Learning on Lean a Review of Thinking and Research

8/12/2019 Learning on Lean a Review of Thinking and Research

1/33

Learning on lean: a reviewof thinking and research

JoseMoyano-FuentesDepartment of Business Organization, Marketing and Sociology,

University of Jaen, Linares, Spain, and

Macarena Sacristan-DazDepartment of Financial Economics and Operations Management,

University of Seville, Seville, Spain

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of research on lean production (LP)since the concept was developed at the end of the 1980s with the aim of developing a model that

permits an extended and comprehensive understanding of LP.Design/methodology/approach A literature survey of peer reviewed journal articles andparadigmatic books with managerial impact is employed as the research methodology.

Findings The findings derived from the evaluation of the publications analysed have led to thecreation of an extended model of LP. Specifically, two new groups of factors to be taken into account inorder to achieve a comprehensive understanding of LP are presented. Apart from internal aspects atthe shop floor level and value chain elements, the model provided includes work organisation and theimpact that the geographical context has on LP. In addition, the critical assessment of publications hasallowed a number of specific aspects to be identified for which there is no empirical evidence.

Originality/value This paper puts forward a new classification of literature identifying keyaspects that should be included for LP development and management. It might represent newopportunities for rigorous and relevant research that would contribute to more transparent knowledgeof LP being gained.

KeywordsLean production, Shopfloor, Just in time, Work organization, Value chain,Geographical context

Paper typeLiterature review

1. IntroductionCompanies currently need to find solutions to certain challenges that they are subjectedto by the competition, the marketplace and the institutional environment they are inthrough their management style. This new scenario has led to a search for alternativemanagement models aimed at guaranteeing the meeting of customers needs in order toreinforce the companys competitive position. A number of researchers have detected atrend towards the adoption of the principles of the lean production (LP) model which

not only affect companies internally but also the way they are organised externally(Shah and Ward, 2007).

The term LP was first coined by Krafcik (1988) in his Masters degree thesis at theMIT Sloan School of Management[1]. However, the English term lean was chosen forthe Toyota System and popularised by MIT Toyota researchers inThe Machine that

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

This study was funded by the research projects P08-SEJ3607 and ECO2010-22105-C03-02 of theAndalusian Regional Government and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.

Learning on lea

55

Received 8 January 200Revised 3 September 200

25 May 2011 December 201

24 January 20Accepted 24 January 20

International Journal of Operatio

& Production Manageme

Vol. 32 No. 5, 20

pp. 551-5

q Emerald Group Publishing Limi

0144-35

DOI 10.1108/014435712112264


2/33

Changed the World(Womacket al., 1990) to contrast their LP with the alternative ofmass production. In their book, the LP concept was broader since, in contrast with thework by Krafcik, not only were manufacturing operations discussed but also productdevelopment, and supply chain and distribution issues (Holweg, 2007). Since the

publication ofThe Machine. . .

, the LP model has been the focus of growing attentionfrom the scientific community as a good management method for improvingcompanies competitiveness. In the mid-1990s, Voss (1995) established that there was ahigh level of research into LP and just-in-time (JIT) on the basis of articles published inInternational Journal of Operations & Production Management(IJOPM) and also thatthe trend was on the increase. It was precisely the following year when said magazinebrought out a special edition on LP (1996, Vol. 16 No. 2). Some years later, Shah andWard (2003) were still highlighting the interest shown in the topic by researchers, inthis case the year after the International Journal of Production Economics (IJPE) hadlikewise published a special edition on the subject (2002, Vol. 80 No. 2). More recently,Radnor and Boaden (2008) opened up the debate on the repercussions that LP has in

public services when they coordinated a special issue of the Public Money& Management journal (2008, Vol. 28 No. 1). The benefits that LP generates incompanies outside its natural context (manufacturing sector), including the servicesector and, more specifically, a number of sectors with particular features, such aspublic services, are thus recognised.

The scope and significance of thinking and research on LP have changed over time,so it is necessary to use a retrospective vision and a global dimension that bring out themain aspects related to LP in the present day. In this paper, we intend to attend to thismatter by identifying the key elements for LP development and management, so that

an extended and comprehensive understanding of LP can be obtained, at the same timethat we obtain a critical assessment, identifying relationships that arise in the researchof LP, facilitate the work to be done by new researchers wishing to undertake work onLP, and try to provide new directions for future research in the subject. In order toachieve these goals, the literature on the subject has been exhaustively compiled andevaluated to the present day.

The literature provides several articles reviewing LP, but their objectives aredifferent from those of this paper. For example, Hines et al. (2004) analysed theevolution of research on LP together with the evolution of the lean concept itselfidentifying four key stages in its development focusing on different competitivepriorities: awareness in the 1980s, a focus on quality in the literature of the early 1990s,a focus on quality, cost and delivery in the late 1990s, and customer value from 2000onwards. More recently, Holweg (2007) stated that the lean concept was the outcome ofa dynamic learning process that adapted practices originating in the automotive and

textile sectors in response to environmental contingencies in Japan at the time. Alsohighlighted is the role played by the MIT International Motor Vehicle Program incompanies recognising the importance of lean practices for improving their results.The aim of this paper differs from that of Holweg (2007) since we analyse research onLP to date, but do not focus on reasons explaining the origin and rise of the system. Inaddition, this paper complements that of Hines et al. (2004) by putting forward a newclassification of literature identifying key aspects that should be included for thecreation of an extended model of LP.

IJOPM32,5

552


3/33

Four bundles of aspects connected with LP have been identified which will be analysedin this paper, with special attention being paid to the current situation surrounding thepractice. A study of these aspects composes the blocks that this article is structured intoafter Section 2, which sets out the research methodology. Consequently, Section 3 is

structured in four subsections. The internal aspects of LP, that is, those at the shop floorlevel, are presented in Subsection 3.1, where three related issues are distinguished: theprinciples of LP, its implementation process, and the results produced. Subsection 3.2analyses the literature on the impact of LP on the value chain. Subsequently,Subsection 3.3 is devoted to work organisation in LP, while Subsection 3.4 focuses on theimpact of the geographical context on LP. Finally, the conclusions are set out in Section 4along with lines of research that should be addressed in the future.

2. MethodologyThe research methodology employed was a literature survey. Methodology of this typehas been successfully used in recent works devoted to evaluating research on other

management systems, such as total quality management (TQM) (Sila andEbrahimpour, 2002), supply chain management (SCM) (Gunasekaran and Ngai,2005), new product development (Krishnan and Loch, 2005) and others (Kouveliset al.,2005) and is highly appropriate given the objectives of this paper.

The revised bibliography includes peer reviewed journal articles and paradigmaticbooks with managerial impact on the subject; dissertations, test-books, unpublishedworking papers and conference papers were excluded. Literature was taken from

journals in the areas of production and operations management (OM), operationsresearch, general management, logistics management and human resource management.Articles were identified in the main management databases (ABI Inform Global;Business Source Premier; Elsevier ScienceDirect; Emerald Database and AnbarInternational Management Database) using key words or terms that are often used in the

literature to describe LP-related principles and practices and were therefore deemed to bethe most relevant search key words: lean manufacturing; LP; lean management; leanthinking; lean enterprise, Toyota Production System (TPS); JIT; and SCM. The searchwas done for the period between the publication of the Womack et al.(1990) book to thepresent day. Despite the fact that JIT and the TPS had already been known for almost adecade before its publication (Schonberger, 1982; Hall, 1983; Monden, 1983), this bookplayed a key role in disseminating the concept of LP in the world. The reason for this wasthat the Machine book not only discussed manufacturing operations but also productdevelopment, and supply chain and distribution issues (Holweg, 2007, p. 426).

In addition, we wanted to ensure that all articles related to LP that appeared in fiveessential journals for the OM area were checked, and all electronic editions ofIJOPM,Journal of Management,International Journal of Production Research,Production and

Operations Managementand IJPEwere systematically searched.The database searches yielded hundreds of articles. Each of the articles was

examined to ensure that its content was relevant to LP from the perspective of the aimsof our research. This paper should contribute to defining and clarifying what LPconsists of, classify the literature based on groups of aspects that permit an extendedmodel of LP to be developed, review the selected articles on LP for their contribution tothe development of LP, leading to some useful insights into LP and some futureresearch directions, and facilitate research for new adepts who want to make

Learning on lea

55


4/33

a start in LP. For this reason, the consideration and classification of articles was doneon the basis of the criterion of selecting only those in which LP was at the core of thearticle, whilst others dealing with some implicit aspects related to the managementsystem, such as those linked to TQM, total productive maintenance (TPM) or single

minute exchange of dies, or technical aspects in general terms, were rejected.The classifying procedure was as follows:

. Analysis of the papers research question identifying the conceptual aspects forLP development and management.

. Grouping of conceptual aspects of a similar nature and/or related to researchtopics on LP.

. Grouping of topics into representative sets of aspects to develop an extendedmodel of LP.

3. Analysis of the literature: an extended modelBy using the classifying procedure described above, four groups of elements that

should be included in an extended model of LP were detected:

(1) Internal LP aspects (at the shop floor level), which allow a comprehensivepicture of the system to be set out on the internal level of the companysproduction process.

(2) The impact of LP on the value chain, which is logical considering that SCM isone of the key research areas for OM researchers nowadays.

(3) Work organisation in LP, as might be expected since the human factor andrespect for people are some of the pillars of this management system.

(4) The impact of the geographical context on LP.

These issues have not been systematically addressed by researchers and practitioners.

Figure 1 shows the proposed extended model for LP considering these groups ofaspects.

For a better understanding of the proposed grouping, an assessment of research onevery group of the identified elements is done, emphasising the existing relationshipsin the literature.

Figure 1.An extended modelof lean production

Research on Lean Production

Emphasis on

Internal

Aspects

(Shop Floor)

Value ChainWork

Organisation

Impact of

Geographical

Context

Key aspects:- Principles on which LP is

based- Implementation process- Results derived from

implementation

Key aspects:- Extension of lean principles

to the value chain- Restructuration of the supply

chain

Key aspects:- Degree of human resource

commitment to LP- Influence of LP on work system- Effect of LP on human resource

management- Unfavourable effects on human

resources

Key aspects:- Impact on LP of social,

cultural and economic context

of the country

Source: Authors

IJOPM32,5

554


5/33

3.1 Research on internal aspects (shop floor level) of lean productionLP first appeared in the Toyota automotive company during the 1950s to tackle theneed to cater for smaller markets with a greater variety of vehicles, which requiredgreater production flexibility. Its main objective is to execute operations at minimum

cost and with no wastage. To this end, it is designed to act upon the causes ofvariability or losses (such as anything that the customer does not perceive as addedvalue), and upon the causes of inflexibility (anything that does not adapt to customerdemand) with a view to achieving an improvement in quality, costs, and delivery andother times (Womack et al., 1990). LP can therefore be referred to as an integratedmanufacturing system aimed at minimising inventory levels and maximising capacityuse through the minimisation of variability in the system (Wacker, 2004; de Trevilleand Antonakis, 2006).

The origins of this philosophy go back to 1986 when MIT academics and visitingJapanese professors were working on how to transfer the Japanese human resourcesand production system to US plants. A benchmarking index was used with companies

classified on a scale from fragile to robust or buffered. Fragile was lateramended to Lean, which was seen to have a more positive connotation (Shimada andMacDuffie, 1987; Krafcik and MacDuffie, 1989). The term lean production was firstused by Krafcik (1988) and, as was natural, Womacket al.subsequently used the termlean production in theMachinebook to contrast it with the Western mass productionsystem (Holweg, 2007).

LP can be found in literature and practice with other similar names that refer to thesame concept: zero inventory production, synchronised manufacturing, productionwithout stocks, materials as they are required or continuous flow manufacturing.

However, LP is a different system to agile production. Whereas LP pursues the efficientuse of resources through the elimination of wastage from unnecessary or inefficientoperations or through a surplus of inventory between operations, agile production(or agile manufacturing) aims at companies being able to efficiently adapt to changingand uncertain market conditions (Narasimhan et al., 2006). Both systems address thesame competitive priorities (quality, costs, delivery times and service level) but put theemphasis on different elements. So, whereas LP tries to satisfy the customer by addingvalue and eliminating waste, creating long-term relations with suppliers and reducingstocks to a minimum throughout, agile production together with agile supply chainseek to satisfy the customer by configuring to order and creating virtual supply chains,with supply chain stock reduction having little importance (Christopher et al., 1999).Hallgren and Olhager (2009) find that lean and agile manufacturing differ in terms ofdrivers and outcomes. Despite these differences, some researchers present lean andagile production as strategies that are mutually supportive (Katayama and Bennett,

1999; Naylor et al., 1999; Christopher and Towill, 2001). If lead-times are long butdemand is predictable, then there is an opportunity for lean strategy to be pursued.However, when demand is unpredictable but lead-times are short, then there is anopportunity for agile strategy to be pursued (Christopher et al., 2006).

The most recent definitions of LP focus on its impact on value delivery focusing onoperations carried out inside the company or at the shop floor level. As such,

Murmanet al.(2002) state that becoming lean is a waste elimination internal processwith the goal of creating value.

Learning on lea

55


6/33

Three work groups focused on the internal application of LP have been identified:

those that analyse the principles on which it is based, those focused on the

implementation process and those that analyse results derived from its implementation.

3.1.1 The principles of lean production. The basic principles of LP were described by

the authors who coined the term: Krafcik (1988), Womack et al.(1990) and Womack andJones (1996). In their book Lean Thinking, Womack and Jones (1996) codify the essenceof LP into five well known basic principles:

(1) Specify value.

(2) Identify the value stream.

(3) Avoid interruptions in value flow.

(4) Let customers pull value.

(5) Start pursuing perfection again.

Since then, there have been several major papers that have gone into said principles in

greater depth, as well as others than have proposed new principles supporting leanthinking, which have been summarised in Table I.

In said table, it can be appreciated that up to 2007 research emphasised the

management of internal operations to achieve the goals of LP. In this line, Cusumano

(1994) sets out a broad range of main factors as the necessary condition for achieving

the objectives of quality, productivity and flexibility as established in LP. He refers to

these as the principles of lean management and groups them together according to the

effects that they have on production or the product. Other authors (Richards, 1996;

Nature of principles PrinciplesAuthors developing (basic) orproposing (new) said principles

Basic principles (Womack et al.,1990; Womack and Jones, 1996)

Specify value Cusumano (1994), Richards (1996),Soriano-Meier and Forrester (2002)

Identify the valuestream

Cusumano (1994), Karlsson andAhlstrom (1996), Richards (1996),Soriano-Meier and Forrester (2002)and Suzuki (2004)

Avoid interruptions invalue flow

Cusumano (1994), Karlsson andAhlstrom (1996), Richards (1996),Soriano-Meier and Forrester (2002),Suzuki (2004), Shah and Ward (2007)

Let customers pull value Shah and Ward (2007)Start pursuingperfection again

Cusumano (1994), Karlsson andAhlstrom (1996), Richards (1996),

Soriano-Meier and Forrester (2002)and Suzuki (2004)

Other principles considered inresearch

Committedmanagement

Soriano-Meier and Forrester (2002)

Respect for people Emiliani (2007a, b)Involve supply chainmanagement

Shah and Ward (2007)

Source:Authors

Table I.The principlesof lean production

IJOPM32,5

556


7/33

Karlsson and Ahlstrom, 1996), however, take an opposing point-of-view to this widespectrum of factors and focus on a smaller number of features to develop LP principles.

Soriano-Meier and Forrester (2002) include an aspect in their paper based onKarlsson and Ahlstrom (1996) related to managerial commitment to the model. This

ties in with the results obtained by Zayko et al. (1997) who, when analysing theapplication of the model in a number of industries, discovered that the first obstacleand main issue when implementing LP is a lack of management conviction in thebenefits it provides.

Suzuki (2004), that focuses on value stream and continual improvement, points outthat the essential elements of LP are JIT and Japanese Work Organisation (JWO). JWOconsists of establishing a way of organising work aimed at the comprehensivepractical application of workers skills;, i.e. the full use of the labour forces skills. Onthis basis, LP principles can be broken down into two groups. In the first group can befound the principles of JIT, which affect productivity, costs, delivery times and theproduct range, whereas in the second group can be found the principles of JWO, whichhave a bearing on product quality, costs and productivity.

More recently, in an attempt at clarifying all the elements supporting theseprinciples and developing a multifaceted measure for LP, Shah and Ward (2007)identified ten key aspects related to the system. Most of these ten aspects (six) arelinked to internal features of the company while the others relate to the management ofexternal aspects connected with suppliers and customer involvement, going beyondthe scope of the original principles. However, Emiliani (2007a, b) emphasises theimportance of respect for people, a principle that is often missing from the practice ofLP. This principle should be an inspiration, not a deterrent, and is understood onlythrough daily practice.

3.1.2 The implementation process. With regard to papers focusing on theimplementation process for LP, the first issue that must be mentioned is that there is no

agreement on which sequence to follow, as can be seen in Table II.On the one hand, there are authors who defend parallel implementation since, likeHayeset al.(1988), they consider that LP principles cannot be implemented in isolation.However, others like Ferdows and de Meyer (1990) state that LP should beimplemented sequentially as, on the one hand, there has to be a natural sequence forsustainable capabilities to be obtained, and, on the other, the amount of effort andresources that management can devote to the implementation of improvements may belimited. Womack and Jones (1996) defined the theoretical phases that companies shouldfollow to implement LP and put forward policies to be applied. Accordingly, thesequence should start with a partial adoption in the most visible and importantactivities in the company and continue with gradual complete adoption. For their part

Sequence Reference

In parallel Hayes et al. (1988)Sequentially Ferdows and de Meyer (1990), Storhagen (1993),

Womack and Jones (1996), Zayko et al. (1997)In parallel and sequentially Ahlstrom (1998)

Source:Authors

Table IThe sequence in whic

LP principles shoube implemente

Learning on lea

55


8/33

Richet al.(2006) produced a detailed implementation guide and an illustration of othercompanies that have applied lean thinking in practice, highlighting the key challenges

and pitfalls.

The reasoning behind sequential implementation is backed up empirically in

Zayko et al. (1997) and Storhagen (1993). Zayko et al. (1997) describe the processbeginning with the setting up of teams and their training in continuous improvement.

Subsequently, engineering personal and supervisors should be trained up in lean

techniques. Next, programmes should be put in place in key departments to encourageoperatives to reduce machine set-up times and to suggest how improvements might be

made. The management, meanwhile, should focus on how to involve staff by rewarding

them for any initiatives that lead to a significant cost reduction, increased machinecapacity and reduced machine and operative idle times. Finally, the plant should be

reshaped into manufacturing cells, with the creation of multidisciplinary teams, the

application of JIT and the detection of inefficiencies in the remaining company areas.Storhagen (1993) suggests that the implementation process should begin with

techniques and methods that change the features of the manufacturing systems(such as those that allow a cut in machine set-up times), and then continue with those

that permit improved material flows (such as geographical proximity of suppliers or

quality certification provided by suppliers).Ahlstrom (1998) expresses another view when he points out that there is a need to

implement principles both in parallel and sequentially (Figure 2). Figure 2 shows how

management effort and resources need to be devoted to the core and supportingprinciples in parallel. As the foundations are laid with zero defects and delayering,

management effort and resources can shift to starting a continuous improvementinitiative. The initiative implies using multifunctional teams to solve problems as a

natural part of their day-to-day work.

Figure 2.LP implementationsequence

Elimination of waste

Multifunctional teams

Pull system

Vertical information system

Team leaders

Continuous improvement

Zero defects

Delayering (reductions in

hierarchy levels)

Time spent adopting Lean Production

Source: Ahlstrm (1998)

Management

effort and

resources

Core

principles

Supporting

principles

IJOPM32,5

558


9/33

Whether done sequentially or simultaneously, there are another two clearly interestingaspects of the LP adoption process that the researchers have not been blind to: theaspects that trigger or catalyse adoption and the problems that result from it.

With regard to the former, in their analysis of the adoption of LP in the

South African automotive industry, Kojima and Kaplinsky (2004) state that the twomain aspects that led to its being adopted were the role played by companies withforeign capital (especially Toyota) on the one hand, and the role played by thecompanies themselves in specific training programmes, on the other. Be that as it may,it should be stressed that the steps that have to be taken in order to change to the newsystem differ greatly from one company to another (Kochan et al., 1997).

On the other hand, another group of papers identifies problems arising in companiesduring the implementation process and these are summarised in Table III.

Pavnascar et al. (2003) assert that there is no way systematically to link amanufacturing organisation to its problem and to the possible tools to eliminate theseproblems. These authors propose a classification scheme to serve as a link betweenmanufacturing waste problems and LP tools, which can be used to match different

types of manufacturing wastage to appropriate tools. Smeds (1994) argued thatinternal lean changes in manufacturing processes can trigger radical innovationstowards lean enterprise structures and that, as a result, it is necessary to managechange to LP as an innovation process. In this sense, Moyano-Fuentes et al. (2012)found that companies need to augment the degree of use of internal informationtechnology in order to increase the level of implementation of LP.

Delery (1999) underlines the importance of having sufficient knowledge to beexposed to the influence of international competitors, employees preferences andcultural values and pressures from trades unions and governments. In this sense,Harrison and Storey (1996) state that the following should be done before this system isput in place in the company:

.

Established barriers should be eliminated, considering implementation as awhole and not simply the implementation of a series of techniques.

. Integration should be improved.

. Employees commitment level should be rewarded.

Problem relating to. . . Reference

The remuneration system serves as both an obstructing and a facilitatingforce in the implementation process. There is a tendency for theremuneration system to be more obstructive at first, but with time it tendsto facilitate the implementation process

Karlsson and Ahlstrom(1995)

Need for prior evaluation of integration, supply chain management,

recognition of level of commitment, company culture

Harrison and Storey

(1996)External environment (increase in pollution, adaptation to variations indemand, unfavourable reaction of consumers to excessive number ofproducts), internal environment (ageing reduces flexibility)

Katayama and Bennett(1996)

Way that the role of the workers is regarded Maccoby (1997)Information about competition, workers preferences and cultural values,pressures from trade unions and government policies

Delery (1999)

Source:Authors

Table IIProblems arising durin

the LP implementatioproce

Learning on lea

559


10/33

. The agenda for management change should be extended throughout theorganisation as far as the supply chain.

. The company culture should be changed.

The viability of LP also depends on the effects it has on the companys external andinternal environments (Katayama and Bennett, 1996). Problems that it causes in theexternal environment include increased traffic around industrial cities resulting fromfrequent deliveries with consequent increased pollution, inconvenience to other users,and greater fuel consumption. Another problem might be an unfavourable consumerreaction to an excessive number of new models being brought out onto the marketcausing confusion when choosing a new product. One of the problems related to theinternal environment is the ageing population, which makes it difficult for companiesto achieve the flexibility that they seek and results in an inability to adapt to variationsin demand (Katayama and Bennett, 1996).

Finally, some authors indicate that the systems weak point lies in the way the

workers role is regarded (Maccoby, 1997). Effectively, as Womack et al. (1990) pointout, what really attracts workers to a lean company is not the chance to develop on thebasis of their own initiatives, but rather the high salaries achieved by trades unions.Cooney (2002) goes further into this issue and states that these conditions make it amore interesting prospect to work by lot in certain industrial scenarios and, as such, LPis not a universally applicable management system.

3.1.3 Results of implementation. To analyse the results of LP implementation wewill distinguish between those related to company activity and those observed inperformance.

(a) Impact of LP on company activity. Spear and Bowen (1999) state that althoughmany companies have tried to apply the principles of LP, only very few have achievedthe results on a par with Toyota. It is not difficult to understand that what is right for

Toyota may not be right for every company since they have a long-standing relationshipwith highly competent suppliers, and extraordinary engineering expertise (Ward et al.,1995; Liker, 2004; Liker and Meier, 2005). Moreover, there is also the difficulty ofunderstanding the principles that guide Toyotas decision making in design and thathave led to its highly effective product development system (Sobek II et al., 1999; Morganand Liker, 2006).

LP implementation is appropriate and generates positive results not only for themotor industry but also for many other sectors, including services (Womack et al., 1990).Notwithstanding, for certain industries the implementation of LP suggests a need forwork to be done by lot rather than using this system (Cooney, 2002). Burcher et al. (1996)propose this variant for cases where orders are repeated with great frequency, in anattempt to find a balance between the minimum lot size and the time required to change

tools and set up. Table IV shows other industries apart from the motor industry whereLP implementation has generated positive results.

The adoption of LP in the service sector took place once widespread acceptance in themanufacturing industry had been achieved. Nevertheless, there is a lack of a similarwidth and depth of understanding in the service sector (Hines et al., 2008a). Table Vshows different service activities where LP has been successfully implemented,although at a considerably slower rate than in manufacturing. Reasons for the slowuptake of this management system include difficulties encountered in standardising

IJOPM32,5

560


11/33

operations and times, the fact that these firms are innovation laggards compared tomanufacturing firms, and the need for an appropriate approach to demand chainmanagement given the unpredictable nature of customer demand for services (Bowenand Youngdahl, 1998; Cuatrecasas, 2002; Hines et al., 2002). More specifically, Liker andMorgan (2006) point out that the Toyota model can be applied to services bystandardising design, processes and human skills in services.

A special case is the adoption of LP in public services. According to Radnor andBoaden (2008), LP has been adapted rather than simply adopted in this sector, since ithas been applied to processes that it is not suited to, and considered as a set of tools andtechniques rather than a fundamental shift in culture and approach. For this reason,before contemplating the implementation of LP in the public sector, some prerequisitesor minimum conditions must be met; adopting a process-based view, for example, or

understanding capacity and demand and linking improvement activity to strategy(Radnor and Walley, 2008). It is similarly important that enthusiastic supporters of theconversion should exist to deal with problems arising from the move to LP (Esainet al.,2008) and, in general, there needs to be a greater degree of attention paid tomanagement-labour relations than in manufacturing (Scorsone, 2008). This is a keyaspect for creating a lean university, for example, where it is necessary to work withproject teams in small, regular bursts to be able to improve customer value andeliminate waste (Hines and Lethbridge, 2008).

Industry Reference

Kitchen appliance de Toni and Tonchia (1996)Filter manufacture Zayko et al. (1997)

Aerospace Murman et al. (2002)Iron and aluminium smelting Lee and Allwood (2003)Electronics Wu (2003)Machinery Wu (2003)Ceramic tile Bonavia and Marin (2006)Agrifood Hines et al. (2006)Red Meat Zokaei and Simons (2006)Artistic clay tile Lander and Liker (2007)Petroleum drill Greenet al. (2010)

Source:Authors

Table IVIndustries apart from th

motor industry wheLP has generate

positive resul

Activity of services Reference

Airlines Bowen and Youngdahl (1998)IT companies Womack and Jones (2005)Fast food companies Womack and Jones (2005)Health Fillingham (2007) and Proudove et al. (2008)Housing and care services McQuade (2008)Legal sector Hines et al. (2008a)Public services Radnor and Boaden (2008)

Source:Authors

Table VService activities whe

LP has been implemente

Learning on lea

56


12/33

In addition, LP has been far less applied to the continuous process sector(Abdulmalek et al., 2006; Abdulmalek and Rajgopal, 2007). This might be due to thetypical characteristics of this sector (these include large, inflexible machines, long setup times and a general difficulty for the production of small batches). However,

Abdulmalek and Rajgopal (2007) demonstrate that there are several lean practices inthe steel industry that can be suitably adapted (set up reductions, the 5S, value streammapping, JIT, production levelling, TPM and visual systems). It would be advisable forthis sector to use a simulation model to evaluate basic performance measures andanalyse the system configuration.

(b) Impact of LP on performance. A central tenet in the theory of LP is that theimplementation of lean principles and practices will reduce waste and thereby decreasecosts. So, Fullerton et al. (2003) found a positive relationship between company profitabilityand the degree to which waste-reducing production practices are implemented. However,Lewis (2000) and Lin and Hui (1999) advise caution over the generic assertion that LPboosts an organisations performance. LP does not inevitably result in improved financialperformance; the critical issue appears to be the firms ability to appropriate the valuegenerated by any savings made (Lewis, 2000). Said ability depends on internalorganisational factors such as leadership, management, finance organisational culture andskills and expertise (Achangaet al., 2006; Browning and Heath, 2009).

Herron and Braiden (2006) state that LP tools may have a major impact on specificareas of the business but are not a panacea for all problems. Precisely because of thisthere is some concern for explaining why major lean transformations fail to be sustained(Bateman, 2005; Luceyet al., 2005). In order to stay lean, it is helpful to think of the leanprocess as an iceberg. The technology, tools and techniques that affect processes arethose visible above the water. However, the vast majority of the iceberg is beneath thesurface and invisible. It is the enabling, anchoring mass which makes an iceberg apowerfully strong force. Addressing all of the enabling iceberg elements is essential in

order to deliver a successful, sustainable transformation. However, this is only part ofthe initial mindset required by a lean implementation team. There needs to be anappreciation of the right mix of above the waterline and below the waterlineactivities. It is also important to realise that the different parts of the iceberg are allinterdependent. Thus, effective strategy and alignment can only be delivered throughstrong leadership which, in turn, will only be successfully achieved in a positiveorganisational culture that is receptive to learning and improvement (Hines etal., 2008b).

3.2 The impact of lean production on the value chainSCM is one of the key research topics in the OM area nowadays (Alfalla-Luque andMedina-Lopez, 2009) and, as Hines et al. (2004) underline, LP is more than a merefactory shop floor application, and also comprises relationships with suppliers and

customers. Our literature review has permitted two key aspects related to the impact ofLP on the value chain to be identified: on the one hand, a group of studies underline theneed for LP principles to consider the appropriate management of relations withcommercial partners; on the other, some research focuses on changes produced in thesupply chain as a consequence of applying LP.

3.2.1 Extending lean principles to the value chain. The principles of LP can be appliedthroughout the value chain from the process of placing orders with suppliers to productdistribution and delivery to the customer. It is possible to eliminate waste, improve

IJOPM32,5

562


13/33

quality, reduce costs and increase flexibility at all stages (Womack et al., 1990).Consequently, Richards (1996) highlights that one of the distinctive principles of LP isthat the consumer and the competition must never be overlooked, since the customermust be offered products that are more appealing than the competitions. Otherwise,

despite the company being efficient, inventory will grow rapidly. For this reason it is notenough just to be lean; a company must also be agile enough to make timely changes. Inthis line, in their latest book, Lean Solutions, Womack and Jones (2005) focus onconsumption, coining the phrase Lean Consumption, and elaborate on how companiescan eliminate inefficiency during consumption, that is, minimise customer time andeffort by delivering exactly what they want when and where they want it.

A company has to establish a relationship with customers and suppliers based ontrust and a high degree of motivation to learn which allows knowledge to be freelyshared (MacDuffle and Helper, 1997). Panizzolo (1998) found that the most criticalfactor for LP principles to be fully implemented appears to be the management ofexternal relationships rather than internal operations. He stresses the importance both

of integrating the different organisations into the value chain in order to ensureexcellence in final products and services, and of the way customers are integrated intothe organisation. That is, suppliers have to adopt a proactive approach to customerservice and be prepared to exceed customer expectations. Customers have to releasetheir traditional hold on the process and encourage suppliers to take ownership of theprocesses in which they are involved (Sanderlands, 1994).

3.2.2 Restructuring of the supply chain because of lean production. LP involves aprocess of vertical disintegration and has been especially important in the automotiveindustry. Lamming (1996, p. 183) therefore coined the term Lean Supply to refer to

the purchasing activities of vehicle assemblers and the supply activities of thecomponent (and component system) manufacturers. Accordingly, Lamming arguesthe merits of the broader concept of supply management. In this industry suppliersare critically important in aspects such as quality, productivity and flexibility of theproduction system. Consequently, lean supply is associated with level scheduling andoptimisation and means improvements in quality, service level and lead-time (Morgan,2007; Christopher and Towill, 2000).

In other respects, suppliers have had the way they are organised substantiallytransformed through the creation of networks which have led to greater access totraining and knowledge (Perez Perez and Martnez Sanchez, 2002). One of thedistinguishing features of lean enterprises is, precisely, their different purchasingphilosophy and a higher level of trust in supplier relations (Helper and Sako, 1995;Sako and Helper, 1998). This is manifested in supplier associations that constituterelatively stable groups and represent the entire population of recipients of supplier

development assistance in some shape or form (Sako, 1996). Through theseassociations the achievement of time compression in the supply chain and theoutsourcing of competitive advantages is facilitated (Rich and Hines, 1997; Hines andRich, 1998). Furthermore, the presence of these associations, together with some leanpractices (such as value stream mapping), allows companies to work with suppliersmore quickly and more effectively (Hines et al., 1999). In addition, a lean companybecomes a good source of information on best practice and is in a position to teach theknow-how required to enhance suppliers organisational capabilities (Sako, 2004).

Learning on lea

56


14/33

On the other hand, empirical evidence shows that suppliers who have adopted LPachieve significant improvements in aspects such as the production system, thedistribution system, the quality system, information systems, transport systems,customer/supplier relations and delivery times compared to others who have not yet

adopted LP (Wu, 2003; Gonzalez-Benitoet al., 2003).The implementation of this system also involves a reduction in the number of

suppliers. The system differentiates between three supplier groups (first, second andthird tier) and considers that the basic relationships should be between themanufacturers and first tier suppliers (Womack et al., 1990; Wu, 2003). It is preciselythese relationships that have been profoundly influenced by the implementation of LPand by the development of modularisation in some sectors, such as the automotiveindustry, and have led to the development of supplier parks (Morriset al., 2004). Someof the problems that occur with this system, such as urban congestion, air pollutionand communication, will be overcome in this way (Rothenberg et al., 2001; King andLenox, 2001).

Relationships should not only exist between manufacturers and first tier suppliersbut should extend to second and third tier suppliers, as they have favourable effects onthe companys overall results (Lyonset al., 2004). In this respect, there are a number ofpapers that demonstrate the favourable effect of adopting the various information andcommunication technologies (EDI, ERP, etc.) throughout the supply chain (Bruun andMefford, 2003; Martnez Sanchez and Perez Perez, 2004; Gunasekaran and Ngai, 2005).The scheduling of batch operations in first and second tier suppliers of the supplychain was identified as a key problem area in a lean environment (Bichenoet al., 2001).

SCMis, precisely, closely linked to LP as it pursues similarobjectives (Levy,1997). Thissimilarity has led to the term lean logistics being coined to refer to the ability to design andrun a logistics system to monitor the movements and geographical location of rawmaterials, products in process and finished products, with the lowest levels of inventory

and cost (Bowersox et al., 1993). This concept alludes to the need to understand waste andinefficiency in existing value streams, generating a new framework called value streammapping. This approach is used to diagnose waste and help organisations and valuestreams to make subsequent radical or incremental improvements (Joneset al., 1997).

From an empirical point-of-view, a direct relationship has been seen between theadoption of LP and two key aspects for the integration of the supply chain, which are:the integration of information flows and of goods and service flows (Cagliano et al.,2006). This means that companies that redesign their systems with the introduction oflean-related practices also achieve increased integration with their suppliers thanks toincreased information exchange and modifications to their supply strategy. In this waycompanies manage to align their manufacturing and supply strategies and exploit thebenefits of a coherent production and SCM model. Nevertheless, it is possible that the

adoption of lean practices increases supply chain risk, making it necessary to alsoincrease supply chain confidence by improving the quality of supply chain information(Christopher and Lee, 2004).

There are similarly authors who speak of a lean supply chain. A lean supply chainmakes use of continuous improvement to focus on the elimination of waste or non-valueadded steps in the supply chain. It is supported by the reduction of set up times to allowfor the economic production of small quantities, thereby achieving cost reduction,flexibility and internal responsiveness (Booth, 1996). It is primarily aimed at cost cutting,

IJOPM32,5

564


15/33

flexibility and incremental improvements in products. Therefore, in order to obtain thehighest internal performance and customer satisfaction, standard products shouldbe designed by lean supply chains through all stages of the product life cycle, whileinnovative products should be designed and produced by lean supply chains in the

maturity and decline stages of the product life cycle (Vonderembse et al., 2006).Moreover, in lean supply chains it is convenient to use lot splitting strategies, i.e. thesplitting of a single order quantity into multiple deliveries. This will improve thesuppliers delivery reliability and, consequently, the stability of the buyers productionschedule (van Nieuwenhuyse and Vandaele, 2006). Indeed, thanks to LP, the bestcustomer service performance is achieved (measured by order-to-ship time, and as longas demand is smooth and can be predicted with a relatively high degree of accuracy)(Goldsbyet al., 2006).

3.3 Work organisation in lean productionWith regard to research on the implications that LP has for work organisation, a group

of papers has been identified too. The analysis of this group has led us to distinguishfour subgroups depending on the work organisation topic that is being emphasised(Table VI).

3.3.1 Degree of human resource commitment to lean production. There are a numberof papers that clearly state the importance that worker commitment to the companyhas for this system (Cusumano, 1994; Harrison and Storey, 1996; Gagnon and Michael,2003; Suzuki, 2004). In lean companies workers take on responsibilities that go beyondthe bounds of production tasks and pay is based more on workers abilities than on thenumber of operations they carry out (Duguayet al., 1997). Companies changing from atraditional manufacturing structure to a lean structure in fact have a generallypositive effect on job attitudes (Groebner and Merz, 1994). LP maintains that workermotivation is based on social relationships in order to satisfy their needs (Niepce and

Molleman, 1996).Notwithstanding, other authors focus on an analysis of the degree of managerial

commitment to the system. So, Soriano-Meier and Forrester (2002) consider that saidcommitment must be a basic principle of LP since, as Zayko et al. (1997) proved, thefirst obstacle and main issue when implementing LP is a lack of managementconviction in the benefits it provides. Boyer (1996) was one of the first authors toanalyse this aspect by devising four indicators to measure the degree of managerialcommitment to the system: leadership in quality, setting up improvement groups, theon-going training of workers, and the delegation of responsibility to the workers. Hisempirical results indicate that companies that have a high level of commitment to LP atthe same time back this commitment up by making investments in the abovementioned indicators. According to Niepce and Molleman (1996) and de Treville and

Antonakis (2006), such a commitment turns into intrinsic motivation.3.3.2 Work system in lean production. For the favourable effects of LP to be

achieved, the work does require the operative to master a wide range of skills and to behighly identified with the task, with a large degree of feedback and the elimination ofthe obstacles that stand in the way of the results that the worker might achieve, withthe consequent contribution of resources by way of the required instruments.

Differences in work systems between companies applying LP and others that keepto a traditional management model do not lay in aspects affecting hierarchy but in the

Learning on lea

56


16/33

Topic

Emphasis

Reference

Key

findingoftheresearch

Degreeofhuman

resourcecommitment

DegreeofmanagerialcommitmenttoL

P

Boyer(1996)

Firm

ssupportLPthrougheffortstoprov

idequality

lead

ership,

trainingoftheworkforce,worker

emp

owermentandtheuseofsmallteamsforgroup

problemsolving

DegreeofworkercommitmenttoLP

Duguayetal.

(1997)

Leanproducersmanagethecreativityand

initiativeof

asu

bstantialproportionoftheirworkforce

Gagnonand

Michael(2003)

EmployeeswithincreasedknowledgeofLPshow

incr

easedlevelsofcommitment,jobsatisfactionand

trus

t

Groebnerand

Merz(1994)

Cha

ngetoJIThasapositiveeffectonjob

attitudes

RoleoftradeunionsinLP

Lee(2003)

The

decisiontoimplementLPreflectsconflictsin

labo

urandmanagementrelations

Positiveinfluenceonmotivation

deTrevilleand

Antonakis(2006)

LPjobdesignmayengenderworkerintrinsic

mot

ivation

Niepceand

Molleman(1996)

MotivationforLPtendstobeexternallyorienteddue

toL

Pleaningheavilyonsocialrelationshipsinorderto

satisfytheneedsoftheworkers

Worksystem

In

fluenceofLPonjobvariety

Schonberger

(1986)

LPincreasesjobvarietybytransferringthemaximum

num

beroftaskstooperators

Positiveeffectonresponsibleautonomy

deTrevilleetal.

(2005)

LPpromotestheinvolvementofworkers

inthe

developmentofprocedures

Vidal(2007)

LPincreasesindividualautonomyandco

llective

autonomy

Differencesbetweenleanandtraditiona

lcompanies

Forza(1996)

Leancompaniesusemoreteamsinproblemsolving,

theworkersperformahighervarietyofta

sksandthat

the

proportionofimplementedsuggestion

sisgreater

thanintraditionalcompanies

Roleofsupervisorsindelegatingautho

rityto

w

orkers

Lowe(1993)

Und

erLPtheresponsibilityofthesupervisorincreases

(continued)

Table VI.Topics on workorganisation analysedin LP literature

IJOPM32,5

566


17/33

Topic

Emphasis

Reference

Key


Valuegiventoworkorganisation

Biazzoand

Pannizzolo(2000)

The

elementsofworkorganisationaretho

sewhichare

coherentwith,andfunctionalfor,thenobufferlogic

and

continuousflowproduction

Featuresandresponsibilitiesofleanteams

Delbridgeetal.

(2000)

Itis

importanttodistinguishbetweentherolesof

mem

bersandleaderswithinteams,andbetweenthe

resp

onsibilitiesofproductionteamsandthoseofother

occupationalgroups

Schuring(1996)

Leanandreflectiveproductionunderline

the

imp

ortanceoftheoperationalskillsofwo

rkgroup

mem

bers

Thompsonand

Wallace(1996)

Tea

mworkingemergesasakeyfactorin

redesigning

production

In

fluenceofteamdevelopmentinbusin

ess

performanceandqualityofworkinglife

Kuipersetal.

(2004)

Tea

mdevelopmentisjustasimportanta

sgood

productionstructuredesign,althoughitr

equiresa

favourablecontext

In

fluenceofLPpracticesrelatedtojobdemands,job

co

ntrolandsocialsupportforworkerjobstress

Contietal.(2006)LPisnotinherentlystressful,withstress

levels

sign

ificantlyrelatedtomanagementdecisionsin

designingandoperatingLPsystems

Humanresource

management

EffectofLPonhumanresourcemanag

ement

Hiltrop(1992)

Traditionalhumanresourcemanagementpractices

mustadapttoachievetheadvantagesof

LP

EffectofLPonhumanresourcemanagementinsmall

firms

Emiliani(2000)

The

ownersofsmallbusinessesmustunderstandthe

imp

licationsofLPforleadershipandhum

anresource

man

agement.Theyhavearesponsibilitytoteachtheir

emp

loyeesandreinforcetheirleadershiprole

Developmentofhumanresourcepracticesin

co

mpanieswhereLPhasbeenimpleme

nted

Kochanetal.

(1997)

The

developmentofhumanresourcepractices

stim

ulatesthedegreeofcommitmentofe

mployeesto

LPandtheirparticipation

EffectofLPonreshapingworkpractices

Lewchuketal.

(2001)

LPoffersaproductionmodeldependentona

reco

nfigurationoflabourcontrolmethods

(continued)

Table V

Learning on lea

56


18/33

Topic

Emphasis

Reference

Key


Valuegiventohumancapitalinleancompanies

LaScolaetal.

(2002)

DesignofamodeltoassesshumancapitalinaLP

environmentshowinghowtouseittodrivetraining

requirements,changehiringpractices,assignworkers

and

establishcompensationandrewards

ystems

Unfavourableeffects

onhumanresources

Risesinintensityofwork,stress,

losso

fautonomy

Klein(1989)

Workerslosemuchoftheirfreedomwith

the

regimentationrequiredbyLP.

Tomitigatethisitis

necessarytofocusontaskdesignratherthanon

executionandgiveworkerstherighttom

oveand

choose

NegativeeffectsofLPpracticesonthe

qualityof

w

orkinglife

Fairrisand

Tohyama(2002)

ToavoidthenegativeeffectsofLPonthehuman

factor,

theadoptionofbettermechanisms

forhearing

the

voiceoftheworkerswouldberequired

Parker(2003)

The

negativeeffectsofLP(poorqualityworkdesign,

declineinorganisationalcommitment)are

attributable

tod

eclinesinperceivedworkcharacteristics(job

autonomy,skillutilisationandparticipationin

decisionmaking)

Schoutetenand

Benders(2004)

Workinleanenvironmentsismonotonou

sand

repetitive,whichmeansthatpeoplewhoopposeLPare

righ

t

EffectoflossofjobstabilityonLPworksystem

Suzuki(2004)

IntheLPworksystem,

theemploymentratioof

temporaryworkershasincreasedrapidly

andthe

wor

kerratiooflong-termemploymentis

decreasing

Source:Authors

Table VI.

IJOPM32,5

568


19/33

use of more work teams to solve problems, in adopting workers suggestions, in muchbetter documented work processes and in a wider range of tasks done by operativesand in a better quality relationship between workers and supervisors (Forza, 1996).The emerging role of supervisors is standing in the way of the principle of delegating

authority to the workers (Lowe, 1993). The workers work hard to meet objectives set bythe supervisors who are under continual scrutiny at efficiency meetings(Kochan et al., 1997).

The success of teamworking depends on the positive interrelationship withindustrial relations and firm company governance (Thompson and Wallace, 1996).Nevertheless, teamworking provides group pressure that stimulates performance. LPunderlines the importance of work team members operational skills. That is whyqualifications are essential for LP, but not only based on the transmission of skills andknowledge of the job itself, but also on permanent on-going training, upwardoccupational mobility, and task rotation. It is also necessary to achieve and foment aculture of cooperation (Schuring, 1996).

LP involves an increase in job variety (Schonberger, 1986) which means a fall instress (Conti et al., 2006) and an increase in responsible autonomy (de Treville et al.,2005). With regard to an effect on autonomy, a distinction must be made between theautonomy to choose (Hackman and Lawler, 1971) and responsible autonomy(de Treville et al., 2005). There should be little of the former, which relates to the freechoice of procedures and times, whereas there should be a high degree of responsibleautonomy, which refers to autonomy derived from a decentralisation of authority,power-sharing and taking part in decision making. Vidal (2007), however,demonstrates that worker empowerment is not a necessary condition for achieving alean manufacturing system that yields considerable improvements in performance.

These non-conclusive results may be explained by the limited degree of in-depthresearch. Researchers will have to join work teams to get first-hand experience of their

work conditions and see how they work (Biazzo and Panizzolo, 2000). In the same vein,Kuipers et al. (2004) note that the debate between advocates of LP and thesocio-technical approach have concentrated too much on the design aspect of theproduction structure, while neglecting the development aspect of teamwork.Effectively, if difficulties in implementing and developing work teams have beenunderestimated, the likelihood that they will fail will increase, and the team will gain abad reputation (Thompson and Wallace, 1996). Empirical evidence found that teamdevelopment determines business performance and the quality of working life to a verygreat degree (Kuipers et al., 2004).

3.3.3 Human resource management with lean production. Despite the opinionssupporting the importance of worker training and the commitment of workers tothe type of management, a consensus does not exist in the literature about the way the

introduction of LP might affect human resource management (Hiltrop, 1992). So,the implementation of this system in small- and medium-sized companies depends to alarge degree on the perception that owners have of what it involves for human resourcemanagement (Emiliani, 2000).

LP offers a model of production dependant on a reconfiguration of methods oflabour control (Lewchuk et al., 2001). As a result, unions should work together withmanagement to devise the best way for implementing lean work (Kochan et al., 1997).Precisely, LaScolaet al.(2002) designed a human capital assessment system applicable

Learning on lea

569


20/33

in lean environments. First, a database has to be set up in the company which recordsthe skills and abilities of each of the workers. These skills are grouped into threecategories: technical (basic knowledge, mathematics, measures, etc.), human (personalqualities, social skills, etc.) and lean (knowledge of Lean principles, pull systems and

improvements). Once said staff skills are known, the most appropriate trainingprogrammes should be devised, each worker assigned to the most suitable post, and areward and prize system set up.

3.3.4 Unfavourable effects on human resources. One of the negative effects of LP onthe human factor that can be highlighted is the fact that work becomes more intensewith increased stress and a loss of autonomy and freedom for deciding whether to takerisks or not (Klein, 1989). Parker (2003) found negative effects on employee outcomesafter the implementation of LP practices which were attributable to a decline in thequality of working life. This could be related to the fact that in lean environments workis monotonous and repetitive (Schouteten and Benders, 2004). Likewise it is foreseeablethat downsizing the number of stable jobs will have an unfavourable effect on leanwork (Suzuki, 2004). In this respect, Fairris and Tohyama (2002) found that in order toavoid the negative effects of LP on the human factor, the adoption of bettermechanisms for hearing the voice of the workers would be required.

3.4 Impact of the geographical context on lean productionA group of papers have been found in the literature that analyse the impact of thegeographical context on LP, as summarised in Table VII.

All these findings suggest that the different results that derive from the adoption ofLP are related to the countrys economic context and this coincides with Williams et al.(1992) who point to structural problems being responsible for variations in results.Engstromet al.(1996) consider that the success of LP in Japan can be attributed to thefavourable conjunction of the socio-economic and socio-cultural contexts there. Said

authors suggest that the great challenge is to develop a management system which,while benefiting from all the advantages of LP, can be incorporated into thesocio-economic and socio-cultural context of the new industrial society.

4. Conclusions and further lines of researchThis paper develops a new model considering all the elements that should be includedin an extended and comprehensive understanding of LP. To this end, research on LPpublished to date has been analysed, resulting in the proposal of four groups of aspectsthat contribute to gaining a deeper understanding of the evolution of thinking andresearch on LP. The novelty of the model proposed is that it shows research on LP on abroader basis than the shop floor and value chain levels, presenting two newdimensions for the analysis of research on LP: work organisation in lean environments

and the impact of the geographical context on LP.In addition, as a result of the bibliographical analysis, some specific aspects have

been identified that must be highlighted since they seem to lack empirical evidenceand, therefore, might represent new opportunities for rigorous and relevant researchthat would contribute to more transparent knowledge of the system.

First, and with regard to internal aspects, we believe it is possible that newprinciples might foreseeably be added in the future, as was the case with managerialcommitment (Soriano-Meier and Forrester, 2002). Although not considered until

IJOPM32,5

570


21/33

fairly recently, perhaps due to its being taken as read, it is of fundamental importance.The same could occur with other aspects, and, as a result, neither should this groupingbe considered closed just because it is a mature line of research.

With regard to the implementation process of LP, there is a large degree ofconsensus about the need for LP to be implemented sequentially (Ferdows and de

Meyer, 1990; Storhagen, 1993; Womack and Jones, 1996; Zayko et al., 1997).Nevertheless, the authors recognise that the change from a traditional system to LPmight differ substantially from one company to another (Kochan et al., 1997). It istherefore essential for the situation the shop floor is into be assessed before applyingLP, as this would allow a number of deficiencies that need to be overcome to beidentified before it is implemented. This stage could be considered a pre-lean phasewhich, once concluded, would allow LP to be implemented with a greater chance ofsuccess. With regard to the results of implementation, some questions then arise:

Empirical background of the study Results of adopting LP Reference

72 Australian manufacturing companies Better geared to the customer throughflexible manufacturing structure

Sohal andEgglestone

(1994)A manufacturer of windscreen wipersystems for the automotive industry inAustralia

A company which has adopted a varietyof LP concepts has become moreprofitable, more competitive and moresuccessful

Sohal (1996)

71 plants in the automotive componentsindustry in the European Union and Japancompared to England

Better economic results but noimprovements in quality or productivity

Oliver et al.(1996)

Japanese model of production (Toyotacase) compared to Swedish model ofproduction (Volvo case)

Results depend on social context ofcountry where implemented andacceptance of the effort required byproduction personnel

Moreno (1999)

Investigates the shift from traditional firm

production to LP by an analysis of thechange in Dutch input-output tables

The time when the model is introduced

determines whether it is accepted orrejected by the workers and, therefore,also determines results

Spithoven

(2001)

584 private sector enterprises in Australia Greater commitment to training anddevelopment on all levels

Smith et al.(2003)

50 auto component firms in South Africa Important advances in the automotiveindustry in this country

Kojima andKaplinsky(2004)

200 manufacturing firms in Egypt Implementation of LP improvesoperations performance of Egyptianmanufacturing firms

Salaheldin(2005)

183 manufacturing firms in Italy Companies implementing LP present adifferent view of competitive aspects, andrely on different improvement actions to

increase competitiveness. In particular,lean implementors give much morerelevance to quality conformity anddelivery reliability than non leanimplementors

Portioli andTatardini(2008)

Source:Authors

Table VIImpact of thgeographic

context on L

Learning on lea

57


22/33

what differences can be expected from companies that had been through the pre-leanphase and others that had not? Even more importantly, what differences can beexpected from sectors where LP has hardly been implemented at all? Developing andvalidating a questionnaire for diagnosing this could be an interesting line of research.

In addition, a variety of terms connected with lean philosophy in recent times havebeen coined. Such is the case of the Lean-sigma concept that is being put forward as amanagement philosophy based on integrating LP principles and practices withsix sigma tools (Shah and Ward, 2007). Empirical research should be conducted in thefuture to confirm the validity of these new concepts that stress the importance of thegoal of zero defects.

With respect to research on the impact of LP on the value chain, it has been found thatit affects the external organisation of companies (Engstrom et al., 1996). Papers that havestudied these organisational changes on an external level point to a verticalreorganisation process characterised by the externalisation of phases and segments ofthe productive cycle that had previously been executed internally (Helper and Sako,1995; Kochan et al., 1997). This process of vertical reorganisation also affects thecommercial area and has led to a new concept of relations with suppliers and customersalike based on long-term collaboration agreements (Jones et al., 1997). As a result, itwould be interesting to conduct research on supplier relationships to see whetherdifferences can be found between results obtained by suppliers in supplier parks andother suppliers with the application of LP. It is similarly necessary to find out what thefeatures of LP distribution and application are in these companies. This would allowknowledge to be gained of how the principles of LP are applied in this important part ofthe value chain, what role is played by knowledge and the transmission of the finalcustomers opinion, and of the effect on the rest of the value chain.

Focusing on the two new dimensions proposed for building an extended model of LP,it can be noted that research on work organisation in LP should be developed in greater

depth. Despite the importance that worker commitment to the company has for LP, wehave seen how researchersare not unanimous about the way LP affects human resources,and recent research still attests to opposite effects (Conti et al., 2006; de Treville et al.,2005). Moreover, the specific reality of the job per se is not approached apart from theperformance ratio-based perspective (Biazzo and Panizzolo, 2000). In our opinion, thismeans that Babsons (1999) view that work organisation in LP has not been sufficientlydeveloped is still valid. Nevertheless, a significant relationship between the success ofimplementing LP and worker identification with the strategy has been observed (Gagnonand Michael, 2003), andin order to avoid the negative effects of LP practices on the humanfactor, research on opinions, on approaches to, and on divergences from the system, frommanagement, workers, and trade unions, would therefore seem appropriate.

On the impact that the geographical context has on LP, the spread of this system

means competitive advantages are being gained by companies where it has beenimplemented over those that still adhere to a traditional management system. In otherrespects, globalisation is displacing production to countries with lower structural andlabour costs, which means that there is a need to implement management models thatallow the level of competitiveness to be maintained. LP is a management system thatcould provide the necessary competitive advantages and, as such, the extent to whichthe system is in use in each of the countries needs to be known. The degree to which LPhas been implemented in different countries therefore needs to be researched.

IJOPM32,5

572


23/33

In general terms, we think a large number of papers on the degree of adoption of LPis required, and also on the results obtained in the most significant industries in a givengeographical area, as this would both guide and, where need be, encouragemanagement to adopt LP in their companies. Similar studies should also be conducted

in the service sector, comparing the results obtained in product improvement, servicequality and customer satisfaction between companies that have implemented LP andothers that still have not. Likewise, the availability of the information provided by asimulation model (Abdulmalek and Rajgopal, 2007) could facilitate and validate thedecision to implement LP and could also motivate the company during theimplementation in order to obtain the desired results. Likewise, it is necessary to domore detailed research on the adoption of LP in public services and government. Inother regards, there is increasing concern for the factors that underlie the sustainabilityof LP (Emiliani, 2008b; Hineset al., 2008b) and for the way executives should take anylean transformation forward (Emiliani, 2008a), to be identified, both of which areaspects that will guide the directions future research will take.

Note

1. Krafcik (1986) had the experience of having previously worked in the development of theassembly plant benchmarking methodology in a New United Motor Manufacturing jointventure between Toyota and GM.

References

Abdulmalek, F. and Rajgopal, J. (2007), Analyzing the benefits of lean manufacturing and valuestream mapping via simulation: a process sector case study, International Journal of

Production Economics, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 223-36.

Abdulmalek, F., Rajgopal, J. and Needy, K.L. (2006), A classification model for the processindustry to guide the implementation of lean, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 18No. 1, pp. 15-25.

Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2006), Critical success factors for leanimplementations within SMEs, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-71.

Ahlstrom, P. (1998), Sequences in the implementation of lean production, EuropeanManagement Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 327-34.

Alfalla-Luque, R. and Medina-Lopez, C. (2009), Supply chain management: unheard of in the1970s, core to todays company, Business History, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 201-20.

Babson, S. (1999), After lean production: evolving practices in the world auto industry,

Industrial and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 652-3.Bateman, N. (2005), Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement, International

Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 261-76.

Biazzo, S. and Panizzolo, R. (2000), The assessment of work organization in lean production:the relevance of the workers perspective, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 11No. 1, pp. 6-22.

Bicheno, J., Holweg, M. and Niessmann, J. (2001), Constraint batch sizing in a lean environment,International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 41-9.

Learning on lea

57


24/33

Bonavia, T. and Marin, J.A. (2006), An empirical study of lean production in the ceramic tile

industry in Spain,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26No. 5, pp. 505-31.

Booth, R. (1996), Agile manufacturing, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2,

pp. 105-11.Bowen, D.E. and Youngdahl, W.E. (1998), Lean service: in defence of a production-line

approach,International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 207-35.

Bowersox, D., Carter, P. and Monczka, R. (1993), Materials logistics management, InternationalJournal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 46-51.

Boyer, K.K. (1996), An assessment of managerial commitment to lean production,InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 9, pp. 48-58.

Browning, T.R. and Heath, R.D. (2009), Reconceptualizing the effects of lean production costswith evidence from the F-22 program, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,pp. 23-44.

Bruun, P. and Mefford, R.N. (2003), Lean production and the internet, International Journal of

Production Economics, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 247-60.Burcher, P., Dupernex, S. and Geoffrey, R. (1996), The road to lean repetitive batch

manufacturing: modelling planning system performance, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 210-21.

Cagliano, R., Caniato, F. and Spina, G. (2006), The linkage between supply chain integration andmanufacturing improvement programmes, International Journal of Operations& Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 282-99.

Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2004), Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence,International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 5,pp. 388-96.

Christopher, M. and Towill, D. (2000), Supply chain migration from lean and functional to agileand customized, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 206-13.

Christopher, M. and Towill, D. (2001), An integrated model for the design of agile supplychains, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31No. 4, pp. 235-46.

Christopher, M., Harrison, A. and van Hoek, R. (1999), Creating the agile supply chain: issuesand challenges, paper presented at the International Symposium on Logistics, Florence,July.

Christopher, M., Peck, H. and Towill, D. (2006), A taxonomy for selecting global supply chainstrategies, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 277-87.

Conti, R., Angelis, J., Cooper, C. and Gill, C. (2006), The effects of lean production on worker job

stress, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 9,pp. 1013-38.

Cooney, R. (2002), Is lean a universal production system? Batch production in the automotiveindustry,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 Nos 9-10,pp. 1130-47.

Cuatrecasas, L. (2002), Design of a rapid response and high efficiency service by lean productionprinciples: methodology and evaluation of variability of performance, International

Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 169-83.

Cusumano, M.A. (1994), The limits of Lean, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 4,pp. 27-32.

IJOPM32,5

574


25/33

Delbridge, R., Lowe, J. and Oliver, N. (2000), Shop-floor responsibilities under lean teamworking,Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 1459-79.

Delery, J. (1999), Book Reviews. After lean production: evolving practices in the world autoindustry,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 615-17.

de Toni, A. and Tonchia, S. (1996), Lean organization, management by process and performancemeasurement, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16No. 2, pp. 221-33.

de Treville, S. and Antonakis, J. (2006), Could lean production job design be intrinsicallymotivating? Contextual, configurational and levels-of-analysis issues, Journal ofOperations Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 99-123.

de Treville, S., Antonakis, J. and Edelson, N.M. (2005), Can standard operating procedures bemotivating? Reconciling process variability issues and behavioural outcomes, TotalQuality Management and Business Processes, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 231-41.

Duguay, C., Landry, S. and Pasin, F. (1997), From mass production to flexible/agile production,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 1183-95.

Emiliani, M.L. (2000), Supporting small businesses in their transition to lean production, SupplyChain Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 66-73.

Emiliani, M.L. (2007a),Real Lean: Critical Issues and Opportunities in Lean Management, Vol. 2,CLBM, Wethersfield, CT.

Emiliani, M.L. (2007b), Real Lean: Understand the Lean Management System, Vol. 1, CLBM,Wethersfield, CT.

Emiliani, M.L. (2008a), Practical Lean Leadership: A Strategic Leadership Guide for Executives,CLBM, Wethersfield, CT.

Emiliani, M.L. (2008b), Real Lean: The Key to Sustaining Lean Management, Vol. 3, CLBM,Wethersfield, CT.

Engstrom, T., Johnson, D. and Medbo, L. (1996), Production model discourse and experiencesfrom the Swedish automotive industry,International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 141-56.

Esain, A., Williams, S. and Masey, L. (2008), Combining planned and emergent change in ahealthcare lean transformation, Public Money & Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 21-6.

Fairris, D. and Tohyama, H. (2002), Productive efficiency and the lean production system inJapan and the United States,Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 529-54.

Ferdows, K. and de Meyer, A. (1990), Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance:in search of a new theory, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 168-84.

Fillingham, D. (2007), Can lean save lives?, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 20, pp. 231-41.

Forza, C. (1996), Work organization in lean production and traditional plants: what are thedifferences?,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 1,pp. 42-58.

Fullerton, R.R., McWatters, C.S. and Fawson, C. (2003), An examination of the relationshipsbetween JIT and financial performance,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 4,pp. 383-404.

Gagnon, M.A. and Michael, J.H. (2003), Employee strategic alignment at a wood manufacturer:an exploratory analysis using lean manufacturing,Forest Products Journal, Vol. 53 No. 10,pp. 24-9.

Goldsby, T.J., Griffis, S.E. and Roath, A.S. (2006), Modelling lean, agile, and leagile supply chainstrategies, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-80.

Learning on lea

57


26/33

Gonzalez-Benito, J., Martnez-Lorente, A.R. and Dale, B.G. (2003), A study of the purchasingmanagement system with respect to TQM, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32No. 6, pp. 443-54.

Green, J.C., Lee, J. and Kozman, T.A. (2010), Managing lean manufacturing in material handling

operations, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 2975-93.Groebner, D. and Merz, C. (1994), The impact of implementing JIT on employees job attitudes,

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 26-37.

Gunasekaran, A. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2005), Build-to-order supply chain management: a literaturereview and framework for development,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 5,pp. 423-51.

Hackman, J.R. and Lawler, E.E. (1971), Employee reactions to job characteristics, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 259-86.

Hall, R.W. (1983), Zero Inventories, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Hallgren, M. and Olhager, J. (2009), Lean and agile manufacturing: external and internal driversand performance outcomes, International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 976-99.Harrison, A. and Storey, J. (1996), New wave manufacturing strategies: operational,

organizational and human dimensions, International Journal of Operations& Production Management, Vol. 16 Nos 1-2, pp. 63-75.

Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1988), Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating theLearning Organization, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Helper, S. and Sako, M. (1995), Supplier relations in Japan and the United States: are theyconverging?, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 77-84.

Herron, C. and Braiden, P.M. (2006), A methodology for developing sustainable quantifiableproductivity improvement in manufacturing companies, International Journal of

Production Economics, Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 143-53.

Hiltrop, J.M. (1992), Just-in-time manufacturing implications for the management of humanresources, European Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 49-54.

Hines, P. and Lethbridge, S. (2008), New development: creating a lean university, Public Money& Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 53-6.

Hines, P. and Rich, N. (1998), Outsourcing competitive advantage: the use of supplierassociations, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistic Management,Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 524-46.

Hines, P., Francis, M. and Bailey, K. (2006), Quality-based pricing: a catalyst for collaborationand sustainable change in the agrifood industry, International Journal of Logistics

Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 240-59.

Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary leanthinking,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,

pp. 994-1011.Hines, P., Martins, A.L. and Beale, J. (2008a), Testing the boundaries of lean thinking:

observations from the legal public sector, Public Money & Management, Vol. 28 No. 1,pp. 35-40.

Hines, P., Rich, N. and Esain, A. (1999), Value stream mapping: a distribution industryapplication, Benchmarking, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 60-70.

Hines, P., Silvi, R. and Bartolini, M. (2002), Demand chain management: an integrative approachin automotive retailing,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 707-28.

IJOPM32,5

576


27/33

Hines, P., Found, P., Griffiths, G. and Harrison, R. (2008b), Staying Lean: Thriving, Not JustSurviving, Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff.

Holweg, M. (2007), The genealogy of lean production, Journal of Operations Management,Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 420-37.

Jones, D.T., Hines, P. and Rich, N. (1997), Lean logistics, International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 27 Nos 3/4, pp. 153-73.

Karlsson, C. and Ahlstrom, P. (1995), Change processes towards lean production: the role of the

remuneration system, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,Vol. 15 No. 11, pp. 80-9.

Karlsson, C. and Ahlstrom, P. (1996), Assessing changes towards lean production,

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 24-41.

Katayama, H. and Bennett, D. (1996), Lean production in a changing competitive world:

a Japanese perspective, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,Vol. 16 Nos 1/2, pp. 18-21.

Katayama, H. and Bennett, D. (1999), Agility, adaptability and leanness: a comparison of

concepts and a study of practice, International Journal of Production Economics,Vol. 60-61, pp. 43-51.

King, A. and Lenox, M. (2001), Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationship

between lean production and environmental performance, Production and OperationsManagement, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 244-56.

Klein, J.A. (1989), The human cost of manufacturing reform,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67No. 2, pp. 60-6.

Kochan, T., Lansbury, R. and MacDuffie, J.P. (1997), After Lean Production: EvolvingEmployment Practices in the World Auto Industry, Cornell University Press, New York, NY.

Kojima, S. and Kaplinsky, R. (2004), The use of a lean production index in explaining the

transition to global competitiveness: the auto components sector in South Africa,

Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 199-206.Kouvelis, P., Chambers, C. and Yu, D.Z. (2005), Manufacturing operations manuscripts

published in the first 52 issues of POM: review, trends, and opp

Documents

Learning on Lean a Review of Thinking and Research