Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
e
c
t
s
c
o
n
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
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
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 work
organisation analysed
in LP literature
IJOPM
32,5
566
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
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
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.
IJOPM
32,5
568
use of more work teams to solve problems, in adopting workers suggestions, in much
better documented work processes and in a wider range of tasks done by operatives
and 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 by
the supervisors who are under continual scrutiny at efciency meetings
(Kochan et al., 1997).
The success of teamworking depends on the positive interrelationship with
industrial relations and rm company governance (Thompson and Wallace, 1996).
Nevertheless, teamworking provides group pressure that stimulates performance. LP
underlines the importance of work team members operational skills. That is why
qualications are essential for LP, but not only based on the transmission of skills and
knowledge of the job itself, but also on permanent on-going training, upward
occupational mobility, and task rotation. It is also necessary to achieve and foment a
culture of cooperation (Schuring, 1996).
LP involves an increase in job variety (Schonberger, 1986) which means a fall in
stress (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 the
autonomy 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 free
choice of procedures and times, whereas there should be a high degree of responsible
autonomy, 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 a
lean manufacturing system that yields considerable improvements in performance.
These non-conclusive results may be explained by the limited degree of in-depth
research. Researchers will have to join work teams to get rst-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 the
socio-technical approach have concentrated too much on the design aspect of the
production structure, while neglecting the development aspect of teamwork.
Effectively, if difculties in implementing and developing work teams have been
underestimated, the likelihood that they will fail will increase, and the team will gain a
bad reputation (Thompson and Wallace, 1996). Empirical evidence found that team
development determines business performance and the quality of working life to a very
great degree (Kuipers et al., 2004).
3.3.3 Human resource management with lean production. Despite the opinions
supporting the importance of worker training and the commitment of workers to
the 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 a
large degree on the perception that owners have of what it involves for human resource
management (Emiliani, 2000).
LP offers a model of production dependant on a reconguration of methods of
labour control (Lewchuk et al., 2001). As a result, unions should work together with
management 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
in lean environments. First, a database has to be set up in the company which records
the skills and abilities of each of the workers. These skills are grouped into three
categories: technical (basic knowledge, mathematics, measures, etc.), human (personal
qualities, social skills, etc.) and lean (knowledge of Lean principles, pull systems and
improvements). Once said staff skills are known, the most appropriate training
programmes should be devised, each worker assigned to the most suitable post, and a
reward and prize system set up.
3.3.4 Unfavourable effects on human resources. One of the negative effects of LP on
the human factor that can be highlighted is the fact that work becomes more intense
with increased stress and a loss of autonomy and freedom for deciding whether to take
risks or not (Klein, 1989). Parker (2003) found negative effects on employee outcomes
after the implementation of LP practices which were attributable to a decline in the
quality of working life. This could be related to the fact that in lean environments work
is monotonous and repetitive (Schouteten and Benders, 2004). Likewise it is foreseeable
that downsizing the number of stable jobs will have an unfavourable effect on lean
work (Suzuki, 2004). In this respect, Fairris and Tohyama (2002) found that in order to
avoid the negative effects of LP on the human factor, the adoption of better
mechanisms for hearing the voice of the workers would be required.
3.4 Impact of the geographical context on lean production
A group of papers have been found in the literature that analyse the impact of the
geographical context on LP, as summarised in Table VII.
All these ndings suggest that the different results that derive from the adoption of
LP are related to the countrys economic context and this coincides with Williams et al.
(1992) who point to structural problems being responsible for variations in results.
Engstrom et al. (1996) consider that the success of LP in Japan can be attributed to the
favourable conjunction of the socio-economic and socio-cultural contexts there. Said
authors suggest that the great challenge is to develop a management system which,
while beneting from all the advantages of LP, can be incorporated into the
socio-economic and socio-cultural context of the new industrial society.
4. Conclusions and further lines of research
This paper develops a new model considering all the elements that should be included
in an extended and comprehensive understanding of LP. To this end, research on LP
published to date has been analysed, resulting in the proposal of four groups of aspects
that contribute to gaining a deeper understanding of the evolution of thinking and
research on LP. The novelty of the model proposed is that it shows research on LP on a
broader basis than the shop oor and value chain levels, presenting two new
dimensions for the analysis of research on LP: work organisation in lean environments
and the impact of the geographical context on LP.
In addition, as a result of the bibliographical analysis, some specic aspects have
been identied that must be highlighted since they seem to lack empirical evidence
and, therefore, might represent new opportunities for rigorous and relevant research
that would contribute to more transparent knowledge of the system.
First, and with regard to internal aspects, we believe it is possible that new
principles might foreseeably be added in the future, as was the case with managerial
commitment (Soriano-Meier and Forrester, 2002). Although not considered until
IJOPM
32,5
570
fairly recently, perhaps due to its being taken as read, it is of fundamental importance.
The same could occur with other aspects, and, as a result, neither should this grouping
be considered closed just because it is a mature line of research.
With regard to the implementation process of LP, there is a large degree of
consensus about the need for LP to be implemented sequentially (Ferdows and de
Meyer, 1990; Storhagen, 1993; Womack and Jones, 1996; Zayko et al., 1997).
Nevertheless, the authors recognise that the change from a traditional system to LP
might differ substantially from one company to another (Kochan et al., 1997). It is
therefore essential for the situation the shop oor is into be assessed before applying
LP, as this would allow a number of deciencies that need to be overcome to be
identied before it is implemented. This stage could be considered a pre-lean phase
which, once concluded, would allow LP to be implemented with a greater chance of
success. With regard to the results of implementation, some questions then arise:
Empirical background of the study Results of adopting LP Reference
72 Australian manufacturing companies Better geared to the customer through
exible manufacturing structure
Sohal and
Egglestone
(1994)
A manufacturer of windscreen wiper
systems for the automotive industry in
Australia
A company which has adopted a variety
of LP concepts has become more
protable, more competitive and more
successful
Sohal (1996)
71 plants in the automotive components
industry in the European Union and Japan
compared to England
Better economic results but no
improvements in quality or productivity
Oliver et al.
(1996)
Japanese model of production (Toyota
case) compared to Swedish model of
production (Volvo case)
Results depend on social context of
country where implemented and
acceptance of the effort required by
production personnel
Moreno (1999)
Investigates the shift from traditional rm
production to LP by an analysis of the
change in Dutch input-output tables
The time when the model is introduced
determines whether it is accepted or
rejected by the workers and, therefore,
also determines results
Spithoven
(2001)
584 private sector enterprises in Australia Greater commitment to training and
development on all levels
Smith et al.
(2003)
50 auto component rms in South Africa Important advances in the automotive
industry in this country
Kojima and
Kaplinsky
(2004)
200 manufacturing rms in Egypt Implementation of LP improves
operations performance of Egyptian
manufacturing rms
Salaheldin
(2005)
183 manufacturing rms in Italy Companies implementing LP present a
different view of competitive aspects, and
rely on different improvement actions to
increase competitiveness. In particular,
lean implementors give much more
relevance to quality conformity and
delivery reliability than non lean
implementors
Portioli and
Tatardini
(2008)
Source: Authors
Table VII.
Impact of the
geographical
context on LP
Learning on lean
571
what differences can be expected from companies that had been through the pre-lean
phase and others that had not? Even more importantly, what differences can be
expected from sectors where LP has hardly been implemented at all? Developing and
validating a questionnaire for diagnosing this could be an interesting line of research.
In addition, a variety of terms connected with lean philosophy in recent times have
been coined. Such is the case of the Lean-sigma concept that is being put forward as a
management philosophy based on integrating LP principles and practices with
six sigma tools (Shah and Ward, 2007). Empirical research should be conducted in the
future to conrm the validity of these new concepts that stress the importance of the
goal of zero defects.
With respect to research on the impact of LPon the value chain, it has been found that
it affects the external organisation of companies (Engstromet al., 1996). Papers that have
studied these organisational changes on an external level point to a vertical
reorganisation process characterised by the externalisation of phases and segments of
the productive cycle that had previously been executed internally (Helper and Sako,
1995; Kochan et al., 1997). This process of vertical reorganisation also affects the
commercial area and has led to a new concept of relations with suppliers and customers
alike based on long-term collaboration agreements ( Jones et al., 1997). As a result, it
would be interesting to conduct research on supplier relationships to see whether
differences can be found between results obtained by suppliers in supplier parks and
other suppliers with the application of LP. It is similarly necessary to nd out what the
features of LP distribution and application are in these companies. This would allow
knowledge to be gained of how the principles of LP are applied in this important part of
the value chain, what role is played by knowledge and the transmission of the nal
customers opinion, and of the effect on the rest of the value chain.
Focusing on the two new dimensions proposed for building an extended model of LP,
it can be noted that research on work organisation in LP should be developed in greater
depth. Despite the importance that worker commitment to the company has for LP, we
have seenhowresearchers are not unanimous about the wayLPaffects humanresources,
and recent research still attests to opposite effects (Conti et al., 2006; de Treville et al.,
2005). Moreover, the specic reality of the job per se is not approached apart from the
performance ratio-based perspective (Biazzo and Panizzolo, 2000). In our opinion, this
means that Babsons (1999) view that work organisation in LP has not been sufciently
developed is still valid. Nevertheless, a signicant relationship between the success of
implementing LPand worker identication withthe strategy has beenobserved (Gagnon
andMichael, 2003), andinorder to avoidthe negative effects of LPpractices onthe human
factor, research on opinions, on approaches to, and on divergences fromthe system, from
management, workers, and trade unions, would therefore seem appropriate.
On the impact that the geographical context has on LP, the spread of this system
means competitive advantages are being gained by companies where it has been
implemented over those that still adhere to a traditional management system. In other
respects, globalisation is displacing production to countries with lower structural and
labour costs, which means that there is a need to implement management models that
allow the level of competitiveness to be maintained. LP is a management system that
could provide the necessary competitive advantages and, as such, the extent to which
the system is in use in each of the countries needs to be known. The degree to which LP
has been implemented in different countries therefore needs to be researched.
IJOPM
32,5
572
In general terms, we think a large number of papers on the degree of adoption of LP
is required, and also on the results obtained in the most signicant industries in a given
geographical area, as this would both guide and, where need be, encourage
management to adopt LP in their companies. Similar studies should also be conducted
in the service sector, comparing the results obtained in product improvement, service
quality and customer satisfaction between companies that have implemented LP and
others that still have not. Likewise, the availability of the information provided by a
simulation model (Abdulmalek and Rajgopal, 2007) could facilitate and validate the
decision to implement LP and could also motivate the company during the
implementation in order to obtain the desired results. Likewise, it is necessary to do
more detailed research on the adoption of LP in public services and government. In
other regards, there is increasing concern for the factors that underlie the sustainability
of LP (Emiliani, 2008b; Hines et al., 2008b) and for the way executives should take any
lean transformation forward (Emiliani, 2008a), to be identied, both of which are
aspects that will guide the directions future research will take.
Note
1. Krafcik (1986) had the experience of having previously worked in the development of the
assembly plant benchmarking methodology in a New United Motor Manufacturing joint
venture between Toyota and GM.
References
Abdulmalek, F. and Rajgopal, J. (2007), Analyzing the benets of lean manufacturing and value
stream mapping via simulation: a process sector case study, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 223-36.
Abdulmalek, F., Rajgopal, J. and Needy, K.L. (2006), A classication model for the process
industry to guide the implementation of lean, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2006), Critical success factors for lean
implementations within SMEs, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-71.
Ahlstrom, P. (1998), Sequences in the implementation of lean production, European
Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 327-34.
Alfalla-Luque, R. and Medina-Lopez, C. (2009), Supply chain management: unheard of in the
1970s, core to todays company, Business History, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 201-20.
Babson, S. (1999), After lean production: evolving practices in the world auto industry,
Industrial and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 652-3.
Bateman, N. (2005), Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 261-76.
Biazzo, S. and Panizzolo, R. (2000), The assessment of work organization in lean production:
the relevance of the workers perspective, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 6-22.
Bicheno, J., Holweg, M. and Niessmann, J. (2001), Constraint batch sizing in a lean environment,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 41-9.
Learning on lean
573
Bonavia, T. and Marin, J.A. (2006), An empirical study of lean production in the ceramic tile
industry in Spain, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 505-31.
Booth, R. (1996), Agile manufacturing, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 105-11.
Bowen, D.E. and Youngdahl, W.E. (1998), Lean service: in defence of a production-line
approach, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 207-35.
Bowersox, D., Carter, P. and Monczka, R. (1993), Materials logistics management, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 46-51.
Boyer, K.K. (1996), An assessment of managerial commitment to lean production, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 9, pp. 48-58.
Browning, T.R. and Heath, R.D. (2009), Reconceptualizing the effects of lean production costs
with evidence from the F-22 program, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 23-44.
Bruun, P. and Mefford, R.N. (2003), Lean production and the internet, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 247-60.
Burcher, P., Dupernex, S. and Geoffrey, R. (1996), The road to lean repetitive batch
manufacturing: modelling planning system performance, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 210-21.
Cagliano, R., Caniato, F. and Spina, G. (2006), The linkage between supply chain integration and
manufacturing improvement programmes, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 282-99.
Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2004), Mitigating supply chain risk through improved condence,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 388-96.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D. (2000), Supply chain migration from lean and functional to agile
and customized, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 206-13.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D. (2001), An integrated model for the design of agile supply
chains, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 235-46.
Christopher, M., Harrison, A. and van Hoek, R. (1999), Creating the agile supply chain: issues
and challenges, paper presented at the International Symposium on Logistics, Florence,
July.
Christopher, M., Peck, H. and Towill, D. (2006), A taxonomy for selecting global supply chain
strategies, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 277-87.
Conti, R., Angelis, J., Cooper, C. and Gill, C. (2006), The effects of lean production on worker job
stress, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 9,
pp. 1013-38.
Cooney, R. (2002), Is lean a universal production system? Batch production in the automotive
industry, International Journal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 22 Nos 9-10,
pp. 1130-47.
Cuatrecasas, L. (2002), Design of a rapid response and high efciency service by lean production
principles: methodology and evaluation of variability of performance, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 169-83.
Cusumano, M.A. (1994), The limits of Lean, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 27-32.
IJOPM
32,5
574
Delbridge, R., Lowe, J. and Oliver, N. (2000), Shop-oor responsibilities under lean team
working, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 1459-79.
Delery, J. (1999), Book Reviews. After lean production: evolving practices in the world auto
industry, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 615-17.
de Toni, A. and Tonchia, S. (1996), Lean organization, management by process and performance
measurement, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 221-33.
de Treville, S. and Antonakis, J. (2006), Could lean production job design be intrinsically
motivating? Contextual, congurational and levels-of-analysis issues, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 99-123.
de Treville, S., Antonakis, J. and Edelson, N.M. (2005), Can standard operating procedures be
motivating? Reconciling process variability issues and behavioural outcomes, Total
Quality Management and Business Processes, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 231-41.
Duguay, C., Landry, S. and Pasin, F. (1997), From mass production to exible/agile production,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 1183-95.
Emiliani, M.L. (2000), Supporting small businesses in their transition to lean production, Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 66-73.
Emiliani, M.L. (2007a), Real Lean: Critical Issues and Opportunities in Lean Management, Vol. 2,
CLBM, Wetherseld, CT.
Emiliani, M.L. (2007b), Real Lean: Understand the Lean Management System, Vol. 1, CLBM,
Wetherseld, CT.
Emiliani, M.L. (2008a), Practical Lean Leadership: A Strategic Leadership Guide for Executives,
CLBM, Wetherseld, CT.
Emiliani, M.L. (2008b), Real Lean: The Key to Sustaining Lean Management, Vol. 3, CLBM,
Wetherseld, CT.
Engstrom, T., Johnson, D. and Medbo, L. (1996), Production model discourse and experiences
from the Swedish automotive industry, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 141-56.
Esain, A., Williams, S. and Masey, L. (2008), Combining planned and emergent change in a
healthcare lean transformation, Public Money & Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 21-6.
Fairris, D. and Tohyama, H. (2002), Productive efciency and the lean production system in
Japan and the United States, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 529-54.
Ferdows, K. and de Meyer, A. (1990), Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance:
in search of a new theory, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 168-84.
Fillingham, D. (2007), Can lean save lives?, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 20, pp. 231-41.
Forza, C. (1996), Work organization in lean production and traditional plants: what are the
differences?, International Journal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 42-58.
Fullerton, R.R., McWatters, C.S. and Fawson, C. (2003), An examination of the relationships
between JIT and nancial performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 383-404.
Gagnon, M.A. and Michael, J.H. (2003), Employee strategic alignment at a wood manufacturer:
an exploratory analysis using lean manufacturing, Forest Products Journal, Vol. 53 No. 10,
pp. 24-9.
Goldsby, T.J., Grifs, S.E. and Roath, A.S. (2006), Modelling lean, agile, and leagile supply chain
strategies, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-80.
Learning on lean
575
Gonzalez-Benito, J., Mart nez-Lorente, A.R. and Dale, B.G. (2003), A study of the purchasing
management system with respect to TQM, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32
No. 6, pp. 443-54.
Green, J.C., Lee, J. and Kozman, T.A. (2010), Managing lean manufacturing in material handling
operations, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 2975-93.
Groebner, D. and Merz, C. (1994), The impact of implementing JIT on employees job attitudes,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 26-37.
Gunasekaran, A. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2005), Build-to-order supply chain management: a literature
review and framework for development, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 423-51.
Hackman, J.R. and Lawler, E.E. (1971), Employee reactions to job characteristics, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 259-86.
Hall, R.W. (1983), Zero Inventories, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hallgren, M. and Olhager, J. (2009), Lean and agile manufacturing: external and internal drivers
and performance outcomes, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 976-99.
Harrison, A. and Storey, J. (1996), New wave manufacturing strategies: operational,
organizational and human dimensions, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 16 Nos 1-2, pp. 63-75.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1988), Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating the
Learning Organization, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Helper, S. and Sako, M. (1995), Supplier relations in Japan and the United States: are they
converging?, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 77-84.
Herron, C. and Braiden, P.M. (2006), A methodology for developing sustainable quantiable
productivity improvement in manufacturing companies, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 143-53.
Hiltrop, J.M. (1992), Just-in-time manufacturing implications for the management of human
resources, European Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 49-54.
Hines, P. and Lethbridge, S. (2008), New development: creating a lean university, Public Money
& Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 53-6.
Hines, P. and Rich, N. (1998), Outsourcing competitive advantage: the use of supplier
associations, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistic Management,
Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 524-46.
Hines, P., Francis, M. and Bailey, K. (2006), Quality-based pricing: a catalyst for collaboration
and sustainable change in the agrifood industry, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 240-59.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean
thinking, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 994-1011.
Hines, P., Martins, A.L. and Beale, J. (2008a), Testing the boundaries of lean thinking:
observations from the legal public sector, Public Money & Management, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 35-40.
Hines, P., Rich, N. and Esain, A. (1999), Value stream mapping: a distribution industry
application, Benchmarking, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 60-70.
Hines, P., Silvi, R. and Bartolini, M. (2002), Demand chain management: an integrative approach
in automotive retailing, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 707-28.
IJOPM
32,5
576
Hines, P., Found, P., Grifths, G. and Harrison, R. (2008b), Staying Lean: Thriving, Not Just
Surviving, Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
Holweg, M. (2007), The genealogy of lean production, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 420-37.
Jones, D.T., Hines, P. and Rich, N. (1997), Lean logistics, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 27 Nos 3/4, pp. 153-73.
Karlsson, C. and Ahlstrom, P. (1995), Change processes towards lean production: the role of the
remuneration system, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 15 No. 11, pp. 80-9.
Karlsson, C. and Ahlstrom, P. (1996), Assessing changes towards lean production,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 24-41.
Katayama, H. and Bennett, D. (1996), Lean production in a changing competitive world:
a Japanese perspective, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 16 Nos 1/2, pp. 18-21.
Katayama, H. and Bennett, D. (1999), Agility, adaptability and leanness: a comparison of
concepts and a study of practice, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 60-61, pp. 43-51.
King, A. and Lenox, M. (2001), Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationship
between lean production and environmental performance, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 244-56.
Klein, J.A. (1989), The human cost of manufacturing reform, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67
No. 2, pp. 60-6.
Kochan, T., Lansbury, R. and MacDufe, J.P. (1997), After Lean Production: Evolving
Employment Practices in the World Auto Industry, Cornell University Press, New York, NY.
Kojima, S. and Kaplinsky, R. (2004), The use of a lean production index in explaining the
transition to global competitiveness: the auto components sector in South Africa,
Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 199-206.
Kouvelis, P., Chambers, C. and Yu, D.Z. (2005), Manufacturing operations manuscripts
published in the rst 52 issues of POM: review, trends, and opportunities, Production and
Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 450-67.
Krafcik, J.F. (1986), Learning from NUMMI, IMVP working paper, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Krafcik, J.F. (1988), Triumph of the lean production system, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 41-52.
Krafcik, J.F. and MacDufe, J.P. (1989), Explaining high performance manufacturing: the
international assembly plant study, IMVP working paper, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Krishnan, V. and Loch, C.H. (2005), A retrospective look at production and operations
management articles on new product development, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 433-41.
Kuipers, B., de Witte, M. and van der Zwann, A. (2004), Design or development? Beyond the
LP-STS debate: inputs from a Volvo truck case, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 840-54.
Lamming, R. (1996), Squaring lean supply with supply chain management, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 183-96.
Learning on lean
577
Lander, E. and Liker, J.K. (2007), The Toyota production system and art: making highly
customized and creative products the Toyota Way, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 45 No. 16, pp. 3681-98.
LaScola, K., Norman, B., Bidanda, B. and Ariyawongrat, P. (2002), Assessing human capital:
a lean manufacturing example, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 35-9.
Lee, W.L. and Allwood, W.J. (2003), Lean manufacturing in temperature dependent process with
interruptions, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23
Nos 11/12, pp. 1377-400.
Lee, Y.S. (2003), Lean production systems, labour unions and greeneld locations of the Korean
new auto assembly plants and their suppliers, Economic Geography Journal, Vol. 79 No. 3,
pp. 321-39.
Levy, D. (1997), Lean production in an international supply chain, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 94-102.
Lewchuk, W., Steward, P. and Yates, C. (2001), Quality of working life in the automobile
industry: a Canada-UK comparative study, New Technology, Work and Employment,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 72-87.
Lewis, M.A. (2000), Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 959-78.
Liker, J. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the Worlds Greatest
Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Liker, J. and Meier, D. (2005), The Toyota Way Fieldbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Liker, J. and Morgan, J.M. (2006), Taking the Toyota Way to professional service operation:
the case of lean product development, Academy of Management Executive, May, pp. 5-20.
Lin, Z. and Hui, C. (1999), Should lean replace mass organisation systems? A comparative
examination from a management coordination perspective, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 45-80.
Lowe, J. (1993), Manufacturing reform and the changing role of the production supervisor:
the case of the automobile industry, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 739-58.
Lucey, J., Bateman, N. and Hines, P. (2005), Why major lean transformations have not been
sustained, Management Services Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 9-13.
Lyons, A., Coronado, A., Kehoe, D. and Coleman, J. (2004), Improving the synchronisation of
supply chains: an automotive case study, International Journal Automotive Technology
and Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 374-83.
McQuade, D. (2008), New development: leading lean action to transform housing services,
Public Money & Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 57-60.
Maccoby, M. (1997), Is there a best way to build a car?, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 6,
pp. 161-70.
MacDufe, J.P. and Helper, S. (1997), Creating lean suppliers: diffusing lean production through
the supply chain, California Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 118-51.
Mart nez Sanchez, A
. and Perez Perez, P.M. (2004), The impact of EDI adoption on customer
service in the automobile supply chain, International Journal Automotive Technology and
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 336-53.
Monden, Y. (1983), The Toyota Production System, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Moreno, M. (1999), Evolution of production paradigms: the Toyota and Volvo cases, Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 15-32.
IJOPM
32,5
578
Morgan, C. (2007), Supply network performance measurement: future challenges?,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 255-73.
Morgan, J.M. and Liker, J. (2006), Toyotas Product Development System: Integrating People,
Process and Technology, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Morris, D., Donnelly, T. and Donnelly, T. (2004), Suppliers parks in the automotive industry,
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 129-33.
Moyano-Fuentes, J., Mart nez-Jurado, P., Maqueira-Mar n, J. and Bruque-Camara, S. (2012),
Impact of use of information technology on lean production adoption: evidence from the
automotive industry, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 57 Nos 1-3,
pp. 132-48.
Murman, E., Allen, T., Bozdogan, K., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., McManus, H., Nightingales, D.,
Rebentisch, E., Shields, T., Stahl, F., Walton, M., Warmkessel, J., Weiss, S. and Windnall, S.
(2002), Lean Enterprise Value: Insights from MITS Lean Aerospace Initiative, Palgrave
Macmillan, New York, NY.
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M. and Kim, S.W. (2006), Disentangling leanness and agility:
an empirical investigation, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 440-57.
Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M. and Berry, D. (1999), Leagility: integrating the lean and agile
manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 62 Nos 1/2, pp. 107-18.
Niepce, W. and Molleman, E. (1996), Characteristics of work organization in lean production and
sociotechnical systems: a case study, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 77-90.
Oliver, O., Delbridge, R. and Lowe, J. (1996), Lean production practices: international
comparisons in the auto components industry, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. S29-S44.
Panizzolo, R. (1998), Applying the lessons learned from 27 lean manufacturers: the relevance of
relationships management, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 223-40.
Parker, S.K. (2003), Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and the
mediating role of work characteristics, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4,
pp. 620-34.
Pavnascar, S.J., Gershenson, J.K. and Jambekar, A.B. (2003), Classication scheme for lean
manufacturing tools, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 13,
pp. 3075-90.
Perez Perez, P.M. and Mart nez Sanchez, A