it helps.
Revisit it after several sessions. Retain what proves useful, adjust what's uncertain and drop what contributes nothing. Note when the effect disappears too. Perhaps the adjustment works against gentle responses but not yet when more choices are available.
The trial then gives you two things: a possible improvement and a better understanding of the problem. That's enough reason to continue. You don't need to prove a daily percentage.
Sources and further reading
- Kaizen Institute: What is Kaizen?
Primary institutional source for Imai, the meaning and process perspective; sporting examples are our application.
- Toyota Production System
Toyota describes daily improvement, noticing problems and making work more manageable.
- Masaaki Imai
Documents Imai's role in international dissemination and his 1986 book.
See an idea alongside another
Related models
Marginal Gains
Focuses on small contributions across several performance components.
Compounding
Describes how an earlier improvement can enable further development.
Incremental Learning
Helps build an oversized learning task through manageable steps.
Feedback Loop
Makes it possible to assess whether an adjustment helps.
