Off the rails: understanding the derailment of a lean manufacturing

Linking Theory & Practice

Off the rails: understanding the derailment of

a lean manufacturing initiative

Elizabeth F. Turesky1 andPatrick Connell2

1Leadership and Organizational Studies,University of Southern Maine, Lewiston-Auburn

College, Lewiston, ME, USA 2Fuel/Fluid Power

Products, Nichols Portland, Portland, ME, USA

Correspondence: Elizabeth F. Turesky,Leadership and Organizational Studies,University of Southern Maine, Lewiston-Auburn College, 51 Westminster Street,Lewiston, ME 04240, USA.Tel: þ1 207 753-6066;E-mail: [email protected]

AbstractThis study focuses on why lean manufacturing change initiatives at a NorthernNew England company failed to produce sustained results. Consultants and

leaders share responsibility for the sustainability of the change initiatives they

undertake. Rationally, neither party would undertake a change initiative withthe intent to fail, yet clearly, even highly structured and well-tested initiatives

often do fail (derail) in practice. This research used an observational

methodology to uncover answers to the question, “what are the key factorsthat can cause the derailment of a well-intended, highly-structured change

initiative?” In addition to consistency with findings from other studies on

sustaining lean projects, this study further extends those findings and

uncovered new variables to consider when implementing lean projects andother structured interventions in general. Based on the results of this study, the

authors propose a model of four phases that influence lean project

sustainability: foundation, preparation, implementation and sustainability forcontinuous improvements.

Organization Management Journal (2010) 7, 110–132. doi:10.1057/omj.2010.14

Keywords: lean manufacturing; organization change; case study

IntroductionOver the last decade, the production philosophies and economicenvironments of US manufacturing firms have changed dramatic-ally (Smeds, 1994). Gone are the batch processes and largeinventories of “fatter” times; in their place are single-piece-flowand just-in-time (JIT) deliveries. No longer are parts made before anorder is placed. Now, with weekly purchases of parts, production isstarted only after the order is placed, and production lines must bechanged daily from one part to another. To accomplish moreefficient and effective production, companies have become “lean.”Performance gains attributed to lean manufacturing concepts andtools are improved product quality, reduced manufacture times,reduced work in progress (WIP), more consistent on-time deliver-ies, higher net income, decreased costs, better utilization of humanresources, reduced inventory, quicker return on inventory invest-ment, higher levels of production, increased flexibility, improvedspace utilization, reduction in tool investment, more efficientutilization of machinery, stronger job focus, better skills enhance-ment, and increased customer satisfaction (Womack and Jones,1994, 1996; Alavi, 2003; Pavanaskar et al., 2003; Ross and Francis,2003).

Organization Management Journal (2010) 7, 110–132& 2010 Eastern Academy of Management All rights reserved 1541-6518

www.omj.net

Although companies are motivated to implementlean manufacturing because it is a well-defined,highly structured approach with proven results,such implementation often proves not only adaunting task (Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009), butalso prone to failure (Hoyte and Greenwood, 2007).Apparently, even highly structured initiatives likelean manufacturing run into individual, group, andorganizational hurdles that threaten to derail themor impair their sustainability. Although such factorsare to be expected to affect the sustainability of less-structured or ill-defined interventions, it is surpris-ing that well-understood and precisely definedinterventions can also be affected by these forces.Previous research has indicated that critical factorsassociated with success and failure in the imple-mentation of lean manufacturing initiativesinclude leadership, management, organizationalculture, skills and expertise (Achanga et al., 2005).Major causes for sustainability failures or successinclude the presence or absence of a bottom-upimplementation approach; team autonomy, whetherintentional or unintentional (Boyer and Sovilla,2003; Stamm, 2004; Worley and Doolan, 2006);visible senior management commitment and parti-cipation and organizational communication (Worleyand Doolan, 2006); information transparency oflean goals, initial performance improvements, andcontinual evaluation and feedback (Scherrer-Rathjeet al., 2009). Given that the approach to leanmanufacturing initiatives is well-documented, itseems odd that consultants and their counterpartsin leadership would fall victim to such threatsto sustainability. In an attempt to answer thequestion, “what are the key factors that cancause the derailment of well-intended, highlystructured change initiative?” the authors under-took a grounded research study to explain thedynamics leading to the failure of a lean manufac-turing initiative in a Northern New Englandcompany.

To further the existing body of knowledgeon lean project sustainability, the authorsattempt to answer why success and failure insustainability of lean manufacturing project initia-tives occurred in the organization studied. Severalvariables are uncovered, highlighting barriersto one organization’s experience in sustaininggains from lean project initiatives. The findingsand resulting model extend our understanding ofthe complexity of lean project implementationand will be of value to both practitioners andacademics.

Literature review

Background on lean implementation

Although Japanese lean production techniqueshave been a model for Western manufacturers formore than three decades (Drucker 1971; Schonberger,1982, 2007), their roots lie in neo-Taylorism(Murman et al., 2002) and in Ford’s manufacturingsystem both of the 1910s. During the 1950s, Toyotacreated what came to be known as the ToyotaProduction System (TPS) (Murman et al., 2002),which, driven by “the secret of American industrialphilosophy,” as espoused by leading quality guruslike W. Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, and PhilipCrosby (Krafcik, 1988; Womack et al., 1990) con-tended that productivity tends to increase withquality. During the 1980s, Western researchersdiscovered that this system was a highly productivealternative to their conventional hierarchicalmanufacturing practices. Womack et al. (1990) ledthe MIT research team that coined a new name forthe TPS as “lean production” and popularized theconcept in the West. Lean is both a managementphilosophy and a practical operational perspectivefocused on systematically identifying and eliminat-ing waste in human effort, inventory, time, andmanufacturing space while producing excellentgoods and remaining highly responsive to custo-mers needs and desires (Womack et al., 1990;Murman et al., 2002; Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009).Lean combines the capabilities of teams withorganizational techniques to achieve high out-comes with few resources (Krafick, 1988; Katayamaand Bennett, 1996; Bartezzaghi, 1999).

Lean manufacturing is accomplished through aset of interrelated, mutually reinforcing conceptsand practices, including continuous improvement,total quality management (TQM), total productivemaintenance (TPM), design for manufacturing andassembly, JIT, supplier management, and effectivehuman resource management (Jenner, 1998; Shahand Ward, 2003, 2007; de Treville and Antonakis,2006). By the incorporation of these techniquesand practices, lean organizations have distinctivecharacteristics that contrast strikingly with those oftraditional organizations with a strong use of multi-functional design and self-managed work teams.Organizations that hope to sustain lean changesmust incorporate the following characteristics:They are “flat” (with greatly reduced chain-of-command levels), flexible and highly adaptable,dynamic and change-oriented in a constant searchfor increased efficiency and innovation (Jenner,

Derailment of a lean manufacturing initiative Elizabeth F. Turesky and Patrick Connell

111

Organization Management Journal

1998). Efforts have been made in companies acrossthe world to duplicate this system with reportedlygood results (Zimmer, 2000; Pavanaskar et al., 2003).

A common vocabulary has arisen from leantechnologies, including continuous improvementprojects or kaizen, one-piece-flow and standard-work(Pavanaskar et al., 2003). In Japanese, kaizen simplymeans change for the better and is thus linked tothe concepts of quality control, TPM, error-proof-ing (poka-yoke), and the visual display of produc-tion status information (Murman et al., 2002: 104).Kaizen projects can focus on any improvementactivity. A one-piece-flow system contrasts withprocessing batch parts by producing one piece at atime. The problem with batch processing is that if adefect is found, all of the parts in that batch mayhave that same defect. If only one piece is made at atime, the defect can be corrected immediately.Standard-work is another quality improvement toolin which every operator does things the same way.The process is defined step by step, and each personshould follow the same steps. When everyone doesthings the same way, the variation is reduced.

The underlying premise of lean manufacturingis to remove everything that is not necessary.Pavanaskar et al. (2003) state, “The basis of leanmanufacturing is the elimination of waste”(p. 3076). Waste can be defined as using anythingother than the absolute minimum resources neededto produce a product. The best use of resources suchas human resources, machinery, materials, time,and floor space can be achieved through The FiveS’s (Osada, 1991; Duncan, 1995; Hirano and Rubin,1996; Ilg, 2007) illustrated in Table 1, representinghabits of personal discipline and organization thatmake it easier to see and eliminate the waste.

Murman et al. (2002) note that the words“eliminate waste” are feared as a code for eliminat-ing jobs, but the knowledge-driven nature of leanperceives employees not as a cost to be cut, but as asource of ideas for eliminating waste. As such “theknowledge-driven nature of lean goes far beyondpronouncements that ‘employees are our mostvaluable resource.’ It must show up in efforts toaddress pivotal issues such as job security andthrough investment in skills and capabilities”(p. 95). Krafick’s (1988) research illustrates thesignificance of an integrative approach to leanimplementation and the importance of a systemicfocus on the interrelationship among humanresource management, manufacturing strategy,and the implementation of new technology.

From our literature review, the authors concludethat there are certain factors that are very impor-tant to the successful implementation of lean. Theyare leadership and support from top management,communication, training, project selection,employee engagement, desire to improve, manag-ing resistance to change, project team selection,completing the project, accountability, ownership,and follow up of results. Table 2 provides asummary of the conclusions from studies on leanimplementation failures and successes.

Consistent with an abundance of organizationalchange and leadership theories (Bennis, 1966;Senge, 1990; Kotter, 1995; Burns, 2003; Jick andPeiperl, 2003; Kouzes and Posner, 2007), Hoyteand Greenwood (2007) propose an integrated anduseful framework for guiding the implementationof lean initiatives through supporting mechanismsand organizational structures. Supporting mechan-isms include unwavering sponsorship from the top,

Table 1 The Five S’s

(Seiri) Tidiness Make a place for everything for easy access. Organize tools, accessories, and

paperwork.

(Seiton) Neatness Remove unnecessary items from the work areas. Tag and put in a holding

area unused items for disposition.

Simplify or sort.

(Seiso) Cleanliness Everything is kept clean from top to bottom so that employees may be proud of

their work-center. Scrub or shine; repair and clean.

(Seiketsu) Standardization Create and maintain standards which all workers follow, such as a cleaning

checklist and schedule for area workers.

(Shitsuke) Discipline Train to sustain workers to ensure that they understand the importance of and

strive for continuous improvement.


112


a clearly articulated vision, and alignment of allemployees while organizational structures includesupport teams and organizational linkages that cutacross functional boundaries, extensive training,and dedicated resources. Successful implementa-

tion of change interventions, including that oflean, is anchored in a supportive organizationalculture (Achanga et al., 2005) stemming from socialnorms and shared values (Buchanan et al., 2005).These change interventions require sensitivity to

Table 2 Factors affecting success of implementation in lean manufacturing

Factors affecting

success

Contributor Conclusions

Top management

support

Worley and Doolen; Smeds; Alavi; Bamber and

Dale; Boyer and Sovilla; Parks; Womack and Jones;

Achanga et al.; Bamber and Dale; Boyer and

Sovilla; Hoyte and Greenwood; Scherrer et al.

Leadership must be educated and demonstrate

commitment to enthusiastically embrace and sustain

lean change processes. Align the culture with lean

ideology and driven by top management and by a

compelling, shared vision, purpose, and goals,

embraced and made consistently visible throughout

the organization.

Communication Worley and Doolen; Hancock and Zayko; Storch

and Lim; Spear and Bowen; Jenner; Smeds;

Achanga et al.; Mehta and Shah; Lucey; Scherer

et al.; Alavi

Communication pathways must flow effectively

between shifts, among all organizational levels and cross

functionally.

Training and

Development

Hancock and Zayko; Harris; Achanga et al.;

Bamber and Dale; Womack et al.; Krafick;

Murman; Hoyte and Greenwood; Spear and

Bowen; Drucker; Niepce and Molleman; Alavi

Reduce gaps in training by providing extensive,

consistent, and continuous training available to all

employees.

Project selection McManus; Yang and Hsieh Project selection needs a well-communicated and

supported statistical foundation to prioritize projects to

pursue. Adequate preparation must be done for each

project to get the highest return.

Employee

engagement

Boyer and Sovilla; Smeds; Spear and Bowen;

Hoyte and Greenwood; Achanga; Drucker;

Murman; Niepce and Molleman; Scherrer et al.

Employee participation in project decision making is a

main principle affecting innovation, productivity, and

work satisfaction.

Desire to improve

service

Mehta and Shah; Cheser Must relate to task significance in work design and to

employee motivation outcomes to satisfy the need for

meaningful and significant contributions to their

organization.

Managing

resistance

Boyer and Sovilla; Armenakis; Piderit; Strebel;

Trader-Leigh; Hoyte and Greenwood; Stamm;

Burge; Ezzamel; Hancock and Zayko

Leadership must mediate conflicts that are causing

resistance to new work practices to sustain initiative

gains at all levels and to seek shift-to-shift consistency

and continuity.

Project team

selection

Smeds; Mehta and Shah; Niepce and Molleman;

Pil; Paez et al.; Ezzamel et al.

Workers should be selected by ability to problem solve,

learn, and perform the required tasks.

Completing the

project

Mehta and Shah; Niepce and Molleman Team interdependence, evaluation, and recognition of

accomplishments by leadership are needed.

Accountability/

ownership/

Follow-up

Lucey; Scherrer et al.; Womack and Jones;

Stamm; Wood

Requires continuous support jointly by management

and project team ownership along with accountability

and continual evaluation.


113


deep culture change. New lean behaviors, processesand practices are re-aligned with organizationalsystem variables of leadership, rewards, training,communication, teamwork, roles, relationships,and performance measures: These variables inter-play with each other. The Japanese term“nemawashi,” refers to a culture that values,supports, and encourages sustainable and proactiveemployee engagement, long-term focus, commu-nication and information sharing, education(Achanga et al., 2005), risk taking and innovation(Murman et al., 2002). Inherent in the culture ofthe TPS is, for example, the constant questioning ofstandard processes, where line employees canaddress problems at a more detailed level thanmanagement (Spear and Bowen, 1999).

Top management support. In leading a lean changeproject, Mann (2005) notes that a lean changeinitiative is not just “a change in the technical insand outs of production systems,” but thoroughlyan organizational change as well. Without effectiveleadership, most large-scale changes in systems donot go well and do not perform up to advertisedexpectations (p. 101).

The importance of top management support(Worley and Doolan, 2006), and effective leadershipare crucial in the sustainability of any changeeffort (Senge, 1990; Kouzes and Posner, 2007); leanproject change initiatives are no exception. Achangaet al. (2005) in describing the necessary factors forsuccessful lean projects state, “Under the leadershipfactor, management should have a clear vision,strategic initiatives, a good level of education, andthe willingness to support productivity improve-ment initiatives like Lean manufacturing” (p. 468).The vision, while clear, must be shared with all inthe organization. John Kotter (1996) tells us thatwithout an appropriate vision, “the failure in atransformation effort can easily dissolve into a list ofconfusing, incompatible, and time consuming pro-jects that go in the wrong direction or nowhere atall” (p. 7). Achanga et al. (2005: 467) warn us of thenegative consequences a short-term focus has onlean implementation. Leadership may be too easilyfocused on the management of short-term crises,when the implementation of lean manufacturingneeds a firmer base for long-term success throughthe reduction of costs and improvement in the useof resources.

Communication. Communication is identified as avital part of lean manufacturing (Womack et al.,

1990; Jenner, 1998; Spear and Bowen, 1999). For anumber of reasons, continuous improvement mustmean continuous communication in giving andreceiving feedback within the lean organization.First, effective feedback is important to learn frompast mistakes or failures and offers information forimprovement. Second, feedback provides a promptresponse to any deviation from the targetedperformance (Mehta and Shah, 2005). Third, sucha communication pattern enhances employeeawareness, inclusion, accountability, and sense ofachievement in lean efforts (Lucey et al., 2004). Suchrecognition is important in reinforcing employeeprogress (Bridges, 1991). Finally, managementcommunicating lean successes throughout theorganization is critical in providing employees witha better understanding of the benefits of lean andcreate a positive perception of lean to organizationalmembers (Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009).

Hancock and Zayko (1998) note in their studythat production and quality may suffer, andresentment occurs when inadequate communica-tion makes the work more difficult to accomplish.The way standardized work is accomplished on leanprojects should be consistent from shift to shift(Hancock and Zayko, 1998). Resentment from othershifts occurs whenever the lack of communicationcauses the work to be more difficult to accomplish.“If problems occur on the first shift, they may carryover to the second or third shift. This is especiallytrue during implementation” (p. 42). Hence, com-munication between shifts is critical (Storch andLim, 1999) and can be accomplished with face-to-face exchanges, the use of tape recorders, telephonemessages, to ensure that off shifts are properlyinformed (Hancock and Zayko, 1998).

Training and development. Managers at all levelsof the organization must participate in thetraining and must both understand the benefitsof lean and have the necessary capacities forits implementation (Hoyte and Greenwood). Leanmanufacturing requires a culture where workersand managers engage in the kind of experi-mentation that is widely recognized as thecornerstone of a learning organization (Spear andBowen, 1999). Interventions, such as training,provide opportunities for employees to developand to maximize their skills and to grow (Noe,2008). Further, they help to build trust, solveproblems, increase employee empowerment andparticipation, and foster knowledge sharing andcooperation between groups.


114


Very telling is Peter Drucker’s account (1971) ofthe American and Japanese difference in perceptionof education and training from the perspective of aJapanese industrial engineer. “Our industrial engi-neers are teachers rather than masters. We try toteach how one improves one’s own productivityand the process. What we set up is the foundation;the edifice the worker builds y Scientific manage-ment, time and motion studies, materials flow-wedo all that, and no differently from the way you doit in the States. But you in the States think that thisis the end of the job; we here in Japan believe it isthe beginning. The worker’s job begins when wehave finished the engineering job itself” (p. 117).

Training and development need to occur not justfor team members, but also for management tocreate an environment for team ownership, anenvironment which depends on changing themind-set of middle managers from controlling,deciding, solving, and imposing to listening,encouraging, teaching, and coaching. These newteams should be prepared to share leadership.Lasting meaningful performance change and inno-vation, inspired by leaders articulating a sharedvision, needs to happen through the creative andcollective efforts of the people actually performingthe work (Hoyte and Greenwood, 2007).

Project selection. The quality of the project selectionprocess is a critical driver of the success of a leaninitiative. Project selection criteria can be vagueand lack the statistical foundation to identify andto prioritize significant projects (Yang and Hsieh,2009). A best practice for an organization is toprioritize potential projects against clearlyidentified strategic business objectives. Selectioncriteria should also be well communicated to teammembers to ensure adequate time is spent onselected projects (McManus, 2008).

Employee engagement. Cognitive models ofparticipation propose that participation leads toincreases in productivity through bringing high-quality information to decisions and throughincreasing knowledge at times of implementation(Anthony, 1978; Miller and Monge, 1986; Marshalland Stohl, 1993). Theorists supporting such models(Frost et al., 1974; Locke and Schweiger, 1979)propose that workers typically have more completeknowledge of their work than does management;hence, if workers participate in decision making,decisions will be made with better pools ofinformation. In addition, cognitive models suggest

that if employees participate in decision making,they will know more about implementing workprocedures after those decisions have been made(Maier, 1963; Melcher, 1976). Participation indecisions that focus on the work itself were foundto have a consistent and positive effect onproductivity (Cotton et al., 1988).

When management accords the workers partic-ipation in any important decision, it implies thatworkers are intelligent, competent, and valuedpartners. Thus, participation in decision makingdirectly affects such aspects of worker-managementrelations as the perception of being valued, theperception of common goals, and cooperation.Such team engagement satisfies important socialneeds as the need for recognition and appreciationand the need for autonomy (French and Israel,1960). However, lean project work design may limitsuch participation both to certain areas of decisionmaking (e.g., quality, work procedures) and tocertain mechanisms for involvement (e.g., qualitycircles, improvement teams, ringi decision making)(Niepce and Molleman, 1998).

Desire to improve service. An employee’s desireto improve service engenders a perception thatone’s job is meaningful and is significant. Thisis a necessary feature of good job design (Hackmanand Oldham, 1976, 1980) and recognition ofan innate need for personal growth (Maslow,1943). Employees who identify tasks as contrib-uting to something wider beyond the selfcontributes significantly to internal motivationand job satisfaction. “An overall vision of a waste-free workplace is inculcated in the workforce,emphasizing the importance of each individual’sefforts in improving the operation for the benefitof the employees, the organization, and societyat large, resulting in a sense of meaningful-ness in effectively performing the job” (Cheser,1998: 200).

Management of resistance to change. Hoyte andGreenwood (2007) conclude from their study,“Flawless startup of a new site, while inculcatinglean principles into a carefully selected group offresh new employees, is a far less daunting taskthan converting an entrenched, change-resistant,stagnated organization to an entirely new, and(to those affected) unfamiliar, way of working y”(p. 93). In Managing Transitions, William Bridgesattributes such resistance to change as stemmingfrom management’s failure to recognize that people


115


need time to go through the psychological steps ofgiving up old ways before embracing new ones.Paul Strebel (1996) in Why Do Employees ResistChange? reports that it is because of employeeresistance to change that 50–80% of change effortsin Fortune 1000 companies fail.

Project team selection. The ability to learn, to problemsolve, to innovate, and to improve quality areimportant criteria in the selection of project teammembers (Niepce and Molleman, 1998; Paez et al.,2005). Developing and leveraging such worker andsupervisory abilities and adaptability for projectssimultaneously build organizational capacity forinnovation and responsiveness (Pil and Fujimoto,2007).

Completing the project. Interestingly, “Incompletion”synonymous with Kaizen is a phrase used by Niepceand Molleman (1998) and Mehta and Shah (2005) toencourage constant engagement toward continuousimprovement. Job completion, a facet of good jobdesign, is associated with worker job satisfaction andinternal motivation (Hackman and Oldham, 1976,1980), and is an important factor to consider.

Accountability/ownership/follow-up. “Passionate lea-ders with knowledge of lean systems are the firstand most important element for creating lastingchange,” write Hoyte and Greenwood (2007).“They need to have strong and experiencedchange makers leading the effort should not betaken lightly. There will always be significant, ifhidden, forces acting to thwart the change, sincetheir comfort zone is the existing business model”(p. 94). Bamber and Dale (2000) report that afterPrice Waterhouse consultants left the lean activitiesto the organization, teamwork and problem solvingof the lean production teams faded away; afundamental shift and commitment had not beenreached.

Factors in lean project sustainability. To sustain leantechniques there must be new ways of working. Inan effort to guide the research and practice ofsustainability, the NHS Modernisation Agency(2002: 12) defines sustainability as follows:

Sustainability is when new ways of working on improved

outcomes become the norm. Not only have the process and

outcome changed, but the thinking and attitudes behind

them are fundamentally altered and the systems surround-

ing them are transformed in support. In other words it has

become an integrated or mainstream way of working rather

than something “added on”. As a result, when you look at

the process or outcome one year from now or longer, you

can see that at a minimum it has not reverted to the old way

or old level of performance.

Thus the focus is on a dynamic improvementtrajectory where human resource practices, manu-facturing strategies, and new technologies change,as do the attitudes and thinking toward the newaligned working systems. To be considered sustaina-ble, the system needs to withstand the challenge ofvariation and continually improve over time(Buchanan et al., 2005). Harris (2004) points outthat while lean can contribute to a company’sbottom line with quick wins, an organizationshould realize that larger productivity gains arepossible for larger long-term gains when lean issustained properly. Franklin (2004) warns that “theculture of an organization can repel attempts toimplement lean, so it is vital to understand theculture that you have, so that you can create a costeffective implementation plan” (p. 45). Whenundergoing a change to lean initiatives, the criticalattribute of persistence is essential: The dogged,hands on persistence as part of a genuine commit-ment from the leadership of the organization.

Description of research methodologyThe research site for this study was performed atEnvirons (the actual name of the company waschanged to maintain confidentiality), a NorthernNew England company that manufactures pump-ing components for automotive and industrialconcerns worldwide. Opened in 1968, Environsbegan making machined parts from steel bar stockat the plant in Northern New England. Thecompany soon saw potential in making parts frompowdered metal, bought a powdered metal facilitylocated in Massachusetts, and then moved theequipment and some of the technical expertise toEnvirons in 1978. This soon became the corebusiness of the Company. At this facility most ofthe goods manufactured are made from powderedmetal, using complex processes that have beendeveloped over the 40-year history of the business.Its pumping components may be found whereverindustrial fluids are transferred.

The primary competitors in the market are otherpowdered metal pressing firms in North America:GKN, Capstan, and Canadian Stackpole, as wellas some smaller companies located in WesternPennsylvania and Central Michigan. There are alsoseveral competitors in Europe and Asia, all serving


116


the auto industry or industrial hydraulic or fluidtransfer applications.

As the powdered metal parts became increasinglymore popular with Environs’ customers, the facilityadded floor space four times in 15 years toaccommodate presses, furnaces, and other equip-ment. These powdered metal parts can be found inautomotive oil pumps, transmission pumps, fuelpumps, and many other industrial applications.

In 1985, the company was purchased by aMidwestern corporation, a world leader in motioncontrol devices. This purchase, along with theCompany’s listing on the New York StockExchange, significantly enhanced access to capital,which promoted rapid expansion and entry intothe automotive market.

The Company experienced many good years from1985 through 2000. This tide, so to speak, changedafter 2000, when Environs struggled to satisfyincreased customer demand for product units, forthe quality thereof, and for rapid delivery. Tocombat the poor shipping performance and torecoup money lost every day on premium freightcosts, the plant manager moved to implement leanmanufacturing in 2000.

To implement lean in 2000, the senior staff waseducated on lean principles and developed amission statement for the company. This was doneat offsite meetings and over a period of 1 to 2months. Then, with the help of a consultant, thestaff developed a program of six classes for theemployees. A consultant was hired to guide themanagers on how the tools of lean manufacturingwere to be used. The first class was an introductionto lean that included a broad overview. The secondclass explained the Five S (Seiri, Seiton, Seiso,Seiketsu, Shitsuke) model.

Program: The third class concentrated on wasteelimination (the seven wastes in manufacturing-overproduction, transportation, motion, waiting,processing, inventory, and defects). The fourth classfocused on set-up reduction. The fifth class con-centrated on workflow; and the sixth class was areview of the previous classes.

In the early stages of the journey into lean in2000, a steering committee was formed to supportthe effort. The committee was comprised of theplant manager who chaired the committee,the lean manager who served as the vice chair, theeducation manager, the waste reduction manager,and the recognition and measurements manager.This group met weekly, planning the company’sapproach to lean implementation. The committee

was involved in all of the efforts to adopt leanmanufacturing throughout the facility.

There were approximately 400 employees (pre-sently 300) at Environs’ factory at the time of thisstudy, with four different manufacturing productlines and average sales per month of $4.5 million.The organizational structure at Environs is atraditional top-down one with a general managersurrounded by a senior staff of between 8 and 10managers. Reporting to each senior staff memberare floor supervisors and engineering staff. Thereare two product line managers, each with anoperations and engineering staff to support twolines each. Reporting to the supervisors are the leadpeople in the manufacturing area; workers report tothe lead people. The number of people working inthe hierarchy under each manager is roughly equaland makes up around 70% of the total number ofemployees. The remaining employees work inproduct development, materials procurement, andgeneral office work, including human resources,scheduling, maintenance, information technology,technical services, and tool-room. Schedules at thetime of the study were 12-h shifts that covered 24/7in three of four product lines.

A combination of research methodologies hasbeen employed in this project. Over a period of 4months, data were collected from observations,work stations (the physical location from whichto perform the work defined for that process),company records, and structured interviews. Sixin-depth interviews were conducted lastingapproximately 90 min each. During the course ofthis study, the researchers observed 30 meetingsand 1500 h were spent onsite. In addition, therecords of 70 lean projects over a period of 3 yearswere reviewed.

At the time of this study, one of the researcherswas an on-site supervisor of two support depart-ments. In addition, he was a member of the leancouncil serving as the waste reduction manager. Hewas a participant, planner, observer, leader, andteam member in several lean projects, with theadded responsibility of monitoring the status ofother current lean projects in the Company. He wastherefore allowed to be highly involved in com-pany initiatives over a period of 8 years. Presentthrough invitation at all project wrap-up meetings,this on-site researcher observed both the before andafter conditions of each area as projects succeededand failed. Such an organizational position pro-vided both a potential bias, and a unique advan-tage. Data collected through observation have


117


potential biases and advantages (Douglas, 1985).One potential bias is the researchers’ own assess-ment of what is important for recording. Thispotential bias was addressed in the data collectionwith a systematic approach of structured inter-views, work station data collection, and well-documented observations, allowing a secondresearcher to assess that information for accuracythrough a data audit. Finally, another potential biasis that observations are selective, where theresearcher is continually making choices aboutwhat to acknowledge and to archive and what toleave out, without necessarily realizing that thisprocess is occurring (Miles and Huberman, 1994).We attempted to address the issue of bias inrecording observations by forming a research team.Although the on-site researcher made observationsover an 8-year period and could provide accuratecontext to responses, the other researcher was ableto provide yet another perspective in siftingthrough the considerable amount of data collected.

Multiple sources of information were utilized fortriangulation to corroborate the researcher’s conclu-sions. A single site case study, and data gathered fromfour different data collection methods: companyrecords, observations, analytical case study, andstructured interviews permitted a review of evidencethrough multiple lenses. Glaser and Strauss (1967)posit that case studies are the intimate connectionwith empirical reality that permits the developmentof a testable, relevant, and valid theory.

Phases of data collectionThere were two phases in the data collection andanalysis. The first phase describes observational andwork station data collected and presents an analyticcase study. The second phase sets forth a structuredinterview-based model, consisting of questionsderived from the case study, the data collected,qualitative analysis, and development of a groundedmodel.

Phase I – observation, work station data, and casestudy. Observational data were collected over an8-year period (2000–2008) by the on-site researcher,as part of his job as a supervisor and lean councilmember. Work station data were collected first bythe people operating the equipment at the work-centers. The data were then compiled by theengineering staff of that area and reported tothe accountants, who kept track of all themeasurements. Based on the on-site researchers’observations over 4 months, and the work station

data of set-up times, dynamics were construedabout what occurred, and a consequent analyticalcase was developed.

Work station data. Set-up times are a good measureof the efficiency of an operation and reflect whethera lean manufacturing effort has accomplished itsobjectives of making an operation more efficient.

Objective set-up time data were collected fromseveral work stations that had completed contin-uous improvement projects in fiscal year 2007.

Phase 2 – structured interviews. After writing theinitial case study, the researchers wanted tounderstand further why lean projects fail in theirimplementation. Our case study told the story ofwhat happened, and the interview data revealed tothe researchers how the failures in leanimplementation occurred.

Three questions were formulated to collect datafrom key Environs personnel. The questions weredesigned to elicit a range of responses aboutinterviewee experiences with lean projects thateither hinder or support their sustainability atEnvirons.

1. Describe your feelings and perceptions about thelean projects you have been involved in atEnvirons. What do you enjoy about the projects?

2. Thinking about the continuous improvementprojects you have been involved in, what thingsprohibit sustaining gains in projects after theproject is complete?

3. What significant gains have you observed as aresult of the continuous improvement efforts atEnvirons?

These three questions were asked consistentlyof the six employees interviewed. Intervieweeswere carefully selected so as to obtain the great-est breadth of information. These interviewswere conducted at the organization site withtwo engineers, one supervisor, and three hourlyemployees. The most senior employees had 30years of service, and the least senior employee hadbeen with the company for only 2 years. Theaverage number of years of service for thoseinterviewed was 19 years, and the median numberof years was 18.

The people interviewed were:

1. Engineer 1 – works primarily in process develop-ment. Much of his time is spent on specifyingnew equipment to improve processes or to do


118


something new. He has been with the companymore than 15 years and has been a solidcontributor and consistent innovator during hisemployment. Most of his time has been spentworking in what Environs calls their secondaryprocesses.

2. Engineer 2 – works in the primary manufacturingarea supporting powdered metal presses. Hasbeen involved in an average of three projects peryear during his employment at Environs. He hasa supportive attitude and is a believer in “lean.”He is a relative newcomer, having worked withthe organization for less than 15 years.

3. Department supervisor 1 – this interview candi-date was considered to be a good choice becausehe had led countless projects during a 6-monthassignment to the “lean” department. Supervisor1 had been with the company for more than 10years.

4. Work-leader 1 – worked primarily in the second-ary operations. Had done several projects during2007 and 2008. He is perceived at the organiza-tion as being a very good judge of how employ-ees embrace change within their areas. He is along-term employee of more than 10 years.

5. Work-leader 2 – works in one of the primaryoperations. He is a long-term employee whounderstands his area very well. While he is notthe most accepting of change, he seems tobelieve in “lean.” This interviewee has been withthe company more than 10 years.

6. Work-leader 3 – works in the primary operation.He has been with the company for less than 10years. He has a reputation of being very conscien-tious and of trying very hard to do a good job.

These employees all participated in projects within12 months of their interview. The two engineers andthe supervisor were salaried employees, and the work-leaders were hourly employees. After interviewing sixemployees, the researchers achieved theoreticalsaturation in that no new themes were emerging(Glaser and Strauss, 1967), at which point theresearchers stopped interviewing.

Each interview lasted approximately one to oneand half hours, and the same questions wereconsistently asked of each of the six participants.The interviews were conducted over a period of 4months. Follow-up and probing questions wereasked of participants for clarification and elabora-tion of their responses. Interviews were audiotaped and the on-site researcher concurrently tookhandwritten notes. Taped interviews were later

transcribed. The other researcher listened to thetapes and checked the transcribed and handwrittennotes for accuracy, consistency, and completeness.To ensure completeness of the notes, both research-ers went through multiple iterations of listening tothe tapes and checking accuracy, consistency, andcompleteness of the notes. Following this auditingprocess, notes were organized to identify emergentthemes. These themes were further checked by thefirst author for any omissions and inaccuracies.

Interview codingCharacteristic of qualitative research and groundedtheory approach, the emergent themes were sortedand sifted into meaningfully relevant categories(Glaser and Strauss, 1967) from the interview datacollected. Qualitative data analysis is a continuous,iterative initiative (Miles and Huberman, 1994).The notes taken during the interviews and from thetranscriptions were thematically organized toaddress meaningfully the interviewees’ responses.The themes were readily (not forcibly) applicable toand indicated by the data in this study (Glaser andStrauss, 1967). A spreadsheet was constructed tothematically group all the interview responses.These themes were further refined, creating aconceptual framework into which the interviewdata could be grouped into appropriate categories.

Findings

Case study: one lean implementation storyThe case study and subsequent interviews con-ducted at Environs illustrated that the lean processtended to be a two-steps-forward one-step-backtype of implementation. Processes were continuallyimproved to remove wasteful activities; some of thechanges worked well, but they were not alwayslasting. As the company moved on to the nextproject, the previous gains eroded slowly: 6 monthslater, employees forgot what was done and toooften returned to their routine habits.

Lean manufacturing has allowed many compa-nies to produce goods at higher quality and lowercost compared to non-lean companies. Environshas also benefited over the last 8 years fromimplementing lean manufacturing, resulting inimprovements in quality, delivery, and profitability.A continuing source of frustration over improve-ment projects at Environs and in change projects ingeneral is regression to pre-project procedures andinefficiencies often just a month or two afterpositive results were achieved. Since the early


119


2001 training sessions, the employees of Environshave been on a rollercoaster ride, experiencing boththe initial success of continuous improvementprojects and their unraveling a month or two later.

After the conversion to lean projects had beencompleted, all the recorded set-up times of thethird shift showed no progress. Each still averagedmore than 2 h. By interviewing the area supervisorand work-leader, it was learned that third set-upshift employees resisted changes to new procedureson one of the projects. The team members on thefirst and second shifts saw how quickly themachines could be set up, but they watchedworkers on the third shift going about their workas if nothing had changed. The first and secondshift teams began to revert to their old, morefamiliar ways. Because the third shift area employ-ees were not involved in the project, the areaexperts were entirely left out of the decisionmaking about the changes to be made. There wereseveral reasons for this. Among them was theinexperience of top management in the planningprojects to allow enough time to schedule meetingsto get the input from team members. In some casesoff-shift people only knew about the project afterthey came to work and saw the changes. Timelycommunication was missing. These employees hadno idea why a project was being done in their area.No one told them that there was one, let alone thereason why. Lastly, there was nobody at Environsduring the night shift who could help them if theyhad a problem with the new procedures or otherconcerns. After 6 weeks, the project had comecompletely undone. The new hardware to make theset-ups faster had begun to collect dust, and theprocedural changes were no longer being followed.

Resistance to changes was a common theme atEnvirons during the lean implementation from2000 to 2008. In 2002, the CEO at Environs decidedto purchase upgraded automation equipment, eventhough the fuel product line department hadplenty of capacity with existing older equipment.This purchase was expected to reduce both the timefor set-ups and the level of mechanical skill neededfor set-ups. Nonetheless, these expected improvementsmet strong resistance from the assigned employeesuntil the older equipment had been removed fromthe area.

Support for lean was fizzling. Although the earlier2000 structure of the steering committee evolvedand the members of the committee changed fromtime to time, the group remained active until theplant manager who began the lean implementation

was transferred in December 2005. The new plantmanager, who was supportive of lean, attended themeetings only occasionally; and therefore, theweekly meetings became less important to commit-tee members. Previously, this lean meeting had beenjust about the most important hour of the week forcommittee members, and people were fined if theycame late. The lean manager regularly scheduledand attempted to facilitate the meetings, but soongroup members stopped attending the meetings. Forseveral weeks only two of the five members went tothe meeting room at the scheduled time, and theyeventually stopped attending as well. Weekly meet-ings have since stopped, there have been no trainingclasses, waste reduction implementations were notbeing submitted on time, there was no recognitionof employees’ accomplishments, and projects wereno longer planned.

This sabbatical from lean and deterioration ofwhat had been a successful lean implementationbecame obvious to all of the employees at Environs.Loss of focus and leadership vision left the employ-ees confused. For seven years, a minimum of twoprojects per month were completed; suddenly inApril of 2007, the projects stopped. Top manage-ment did not communicate to employees that theorganization was abandoning lean. Instead, man-agers focused on short-term goals and spoke of howmuch work there was to do and how few employeesthere were to accomplish it.

Work station dataThe results of set-up times from several workstations were similar, showing a beginning pointat which the total monthly set-up times were high,followed by a sharp drop for two or three monthsbefore, during, and after the project. Set-up timeseventually stabilized at a higher level than theywere during and right after the project. The graphof two work-centers in the fluid power productline illustrates this observed pattern (see Figure 1).The drop in set-up time during and immediatelyfollowing the project indicates that lean can workeffectively, but the rapid rise in set-up time after amonth or two indicates the need to change theculture of the workplace to make lean gains stick.

Figure 1 illustrates two machines that are set-upoften. In the case of the 100-ton machine, set-uptime during the month of June was even higherthan the pre-project September. Both projectsshown in Figure 1 were completed in February.The 100-ton machine had never previously experi-enced a set-up reduction project before, possibly


120


explaining the very quick loss of any gains made atthat work station.

In Figure 2, three work-centers in product linetwo show a similar trend as that in Figure 1, withthe exception of a very low production month(June), where all the work-centers showed lownumbers because they were not being regularlyoperated. The projects done in this product linewere spread from January through March. All of themachines in the engine product line had beenthrough set-up reduction projects previously, insome cases several times.

Figure 3 documents sets of times for two machinesin product line three. The 400-ton machine projectwas completed in January, and the 630-ton machinewas finished in March. Again, the pattern is similar.Like product line two seen in Figure 2, product linethree experienced a very low volume month in Junebecause their products were nearly 100% automo-tive, and the auto plants were changing model yeartooling in June and July. If lean had worked, thegains made as a result of these projects would havebeen sustained and other improvements would havebeen built from this base.

InterviewsThe interview data were organized into the follow-ing eight emergent themes. Corresponding exam-ples of interview data are illustrated in Table 3.

Discussion of findingsEven though we can have a fairly well understoodintervention and documented approach to leanthat leadership could and should be following, whyis it that top management does not always do whatthey know very clearly to be expected from themfor success? Still, after the decision has been madeto have a lean intervention, there can still be aderailment of a lean initiative. At Environs, we seethe signs of management not doing what is neededand expected to have a sustainable change out-come. Why didn’t this well conceived lean inter-vention deliver everything that top managementhad hoped and expected?

Having analyzed the interview data, it appearsthat there are four broad phases of the lean processwith corresponding factors, which we haveorganized into a model (Figure 4) that will beuseful for practitioners and academics. The factorsin each of the four phases of the model arediscussed below.

Emergent model for lean project sustainabilityAs a result of the researcher’s experiences, ananalysis of the data collected for this study, andan extensive literature review, a model was devel-oped with four broad phases, as seen in Figure 4.We then discuss how those factors in each phaseof the model affected the outcome of lean at thecase site. The Foundation phase consists of (1) Topmanagement leadership support and communicationbefore, during, and after lean project completion and(2) Training and development. The Preparation phaseincludes (3) Project selection, (4) Employee engage-ment, (5) Desire to improve service, and (6) Managingresistance to change. The Implementation phaseconsists of (7) Project team member selection and(8) Completing the project while the Sustainabilityphase includes (9) Accountability/ownership/follow-up,and a feedback loop of renewal and learning.

Line 1 Monthly Set-Up Minutes

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Septe

mbe

r

Octobe

r

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Janu

ary

Febru

ary

Mar

chApr

ilM

ayJu

ne

Month

To

tal M

inu

tes

100 Ton Set-upMinutes

750 Ton Set-upMinutes

Figure 1 Line 1 fluid power product line monthly set-up time.


050

100150200250300350400

July

Augus

t

Septe

mbe

r

Octobe

r

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Janu

ary

Febru

ary

Mar

chApr

ilM

ayJu

ne

Month

To

tal M

inu

tes

200 ton

250 ton A250 ton B

Figure 2 Engine line monthly set-up time.


050

100150200250300350400

July

Augus

t

Septe

mbe

r

Octobe

r

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Janu

ary

Febru

ary

Mar

chApr

ilM

ayJu

ne

Month

To

tal M

inu

tes

400 ton

630 ton

Figure 3 Transmission line monthly set-up time.


121


Thinking systemically, the variables in each of thephases interact with each other and should not beconsidered in isolation. The foundation phase - topmanagement leadership, support, communication,training, and development - follows the sustaina-bility phase for Kaizen, the continuous improve-

ment of lean processes. Lasting change of leanprojects requires accountability to take responsi-bility to produce lean results within a specific timeframe as well as ownership for the results andfollow-up by management and team project mem-bers to ensure continuous improvement.

Table 3 Interview data

Top management support and communicationbefore, during, and after project completion

“In many cases team members were selected at the last minute because theplanning was done at the last minute. A few people in the organizationappeared to know exactly why the project was selected but team membersoften did not have that knowledge and were merely bodies to carry out thevision of others.”

Training and development “Because of large gaps in training, the understanding of lean and thereasons we need to do it are very different within the organization. Thiscreates problems when all people see is things changing for no apparentreason.”“I didn’t know that Environs ever presented any classes!”

Project selection “Projects are sometimes someone’s whim”.“There have been great projects done from obvious selections around safetywhere management has focused on areas where reported accidents werehigh. If there were more obvious measures that would aid in the selection ofprojects other than safety, the projects would appear more credible.”

Employee engagement “The path of the projects was predetermined by managers instead of beingteam driven.”“If people working in the area are not part of the decision making about

improvements being made, they go back to the old way of doing things assoon as they can. I have observed if employees are involved, the changes willbe more likely to be followed.”

Desire to improve service “It is why I am here.”“ ‘Environs needs to be lean and continuously improving’ is now part of theinstitutional culture and a shared belief of the employees.”“There is always a better way.”

Managing resistance to change “When employees see that management has not done a good enough jobhelping people understand why lean improvements are needed. All thepeople at the lower levels in the organization see is that a work cell that ranwith 5 busy people at the start of a project now runs with 3 very busy peopleafter it is completed.”“It’s like you are removing the tricks in their toolbox in favor of using new

tricks created in the projects for older employees while newer employees arestill assembling their toolbox and therefore can be less resistant.”

Project team member selection “If there are 12 people who are assigned to that area, we are depending onthe one person, who is the team member, to make sure the projectimprovements will be accepted by the other 11 people who are notmembers of the project team, but who will be greatly affected by the projectoutcomes. Often all the 11 non-team members see is that the area they havebecome comfortable with has been all changed around and it is no longercomfortable for them.”

Accountability/ownership/follow-up “Projects get lost when managers stop watching.”“In many cases people will only follow new standard work as long as

management watches.”


122


Discussion of interview data

Foundation phase

Top management support and communicationbefore, during, and after project completion. TheFoundation phase is associated with the organi-zation’s top management leadership support andcommunication before, during, and after thecompletion of a lean project. In studies ofsuccessful organizational change, communicatinga clear and compelling vision, aligning employeestoward the vision and exhibiting unwaveringsponsorship from the top are all essentialelements for affecting and sustaining change(Collins and Porras, 1997). There first must beunwavering dedication from top management,involving every member of the organization(Alavi, 2003; Buchanan et al., 2005; Worley andDoolan, 2006) where new visions require newbehaviors, beginning with “Passionate leaders

with knowledge of lean systems” as the first andmost important element for creating lasting change(Hoyte and Greenwood, 2007). In a study onimplementing a lean change effort, Smeds (1994)tells us that “vision, direction and the guidelines forchange are the most important top-downmanagerial tools” and that “the individual changeprojects can and should unfold under thisdevelopment umbrella, consciously managed asinnovation processes that enable participation,bottom-up creativity and learning” (p. 79).Further, once a critical mass is reached inembracing the change philosophy and initiative,management must change the organization:structure and system so that they are in alignmentwith the new team practices. Otherwise, thetension between the organizational units and astatic top management will cause the changeprocess to erode (Beers et al., 1990).

The failure of top management to create, embrace,and communicate a strategic organizational plan, a

Top ManagementSupport &

Communication

Training &Development

Project Selection

EmployeeEngagement

Desire toImprove

ManageResistance To

Change

ProjectTeam

Selection

ProjectCompletion

Accountability /Ownership /Follow-up

Renewal &

Learning

Phase 1Foundation

Phase 4Sustainability

Phase 3Implementation

Phase 2Preparation

Figure 4 Phases for lean project sustainability.


123


compelling vision, and purpose and goals aboutlean manufacturing created a communication gapbetween leaders and followers at Environs. Therewere great opportunities here for communicationimprovement throughout the organization andthroughout the organizational change effort. Repeat-edly, interviewees reported instances of good ideascoming from low in the organizational hierarchy, butthat their managers largely ignored those ideas.Instead, management selected projects and only aselect few for team members to fix “one little thing”in their area. Moreover, workers involved in theseprojects did not seem to understand fully the needand importance of implementing lean manufactur-ing because the communication efforts either werenot adequate or misunderstood. The widely acknowl-edged reality at Environs among those interviewed isthat continuous improvement does not last morethan a few months.

There must be an effective communicationpattern through constructive engagement betweenmanagement and project team members, particu-larly in giving and receiving effective feedback, butalso in recognition and celebration of successes.Interviewees believed that the good communica-tion among them at the beginning ended after theproject was completed; as one employee suggested,more people needed to be “brought into the loop”to sustain the gains made. “After projects have beencompleted and the lean group moves to the nextproject,” said an interviewee, “the focus is quicklydiminished. With every day passing the gains madethrough work in the project become less and lessuntil it is time for another project to return to thesame area.”

Interviewees discussed frustration in that measur-able indicators for the sustainability of project gainshad not been identified in the planning process.Interviewees felt that projects should have con-formed to at least three criteria for benchmarking:process improvement and simplification, qualityimprovement, and safer work stations. Intervieweesbelieved that if any of these three criteria weremissing, the project was inappropriately focused.Structure and planning can have a significanteffect on the success of a project. Intervieweesfelt that part of any project should include timeto address their expectations and concerns. Theabsence of benchmarking employee satisfaction isnot unique to Environs. Cumbo et al. (2006) describethis shortcoming in project benchmarking where“metrics related to employee satisfaction were bench-marked relatively infrequently” (p. 29). Failure to

address employee concerns was discussed in severalinterviews and appears to be a missing step thatcould, in the future, help to shape the leadershipvision and facilitate employees’ buy-in to a project.

A mixed message sent to the Environs employeesabout the importance of being lean has producedan excuse for sacrificing quality for quantity.Interviewees felt corporate pressure to become lean.The “lean roadmap” was directed to leaders of eachdivision, and corporate expectations were to carryout the lean initiatives as prescribed. However, the“hurry up and get it done” attitude created aculture that allowed employees to use any pro-cedure they wanted to get the parts finished.Responses to the researchers’ questions includedthe feeling that too often team members and areaworkers did not understand the rationale forparticular projects. The interviewees observedinadequacies of (1) organizational focus, (2) grassroots support from department employees, (3)management support for training, (4) trust betweenmanagement and employees, and (5) buy-in byoperators, supervisors, managers, and engineers, allpossibly stemming from a lack of a clear vision byEnvirons’ leadership.

Based on the responses of Environs’ employees,the company managers who have successfullycommunicated with area employees did so with aclear and compelling vision that continuousimprovement is needed, that lean manufacturingshould be implemented, and that they will supportsuch team efforts. A clear message to the employeeswho do understand that lean is a system to makeimprovements is also needed, with supporting datasuch as improved productivity and higher profits.Further, even though the employees want to be partof the lean effort, they want and need to under-stand how they can effectively contribute to theprocess. Greater engagement by the leadership canensure alignment where employees understandboth the micro and macro system changes thatneed to be made. “Very little effort has been madeto give employees a complete understanding of thewhole picture,” said one interviewee. “Because ofthis people have a very segmented view of why leanis being done.” Interviewees saw that greatercommunication was needed to facilitate strategiesto develop programs and to maintain the successfulimplementation of lean projects.

Environs is not alone in experiencing leanimplementation problems and failures. Franklin(2004) asserts that failure in lean efforts will occurwhen the prevailing culture is out of alignment


124


with the ideology of lean, particularly when theprevailing organizational communications, struc-ture, planning, leadership, and human resourcespractices are inappropriate for achieving successfullean results. Very similar to Environs, Franklin(2004) describes an unsuccessful implementationeffort where lean implementation started well;communication sessions became less frequent;employees became less involved; supervisors andmanagers started to tell employees about leanchanges that were going to be made; and employeeturnover rose 70% over a 3-year period (p. 46).Observations made at Environs are consistent withFranklin’s (2004) study. Early in the process of thelean implementation, many projects were success-ful, profitability and customer satisfaction was high.Later, management exercised more control over thepath of the implementation and communicated less,leaving employees feeling disconnected.

Training and development. The second factor in theFoundation phase is training and development,which must be extensive and made available to allemployees throughout the organization (Womacket al., 1990). Preliminary work for change to a leanculture is accomplished both through training forlean production and in managing the changeprocess itself. Regardless, Environs Lean trainingclasses stopped over 2 years before this study,leaving a basic skill gap for newer employees.

Members of the organization must understandnot only the benefits of lean but also that the orga-nization possesses the necessary tools needed for itsimplementation. To promote sustainable practices ofcontinuous improvement of lean projects, employeesshould be given many educational opportunities,including classroom training in topics such as thecompany’s management philosophy, leadershipdevelopment, techniques of scientific management,kaizen principles, problem-solving, safety, and workstandardization. In fact, learning and working pro-ductively as a team is considered critical to the kaizenprocess (Womack et al., 1990). Project team membersmust learn to take and top management must learnto give to teams direct responsibility for quality, cost,safety, and continuous improvement. Reflecting onjob responsibilities, team leaders who are willingand able must also be willing to perform the sametasks as other team members should the need arise(Krafick, 1988; Murman et al., 2002). “Middlemanagers must learn to grow y by preparing theirteams to share leadership through an orderly process

of delegation. This concept of shared leadership doesnot come naturally and will need formal training andbehavioral reinforcement before it becomes secondnature,” say Hoyte and Greenwood (2007: 100).

Harris (2004) illustrates such support, in the caseof Oxford Engineering, which sustained leanthrough a complete reorganization, includingadministrative functions. To support the organiza-tional transformation to lean, Oxford invested incontinued mentoring, where trainers returnedevery month to evaluate progress, to reinforce thechanges, and to evaluate whether those changescould be sustained. To monitor and maintain boththe success of training and the project, itself, teammembers should develop a good reporting systemof numerous key measurements to identify, track,and measure project gains.

Preparation phase

Project selection. Not only did interviewees indicatethe lack of qualified people assigned to projects, butalso the profusion of pet projects. Intervieweesreported repeatedly that the project selectionprocess was either completed too quickly withoutsufficient thought or that projects were initiatedbecause they were “pet projects” and biased in theirselection process. Perceptions of such hypocrisy or“careerism” can also lead to employee resistance tonew lean initiatives and working practices (Ezzamelet al., 2001). Interviewees indicated that leanprojects were often focused in the wrong areasand that someone’s personal agenda, such as self-promotion, was a motive for project selection. Twosuch projects after completion resulted in the “newrising star” being promoted. In these cases, theownership of the area was unassigned for severalmonths after the original owner had beenpromoted, leaving the project gains vulnerable toregression. Without a leader supporting the project,gains deteriorated and vanished quickly.

Managers and line employees differed in theirbeliefs about the criteria used for determiningwhich projects should be implemented and thelevel of gains made in those projects. An inter-viewee said,

Every time I have seen a project launched poorly I have not

seen it going well. This is very important for new

implementations since many projects will not endure

through no lack of effort, but because of inadequate

communication of need, poor planning, or poor team

selection. The structure of Environs is not flat enough and

does not flow well. People who are expected to carry

projects out do not. That in itself makes the project


125


selection critical and needs to be clearly recognized by top

management. What top management think they need to be

doing and what the line workers would like to see are

different. The workers want their job to be easier, not harder

and their equipment to produce higher quality products

more safely. Therein lies the disconnect in project selection.

Employee engagement. Another element in thePreparation phase of sustaining lean is employeeinvolvement and engagement: more specifically, thescope and level of employee input in the decision-making process at all lean project stages. To achieveownership and active support of lean initiatives,work teams must participate without exceptionin “shaping, leading, and implementing leaninitiatives” (Hoyte and Greenwood, 2007: 100).Employees at Environs felt their involvement in thelean projects to be shallow and as one intervieweecommented, “not deep enough to be fully validatedby employees.” They felt disconnected and devaluedprimarily because management often predeterminedthe paths of projects, thus discounting employeeengagement in the decision-making process.

According to interviewees, area employees feltdisconnected from the broader organizational focusand purpose of the lean projects. Better employeeunderstanding of the project must occur if teammembers are to complete and sustain the leanprojects. Without better understanding, the employ-ees will not enthusiastically embrace the projectsand follow new standard-work procedures. In otherwords, Environs employees have not felt empoweredto share their voice in continuous improvement.

Desire to improve service. All of the employeesinterviewed felt continuous improvement wasneeded for Environs to compete successfully in aglobal market. Even further, interviewees viewedcontinuous improvement as a very important part oftheir job. Interviewees seemed to believe thatcontinuous improvement would lead to betterquality products, greater profitability, improved on-time delivery and safety, and increased job security.

An interesting finding from interviews illustratedthat only where there was significant work teamcollaboration – where the team members actuallyworking on a project also generated ideas – wereproductivity gains sustained. Clearly, given theopportunity, employees do want to help makeprocesses better. Even when conditions would prohib-it sustainability of entire projects, intervieweesindicated examples of small sustaining incrementalchanges, such as improvements in working condi-tions or the introduction of improved technologies.

Managing resistance to change. Change cangenerate deep resistance in people, thus makingit difficult to implement organizational improve-ments (Kotter, 1995; Strebel, 1996; Piderit, 2000;Trader-Leigh, 2002; Armenakis et al., 2007).Resistance is a normal reaction to change anddefined here as team member behavior that servesto maintain the status quo of familiar ways ofworking in the midst of pressure to alter it.Managing resistance to change, as part of thepreparation phase, is the ability and process ofanticipating and addressing sources and reasons forresistance and then modifying the change effort toaddress the issues and underlying concerns ofproject team members. “The need to have strongand experienced change makers leading the effortshould not be taken lightly. There will alwaysbe significant, if hidden, forces acting to thwartthe change, since their comfort zone is theexisting business model” (Hoyte and Greenwood,2007: 94).

Lack of employee ownership and engagement andof management support in the change process wereseen by interviewees as major causes for employeeresistance and thus, failure of sustainable leanprojects. Another perceived cause for resistance tochange raised by interviewees was the issue ofmistrust between the organizational levels, leadingto conflict and lack of buy-in from the employees.Interviewees’ belief that the vision conveyed byleadership was not clear enough for the lower levelsto accept stems from employees not recognizing whatis driving the change and the value it can bring to thebusiness and to themselves. Projects were described as“not real world,” contributing to lost credibility byarea workers where “during the project,” said amistrusting interviewee, “everything is often stagedto show grand improvements against lofty goals thatare not sustainable.” In other words, changes beingattempted were only possible for a short time, with avery heavy focus during a project. As soon as theproject was completed, the support needed was gone,causing things to return to pre-project conditions.

In the case at Environs, employees have a sharedbelief about the need for continuous changeand the drive for change, as indicated earlier, butdo not feel nor experience the kind of managementsupport necessary and consistent with this belief.The poor success rate of lean project implementationat Environs reflects the inattention of managementto supporting the employees expected to make thechange and into creating an environment toinfluence their perceptions toward the expected


126


changes. For example, one employee spoke of thedifference between new and more senior employ-ees, feeling that the least senior employees weremore amenable to change than the longer-termemployees. He felt that the newer employees weremore open to doing things differently while theolder employees were more like “robots” in theirapproach to work. This attitude of not wantingchange also seemed to exist across the differentshifts in the company. Unless the project werecompleted on a given shift or had a very strongteam member on that shift, the whole grouptended to discount the changes made and revertto the old methods very quickly. As such, inter-viewees argued that shift-to-shift inconsistency wasa large roadblock to sustaining gains.

Implementation phase

Project team selection. The Implementation phaseillustrates the holistic relationship among thephases where the starting point for a lean initi-ative lies in culturally transforming the organi-zation internally first and then implementinglean tools (Hoyte and Greenwood, 2007) fromtraining, leadership, organizational alignment,and support during the Foundation phase. Projectteam selection and completion in this phase is thefruition of the planning completed in the Founda-tion phase.

During the Implementation phase of a leanproject, a first step would be to select appropriateteam members (Collins, 2001). Since selectedemployees for the project help determine itsdirection, this vital step, when done correctly, willhave positive effects on the project, ensuring theproper mix of personnel who will take ownershipand responsibility for the sustainable implementa-tion of the project. A standard lean team makeupincludes a facilitator, leader, area expert, an observ-er, plus an occasional maintenance person.

At Environs the preferable mix of team memberswill cover all shifts working in the area of focus.Numerous interviewees felt that the standard teammakeup of a facilitator, leader, area expert, anobserver, plus an occasional maintenance personneeds more flexibility. If the project was large, moreteam members were selected from a pool ofemployees interested in participating. Since proj-ects are often done with only one area person as ateam member, the result was that only one personbecame familiar with the focus area and able tomake key decisions about change.

Related to project team selection is the problemof inadequate resources to support the selectedteam to complete the project, including personnelshortage noted by interviewees. Interviewees indi-cated that instability in the projects is created bynot having sufficient personnel to follow thestandard-work that has been implemented by thecontinuous improvement team. An example is thatoften the standard-work requires that changeoversbe completed with a “two-man” set-up. In actualpractice this rarely happens after the 30-day follow-up has been completed.

Project completion. Project completion is necessary,not only for the personal satisfaction that comes withaccomplishment, but also for the sustainabilityof project gains. Job completion is an opportunityfor team members to participative in the evaluationof the project; to identify the outcomes; to makethe necessary changes to ensure future benefits;and for management to make public the resultsof its achievement. It is logistically placed in theimplementation stage.

Sustaining phase

Accountability/ownership/follow-up. Accountabilityand the ownership associated with continuousimprovement projects were issues raised duringinterview discussions. Interviewees shared thisconcern and felt that the lack of continuedfollow-up contributed to erosion of gains. All ofthe interviewees felt that the current managementsystem did not adequately provide needed follow-up to ensure accountability for sustaining projectgains. Every project needs to have area teammembers who have ownership and accountabilityof the project and, at the very least, a project leaderwho knows that he or she is responsible for theproject completion, who maintains focus, and whodisplays commitment to sustain the gains achieved.Employees want to know who owns and who isresponsible for maintaining each change. Lack ofattention to lean manufacturing over severalmonths gave employees the impression that leanis good to do only if they have time; and that if theyhave other things to do, then it is okay to ignore it.

All the interviewees felt that there was very little,if any, accountability to sustain continuous impro-vement at Environs. As an illustration of this point,one project participant spoke of his weekly repo-rts on the individual change-over times of twomachines. During the first month, he reported via


127


email to several of the management team members.Initially, he received questions about anything thatlooked odd and was asked to follow-up withoperators about why some of the changeover timeswere not being met. After two months, he did notreceive any more questions. He, nevertheless,continued to supply the reports weekly and begansending them with a return receipt. By the endof three months, none of the management teamwas still opening the emails; and so he thenstopped reporting. No member of the managementteam ever again asked him for a report. Stamm(2004) notes that early success of lean cannot besustained when management tries to be “kinda,sorta lean”; when top management is not interestedin changing themselves in their traditional envir-onment. The projects need to have personnelwho are responsible for carrying out the newand improved methods. A comprehensive systemshould be developed to ensure that project impro-vements are measured and that managers reviewthe measurements and staff at all levels areaccountable for results (Wood, 2004). A mecha-nism for a potential follow-up project as soon asmeasurements slip would also represent a bene-ficial addition to sustaining lean project gains.This measurement system needs to be visible,rigorous and simple for everyone to use and tounderstand, with clear milestones and additionalchallenges.

Finally, as the great educator, John Dewey (1938/1986) aptly wrote, “Failure is instructive. Theperson who really thinks learns quite as much fromhis failures as from his successes” (p. 206). Con-tinuous learning from both successful and failedlean project initiatives is central to a lean cultureand organizational renewal. Argyris and Schon(1978) in their description of “double looplearning” argue that for learning to occur, forcontinual improvement to take place, organiza-tional members need to question ineffective prac-tices. Errors detected then need to be corrected inways that involve the modification of an organiza-tion’s underlying norms, policies and practices.Management at Environs thought their practiceswere working even though the evidence suggestedotherwise. Management neglected to engage inwhat Schon (1987) called reflective practice whereleaders stop and challenge themselves to make thesystem function leanly. In our model, renewal andlearning are the feedback loops for learning fromemployee efforts and for reengaging managementto sustain a lean culture change.

SummaryTable 4 provides a summary of those factorsaffecting the success sustaining the success of leanefforts, the key issues that need to be addressedduring each phase and compares these findings tothose in the literature.

Our study confirmed the need for committed topmanagement support and leadership through clearand visible support of lean manufacturing prac-tices, the establishment of effective communica-tion patterns and mutual expectations amongall organizational levels, cross-functionally andbetween shifts. In fact, the leadership behaviorsassociated with management’s commitment mustbe consistently visible to employees. The impor-tance of giving and receiving feedback, recognitionand celebration of successes, and communicationbetween shifts were particularly highlightedthrough this study, extending previous researchfindings. Our study also showed that when lean isdriven more by corporate requirements than bymanagement commitment, employees will respondin kind by their own lack of commitment andpersistence to sustaining lean project gains. Wediscovered the issue of false commitment bymanagement as a major contributor to this leaninitiative derailment. Although the organizationalleadership at Environs may have been wellintended and wanted the benefits that came fromlean manufacturing, they did not make the com-mitment toward the necessary resources and beha-viors-the requirements-to reap those benefits.

This study, like others, found continuous trainingto be of utmost importance in and for the sustaina-bility of lean projects. Training, inspired by a sharedvision, creates an environment that moves middlemanagers away from controlling behaviors to collab-orations supportive of lean changes. This studyfurther shows that during lean implementation,leadership needs to be sure team members takenfrom all levels of the organization have the ability tovoice and implement changes for improvement.

There exists a paucity of studies on projectselection, which we found to be an importantfactor in implementing and sustaining lean projectgains. Our research extended our understanding ofproject selection and project team selection. “Petprojects” that were seen as biased in selection andnot sufficiently supported by management led toresistance by employees and, ultimately, regressionin project gains. This study bore out the disconnectbetween line workers and top managers that occurswhen those working on a project are far removed


128


Table 4 Findings comparison

Factors affecting success Previous findings from related literature New key issues found at each phase

Foundation Stage:Top managementsupport andcommunication

Leadership must be educated and demonstratecommitment to enthusiastically embrace andsustain lean change processes.Align the culture with lean ideology driven by topmanagement by a compelling vision, purpose and goalsshared, embraced, communicated and made consistentlyvisible throughout the organization.

Although top management may commit to lean verbally,they must also demonstrate accountability and follow up tosustain the organizational change process. A major finding isfalse commitment by management: the disconnect betweendesire or intention and the necessary subsequent leadershipbehaviors and resources for successful lean sustainability.

Communication Communication pathways must flow effectively betweenshifts, among all organizational levels and crossfunctionally.

Communication must not only flow between levels, but gapsof information sharing cross functionally, among all levelsand between shifts need to be eliminated. Involve employeesdeeply in decision making with a focus on projectbenchmarking criteria. Greater need for shift-to-shiftconsistency and continuity through more effectivecommunication processes.

Training anddevelopment

Reduce gaps in training by providing extensive,consistent, and continuous employee training availableto all employees.

Leadership needs to be sure team members at all levels havethe ability to voice and implement changes forimprovement.

Preparation Stage:Project selection

Project selection needs a well-communicated andsupported statistical foundation to prioritize projects topursue. Adequate preparation must be done for eachproject to get the highest return.

“Pet projects” cause resistance. Include employees indevelopment of project criteria and clearly communicatepriorities and the project selection process. Project planningrequires adequate resources and employee ownership tosupport project completion.

Employee engagement Employee participation in project decision making is amain principle affecting innovation, productivity, andwork satisfaction.

Communication about why a project is being done and whatemployees see as a result of doing the project help to engageemployees. Value, engage, and connect employees throughteam driven project paths to empower and facilitatecommitment to sustainable lean project outcomes.

Desire to improveservice

Related to task significance in work design and toemployee motivation outcomes to satisfy the need formeaningful and significant contribution to theirorganization.

Employees want and need to participate in improvements tosustain a lean culture.

Managing resistance Leadership must mediate conflicts that are causingresistance to new work practices to sustain initiative gainsat all levels and in seeking shift-to-shift consistency andcontinuity.

Lack of employee ownership, engagement, managementsupport for the projects and employees unfamiliar with a newway of working are likely to resist change without follow upmanagement support.

Implementation Stage:Project team selection

Workers should be selected by ability to problem solve,learn, and perform the required tasks.

Project team needs to have the proper mix of people forsuccessful outcomes. Flexibility in team makeup for sufficientand appropriately trained personnel who are equallyfamiliar with the focus of the lean project to share in decision-making in all shifts.

Completing the project Team interdependence, evaluation, and recognition ofaccomplishment by leadership are needed.

There must be enough resources made available to completethe project. Projects that improve quality and workingconditions are well received and need to be recognized andcelebrated.

Sustainability Stage:Accountability/

ownership/Follow-up

Continuous support jointly by management along withproject team ownership and accountability along withcontinuous evaluation and feedback among employeesengaged in project work.

An appropriate audit plan must be in place at the end of aproject. It is important for someone to own the changesmade with commitment to sustaining improvements. Allemployees, not just management, need project ownership,accountability and follow up through recognition ofachievements, and attention to a comprehensivemeasurement system. Giving and receiving feedback as partof a continuous feedback loop and highlighted in the needfor communication, particularly shift-to-shift.


129


from decisions about the work they are expected toengage and complete.

During the implementation stage of lean projects,our findings extended studies indicating theneed for flexibility in team makeup as well as thesharing of goals and tasks across shifts and shareddecision-making. Our study showed that projectplanning done properly, requires adequate resour-ces to support the team that has been selected tocomplete a project. Finally, all employees, not justmanagement, need project ownership, accountabil-ity, recognition of achievements, attention to acomprehensive measurement system, and analigned culture of action that support continuousimprovement for sustaining of lean.

Implications and conclusionIt is unrealistic to expect success in lean projectimplementation without addressing the fundamen-tals of change. Sustainable lean transformation,according to Hoyte and Greenwood (2007), amongother change factors, depends most heavily uponthree conditions: committed management support;investment in employee training to learn tools,techniques and a lean culture; and “most importantof all, communicating consistently and frequentlythe shared vision and the organizational directionof the lean enterprise will maintain momentum upthe mountain of excellence” (p. 103). Worley andDoolan (2006) offer their empirical evidence for theessential role of visible management support andfacilitation of communication in an organization’slean implementation. The data presented in thisstudy support and highlight both of these researchfindings and further extends these perspectivesthrough the details of the interview data, observa-tions and case study presented.

From a holistic systems perspective, each of thevariables in each phase interact with one another,and the process for sustaining lean initiatives isdependent on the interplay of these factors. How-ever, both the literature and this study indicate thatthe Foundation phase of top management leader-ship support through articulation of a shared vision,alignment of organizational practices, recognition,ongoing communication across boundaries, andresources such as training and development are themost important variables for sustaining lean projectgains. Even with the other three phase variables,without the Foundation factors visible to employees,lean projects are doomed to fail. Further researchmay be done to see if one or more variables are more

important than others for employees at each phaseof the lean project.

We recommend more study so as to integrate leanprocess changes made in multiple-shift plants,particularly with regard to resistance to change,and consistency and communication across bound-aries. Similarly, attention should be paid to theteam member selection process for lean projects.Because lean project selection and its relationshipto sustained project outcomes are not well studied,it would be a rich area for further research.Companies beginning lean implementations wouldbenefit greatly from a better understanding of howto select the right project. Improvements made inthese three weak areas would significantly enhancefuture project sustainability in the company pre-sented in this article and others like it.

Understanding and implementing these phaseswill aid companies in increasing lean projectsustainability. This model suggests that companiesconsidering lean must build a foundation throughcommunication and top management leadershipand support before, during and after lean projectcompletion and through training and develop-ment. Prepare for each project by selecting theright project, by involving the right employees andby recognizing those employees’ desire to imp-rove products and services. Encourage teamworkacross boundaries and finally, monitor the sustaina-bility of the change by following-up, creatingownership and accountability within the team.This study indicates that all levels of an organiza-tion must be involved for the lean changes tosucceed and be sustained. All indications are that,without a comprehensive level of employee engage-ment, temporary improvements will not last.

Although the research for this study is basedupon only one case site where the results presentedmay not be generalizable to other organizationalsettings, the findings will be useful for practitionersto consider when planning a lean change. Forresearchers, this study provides yet another organi-zational site for understanding the barriers andfacilitating forces for sustaining lean projects.

Our findings are similar in many ways to conclu-sions reached concerning other workplace innova-tions. From this and other studies of highperformance teams, TQM, just in time (JIT), TPM,and other reengineering efforts, it appears that leanis no more immune to poor change leadership thanany other intervention. In some ways, the fact thatlean depends on a systemic approach that alignswork processes, leadership, rewards, etc., makes


130


lean even more vulnerable to loss of attention andcommitment by leadership. What failed to happenat Environs, as in so many other organizations, isdeep culture change – where the workers come tointernalize the new ways of working, regardless ofwho is in charge. Even after many years, the evi-dence in this case points to lean as a “managementowned” program that stops as soon as managersstop watching carefully what happens. What would

it have taken for employees to own the projectthemselves? This is the question that more changeleaders need to address.

AcknowledgementsI wish to thank my dear friend and colleague, BillPasmore, my family, the reviewers and editor, AlvisHwang for their extraordinary support in the writing ofthis article.

ReferencesAchanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. & Nelder, G. (2005). Critical

success factors for lean implementation within SMEs. Journal ofManufacturing Technology, 17(4): 460–471.

Alavi, S. (2003). The right way (lean manufacturing). Manufac-turing Engineer 82(3): 32–35.

Anthony, W. (1978). Participative management. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theoryof action perspective. Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley.

Armenakis, A., Bernerth, J., Pitts, J. & Walker, H. (2007).Organizational change recipients’ belief scale: Developmentof an assessment instrument. Journal of Applied BehavioralScience, 43(4): 481–505.

Bamber, L. & Dale, B. (2000). Lean production: A study ofapplication in a traditional manufacturing environment.Production Planning & Control, 11(3): 291–298.

Bartezzaghi, E. (1999). The evolution of production models: Is anew paradigm emerging? International Journal of Operations &Production Management, 19(2): 229–250.

Beers, M., Eisenstat, R. & Specker, B. (1990). Why changeprogrammes don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review,68(b): 158–166.

Bennis, W. (1966). Changing organizations: Essays on thedevelopment and evolution of human organization. New York,NY: McGraw-Hill.

Boyer, M. & Sovilla, L. (2003). How to identify and remove thebarriers for a successful lean implementation. Journal of ShipProduction, 19(2): 116–120.

Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most ofchange. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Buchanan, D., Fitzgerald, L., Ketley, D., Gollop, R., Jones, J., SaintLamont, S., Neath, A. & Whitby, E. (2005). No going back:A review of the literature on sustaining organizational change.International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3): 189–205.

Burns, J.M. (2003). Transforming leadership: The pursuit ofhappiness. New York, NY. Atlantic Monthly Press.

Cheser, R. (1998). The effect of Japanese Kaizen on employeemotivation in U.S. manufacturing. International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis, 6(3): 197–217.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Collins, J. & Porras, J. (1997). Built to last: Successful habits of

visionary companies. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Cotton, J., Vollrath, D., Froggatt, K., Lengnick-Hall, M. & Jennings,

K. (1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and differentoutcomes. Academy of Management Review, 13(1): 8–22.

Cumbo, D., Kline, D.E. & Burngardner, M. (2006, June).Benchmarking performance measurement and lean manufac-turing in the rough mill. Forest Products Journal, 56(6): 25–30.

de Treville, S. & Antonakis, J. (2006). Could lean production jobdesign be intrinsically motivating? Contextual, configural, andlevels-of-analysis issues. Journal of Operations Management,24(2): 99–123.

Dewey, J. (1938/1986). How we think (rev. ed.). In J.A. Boydston(Ed.) John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925–1953, Vol. 8, 105–353.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Douglas, J. (1985). Creative interviewing. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Drucker, P. (1971). What we can learn from Japanese manage-

ment. Harvard Business Review, 49(2): 110–122.Duncan, W. (1995). Total quality: Key terms and concepts. New

York, NY: AMACOM.Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H. & Worthington, F. (2001). Power,

control and resistance in the factory that time forgot. Journal ofManagement Studies, 38(8): 1053–1079.

Franklin, T. (2004). Changing the climate. ManufacturingEngineer, 83(2): 45–47.

French, J. & Israel, J. (1960). An experiment in a Norwegianfactory: Interpersonal dimensions in decision-making. HumanRelations, 13: 3–19.

Frost, C., Wakeley, J. & Ruh, R. (1974). The Scanlon plan fororganization development: Identity, participation, and equity.East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing.

Hackman, J. & Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through thedesign of work: Test of theory. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 16(2): 250–279.

Hackman, J. & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign. Don Mills,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hancock, W. & Zayko, M. (1998). Lean production: Implemen-tation problems. IIE Solutions, 30(6): 38–42.

Harris, A. (2004). Lessons in lean. Manufacturing Engineer,83(5): 16–18.

Hirano, H. & Rubin, M. (1996). 5S for operators: 5 pillars of thevisual workplace. Portland, Or: Productivity Press.

Hoyte, D. & Greenwood, R. (2007). Journey to the North Face: Aguide to business transformation. Academy of StrategicManagement Journal, 6: 91–104.

Ilg, V. (2007, February). Case study solutions in practice Swissprecision. Industrial Engineer, 39(2): 50–51.

Jenner, R. (1998). Dissipative enterprises, chaos, and theprinciples of lean organizations. Omega: International Journalof Management Science, 26(3): 397–407.

Jick, T. & Peiperl, M. (2003). Managing change: Cases andconcepts. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Katayama, H. & Bennett, D. (1996). Lean production in achanging competitive world: A Japanese perspective. Interna-tional Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(2):8–23.

Kotter, J. (1995). Why transformation efforts fail. HarvardBusiness Review, 73(2): 59–67.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Cambridge, MA. HarvardBusiness School Press.

Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenge, 4th ed.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Krafaik, J. (1988). Triumph of the lean production system. SloanManagement Review, 30(1): 41–52.

Locke, E. & Schweiger, D. (1979). Participation in decision-making: One more look. In B. Staw (Ed.) Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, Vol. 1, 265–339. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


131


Lucey, J., Bateman, N. & Hines, P. (2004). Achieving pace andsustainability in a major lean transition. Management services,48(9): 8–12.

Maier, N.R.F. (1963). Problem-solving discussions and confer-ences: Leadership methods and skills. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mann, D. (2005). Creating a lean culture: Tools to sustain leanconversions. New York, NY: Productivity Press.

Marshall, A. & Stohl, C. (1993). Being “in the know” in aparticipative management system. Management Communica-tion Quarterly, 6(4): 372–404.

Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychologicalreview, 50: 380–387.

McManus, K. (2008). So long Six Sigma? Industrial Engineer,40(10): 18.

Mehta, V. & Shah, H. (2005). Characteristics of a workorganization from a lean perspective. Engineering ManagementJournal, 17(2): 14–20.

Melcher, A. (1976). Participation a critical review of researchfindings. Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(2): 12–21.

Miles, M & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, K. & Monge, P. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, andproductivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of ManagementJournal, 29(4): 727–753.

Murman, E., Allen, T., Bozdogan, K., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J.,McManus, H., Nightinggale, D., Rebentisch, E., Shields, T.,Stahl, F., Walton, M., Warmkessel, J., Weiss, S. and Widnall, S.(2002). Lean enterprise value: Insights from MIT’s lean aerospaceinitiative. New York, NY: Palgrave.

NHS Modernisation Agency (2002). Improvement leaders’ guide tosustainability and spread. Ipswich: Ancient House Printing Group.

Niepce, W. & Molleman, E. (1998). Work design issues in leanproduction from a sociotechnical systems perspective: Neo-taylorism or the next step in sociotechnical design. Humanrelations, 51(3): 259–287.

Noe, R. (2005). Employee training and development (Fourthedition), Boston: Irwin/ McGraw-Hill.

Osada, T. (1991). The 5 S’s: five keys to a total qualityenvironment. Portland, Or: Productivity Press.

Paez, O., Salem, S., Solomon, J. & Genaidy, A. (2005). Movingfrom lean manufacturing to lean construction: Toward acommon sociotechnological framework. Human Factors andErgonomics in Manufacturing, 15(2): 233–245.

Pavanaskar, S., Gershenson, J. & Jambekar, A. (2003). Classifica-tion scheme for lean manufacturing tools. International Journalof Production Research, 41(13): 3075–3090.

Piderit, S. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambiva-lence; A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organiza-tional change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 783–794.

Pil, F. & Fujimoto, T. (2007). Lean and reflective production: thedynamic nature of production models. International Journal ofProduction Research. 45(16): 3741–3761.

Ross, A. & Francis, D. (2003). Lean is not enough. ManufacturingEngineer, 82(4): 14–17.

Scherrer-Rathje, M., Boyle, T. & Deflorin, P. (2009). Lean, taketwo! Reflections from the second attempt at lean implementa-tion. Business Horizons, 52: 79–88.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward anew design for teaching and learning in the professions. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schonberger, R. (1982). Japanese manufacturing techniques: Ninehidden lessons in simplicity. New York, NY: Free Press.

Schonberger, R. (2007). Let’s fix it! Overcoming crisis inmanufacturing. New York, NY: Free Press.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of thelearning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency.

Shah, R. & Ward, P. (2003). Lean manufacturing: Context,practice bundles, and performance. Journal of OperationsManagement, 21(2): 129–149.

Shah, R. & Ward, P. (2007). Defining and developing measuresof lean production. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4):785–805.

Smeds, R. (1994). Managing change towards lean enterprises.International Journal of Operations & Production Management,14(3): 66–82.

Spear, S. & Bowen, H. (1999). Decoding the DNA of the Toyotaproduction system. Harvard Business Review, 77(5): 96–106.

Stamm, D. (2004). Kinda, sorta lean. Industrial Engineer, 36(2): 22.Storch, R. & Lim, S. (1999). Improving flow to achieve lean

manufacturing in shipbuilding. Production Planning & Control,10(2): 127–137.

Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? HarvardBusiness Review, 74(3): 86–92.

Trader-Leigh, K. (2002). Case study: Identifying resistance inmanaging change. Journal of Organizational Change Manage-ment, 15: 138–156.

Womack, J. & Jones, D. (1994). From lean production to leanenterprise. Harvard Business Review, 72(2): 93–103.

Womack, J. & Jones, D. (1996). Beyond Toyota: How to root outwaste and pursue perfection. Harvard Business Review, 74(5):140–151.

Womack, J., Jones, D. & Roos, D. (1990). The machine thatchanged the world: The story of lean production. New York, NY:Rawson Associates.

Wood, N. (2004). Making it stick: Sustaining your improve-ments. Management Services, 48(7): 20–23.

Worley, J. & Doolan, T. (2006). The role of communication andmanagement support in a lean manufacturing implementa-tion. Management Decision, 44(2): 228–245.

Yang, T. & Hsieh, C. (2009). Six-Sigma project selection usingnational quality award criteria and Delphi fuzzy multiplecriteria decision-making method. Expert Systems with Applica-tions, 36(4): 7594–7603.

Zimmer, L. (2000). Get lean to boost profits. Forming andFabricating, 7(2): 36–44.

About the authorsElizabeth F. Turesky is an Assistant Professor in theLeadership and Organizational Studies Program atthe University of Southern Maine, Lewiston-Auburn College. She received her Ph.D. in Organi-zational Behavior at Case Western Reserve Univer-sity, her M.P.A. at the University of Colorado Schoolof Public Affairs and her B.A. in Psychology fromWheaton College, Massachusetts. She has heldvisiting faculty positions at The University of NewHampshire and Colby College. Her scholarshipfocuses on lean manufacturing and the nexus ofexperiential learning and leadership development.She can be reached at [email protected].

Patrick Connell has worked in manufacturing for35 years. He has held positions in manufacturingand engineering supervision and has spent the last10 years involved with lean manufacturing imple-mentation. Patrick has taught classes in manufac-turing processes at Southern Maine and YorkCounty Community Colleges. He received anM.A. in Leadership Studies from the University ofSouthern Maine, a B.S. in Organizational Leader-ship from the University of New England, and anAssociates Degree in Machine Tool Technologyfrom Southern Maine Community College. Hecan be reached at [email protected].


132


Documents

Off the rails: understanding the derailment of a lean manufacturing