1S_3 LEan Shop Floor

8/9/2019 1S_3 LEan Shop Floor

1/32

Learning on lean: a reviewof thinking and research

José Moyano-Fuentes Department of Business Organization, Marketing and Sociology,

University of Jaé n, Linares, Spain, and

Macarena Sacristán-Dı́az Department of Financial Economics and Operations Management,

University of Seville, Seville, Spain

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

Paper type Literature review

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

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

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

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

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

Learning on lean

551

Received 8 January 2009Revised 3 September 2009,

25 May 2010,1 December 2010,

24 January 2011Accepted 24 January 2011

International Journal of Operations

& Production Management

Vol. 32 No. 5, 2012

pp. 551-582

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0144-3577

DOI 10.1108/01443571211226498


2/32

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

publication of The Machine. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

IJOPM32,5

552


3/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operations Management and IJPE were systematically searched.The database searches yielded hundreds of articles. Each of the articles was

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

Learning on lean

553


4/32

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

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

. Analysis of the paper’s research question identifying the conceptual aspects forLP development and management.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 1.An extended modelof lean production

Research on Lean Production

Emphasis on

Internal

Aspects

(Shop Floor)

Value ChainWork

Organisation

Impact of

Geographical

Context

Key aspects:- Principles on which LP is

based- Implementation process- Results derived from

implementation

Key aspects:- Extension of lean principles

to the value chain- Restructuration of the supply

chain

Key aspects:- Degree of human resource

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

management- Unfavourable effects on human

resources

Key aspects:- Impact on LP of social,

cultural and economic context

of the country

Source: Authors

IJOPM32,5

554


5/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning on lean

555


6/32

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Specify value.

(2) Identify the value stream.

(3) Avoid interruptions in value flow.

(4) Let customers pull value.

(5) Start pursuing perfection again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify the valuestream

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

Avoid interruptions invalue flow

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

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

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

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

Other principles considered inresearch

Committedmanagement

Soriano-Meier and Forrester (2002)

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

Shah and Ward (2007)

Source: Authors

Table I.The principlesof lean production

IJOPM32,5

556


7/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sequence Reference

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

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

Source: Authors

Table II.The sequence in which

LP principles shouldbe implemented

Learning on lean

557


8/32

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

and pitfalls.

The reasoning behind sequential implementation is backed up empirically in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

natural part of their day-to-day work.

Figure 2.LP implementationsequence

Elimination of waste

Multifunctional teams

Pull system

Vertical information system

Team leaders

Continuous improvement

Zero defects

Delayering (reductions in

hierarchy levels)

Time spent adopting Lean Production

Source: Ahlström (1998)

Management

effort and

resources

Core

principles

Supporting

principles

IJOPM32,5

558


9/32


10/32

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

. The company culture should be changed.

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

Finally, some authors indicate that the system’s weak point lies in the way the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IJOPM32,5

560


11/32

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

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

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

Industry Reference

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

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

Source: Authors

Table IV.Industries apart from the

motor industry whereLP has generated

positive results

Activity of services Reference

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

Source: Authors

Table V.Service activities where

LP has been implemented

Learning on lean

561


12/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IJOPM32,5

562


13/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning on lean

563


14/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IJOPM32,5

564


15/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning on lean

565


16/32

T o p i c

E m p h a s i s

R e f e r e n c e

K e y

fi n d i n g o f t h e r e s e a r c h

D e g r e e o f h u m a n

r e s o u r c e c o m m i t m e n t

D e g r e e o f m a n a g e r i a l c o m m i t m e n t t o L

P

B o y e r ( 1 9 9 6 )

F i r m

s s u p p o r t L P t h r o u g h e f f o r t s t o p r o v

i d e q u a l i t y

l e a d

e r s h i p ,

t r a i n i n g o f t h e w o r k f o r c e , w o r k e r

e m p

o w e r m e n t a n d t h e u s e o f s m a l l t e a m s f o r g r o u p

p r o b l e m s o l v i n g

D e g r e e o f w o r k e r c o m m i t m e n t t o L P

D u g u a y e t a l .

( 1 9 9 7 )

L e a n p r o d u c e r s m a n a g e t h e c r e a t i v i t y a n d

i n i t i a t i v e o f

a s u

b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e i r w o r k f o r c e

G a g n o n a n d

M i c h a e l ( 2 0 0 3 )

E m p l o y e e s w i t h i n c r e a s e d k n o w l e d g e o f L P s h o w

i n c r

e a s e d l e v e l s o f c o m m i t m e n t , j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d

t r u s

t

G r o e b n e r a n d

M e r z ( 1 9 9 4 )

C h a

n g e t o J I T h a s a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t o n j o b

a t t i t u d e s

R o l e o f t r a d e u n i o n s i n L P

L e e ( 2 0 0 3 )

T h e

d e c i s i o n t o i m p l e m e n t L P r e fl e c t s c o n fl i c t s i n

l a b o

u r a n d m a n a g e m e n t r e l a t i o n s

P o s i t i v e i n fl u e n c e o n m o t i v a t i o n

d e T r e v i l l e a n d

A n t o n a k i s ( 2 0 0 6 )

L P j o b d e s i g n m a y e n g e n d e r w o r k e r i n t r i n s i c

m o t

i v a t i o n

N i e p c e a n d

M o l l e m a n ( 1 9 9 6 )

M o t i v a t i o n f o r L P t e n d s t o b e e x t e r n a l l y o r i e n t e d d u e

t o L

P l e a n i n g h e a v i l y o n s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n o r d e r t o

s a t i s f y t h e n e e d s o f t h e w o r k e r s

W o r k s y s t e m

I n

fl u e n c e o f L P o n j o b v a r i e t y

S c h o n b e r g e r

( 1 9 8 6 )

L P i n c r e a s e s j o b v a r i e t y b y t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e m a x i m u m

n u m

b e r o f t a s k s t o o p e r a t o r s

P o s i t i v e e f f e c t o n r e s p o n s i b l e a u t o n o m y

d e T r e v i l l e e t a l .

( 2 0 0 5 )

L P p r o m o t e s t h e i n v o l v e m e n t o f w o r k e r s

i n t h e

d e v e l o p m e n t o f p r o c e d u r e s

V i d a l ( 2 0 0 7 )

L P i n c r e a s e s i n d i v i d u a l a u t o n o m y a n d c o

l l e c t i v e

a u t o n o m y

D i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n l e a n a n d t r a d i t i o n a

l c o m p a n i e s

F o r z a ( 1 9 9 6 )

L e a n c o m p a n i e s u s e m o r e t e a m s i n p r o b l e m s o l v i n g ,

t h e w o r k e r s p e r f o r m a h i g h e r v a r i e t y o f t a

s k s a n d t h a t

t h e

p r o p o r t i o n o f i m p l e m e n t e d s u g g e s t i o n

s i s g r e a t e r

t h a n i n t r a d i t i o n a l c o m p a n i e s

R o l e o f s u p e r v i s o r s i n d e l e g a t i n g a u t h o

r i t y t o

w

o r k e r s

L o w e ( 1 9 9 3 )

U n d

e r L P t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e s u p e r v i s o r i n c r e a s e s

( c o n t i n u e d )

Table VI.Topics on workorganisation analysedin LP literature

IJOPM32,5

566


17/32

T o p i c

E m p h a s i s

R e f e r e n c e

K e y


V a l u e g i v e n t o w o r k o r g a n i s a t i o n

B i a z z o a n d

P a n n i z z o l o ( 2 0 0 0 )

T h e

e l e m e n t s o f w o r k o r g a n i s a t i o n a r e t h o

s e w h i c h a r e

c o h e r e n t w i t h , a n d f u n c t i o n a l f o r , t h e n o b u f f e r l o g i c

a n d

c o n t i n u o u s fl o w p r o d u c t i o n

F e a t u r e s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f l e a n t e a m s

D e l b r i d g e e t a l .

( 2 0 0 0 )

I t i s

i m p o r t a n t t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e r o l e s o f

m e m

b e r s a n d l e a d e r s w i t h i n t e a m s , a n d b e t w e e n t h e

r e s p

o n s i b i l i t i e s o f p r o d u c t i o n t e a m s a n d t h o s e o f o t h e r

o c c u p a t i o n a l g r o u p s

S c h u r i n g ( 1 9 9 6 )

L e a n a n d r e fl e c t i v e p r o d u c t i o n u n d e r l i n e

t h e

i m p

o r t a n c e o f t h e o p e r a t i o n a l s k i l l s o f w o

r k g r o u p

m e m

b e r s

T h o m p s o n a n d

W a l l a c e ( 1 9 9 6 )

T e a

m w o r k i n g e m e r g e s a s a k e y f a c t o r i n

r e d e s i g n i n g

p r o d u c t i o n

I n

fl u e n c e o f t e a m d e v e l o p m e n t i n b u s i n

e s s

p e r f o r m a n c e a n d q u a l i t y o f w o r k i n g l i f e

K u i p e r s e t a l .

( 2 0 0 4 )

T e a

m d e v e l o p m e n t i s j u s t a s i m p o r t a n t a

s g o o d

p r o d u c t i o n s t r u c t u r e d e s i g n , a l t h o u g h i t r

e q u i r e s a

f a v o u r a b l e c o n t e x t

I n

fl u e n c e o f L P p r a c t i c e s r e l a t e d t o j o b d e m a n d s , j o b

c o

n t r o l a n d s o c i a l s u p p o r t f o r w o r k e r j o b s t r e s s

C o n t i e t a l . ( 2 0 0 6 ) L P i s n o t i n h e r e n t l y s t r e s s f u l , w i t h s t r e s s

l e v e l s

s i g n

i fi c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o m a n a g e m e n t d e c i s i o n s i n

d e s i g n i n g a n d o p e r a t i n g L P s y s t e m s

H u m a n r e s o u r c e

m a n a g e m e n t

E f f e c t o f L P o n h u m a n r e s o u r c e m a n a g

e m e n t

H i l t r o p ( 1 9 9 2 )

T r a d i t i o n a l h u m a n r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s

m u s t a d a p t t o a c h i e v e t h e a d v a n t a g e s o f

L P

E f f e c t o f L P o n h u m a n r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t i n s m a l l

fi r m s

E m i l i a n i ( 2 0 0 0 )

T h e

o w n e r s o f s m a l l b u s i n e s s e s m u s t u n d e r s t a n d t h e

i m p

l i c a t i o n s o f L P f o r l e a d e r s h i p a n d h u m

a n r e s o u r c e

m a n

a g e m e n t . T h e y h a v e a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o t e a c h t h e i r

e m p

l o y e e s a n d r e i n f o r c e t h e i r l e a d e r s h i p r o l e

D e v e l o p m e n t o f h u m a n r e s o u r c e p r a c t i c e s i n

c o

m p a n i e s w h e r e L P h a s b e e n i m p l e m e

n t e d

K o c h a n e t a l .

( 1 9 9 7 )

T h e

d e v e l o p m e n t o f h u m a n r e s o u r c e p r a c t i c e s

s t i m

u l a t e s t h e d e g r e e o f c o m m i t m e n t o f e

m p l o y e e s t o

L P a n d t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n

E f f e c t o f L P o n r e s h a p i n g w o r k p r a c t i c e s

L e w c h u k e t a l .

( 2 0 0 1 )

L P o f f e r s a p r o d u c t i o n m o d e l d e p e n d e n t o n a

r e c o

n fi g u r a t i o n o f l a b o u r c o n t r o l m e t h o d s

( c o n t i n u e d )

Table VI.

Learning on lean

567


18/32

T o p i c

E m p h a s i s

R e f e r e n c e

K e y


V a l u e g i v e n t o h u m a n c a p i t a l i n l e a n c o m p a n i e s

L a S c o l a e t a l .

( 2 0 0 2 )

D e s i g n o f a m o d e l t o a s s e s s h u m a n c a p i t a l i n a L P

e n v i r o n m e n t s h o w i n g h o w t o u s e i t t o d r i v e t r a i n i n g

r e q u i r e m e n t s , c h a n g e h i r i n g p r a c t i c e s , a s s i g n w o r k e r s

a n d

e s t a b l i s h c o m p e n s a t i o n a n d r e w a r d s

y s t e m s

U n f a v o u r a b l e e f f e c t s

o n h u m a n r e s o u r c e s

R i s e s i n i n t e n s i t y o f w o r k , s t r e s s ,

l o s s o

f a u t o n o m y

K l e i n ( 1 9 8 9 )

W o r k e r s l o s e m u c h o f t h e i r f r e e d o m w i t h

t h e

r e g i m e n t a t i o n r e q u i r e d b y L P .

T o m i t i g a t e t h i s i t i s

n e c e s s a r y t o f o c u s o n t a s k d e s i g n r a t h e r t h a n o n

e x e c u t i o n a n d g i v e w o r k e r s t h e r i g h t t o m

o v e a n d

c h o o s e

N e g a t i v e e f f e c t s o f L P p r a c t i c e s o n t h e

q u a l i t y o f

w

o r k i n g l i f e

F a i r r i s a n d

T o h y a m a ( 2 0 0 2 )

T o a v o i d t h e n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s o f L P o n t h e h u m a n

f a c t o r ,

t h e a d o p t i o n o f b e t t e r m e c h a n i s m s

f o r h e a r i n g

t h e

v o i c e o f t h e w o r k e r s w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d

P a r k e r ( 2 0 0 3 )

T h e

n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s o f L P ( p o o r q u a l i t y w o r k d e s i g n ,

d e c l i n e i n o r g a n i s a t i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t ) a r e

a t t r i b u t a b l e

t o d

e c l i n e s i n p e r c e i v e d w o r k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( j o b

a u t o n o m y , s k i l l u t i l i s a t i o n a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n

d e c i s i o n m a k i n g )

S c h o u t e t e n a n d

B e n d e r s ( 2 0 0 4 )

W o r k i n l e a n e n v i r o n m e n t s i s m o n o t o n o u

s a n d

r e p e t i t i v e , w h i c h m e a n s t h a t p e o p l e w h o o p p o s e L P a r e

r i g h

t

E f f e c t o f l o s s o f j o b s t a b i l i t y o n L P w o r k s y s t e m

S u z u k i ( 2 0 0 4 )

I n t h e L P w o r k s y s t e m ,

t h e e m p l o y m e n t r a t i o o f

t e m p o r a r y w o r k e r s h a s i n c r e a s e d r a p i d l y

a n d t h e

w o r

k e r r a t i o o f l o n g - t e r m e m p l o y m e n t i s

d e c r e a s i n g

S o u r c e : A u t h o r s

Table VI.

IJOPM32,5

568


19/32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning on lean

569


20/32

in lean environments. First, a database has to be set up in the company which recordsthe skills and abilities of each of the workers. These skills are grouped into threecategories: technical (basic knowledge, mathem

Documents

1S_3 LEan Shop Floor