Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

Chapter 3
Productivity Movement in Singapore
Izumi Ohno1 and Daniel Kitaw2

3-1. Introduction
Singapore is a small citystate with total population of about five million.3 It is a multicultural country,with ethnic composition of Chinese 74%, Malay 13%, Indians and others 13%.4 Singapore faced
severe racial, religious, and political turmoil, intensified by its 1965 separation from Malaysia (Lee,2000). With no natural resources, the only significant resource Singapore had was (and is) manpower.
The government has placed its highest priority on human resource development and made proactive
efforts to enhance labor productivity and global competitiveness. Since the 1960s, the Singaporean
economy has undergone significant development. The country has grown from its traditional role as aregional port and distribution center in the 1960s to an international manufacturing andknowledge-intensive technical services center (Lee et al., 2008). Its per capita income grew from
USD533 in 1965 to USD37,220 in 2009.5
Singapore’s industrial development can be divided into five phases: labor-intensive in the 1960s,
skills-intensive in the 1970s, technology-intensive in the 1980s, innovation-intensive in the 1990s,
and knowledge-intensive in the first decade of the 21st century as can be seen in the figure below.
Figure 3-1. Singapore’s Industrial Development Phases

Source: Chan Lee Mun (2008), Figure 6.2.

1

Professor, GRIPS Development Forum, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS).
Associate Professor and Chair of Industrial Engineering Addis Ababa University (AAU).
3
According to the Department of Statistics, Singapore, total population was 5,076,700 in 2010. Total population comprises
Singapore residents (i.e., Singapore citizens and permanent residents) and non-residents.
4
Figures are the ethnic composition of the Singapore residents as of June 2010. Based on the Department of Statistics,
Singapore.
5
Based on the World Development Indicators, World Bank. Gross National Income (GNI) per capita.
249

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

It is widely held that the national productivity drive made an important contribution to thisSingaporean miracle. In 1981, the Singaporean government launched the Productivity Movement at
all levels of the economy to sharpen the country’s competitive edge. The movement was initiateddomestically, with strong leadership of the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. After meeting with Mr.
Kohei Goshi, the then Chairman of the Japan Productivity Center (JPC), Lee Kuan Yew immediately
requested the Japanese government to transfer Japan’s productivity improvement know-how. To
support this national initiative, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) implemented theProductivity Development Project (PDP) during 1983–1990. The PDP was the first project that JICA
provided comprehensive technical cooperation for productivity improvement. Singapore became quite
successful in internalizing, scaling up, and institutionalizing the Productivity Movement, and thecountry now offers technical cooperation in this area to developing countries. Even now, productivity
continues to be high on the national agenda. Singapore is among the top three most competitive
countries in the world (World Economic Forum, 2010) and is the best business environment
worldwide (World Bank and IFC, 2010).
The Singaporean experience demonstrates the importance of six common factors for a successful
national movement (discussed in Chapter 1). Moreover, Singapore presents a case of agovernment-led movement—unlike Japan where the private-sector-led kaizen movement took place
thanks to strong private sector dynamism. Thus, its experience should serve as a useful reference forthe governments of developing countries striving to enhance private sector capability by transforming
the popular mindset.
This chapter is organized as follows. First, it will review the history of the Productivity Movement
and its three-stage evolution. It will then explain the institutional framework for the Productivity
Movement, giving attention to the channels of scaling-up and the role of key agencies involved. It will
also discuss how the JICA project (PDP) supported Singapore’s productivity improvement, including
the country’s process of graduating to become a donor in this area. Finally, it will explain the mostrecent national drive to boost skills and enterprise productivity.
The analysis will give special attention to the following factors that contributed to the success ofSingapore’s productivity movement.
•

High-level political commitment, including strong leadership by Prime Minister Lee Kuan
Yew himself•

Evolution of national productivity organizations as the core agencies charged withproductivity development•

Institutional mechanisms involving all parties concerned, particularly tripartite cooperation
among the government, industry, and labor unions

50

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore•

A massive campaign aimed at awareness raising, and subsequent company-based, practicalconsultancy to translate the awareness into specific actions for productivity improvement•

Development of management consultancy capability in the private sector, by designingsystems and incentives to mobilize those trained under the JICA project.

3-2. History of the Productivity Movement
3-2-1. Creation of a national productivity organization
Singapore’s interest in productivity dates back to the early days of independence. The first step was
the creation of the Productivity Unit within the Economic Development Board (EDB) in 1964 andcreation of the Charter for Industrial Progress in 1965. The Charter for Industrial Progress is a joint
declaration by employer groups and unions to work together to increase productivity under a
Productivity Code of Practice. This historic joint declaration was witnessed by the Ministers for
Finance and for Labor. The Charter also proposed the establishment of the Singapore Productivity
Center as a national productivity organization to promote productivity in Singapore.
In 1967, the National Productivity Center was established under the EDB. Since then, national
productivity organizations have evolved with the stages of development and the needs of theSingaporean economy (Table 3-1). In 1972, the Center was upgraded to a separate agency, theNational Productivity Board (NPB), and in 1981 the government launched the Productivity
Movement. The movement continued for about two decades. The NPB was made the principle agency
to implement this national productivity drive. Separately, the Singapore Productivity Association(SPA) was established in 1973 as an affiliated body of the NPB with the purpose of promoting active
involvement of organizations and individuals in the Productivity Movement and spreading the idea of
productivity and its techniques. In 1996, the NPB merged with the Singapore Institute of Standards
and Industrial Research to become the Productivity Standard Board (PSB). In 2002, the PSB’s
productivity-related functions were transferred to the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board(SPRING).

51

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

Table 3-1. History of Productivity-related Organizations
PeriodOrganization

Remarks

1964

Productivity Unit, Economic Development
Board (EDB)

1965: Charter for Industrial
Progress, Productivity
Code of Practice

1967–1972

National Productivity Center- Autonomously run division under the EDB

1971: Tripartite InterimManagement Committee(to prepare NPB)

1972–1995

National Productivity Board (NPB)- Statutory body, initially affiliated with Ministryof Labor and later with Ministry of Trade andIndustry (MTI)

1973–present:
Singapore Productivity
Association (SPA)

1996–2001

Productivity Standard Board (PSB)- Statutory body, affiliated with MTI

2002–presentStandards, Productivity and Innovation Board(SPRING)- Statutory body, affiliated with MTI

1981–85: Awareness stage
1986–88: Action stage
1989–90s: Ownership stage

3-2-2. Driver of Singapore’s Productivity Movement
Despite over fifteen years of efforts to enhance productivity, the leaders of Singapore felt that thecountry remained far behind other countries in productivity development. In 1979, Prime Minister
Lee Kuan Yew was concerned: “Workers here were not as proud of or as skilled in their jobs
compared to the Japanese or the Germans.”6 In early 1981, Lee Kuan Yew met key Japaneseemployers in Singapore to discuss practices, work attitudes and productivity in Japan. Immediately,
the Committee of Productivity was formed to study Japan’s productivity movement and examine theissues of productivity improvement, work attitudes, and labor management relations. In June 1981,
Lee Kuan Yew met with Mr. Kohei Goshi, then JPC Chairman, and was strongly convinced of theneed for a Productivity Movement. The Committee of Productivity compiled a report, whichemphasized the importance of “human aspects” or mindset change, and proposed the establishment of
a high-level council to review productivity efforts and outline future strategy.
Based on this proposal, in September 1981, the National Productivity Council (NPC) was established
as an oversight and policy coordination body for the Productivity Movement. The NPC was chairedby the State Minister of Labor (from 1986, by the State Minister of Trade and Industry) withhigh-level representation from government, employer groups, unions and academia. The first action of
the NPC was to launch the Productivity Movement with the NPB as the primary implementing agency.
6

According to Low Choo Tuck, former Director of the Planning Division, SPRING Singapore, by the early 1980s, anincreasingly tight labor market had driven up wages. Companies realized that to compete successfully, they must introduce
better management systems and more importantly have good labor management relations and teamwork. Nevertheless, thestate of labor-management relations then was fragile and there were many industrial disputes.

52

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

The NPB was re-structured and expanded to carry out its mission of inculcating the concept of
productivity in every man, woman and child in Singapore (NPB, 1987).
In this process, the Singaporean government requested bilateral cooperation from the Japanese
government for productivity improvement, and the JICA-supported PDP was implemented for sevenyears. A large number of Japanese experts (including those from JPC) were mobilized. As such, theProductivity Movement in Singapore was primarily a nationally driven initiative. The practices offoreign direct investment (FDI) companies operating in Singapore also served as importantbenchmarks for assessing Singapore’s productivity level.
3-2-3. Concept and principles of the Productivity Movement7
In Singapore, “Productivity Movement” refers to the commitment and active involvement by thegovernment, employers and workers in activities to increase productivity. All industries and public
sectors—regardless of the scale of these enterprises and organizations—are encouraged to participate
in such activities.
According to NPB, the goal of the Productivity Movement is to improve the welfare of theSingaporeans through economic progress based on the three guiding principles.
•

Improvements in productivity will increase employment in the long run.

•

Government, employers and labor must work together to implement measures to improve
productivity.

•

Fruits of improved productivity must be distributed fairly among management, labor andconsumer.

It should be noted that the basic idea on the three guiding principles was drawn from those of the JPC
in 1955 (the time of its foundation).
3-3. Three-stage evolution of the Productivity Movement: awareness, action, and ownership8
The Productivity Movement in Singapore evolved in three stages: (i) awareness (1981–85); (ii) action(1986–88); and (iii) ownership (1989–90s), as shown in Figure 3-2.

7This section is based on the Power Point material, “Evolution of the Productivity Movement in Singapore,” SPRING
Singapore.
8
This section is largely based on an interview with Mr. Low Hock Meng, Executive Director of the SPA and the information
provided by him to the GRIPS mission on September 2, 2010. Mr. Low was one of the counterparts of JICA-supported PDP.

53

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

Figure 3-2. Evolution of the Productivity Movement in Singapore

Note: Reprinted from Figure 1-2.

3-3-1. Awareness stage
The objective of the awareness stage was to create widespread awareness of productivity among
companies and the workforce. The main focus was to foster positive attitudes and to promote
teamwork and recognition for companies and individuals.
More specifically, the NPB took the following measures.
•

Education of the public: launch of the productivity movement, publication of productivity data,
media support, and changes in schools and tertiary institutions.

•

Information dissemination and training: delivering courses with emphasis on human relations,creating a library of local case studies on good management practices, maintaining a registryof courses on productivity and management.

•

Strengthening company identification: payment of variable bonus, special awards forlong-serving employees, house unions, sports facilities (companies given preference during
peak periods).

•

Promotion of labor-management joint consultation: work excellence committees and quality
control circles (QCCs).

•

Promotion of productivity in the public sector: productivity campaign in the public sector,

54

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

work improvement teams (WITs),9 Productivity Working Committee.
•

Formation of the NPC with high-level representation from the government, employer groups,
unions and academia. This aimed to review productivity efforts and outline future strategy onan annual basis.

Throughout the awareness and action stages, the strong commitment and leadership of the then Prime
Minister Lee Kuan Yew was critical. Massive productivity campaigns were launched at both nationaland company levels. November was designated as “Productivity Month,” in which Lee Kuan Yew
delivered annual speeches on productivity starting in 1981 for seven consecutive years.
Moreover, the NPB made a great effort to disseminate the spirit of productivity to the public. They
created a symbolic mascot, named Teamy, which was a tiny cute bee character. This Teamy Bee
symbolized hard work, team work, and efficiency. Productivity campaign slogan and posters werecreated in 1982, around the key message “Together We Work Better.” This message was political.
Productivity improvement often invites worker resistance because they fear that efficiency gains from
improved productivity might lead to unemployment. Mindful of such resistance, this slogan
deliberately aimed at creating a virtuous cycle such that: increased productivity will promote growthof the business and economy, which should generate more consumer demand for products; this should
bring satisfaction for individuals and more work for workers; as a result, there will be welfare gains
for individuals, including workers.
Unlike Japan, Singapore introduced the Productivity Movement to both the business and the public
sector. This has had a remarkable impact on popular mindset change. WITs were implemented in thecivil service. WITs emphasized worker involvement, participation and bottom-up management; teammembers worked together and focused on tackling problems facing their common work areas. The
Productivity Working Committee was established in the form of a joint committee with management
and labor. By the mid–1980s, a high level of awareness of productivity among the Singaporeans wasachieved.
3-3-2. Action stageThen, in the mid–1980’s, the focus shifted from national promotion of productivity to company levelpromotion. The objective of the action stage was to translate productivity “awareness” into specificaction at the workplace through a participatory program. It focused on upgrading the skills ofmanagement and workers and upgrading companies’ operational efficiency. In 1986, the total
approach to productivity (TAP) concept was introduced. TAP emphasized the productive interaction
9
The WIT is a Singaporean adaptation of the Japanese-style QCC concept in the private sector. In Singapore, WITs havebeen implemented in the public sector, as part of civil service reform program.

55

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singaporeof man, machines and systems at the workplace (NPB and JICA, 1990).
In 1986, NPB established a Management Guidance Center to administer various management
consultancy programs for local companies (NPB and JICA, 1990). Specific programs and activities
implemented under the Center include•

Model Company Project•Management Consultancy Referral Scheme•

Associate Consultants Scheme•

Industry-based Consultancy Assistance Scheme•

Training of workforce through the Skills Development Fund (SDF)10The “Model Company Project” was implemented jointly by the Japanese (JICA) experts and NPB
counterparts and provided assistance to companies. This paved the way for on-the-job training (OJT)of NPB staff to equip them with relevant skills. Together with training sessions and workshops, andother company-related productivity improvement programs, the Japanese experts transferred skills to
the NPB counterparts under the PDP. The Management Consultancy Referral Scheme and the
Associate Consultants Scheme are the systems to mobilize those trained under the JICA project asqualified private management consultants. The NPB allowed private sector participation in the PDP
training fellowship in Japan. Those trained became NPB Associate or Referral Consultants. A pool ofover 200 associate and referral consultants was created to supplement the NPB’s efforts in reachingout to industries (NPB and JICA, 1990). Furthermore, NPB introduced the Industry-based Assistance
Scheme in 1986. The scheme was designed to raise the level of productivity in key industries andassist companies on an industry-wide basis to impact productivity levels. Six priority industries wereidentified and targeted for assistance under the scheme. The industries included food manufacturing,
restaurant, hotel, retail, textiles and garment and finance.
It is notable that under the Management Guidance Center, the NPB assisted companies, particularly
small and medium enterprises (SMEs), in improving their business efficiency and productivity
management. Cases of successful companies were highlighted to serve as models for the others. NPB
also promoted the growth of management consultancy services for SMEs. Some 105 local companies
have benefitted from assistance rendered by NPB consultants and Japanese experts, as well as the
Associate and Referral Consultants (NPB and JICA, 1990).

10

SDF was established in 1978 as an employer-based funding that provides financial incentives for staff training. Currently,
through SDF, employers can enjoy course fee subsidies of up to 90%, though the amount of subsidies depends on eachcourse. All employers must pay a Skills Development Levy for all workers up to the first S$4,500 of gross monthly
remuneration at a levy rate of 0.25%, or S$2 per worker, whichever is higher. The Central Provident Fund collects the levy
on behalf of the Workforce Development Agency. (In the latter 80s, the NPB administered the SDF.) The levy collected ischanneled into the SDF, which provides grants to companies that send their workers for training. (Appendix 1, “Report on
Singapore Mission,” September 13, 2010, GRIPS Development Forum, Tokyo)

56

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

Besides consultancy, in-company training was emphasized to equip the workforce with relevant skills
to increase productivity. The NPB teamed up with reputable companies such as Singapore Airlines(Service Quality Center), Philips Singapore (Industrial Engineering Training Center), and Seiko
Instruments (OJT Project) to develop national training programs in specific areas for managers andworkers.11 Moreover, extensive training for upgrading workforce skills was conducted, supported by
SDF. In Singapore, all employers must pay a certain share of their workers’ salary to the government.
The government then provides subsidies to employers, through the SDF, who invest in upgrading theskills of their employees. While the SDF was initially managed by the Ministry of Labor, from 1986 it
came under the NPB’s responsibility. High priority was placed on productivity-related training
programs, and companies were encouraged to send their staff for training.
3-3-3. Ownership stage
By 1989, companies and individuals had become actively involved in the Productivity Movement.
Hence, sustaining this enthusiasm became the focus of the ownership stage.12 This stage is critical toself-sustain the Productivity Movement to ensure that productivity habits become part of the work
ethic. Private and public organizations as well as individuals are encouraged to lead the Productivity
Movement. The government launched various initiatives to promote company-level productivity
improvement.
For example, NPB encouraged the private sector to lead annual productivity campaigns. Employer
groups were urged to chair the Campaign Steering Committee. In 1994, the Singapore Quality Awardwas introduced. In 1996, the Productivity Activist Scheme was launched.
The Productivity Activist Scheme aimed to develop a core of productivity “champions” in companies.
Key activists from the public and private sectors were introduced into the Productivity Movement tolead, organize and influence other members of the workforce in various productivity-building
activities.13 A network was formed to enable members to benchmark their productivity against
partners and improve their skills and techniques. Resources are pooled for an effective exchange of
information in support of productivity improvement.
In this regard, the following words of Mr. Mah Bow Tan, then Chairman of NPB are worth noting:“….. to have a successful Productivity Movement, we must have a critical mass of organizations andindividuals who know that they will benefit from it, are proud to be part of it, and are willing andready to make it succeed.” (Mr. Mah Bow Tan, Chairman, NPB, 1987)11

Speech by Mr. Low Choo Tuck, former Director of Planning Division, SPRING, “Productivity movement andcompetitiveness—the Singapore’s experience,” delivered at the Vietnam Productivity Center.
12
Ditto.
13
Ditto.

57

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

3-4. Institutional framework for implementing the Productivity Movement
To implement the Productivity Movement, Singapore established a strong organizational structure. A
centralized oversight and coordination mechanism was created, and the existing national productivity
organization was reinforced to perform such operational functions as running public campaigns,
training, consulting, research, measurement, and conducting industrial relations. The mechanisms
were built on strong involvement and support of tripartite key stakeholders (the public sector, unions,and employers) to ensure that productivity gains were shared among these stakeholders. These
institutional factors contributed significantly to the successful awareness raising and scaling-up of the
Productivity Movement.
3-4-1. Role of a tripartite council and national productivity organizations
Figure 3-3 shows the institutional framework for policy coordination and implementation of the
Productivity Movement in Singapore. This framework has provided channels for involving various
groups and institutions and thus facilitated the scaling-up of the movement. Because Singapore is acity-state, there was no need for a local-level coordination mechanism.
Figure 3-3. Framework for Productivity Movement (Around the 1980s)

At the policy level, in 1981, the NPC was established as an oversight and policy coordination bodyfor promoting the productivity movement. NPC was a tripartite council, initially chaired by the State
Minister of Labor and later by the State Minister of Trade and Industry, with the participation of about

58Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

20 members from government, employer groups, unions and academia.14 By actively involving those
key stakeholders, the NPC annually reviewed productivity programs and outlined its future strategy.
As such, the NPC ensured national consensus on key productivity strategies and programs.
At the operational level, the NPB played a key role as the secretariat of the NPC and as theoperational arm in charge of spearheading productivity campaigns in both the public and private
sectors throughout the three stages of the Productivity Movement. Under the oversight of the NPC,
the NPB coordinated and promoted the diffusion of the key objectives of the Productivity Movement,such as productivity awareness, skills upgrading of management techniques and harmonious labor
management relations, and so on. It also provided training and management consultancy, spread
Quality Control Circles (QCCs), promoted the concept of productivity, and administered the SDF,
which provides financial incentives to companies to send their staff to productivity-related training.
3-4-2. Singapore Productivity Association (SPA)The SPA, established in 1973 as an affiliated body of the then-NPB, also played an important role inspreading the Productivity Movement. SPA promotes the active involvement of organizations andindividuals in the movement and expedited its diffusion and techniques. SPA charges fees to themembers (institutional or individuals) and organizes courses and seminars, company visits, study
tours, and so on, to encourage their knowledge and skills acquisition. The members have access to
information, training and seminars, and networking opportunities. Mr. Lo Hock Meng, current
Executive Director of SPA, was one of the counterparts of the JICA-supported PDP.
Unlike the case of Burkina Faso (see Chapter 4), SPA continues to be affiliated with the SPRING
which replaced the PSB, successor of NPB, in 2002. SPA also provides international cooperation, in
collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), SPRING,
the Asia Productivity Organization, and the Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship (Japan).
3-4-3. Channels of awareness raising and scaling-up
The Singaporean government promoted productivity improvement across the public and private
sectors, building a partnership between the two sectors (Sum, 2000). Various channels were created tosupport awareness raising and scaling-up of the Productivity Movement. These included: employer
groups, labor unions, international business communities, civil service, educational and professional
institutions.

14
In 1986, NPB was transferred from the Ministry of Labor to the Ministry of Trade and Industry. The State Minister ofTrade and Industry assumed the position of Chairman of NPB.

59

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

At the awareness stage, the productivity campaign was actively promoted in the public sector. The
government, as the largest employer, endeavored to set an example for the private sector to improve
productivity, work attitude, and human resource management. The productivity campaign was linked
with civil service reform and was spearheaded by the Central Productivity Steering Committee. The
Central Steering Committee was formed immediately after the launch of the Productivity Movement
to oversee the movement within the civil service. Its members also included a representative of thecivil service unions. An annual civil service campaign was launched in conjunction with the national
productivity campaign. WITs were formed in all ministries to make up plans to promote teamwork
spirit and productivity. A WIT is a small group of civil servants of different ranks from the same work
unit in an organization. This voluntary groups met regularly to identify those improvements that could
be achieved and formulate ways to attain the desired improvements (Sum, 2000).
For example, the Ministry of Defense and the Armed Forces launched the productivity drive in 1981.
Since all young Singaporean males (age 18–21) were obligated to enroll in the national service(Singapore Armed Force, Singapore Policy Force, and Singapore Civil Defense Force) for 24 months,
this has proved to be an effective way of disseminating the concept of productivity.15
Regarding labor unions, the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) spearheaded the productivity
campaign and created the Productivity Promotion Council. The campaign aimed to inculcate
productivity and quality-consciousness at the workplace. Regarding employers groups, Singapore
National Employers’ Federation and Singapore Manufacturers’ Federation supported the Productivity
Movement. Both unions and employer groups supported workforce training, with financial incentives
from the NPB-administered SDF. Furthermore, productivity-related programs were promoted atvarious educational institutions (including polytechnics) to raise productivity awareness in the future
workforce.
3-5. The role of international cooperation
3-5-1. JICA-supported Productivity Development Project (PDP)The JICA project supported a crucial part of the Productivity Movement by sharing best practices,training NPB staff and company workers, and developing manuals.16 The project was fully integrated
into Singapore’s national initiative and contributed to (i) upgrading the skills of the NPB staff and theprivate sector; (ii) developing manuals and promotional materials; (iii) developing a pool ofmanagement consultants; and (iv) raising productivity in key industries. Furthermore, the project15

As of January 2008, obligatory military service was replaced with voluntary military service.
Over 200 Japanese long-term and short-term experts were dispatched from Japan to help improve the capabilities of NPB
and local industries (NPB and JICA, 1990)
16

60

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

supported the process of transforming NPB into a donor by providing an opportunity for NPB toconsolidate its acquired management consulting skills and share them with ASEAN countries throughregional training programs.
As Figure 3-4 shows, two major pillars of the PDP were (i) training of trainers and (ii) upgrading of
NPB staff. Various methods were used such as practical guidance, development of training materials,
model company and pilot company projects, seminars and workshops, papers, and training in Japan(PDP fellowships). PDP emphasized human aspects, quality, cost, delivery (QCD), and the transfer ofJapanese experience.
Figure 3-4. Summary of JICA-supported PDP (after restructuring)

The PDP lasted for seven years and developed through four phases: (i) preparatory phase (June
1983–March 1985); (ii) restructuring phase (April 1985–October 1986); (iii) implementing phase(November 1986–June 1988), and (iv) follow-up or consolidation phase (June 1988–June 1990 (NPBand JICA, 1990).17
Because this was the first experience for JICA to transfer software (humanware) technology throughcomprehensive technical cooperation, the initial years of PDP encountered some difficulties. The
Japanese experts, assuming that the same steps should be taken in Singapore as in Japan, started to
instill basic concepts and principles in their Singaporean counterparts. They believed that it wasnecessary to take this step in order to form a sold base before teaching concrete methods of
17This and the following four paragraphs were based on the section “Four Phase of Technology Transfer in PDP” of NPB
and JICA, 1990.

61

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

productivity improvement (Ueda, 2009). By contrast, the Singaporeans requested quick and tangible
results, such as the transfer and application of production management technologies on the ground.
This was partly because the NPB management felt strong pressure due to the close attention being
paid to the PDP by the Prime Minister. Based on discussions between JICA and the NPB, the role of
the Japanese partners changed. They no longer just trained their Singaporean counterparts inclassrooms; they adopted OJT so that the counterparts were able to experience and learn how theirjobs could be done (Ueda, 2009).
During the restructuring phase, a technology transfer plan was developed to enable expertise to bebuilt up within the NPB to directly assist industries in improving their productivity (for example,
through the Model Company Project).
The implementation phase saw the attachment of long-term JICA experts specializing in management
consultancy for SMEs. This was in line with the NPB’s focus on providing management guidanceservices for local companies. During this phase, the experts’ role shifted from that of leaders toadvisors for the NPB project teams. The NPB counterparts were then better equipped to lead industry
project teams with the experts playing a supporting role as advisors. For the first time, fellowshiptraining in Japan was extended to private sector managers and consultants. Upon their return, severalof them were appointed as NPB Associate Consultants to supplement the expertise of the NPB in
providing consultancy services to industries.
The two years of the follow-up or consolidation phase were devoted to upgrading management
consultancy skills of NPB staff through practical OJT and to launching a two-month Japan-ASEAN
Regional Training Program on management consultancy where the NPB took prime responsibility forsharing its acquired skills with ASEAN countries. Fundamental productivity practices (such as 5S)
were firmly entrenched in industry. Attention was also placed on the service industries, with Japaneseexperts providing advice, particularly in upgrading customer service.
3-5-2. Singapore’s international cooperation
After the PDP was completed in Singapore, the NPB and JICA conducted joint training programs indeveloping countries in Asia and Africa until around 2005. 18 In parallel, under the Singapore
Cooperation Program (SCP) managed by the Technical Cooperation Directorate of the Ministry ofForeign Affairs,19 SPA also provided cooperation to productivity improvement in Botswana from18

Since 1997, JICA has been managing the Japan-Singapore Partnership Program for the 21st Century (JSPP 21) with theTechnical Cooperation Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This includes a joint training program on productivity
management in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries, implemented during 1997–2004.
19
The SCP was established in 1992 by the Singaporean government to share its development experience and public sector
expertise with developing countries.

62

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

1991 for about ten years at the request of the President of Botswana to then Singaporean Prime
Minister Goh Chok Tong. Based on the experience of the PDP, SPA supported (i) the promotion of
tripartite cooperation among government, labor, and industry; (ii) staff training of the Botswana
National Productivity Center (BNPC); and (iii) the implementation of pilot projects for modelcompanies (see Chapter 5). For the public sector, a twinning arrangement was made between the
Botswana Institute of Administration and Commerce (BIAC) and Singapore's Civil Service Training
Institute in order to introduce WITs to Botswana’s civil service (World Bank, 1996).
3-6. Latest initiative on productivity improvement
When the JICA-supported PDP came to an end in the mid-1990s, Mr. Mah Bow Tan, former Ministerof State, Trade & Industry and Communications & Information and the Chairman of NPB, stated,“The Productivity Movement has been compared to a marathon with no finish line.” (NPB and JICA,
1990)20 This is true. Singapore continues to work on productivity improvement. In fact, in recent
years, productivity improvement has been resurrected as a high-priority, national agenda item.
As the Singaporean economy came out of the recession caused by the global financial crisis, thegovernment sees an opportunity to restructure its economy and maximize growth capability in the
post-crisis era—the new world environment characterized by the rise of China and India. The
government formed a high-level Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) in May 2009, chaired by
Minister of Finance Tharman Shanmugratnam, with the participation of representatives of thegovernment, labor unions, and business.21 The ESC submitted the final report to Prime Minister, Lee
Hsien Loong at the end of January. It was officially launched on February 1, 2010. Envisioning“high-skilled people, innovative economy, distinctive global city,” the ESC Report recommended a
drastic shift to productivity-driven growth (aiming at annual productivity growth of 2–3% and GDP
growth of 3–5% on average in the next ten years) and presented seven key strategies to achieve thisgoal. The main thrust of the ESC Report was endorsed by the Prime Minister and reflected in the
FY2010 budget (starting from April 1).
One of the seven key strategies is “growing through skills and innovation.” To oversee and drive thenational effort to boost productivity and skills upgrading, the government established the National
Productivity and Continuing Education Council (NPCEC) in April 2010. NPCEC is chaired by
Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) Teo Chee Hean and its members come from government, the business20

Its original statement came from Mr. Kohei Goshi, former Chairman of JPC: “The transformation of mankind’s way of
thinking can be compared to a marathon with no finish line.” (From his letter to Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in September
1986)
21
The ESC is an ad hoc mechanism. Under the main committee chaired by the Minister of Finance (comprised of 25
members), eight subcommittees and several working groups were formed. Each subcommittee was co-chaired byrepresentatives of the public and private sectors.

63

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

community, and labor unions. The chairpersonship of the DPM signifies the high priority accorded tothe productivity issue. MTI and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) jointly act as the secretariat.
Under NPCEC, there are two layers of organizations: (i) the Working Committee for Productivity andContinuing Education (WCPCE) led by the Permanent Secretaries of MTI and MOM; and (ii) 12
sector working groups and horizontal thematic working groups coordinated by responsible
government agencies (see Figure 3-5).
Figure 3-5. Institutional Mechanism for Boosting Skills andEnterprise Productivity through National Effort

Source: Elaborated by the author based on the information gathered by the GRIPS mission to Singapore
during Aug.29-Sept.3, 2010.

NPCEC has selected 12 priority sectors based on the criteria of the size of contribution to employment
and GDP and high potential for productivity gain. Each sector group formulates a productivity
roadmap for the next ten years. These roadmaps are reviewed by the WCPCE and submitted to the
NPCEC for final approval. A ministry or an agency is assigned to oversee each priority sector. For
example, the EDB is responsible for electronics, precision engineering, transport engineering,logistics and storage, while SPRING is responsible for general manufacturing, food and beverages,
and retail. In addition, horizontal working groups are created to work on cross-cutting issues such as
low-wage workers, research and benchmarking, and infocomm (ICT) and logistics. Government,
businesses, and unions participate in these sectoral and thematic working groups.

64Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

3-7. Conclusion
Singapore’s successful experience with the Productivity Movement can be taken as a benchmark forcountries which are striving to introduce such a government-led national movement. Following aresome of the lessons learned from the Singaporean experience.
First, productivity is a question of paradigm shift. It is a movement, not an event. There is no finishline. Productivity mindset is an attitude with which people strive for and acquire the habit of
improvement, as well as the systems and the set of practices that translate the attitude into action.22
Hence, what is required is a new mindset for all political, business, academic and union leaders: acuriosity and concern with context, acceptance of complexity and its contradictions, diversity
consciousness and sensitivity, seeking opportunity in surprises and uncertainties, faith inorganizational processes, focus on continuous improvement, extended time perspective, and systems
thinking (Kitaw, 2011).
Second, productivity needs strong commitment. It needs strong commitment from higher officials,
organizations, and individuals. In Singapore, the deep interest of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew wascritical to making the Productivity Movement widespread and entrenched in the society. Even now, at
the National Day Message (2010), Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong states: “We must keep learningfrom others, improve in every area and strive hard to achieve our future goals. Tomorrow’s Singapore
is better than today.”Third, productivity needs strong organizational structure. As the Singaporean experience suggests, theestablishment of a high-level tripartite council for policy coordination and a national productivity
organization as an implementation body is vitally important. These organizations must be linked withbroader members of the society, namely, key stakeholders such as the government, business(including business associations and chambers), labor, and academia. Such mechanisms should
provide channels of disseminating productivity awareness and translating the awareness into actionsin their workplace, training and education. While this Chapter primarily discussed tripartite
partnership among the government, employers, and unions, the partnerships among the government,
the private sector, and academia (including universities) are also important. Such linkages areimportant for (i) preparing suitably trained graduates to meet the manpower needs of industry; (ii)conducting practice-and application-oriented training; (iii) providing “industry attachment”(internship) for students; and (iv) collaborating with industry and development agencies.
Fourth, the three stages of the Productivity Movement—awareness, action, and ownership—can be a22This is the productivity concept of the NPB, Singapore, quoted in the Power Point material, “Evolution of the
Productivity Movement in Singapore,” SPRING Singapore, 2010.

65

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

useful reference for a country where the cultural awareness of productivity is low. Attitudinal changeis achieved through the stages of awareness, understanding, conviction and action. In this regard,
annual productivity campaigns are required to promote the theme of quality and productivity. Having
campaigns launched by high-level ministers, developing nationwide program, and forming QCCs at
the workplaces are several ways to promote productivity. Productivity promotion may be effectively
carried out through (i) education, seminars and publication (e.g., support, teaching quality andproductivity at all levels in the education system, quality award conferences, national quality circle
conventions, publications and dissemination of quality news); (ii) promotion and establishment of
national awards; and (iii) adoption of best practices.
Fifth, to self-sustain the Productivity Movement, there is a need to develop a cadre of private
management consultants. As explained earlier, the JICA-supported PDP trained not only the NPB
counterparts, but also private experts. Under the “Management Consultancy Referral Scheme” and the“Associate Consultants Scheme,” those trained under the JICA project became NPB Associate orReferral Consultants and were mobilized as “qualified” private management consultants (NPB and
JICA, 1990). As such, a pool of associate and referral consultants was created to supplement the
NPB’s efforts in reaching out to industries and ensuring the sustainability of the Productivity
Movement.

66

Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

References
Chan, Lee Mun (2008), “Polytechnic Education,” chapter 6 in Lee, Sing Kong, Goh Chor Boon,
Birger Fredriksen, and Tan Jee Peng (2008) eds., Toward a Better Future: Education and Training for
Economic Development in Singapore since 1965, National Institute of Education, Singapore, andWorld Bank.
Department of Statistics, Singapore (2011), Monthly Digest of Statistics, Singapore, June.
GRIPS Development Forum (2010), “A Report on the Singapore Mission,” September 13, 2010
(commissioned by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) to compile information on
industrial policies in selected East Asian countries for the use of other developing countries).
Kitaw, Daniel (2011), “Singapore’s Productivity Movement: Lessons Learned and Recommendations
for Ethiopia,” March.
Lee, Kuan Yew (2000), From Third World to First: The Singapore Story, 1965–2000: Memoirs of Lee
Kuan Yew. Singapore: Times Editions, Singapore Press Holdings.
Lee, Sing Kong, Goh Chor Boon, Birger Fredriksen, and Tan Jee Peng (2008), Toward a Better
Future: Education and Training for Economic Development in Singapore since 1965, National
Institute of Education, Singapore, and World Bank.
Low, Choo Tuck, Productivity Movement and Competitiveness: The Singapore’s Experience.
http://www.vpc.org.vn/Desktop.aspx/Productivity--Quality-Tools/Productivity-Quality-Tools/Producti
vity_movement_and_competitiveness-the_Singapores_experience/
National Productivity Board (NPB) (1987), Our Story: 15 Years of NPB.
NPB and JICA (1990), Further Fields to Conquer: A PDP Commemorative Publication, jointly
published by NPB, Singapore and JICA, Japan.
SPRING Singapore (2010), “Evolution of the Productivity Movement in Singapore,” Power Point
presentation, Singapore.
Sum, Wan Wah (2000), “The Enhanced Productivity Program: The Implementation of the First
Phase,” University of Hong Kong, Department of Politics and Public Administration. A Dissertation
undertaken in partial fulfillment of the Master Degree of Public Administration.
Ueda, Takafumi (2009) “Productivity and Quality Improvement: JICA’s Assistance in Kaizen,”
chapter 5, pp.55-64 in GRIPS Development Forum, ed., Introducing KAIZEN in Africa, October.
World Bank (1996) “Governance and Public Administration (Botswana),” Findings: Best Practices
Infobrief No. 9, Africa Region, World Bank, October.
World Bank and International Finance Corporation (IFC) (2010) Doing Business 2011: Making a
Difference for Entrepreneurs.

67Chapter 3. Productivity Movement in Singapore

World Economic Forum (2010), Global Competitiveness Report 2010–2011, edited by Professor
Klaus Schwab, Geneva, Switzerland.

68