Professional Documents
Culture Documents
manufacturing firms
Horacio Soriano-Meier
Universidad de Los Andes, Merida, Venezuela
Paul L. Forrester
Department of Commerce, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Introduction to the concept of
``leanness''
Since the publication of the lean production
thesis (Womack et al., 1990) interest in the
concept of leanness has grown and further
evolved into notions of agility and
responsiveness. The lean concept has many
appeals for the practitioner: it aggregates
related principles of improvement via TQM,
synchronicity and coordination via just-in-
time management, and integration via
computer-aided processes to the areas of
design, factory management, supply and
distribution (see Forrester et al., 1996). It is
important that lean manufacturing can only
be achieved through time, and that it is not
possible to use it as a panacea to solve short-
term competitive problems (Womack and
Jones, 1996). So lean manufacturing is best
viewed strategically as a formidable weapon
in increasingly competitive markets
(So derkist and Motwani, 1999). Theoretically
and critically lean production also has appeal
to academics. It represents a natural
progression from Fordist mass production,
though there has also been debate on the
extent to which it represents a new paradigm
(Williams et al., 1992). Elements representing
the implementation of lean manufacturing
are evident across sectors, but the pace of
change is dramatically different and the
specific outcomes vary company by company
(Kochan et al., 1997). Despite this interest,
however, there have been few attempts to
precisely define leanness in an operational
context or model leanness with a view to
developing an instrument to measure the
extent of its adoption in particular firms.
In developing a clear definition of what
exactly comprises leanness, the authors
relied upon the model developed by Karlsson
and A
hlstro m conceptual
framework presented above, the adoption of
lean production principles, and managerial
commitment to lean production. Because the
relevant data were not available in secondary
form, primary data collection was necessary.
The data generated also enabled the testing of
a number of research hypotheses. For the
purpose of this paper we will concentrate on:
H1. Firms which claim a high degree of
managerial commitment to lean
production programmes (as measured
by commitment to JIT and TQM
programmes) simultaneously support
this commitment with investments in
the supporting manufacturing
infrastructure (SMI)[1], as measured
by quality leadership (QLEAD), group
problem solving (GROUP), training
(TRAIN), and worker empowerment
(WEMP).
H2. Firms that claim to have adopted lean
production principles (as measured by
degree of adoption, DOA) have been
making actual changes in the direction
of the lean production principles (as
measured by elimination of waste,
continuous improvement, zero defects,
JIT deliveries, pull of raw materials,
multifunctional teams,
decentralisation, integration of
functions, and vertical information
systems).
H3. Firms that have made, in tandem,
investments in the SMI and actual
changes in the direction of the
principles of lean production are
better performers.
The unit of analysis in the study was the
firm. The sources of information were at two
levels of the organisation: top management
(usually chief executive level) and
production and operations managers. A
different questionnaire was administered to
each level. Questionnaire one, addressed to
production and operations managers, was
used to gauge the extent of adoption of lean
production principles. Questionnaire two,
directed to managing directors/CEOs, was
used to measure the level of commitment of
management to lean production. Both
questionnaires were self-administered in the
presence of the researcher. The two groups of
questionnaires measured different variables
and, therefore, were analysed independently.
A short structured interview was conducted
during the meeting to gather more
information about the firm and the manager.
In addition, 14 plant visits were scheduled
and carried out. The objective was to observe
the production process closely. Information
about performance was considered a very
sensitive and confidential matter for the
majority of firms and a pilot study showed
that it was difficult to obtain through a
survey. Therefore, two approaches were
applied in order to collect the required data.
First, the annual accounts were requested
from an internal source at the firm (the
managing directors). However, few agreed to
provide them. Second, external data from an
independent source, Companies House
Search, was acquired to gather available
public financial information about each of
the firms surveyed.
The population was defined as ``firms with
35 employees or more, included in the listings
maintained by Business Link Staffordshire
under the headings `vitreous china table/
kitchen products' and `fine earthenware
table/kitchen products'.'' A list of 45 firms
with these characteristics was provided. A
basic assumption of the study was that the
surveyed firms could have as few as 35
employees for the new production paradigm
to be viable. The rationale for this is that a
typical process in this industry contains six
steps
1 preparation of the clay;
2 moulding and drying;
3 firing;
4 decorating and glazing;
5 firing;
6 and packing.
If at least five workers were assigned to each
step, it would add up to 30 workers. In
addition to these workers, the firm would
also need at least five administrative staff,
including managers and clerks, for a total of
[ 105]
Horacio Soriano-Meier and
Paul L. Forrester
A model for evaluating the
degree of leanness of
manufacturing firms
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
13/2 [2002] 104109
35 employees. ``The Potteries'', in North
Staffordshire, is known traditionally as the
heart of ceramic tableware production in the
UK, as it is here where the vast majority of
tableware production sites are located. Three
experts from CERAM plc (formerly the
British Ceramic Research Institute) revised
the list provided by Business Link
Staffordshire. They excluded firms that were
no longer in business, companies in the same
group, and companies from other sectors
wrongly included in the list (e.g.
miscellaneous products and refractories).
They also included other firms that were not
in the list which, in their opinion, were
relevant to the study. The revised list
contained 36 firms. All of these firms were
contacted and 33 agreed to participate. All
completed the two questionnaires (except for
one firm's managing director who did not
collaborate). The response rate was therefore
over 90 per cent, which is exceptionally high
compared to previous similar research in
other industries (see, for example, Forza,
1996).
Operational measures used in
Questionnaire One (operations
managers)
This questionnaire was designed specifically
to measure the variables related to the
assessment of the adoption of lean production
principles. It was administered in person by
the researcher to the senior production
managers of the participating firms. The
questionnaire measured two dependent and
nine independent variables, as follows. The
first dependent variable, ``degree of adoption
of lean production principles'' (DOA), was
measured by asking the respondents to: ``Rate
the degree of adoption of the following lean
production principles'', followed by a list of
nine principles. The respondents rated their
answers on a seven-point scale with scores
ranging from 1 (No adoption) to 7 (Total
adoption), with a score of 4 (Partial adoption)
as the middle point of the scale. The mean
and the standard deviation were computed
with the scores of these nine answers. The
mean is the value of the dependent variable
DOA. The second dependent variable,
``degree of leanness'' (DOL), was measured as
the mean value of the nine separate variables
in the model developed and tested by (1996).
This model was intended to measure the
adoption of lean production practices
concerned with work organisation in the
production and operation function. These
nine principles of lean production identified
by Karlsson and A