This article was downloaded by: [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek]

On: 02 October 2013, At: 09:42

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Production Planning & Control: The Management of

Operations
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

What is the leanness level of your organisation in lean

transformation implementation? An integrated lean
index using ANP approach
a b a
Wai Peng Wong , Joshua Ignatius & Keng Lin Soh
a
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia
b
School of Mathematics, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia
Published online: 02 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: Wai Peng Wong , Joshua Ignatius & Keng Lin Soh , Production Planning & Control (2012): What is the
leanness level of your organisation in lean transformation implementation? An integrated lean index using ANP approach,
Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2012.674308

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2012.674308

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Production Planning & Control
2012, 1–15, iFirst

What is the leanness level of your organisation in lean transformation implementation?

An integrated lean index using ANP approach
Wai Peng Wonga*, Joshua Ignatiusb and Keng Lin Soha
a
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia; bSchool of Mathematics, Universiti
Sains Malaysia, 11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia
(Received 27 June 2011; final version received 7 March 2012)

We develop a lean index to assess the leanness level of the organisation in sustaining lean transformation. This
‘lean index’ is developed from theory, and is quantified using a multi-criteria approach i.e., analytic network
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013

process (ANP). This index provides a useful measure for sustainable lean performance because it adopts a holistic
approach of performance measurement based on the socio-technical perspective which considers the
interdynamics of human, system and technology.
Keywords: lean; performance; analytical network process; socio-technical

1. Introduction non-lean behaviour (e.g. demotivation, dissatisfaction,

Lean manufacturing had been engraved in the heart of
manufacturing practices as one of the corporate
strategy to bring the organisation to the forefront of
business excellence. Organisations are striving to be
lean in order to remain globally competitive. From the
lens of lean transformation, organisations aim to
achieve ‘leanness’ in their operations. There have
been numerous reports on organisations cutting wast-
ages to achieve leanness (Jannes et al. 2009, Vinodh
et al. 2011); however, there is still void in understand-
ing what is ‘leanness’ for sustainability purpose. This is
mainly due to conflicting deliverable measures of
‘leanness’ which leads to non-lean behaviour overall
in the long run (Mahidhar 2005). For instance, each
department may give different emphasis to their people
following each respective key performance indicators
(KPIs). Hence, employees face a dilemma on what is
the focus in lean here. The persistency of this dilemma
among employees could decrease their motivation in
doing their job, and cause a reverse impact leading to
non-lean behaviour. Hence, without a congruent focus,
this has led to many issues in the organisation
e.g., frequent conflicts/arguments among departments
(every department focusing on their own KPI);
employees are not clear of the management objectives
and directions, and experience a decrease in overall
performance. According to Mahidhar (2005), if non-
uniform performance measures of lean are used across
various subsystems in the organisation, this will lead to
drop in performance), which are all the reverse effects
of desired lean outcomes.
To sustain leanness in organisations, we need to
discard the non-lean behaviour created by incongru-
ence of focus. Instead of focusing performance at the
enterprise level, many stakeholders of the organisation
still focus on subsystem level due to the lack of
understanding of interdependencies. Optimising per-
formance at enterprise level requires a radial rethinking
of how the organisation is managed through the use of
‘lean’ principles and practices. Based on lean principle,
the focus of lean for sustainability purpose should be
to deliver ‘value’ to all its stakeholders; and value is
directly affected at the links between the activities
(execution) and strategies taken, of which linkages are
provided by performance systems. Individual metrics
focusing on a specific performance aspect (e.g. quality
department focusing on quality, production depart-
ment focusing on delivery, etc.) cannot represent the
overall leanness level. Hence, in order to promulgate a
common focus on leanness, an integrated performance
index is greatly needed. Wan and Chen (2008) have
further supported this statement by saying that a
leanness measure is needed which can synthesise the
various aspect of the overall leanness into an integrated
measure.
In this article, we crystallise this by developing an
integrated leanness index to reduce conflicts and
mismatch of objectives. Through this unified index,
focus of all departments can be aligned, and employees

*Corresponding author. Email: wongwp@usm.my

ISSN 0953–7287 print/ISSN 1366–5871 online

ß 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2012.674308
http://www.tandfonline.com
 2 W.P. Wong et al.
will be more willing to work together to achieve a
shared objective. By reducing conflict and strengthen-
ing the cohesiveness among departments, sustainable
performance can thus be achieved. The rest of this
article is presented as follows. In Section 2, the
literature review on lean is discussed. The details of
the development of the integrated leanness index
are illustrated in Section 3. In Section 4, an illustrating
example is presented. Then, in Section 5, manage-
rial implications, some important issues and
limitations are discussed. We conclude this article
in Section 6 with suggestions and future research
works.
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013
2. Literature review: leanness measure of
manufacturing systems
2.1. Lean and leanness measure
Lean is a philosophy, an organisation and a set of
specific techniques (tools) (Paez et al. 2004). Its
implementation is guided through value stream map-
ping (VSM) (Rother and Shook 1998, Dinesh and
Vaibhav 2005), i.e., an approach that uses structures to
delineate between ‘value’ points and maps them based
on relationships.
‘Leanness’ refers to the degree of the adoption and
implementation of lean philosophy in the organisation.
Several researchers had examined ‘leanness’ in the
organisation through some measures. For example,
Karlsson and Ahlstrom (1996) have used a set of
measures summarised in a form of checklist to assess
the extent of leanness. McIvor (2001) and Soriano-
Meier and Forrester (2002) have examined leanness
by using some key variables (e.g. lean supply,
production cost and quality) to evaluate the degree
of leanness in the organisation. The measures for
leanness are very much context-dependent based on
each organisation needs and objectives (Radnor and
Boaden 2004).
2.2. Tools for assessing leanness
With reference to the definition of leanness which is the
degree of realising lean principles, the term leanness
assessment thus refers to the process or tools for
measuring leanness. The tools for assessing leanness
can be basically divided into two types, qualitative and
quantitative. We will first discuss about qualitative
assessment, then discuss the quantitative tools. The
qualitative tools are such as the various lean assess-
ment surveys. Survey has been a common tool to assess
leanness and the complexity of the survey ranges from
typical assessment until the degree of adoption of its
principles (Feld 2000, Conner 2001, Jordan et al. 2001).
Among the surveys, Lean Enterprise Self-Assessment
Tool developed by lean aerospace initiative at MIT
was the most popular one. It was later extended with a
maturity model (Nightingale and Mize 2002). From
several indicators (e.g. nine determinants by Soriano-
Meier and Forrester 2002), the model was later
enhanced to 36 indicators in six groups (Sanchez and
Perez 2001), followed by 101 metrics to match wastes
(Pavnaskar et al. 2003). The problem with these self-
assessment tools is the nature of subjectivity; the
predefined lean indicators of a questionnaire may not
fit every system perfectly. Further, these sets of
indicators operate in a ‘frustum manner’, i.e., clearly
separating the nature of the indicators, e.g., cost-based
indicators, and non-cost-based indicators. In reality,
these indicators may implicate or affect one another
directly or indirectly. The non-consideration of the
interrelations of the indicators thus made many of
these tools not to estimate the leanness level appropri-
ately for each organisation.
From the quantitative side, various approaches had
also been developed to measure leanness. For example,
Srinivasaraghavan and Allada (2006) have measured
leanness by calculating the Mahalanobis distance
between the current state of the system and the
benchmarking performance. In this method, the per-
formance benchmark needs to be gathered from peers
and competitors, thus, the outcome greatly depends on
the quality of the benchmark. Alternatively, individual
index for lean based on one single metric has also been
developed to assess leanness. Levinson and Rerick
(2002) have developed the manufacturing cycle effi-
ciency (MCE) index to represent leanness level in terms
of time-based performance while Fogarty (1992) has
developed the value added efficiency (VAE) index to
assess leanness from value-added performance per-
spective. Detty and Yingling (2000) have utilised
simulation models with several performance metrics
to quantify leanness level. Meanwhile, researchers also
explored various operational research techniques to
measure leanness, such as using data envelopment
analysis (DEA) (Wan and Chen 2008) and fuzzy logic
(Vinodh and Balaji 2011). In a nutshell, the quantita-
tive tools to measure leanness are thus mostly confined
to individual measures or indicators, and an integrated
measure that combines various measures that quanti-
fies the level of leanness has not been developed.
Next, we will develop an integrated leanness index
that considers the interrelationships among the indi-
cators of lean. Specifically, this index will be able to
sustain ‘leanness’ of performance in the long run.
 Production Planning & Control
3. Development of an ‘integrated leanness index’
3.1. Interrelating the metrics through a common
platform
To develop the index, first, we need to understand the
metrics that are used to track ‘leanness’, in other
words, the performance determinants. Traditionally,
the performance determinants are cost, on-time deliv-
ery and quality (Agarwal et al. 2006); some may also
include productivity and safety (Allen et al. 2001). This
article will utilise the top three common performance
metrics. In the early years, researchers focused on
individual metric, e.g. Levinson and Rerick (2002)
(MCE) and Fogarty (1992) (VAE) have focused merely
on on-time delivery and value-added activities, respec-
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013
tively, while Katayama and Bennett (1999) have
focused merely on quality and productivity. More
recently, researchers began to explore the influence of
each metrics on one another. For example, Detty and
Yingling (2000) have tried to group several perfor-
mance metrics (e.g. productivity, cost and quality) to
outline the overall leanness and Leung and Lee (2004)
have developed the new value creativeness as the lean
index by grouping some of the metrics. Note that
though past researchers had explored grouping the
metrics, however, due to the nature of the metrics
which are different from each other, these methods are
difficult to synthesise the group of metrics into an
integrated leanness measure. Furthermore, even
though past models are extremely useful, they only
provide problem-tool connection without a quantita-
tive measure of leanness. An objective quantitative
integrated measure of leanness that addresses the issue
of lean sustainability is yet to be established for lean
practitioners.
For a meaningful integrated lean index, we have to
understand how these three metrics interrelate with
each other. Intuitively they are indivisible; for instance,
cost is affected by quality and on-time delivery,
e.g., high quality increases cost through more frequent
inspections and higher consumptions of resources.
Additionally, when on-time delivery to customers is
extended, the organisation will incur additional oper-
ational costs. As lean implementation is carried out
synchronously throughout the organisation, the rela-
tionships among these metrics become more complex.
Conflict of interest and incongruent objectives from
different structure or departments will occur. This
conflicting impact will eventually invalidate the results
of the performance indicator. Hence, to have an
integrated measure, one needs to wade off the con-
flicting affect. One possible way is to cast the interre-
lations of the three metrics through a common
platform to which the objective is towards a common
3
denominator i.e. a ‘good lean performance’ based on
the combination of these three metrics. To develop this
common platform, one needs to examine the interre-
lations of the metrics from the perspective of practices
that the lean focus on. For example, if lean focus is on
people (or people oriented), then by using people
improvement as the objectives, the conflicting impact
from these metrics can be minimised and the integra-
tion of the metrics can be accepted with less defiance
from the entire organisation. In order to associate with
the focus of lean, we need to revisit the philosophy and
link it to the management organisation theories in the
following section.
3.2. Common platform derived from theoretical
viewpoint
Lean represents a change in production system (orga-
nisation system) paradigm that transformed through
phases. The ‘change’ element in lean principles thus
made it possible to link its philosophy with resource-
based view (RBV) and its extension i.e., dynamic
capability (DC) theory. Lean principle has resonance
with RBV due to the origin resource point (e.g. man,
machine and materials) and the end effect of customer
value as well as the aligning of resources to allow value
to flow. The RBV of the firm suggests that resources
acts to create or preserve competitive advantage for the
firm; alignment of resources to allow value to flow
denotes the way to create and preserve; and the final
value at the end customers denotes the competitive
advantage, i.e., the value of the firm which the
customers thinks only the particular firm possesses it
and other competitors do not have it. DC is defined as
‘the firm’s ability to integrate, build and reconfigure
internal and external competences to address rapidly
changing environments’. It is extended from RBV. The
extension is viewed in the following way: in addition to
the earlier assertion, DCs framework further asserts
that core competencies should be used to create short-
term competitive positions which in turn can be used to
build longer term competitive advantage. Bititci et al.
(2011) have stated that in DCs theory, resources need
to change form through managerial process which
includes reconfiguration, leveraging, learning and cre-
ative integration. This fits the lean approach exactly.
To implement lean, the organisation needs to go
through the lifecycle of adoption, adaptation, accep-
tance and use to enhance values. Resources in lean
environment, e.g., employees, work environment, tools
and equipment, will undergo this cycle and transform
to a more value-added form (Bowman and Ambrosini
2003). Based on the above explanation of how RBV
 4 W.P. Wong et al.
and DC relates to lean concept, this supports the use of
these two theories to model the platform for the lean
index. Regarding the issue of what kind of elements or
characteristics should the platform inherit, let us
review the lifecycle of lean implementation. The
question of ‘what is the lean focus in each stage of
the cycle’ would provide us the answer to the earlier
question, i.e., what is the element that the platform
should possess. In the adoption stage, lean focuses on
the ‘process-centred approach’ such as waste elimina-
tion and cost reduction. As it moves on to the
adaptation phase, human-centred approach is injected
through empowerment and management of the human
resources in the work design. Ultimately, in the full-
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013
scale adaptation of lean practices, integration of the
human and technological practices is required
(Karwowski et al. 1994, 1997).
As lean greatly relies on the active interaction of
these two elements, an integrated lean index can be
modelled using this platform i.e., the socio-technical
platform. This view is also supported by Niepce and
Molleman (1998) who found similarities between lean
and socio-technological design by analysing some lean
performers. A socio-technical view is indeed important
to assess leanness of organisation, as the dynamics of
human and technical systems needs crucial consider-
ation due to their intertwined effect and they are the
main driving forces for sustainable performance.
3.3. Socio-technical paradigm – dimensions and
enablers and their interdependence
From RBV concept, resources (e.g. labour or work-
force (human) capabilities, machine capabilities, mate-
rials) are the asset positions that can be deployed
creatively (strategically) in order to develop new (more)
capability. Apart from the physical form of resources,
salient type of resources also includes systems, tech-
nology, corporate alignment (e.g. leadership, culture,
communication) (Lichtenstein and Brush 2001). From
DC concept, enhancing resources can be viewed in
terms of planning and utilisation of resources, and
improving them through projects and systems imple-
mentation. The endogenous approach of treating
resources needs to be complemented by corporate
and intra-organisation alignment in order to create the
greatest impact on performance. With this, the perfor-
mance dimensions can be categorised into four groups,
i.e. resource capability, planning control and execution,
projects implementation and corporate alignment.
The dimensions can be further deciphered into their
enablers, which refer to the more refined elements that
affect the dimensions of performance. Changes in
performance need to be identified by the inherent
interrelations of the elements in the organisations that
interact with each other. For instance, adequacy of
resources (capability) and impact of corporate align-
ments require the understanding of causal relationship
among the efforts and activities that had been taken.
Based on the support from the literature (Agarwal
et al. 2006), the enablers for each dimensions can be
categorised as follows. For resource capability, it can
be characterised by three measures (enablers) i.e.,
labour skill (LS), machine condition (MC) and mate-
rials quality (MQ). Higher values of LS, MC and MQ
would increase leanness level. Planning control and
execution involves how resources are controlled and
managed to support production. This enables organi-
sation to become leaner. Effective workers scheduling
(WS), machine scheduling (MS) and materials plan-
ning (MP) are important to organisation to achieve
leanness level. Another key characteristic of lean
organisations is the implementation of various projects
with IT support. Improvement projects (e.g. kaizen,
5S) (IP), data accuracy (DA) and means of information
(EDI) enable organisations to become lean through
conducive and supportive technical environment.
Corporate alignment (CA) refers to top leadership
support in implementing lean and how well this is
communicated to affect the employees work attitude to
support lean transformation throughout the organisa-
tion. Hence, leadership (L), employees work attitude
(EA) and communication (C) are the main enablers of
corporate alignment and intra-organisation alignment.
For these cases, lean experts i.e., the group of senior
managers involved in lean implementation were sought
to provide feedbacks on the enablers. We interviewed a
group of senior managers and asked them to identify
what were the enablers (i.e. the elements) that would
affect lean performance in their company. Collectively,
they agreed that the above-mentioned elements would
affect lean performance. A few other elements were
also suggested such as market condition and customer
demand. However, due to the reason that these two
elements had no direct effect on lean performance from
the socio-technical point of view, we have to omit
them. Therefore, based on the senior managers’ opin-
ion in lean environment and support from the litera-
ture, the enablers were identified. Next, we introduce
the framework for the integrated lean index.
3.4. The integrated lean performance framework
The main focus of this framework is to develop
an integrated leanness index by considering the
interdependent relationship among the performance
 Production Planning & Control
determinants, dimensions and enablers. This provides
a more accurate approach for determining leanness
performance in the complex decision environment,
which involves various stakeholders with various
concerns and issues.
Past literature had identified some techniques or
approaches to quantify a performance index, for
example, DEA (Wan and Chen 2006) and statistical
technique (Srinivasaraghavan and Allada 2006). DEA
and statistical techniques are good methods, without
preassigning weights, they can be used to measure
multiple inputs and outputs. The strength of these
methods i.e. without pre-assigning weights to any
performance measure can also be their drawback.
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013
Managers often have their own opinions on what
performance measures are more important than others.
Further, these measures are interrelated, therefore
subjective opinions are important to be captured. In
this case, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and/or
analytic network process (ANP) can be a good
alternative in evaluating lean performance. AHP has
been a popular research and application tool for multi-
attribute decision-making, while ANP techniques had
only a few applications in the literature. Both are
matrix manipulation approaches developed by Saaty
and Takizawa (1986), with the development of AHP
that took place slightly earlier than ANP. Due to the
added strength of ANP which allows analysis of
interdependencies among criteria and among alterna-
tives with respect to each criterion, the ANP technique
is more suitable to use in our case. Note that the ANP
technique had been applied in information system
(Lee and Kim 2000), in quality management (Karsak
et al. 2002), in environment practices and programs
(Sarkis 2002) and in project management (Meade and
Presley 2002). Yet, to the best of our knowledge, ANP
has not been applied in ‘lean management’. Since this
technique is feasible, it is reasonable to use it in our
case. ANP allows more complex relationships among
the decision levels and the lean attributes. The inter-
action or interrelationship can be controlled through
the coupling of phases that comprise the hierarchies of
criteria and sub-criteria. The integrated leanness index
can then be synthesised through the weighted priority
of the control criteria through the evaluation of the
super-matrices in ANP.
The pros of ANP are that it can capture
interdependencies and the requirement for hierarchy
(being an important component here) is less strict than
AHP. Hence, ANP allows more complex relationships
among the decision levels and attributes to be
analysed. The operations in ANP can be briefly
described as follows: in the first phase, it consists
of control hierarchy of network of criteria and
5
sub-criteria that control the interactions; in the
second phase, it consists of network of influences
among the elements and clusters (note: network varies
from criteria to criteria), and hence here also, different
super-matrices of limiting influences are computed for
each control criteria and finally each one of these
super-matrices is weighted by the priority of its control
criteria and results are synthesised through addition
for the entire control criterion. The operationalisation
of the leanness framework is depicted in Figure 1.
In the proposed framework, leanness is modelled
based on the socio-technological platform, which is the
foundation for sustainable lean enterprise perfor-
mance. One should optimise the technological and
human systems to sustain organisation performance
(Genaidy and Karwowski 2003). A brief comparison of
the proposed framework with past lean performance
frameworks is discussed next. The past lean perfor-
mance frameworks are such as the performance prism
(pyramid), balanced score card and framework of
evolution. The performance prism structured the
performance indicators across various functions and
business units and integrated the objectives with
operational measures; however, it did not provide
any mechanism to identify casual relationship between
measures across the functions and levels (Cross and
Lynch 1988). The balanced scored card utilised the
scorecard approach to integrate measures and also
identified the linkages with strategy maps (Kaplan and
Norton 1992). The linkages between the measures are
presumed and unidirectional and the deployment
system did not break down into subsystems level. On
the other hand, the evolution framework (Kennerley
and Neely 2003) focus not only on the results, but also
on drivers for success; it provides a procedural
enhancement to the performance framework in addi-
tion to the structural approach of the previous two
frameworks. However, it may only promote local
optimisation as it does not explicitly integrate the
concept for continuous improvement. Our proposed
ANP-lean index framework, in contrast define and
establish interrelationship among the factors of sus-
tainable performance and the resulting integrated lean
index is able to provide a unified set of measures across
systems to avoid local optimisation of decisions.
3.5. Quantifying the integrated leanness index
Let us define these notations: K is the set of enabler, J
is the set of dimension, A is the set of determinants.
Let P ¼ (Pja)j2J;a2A be the relative importance weight of
dimension j on the determinant a, WD ¼
ðWD kja Þk2K;j2J;a2A is the relative importance weight for
 6 W.P. Wong et al.

Integrate
leanness
index

Performance determinants Cost Quality On-time delivery

Performance dimensions

Corporate & intra- Projects & IT Planning control and Resource capability
organisation alignment implementation execution
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013

EA C DA ED MS MP MC M

L IP WS LS

Performance enablers

–Leadership (L) –Improvement projects -Workers scheduling -Labour skill (LS)

- Employees work (e.g. kaizen, 5S) (IP) (WS) -Machine condition
attitude (EA) -Data accuracy (DA) -Machine scheduling (MC)
- Communication (C) - Means of information (MS) -Materials quality
(EDI) -Materials planning (MQ)
(MP)

Figure 1. ANP-based framework for modelling integrated leanness index.

enabler k of dimension j of determinant ‘a’ for the
dependency (D) relationship between enabler’s com-
ponent levels, that is, the dependence among the
enablers with respect to each dimension, and subse-
quent with respect to each determinant. The question
asked to the respondents in order to obtain the values
of WD is, for example, ‘What is the relative importance
of leadership compared to employees work attitude on
controlling corporate and intra-organisation align-
ment?’. WI ¼ ðWIkja Þk2K;j2J;a2A is the stabilised relative
importance weight for enabler k of ‘j’ dimension in the
determinant ‘a’ for interdependency (I) relationships
within the enabler’s component level. As the frame-
work is modelled based on the socio-technical para-
digm (i.e. encompass human and technical or process
aspect), during the real discussion with the experts, the
silo influence of a diverged paradigm (e.g. more
towards human focus, or alternatively more towards
technical focus) is indeed significant. Hence, the
relative impact of alternative paradigm needs to be
considered (though the effect would be minimal). Let
us define Sskja as the relative impact of alternative
paradigm s on enabler k of dimension of j of
determinant a. As such, the integrated weight W0
which is the product of the relative importance of all
weights can be calculated as follows:
J X
X Kja
W0 ¼ Pja WD I
kja Wkja Sskja : ð1Þ
j¼1 k¼1
Lindex is the integrated leanness index, thus can be
estimated as the product of integrated weight with
the relative importance of the performance determi-
nants (Ca) i.e.,
Lindex ¼ W0  Ca : ð2Þ
A mini focus group was conducted on a group of
experts comprising four senior managers to obtain the
values of the relative weights. This method was chosen
because it is more cost effective and through the
 Production Planning & Control
‘cascading’ or ‘chaining’ effect of group members, it is
able to provide more insights and data that would be
less accessible without interaction found in a group
setting (Nachmais and Nachmais 2008). For obtaining
the relative weights, we followed Saaty’s (1996)
recommendation of using a scale of 1–9, where 1
implies equal impact and 9 implies stronger impact of
the row element than the column element. If the
manager feels that the column element has stronger
impact than the row element, reciprocal of numbers
from 1 to 9 is assigned accordingly. The weighted
priority or e-vectors (Saaty 1996) are then calculated
from the pair-wise comparison matrices using relative
weights obtained from managers.
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013
Next we discuss the application of the ANP-based
framework for measuring leanness in a semiconductor
manufacturing company (the case company). Note
that the elements of this framework were proposed
based on the suggestions and feedbacks from the
managers. Recall that earlier we mentioned that based
on the ANP method, the senior managers were
interviewed first to decide the major criteria and the
subsequent detailed criteria for evaluating the lean
performance. As such, the proposed model is validated
with the experts’ (i.e. the managers’) support. The
network structure composes of three major criteria and
numerous detailed criteria as shown in Figure 1.
4. Case study – an application example
A case-study approach was chosen because it has a
distinct advantage in situations when in-depth and
detailed questions such as ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are
asked about a contemporary set of events over which
the investigator has little or no control (Yin 2003). This
research uses a single case study because the centre of
focus here is to investigate the organisation thoroughly
in its lean transformation program. The advantage of
focusing on a single company here is that the
researchers are able to gain a valuable perspective of
the organisation while at the same time they are able to
overcome the constraints of the study i.e., time, budget
and manpower. The drawback of a single case may be
probably that its results will be difficult to be gener-
alised. Nevertheless, the proposed framework is thor-
oughly theoretically grounded to assure external
validity and generalisability of the findings. The
proposed framework has been examined in a multi-
national semiconductor manufacturing company. This
case company is located at the Bayan Lepas Free
Trade Zone, Penang. This organisation has been
established in Malaysia for more than 10 years and
has approximately 2000 employees in its Penang plant.
7
Due to rising cost of operations and increasing
competitions in the semiconductor market, the com-
pany decided to adopt ‘lean manufacturing practices’ a
year ago. The main principle behind lean philosophy is
to cut down wastages to increase profits. Similar to
many reported cases (Vinodh et al. 2011), lean imple-
mentation in this company receives enormous resis-
tance because employees were reluctant to change. The
changes do not merely include technical aspects
(e.g. work procedures, systems and environment), but
also involve the soft aspects, which are mentality and
attitude of the employees. The company experienced a
marked decrease in job satisfaction (almost 50%) and a
sharp increase in employees’ complaints after it started
implementing lean. The unfavourable working envi-
ronment thus led the top management to hire an
external consultant to motivate the dissatisfied work-
ers. Thus, this was how the research collaboration
started. Under the theme of ‘Lean Transformation
Research’, a total of five different projects were
identified in this collaboration and our project is one
of them. Note that, in other words, our project can be
viewed as a subproject of the main project i.e., Lean
Transformation Research. Our project aims to address
one of the crucial problems in the organisation which is
the incongruence of performance measure for lean,
leading to conflicts among departments (every depart-
ment trying to fulfil their own KPI), and causing
demotivation and low job satisfaction among the
employees. To overcome this problem, we propose an
ANP framework which will be able to provide an
integrated leanness index that aims to align the focus of
all departments. Note that, though only a single case
study is conducted using this framework, this frame-
work is generic and is applicable to all other companies
that are implementing lean. Figure 2 illustrates in detail
the steps of how the case study is conducted.
To increase the robustness of the study, we now
provide more details about each phase of the study.
Phase 1: preparation
This was a preliminary stage whereby researchers
from both sides (academic and industry) get to know
each other. An introductory session was held by the
project leader and respective counterparts for the
related projects were introduced. For the academi-
cians, we were briefed on the case study company
background and their expectations on the projects. In
return, we shared our research interests and experi-
ences with our industrial counterparts.
Phase 2: familiarisation
We ventured deeper into the research work by
visiting the company. We familiarised ourselves with
 8 W.P. Wong et al.
Lean transformation–operations
performance
Location: case study company
Phase 1: preparation
• Establish contact with company representatives
• Arrange first week interviews or meetings with key
people involved in lean implementation
• Understand the company background
Phase 2: familiarisation
• Introductory presentation outlining the case study details
• Familiarisation with people, processes and plant
• Mapping the key information flows
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013
Phase 3: design factors
• Establish key roles and flows
• Choose the determinants of performance
• Identify dimensions and enablers
Phase 4: data collection
• Methodology presentation
• Live data collection through focus group
• Decision groups are made up of experts (i.e. managers
of lean) in the organisation
Phase 5: analysis
• Computation of lean index
• Joint presentation and discussion of results
• Report of results and recommendations
Figure 2. The five phases of lean operations performance
case study.
the plant, the environment, the systems, the production
process and we also met the employees involved in
lean. A few visit trips were made and thereby, we were
finally able to identify the links between the people,
flows and processes.
Phase 3: design factors
After we became more familiar with the company,
we engaged in a deeper discussion with our counterparts
to discuss about the key roles and information that were
required for the research. Our counterparts suggested to
focus on one value stream as a start, then later only
expand the focus to other value streams. Agreement was
obtained on which value stream that we should select.
Basically, selection of the value stream was based on the
criticality and urgency of the issue that need to be
addressed. Upon the identification of the value stream,
key senior managers from various processes of the value
stream were introduced to the academicians.
These managers were then asked to identify the deter-
minants, dimensions and enablers for lean performance.
Phase 4: data collection
In this phase, the data collected was the ‘collective
agreement’ on the relative weights of the determinants,
dimensions and enablers. As mentioned, a mini focus
group was conducted comprising a total of six persons:
four senior managers and two moderators who were
academicians. The interviews were conducted on site
i.e. on the production floor of the plant. Two sessions
of interviews were conducted. The first session was
rather short because not all the four managers were
present due to the busy production schedule. It was
only after the second session that we were able to
obtain all the relative weights from the respondents.
Phase 5: analysis
After the weights were obtained, the weights were
inputted into the excel file and analysis were then
carried out using excel spreadsheets. The lean index
and the relative importance of each criterion were
obtained through the matrices calculation in ANP
approach. The results were presented to the company
and recommendations were made to them on how to
measure lean performance.
In a nutshell, the whole study took approximately 1
year. The data collection phase required the longest
amount of time which was approximately 5 months,
and then followed by the analysis phase which took
about 2 months to complete. Overall, there were many
follow-ups, discussions through phone and email
communication throughout the research period.
5. Discussion and implications of results
To facilitate the discussion of the ultimate end results,
we first outline the methodology in ANP and provide
the corresponding results accordingly. Based on the
steps in ANP, the chronology of the analysis of results is
as follows. Note that here we had chosen one of the
determinants i.e., on-time delivery to explain the whole
process from step 1 to step 5. We have also explained
how to derive the values defined in Section 3.5. The
similar process is applied to the other two determinants
(cost and quality). Hence, with this, we hope that the
readers will be able to follow and understand clearly
how the values for each of the parameters were
obtained.
Step 1: model construction and problem structuring
The top most elements in the hierarchy, which
comprisesthe performance determinants, are
 Production Planning & Control 9

decomposed into sub-criteria i.e., the performance
dimensions and enablers. Recall that the model
requires identification of attributes at each level
(i.e. the dimensions followed by enablers and a
definition of their interrelationships). The ultimate
objective of this hierarchy is to identify the determi-
nants that will be significant for improving the
performance of lean, and ultimately estimate the
leanness level using an integrated index, which captures
the influences of dimensions and enablers of the
selection process. The list of determinants, dimensions
and enablers can be referred to in Figure 1.
Step 2: pair-wise comparison matrices
component/attribute levels
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013
the determinants. Table 1 shows the pair-wise com-
parison of determinants, and Table 2 shows the pair-
wise comparison between the determinants and dimen-
sions (e.g. for on-time delivery).
Table 3 shows the pair-wise comparison matrix for
dimension (e.g. resource capability) under the deter-
minants (e.g. on-time delivery). The number of pair-
wise comparison matrices is dependent of the number
of enablers that are included in the determinant of the
lean performance hierarchy. There are 12 pair-wise
comparison matrices for each determinant required at
this level of relationships (i.e., three enablers per
dimensions  four dimensions per determinant).
between
Step 3: pair-wise comparison matrices of

On the scale of 1–9, the decision-makers (or the
managers for our case) have been asked to respond to a
series of pair-wise comparisons with respect to an
upper level ‘control’ criterion. These are conducted
with respect to their relative importance towards the
control criterion. In the case of interdependencies,
components within the same level are viewed as
controlling component for each other. Levels may
also be interdependent. Through pair-wise compari-
sons between the applicable enablers of performance
dimension cluster, the weighted priority (e-vector) is
calculated (Saaty 1996). Similarly, the pair-wise com-
parison matrix for the relative importance of each of
the dimensions of lean on the determinant of lean is
conducted. There are three matrices, one for each of
Table 1. Pair-wise comparison of determinants.
On-time
delivery Quality Cost Eigenvector
On-time delivery 0.714 0.806 0.455
Quality 0.143 0.161 0.455
Cost 0.143 0.032 0.091
interdependencies
To reflect the interdependencies, in network, pair-
wise comparisons among all the enablers are con-
ducted. Table 4 illustrates one such case.
The last step in pair-wise comparison following the
network hierarchy structure of ANP/AHP (Saaty
1996) is the comparison for each alternative of the
lean paradigms on the determinants, dimensions and
enablers. Table 5 shows an example of a pair-wise
comparison matrix for alternative’s impact on on-time
delivery, resource capability and LSs. Note that there
will be a pair-wise comparison matrix for each enabler
under each dimension, for each determinant. Since
there are three enablers per dimension and four
dimensions per determinants, hence, there will be 12
sets of relative weights (or eigenvectors) for every
determinant. And as there are three determinants, in
total there will be 36 sets of relative weights generated
from this pair-wise comparison. These weight (or
eigenvector) values will be used in Table 8 to calculate
the integrated weight.
Step 4: super-matrix formation and analysis
0.658
0.253 After analysing the interdependencies, the super-
0.089 matrix can be formed and the final scores (relative
importance measures for each enabler for each deter-
minant) can be evaluated. Table 6 shows the

Table 2. Pair-wise comparisons of dimensions with respect to on-time delivery.

Planning Projects Corporate

Resource control and & IT and intra-organisation
On-time capability execution Implementation alignment
delivery (RC) (PC) (PI) (CA) Eigenvector

RC 0.077 0.043 0.031 0.125 0.069

PC 0.154 0.087 0.031 0.125 0.099
PI 0.385 0.435 0.156 0.125 0.275
CA 0.385 0.435 0.781 0.625 0.556
 10 W.P. Wong et al.

super-matrix for the determinant – on-time delivery, Note that since there are 12 pair-wise comparison
there will be two more similar tables for the other two matrices, one for each of the interdependent enablers in
determinants, i.e., quality and cost that need to be the ‘on-time delivery’ hierarchy, there will be 12 non-
evaluated. zero columns in the super-matrix. Each of the non-zero
values in the column in super-matrix M is the relative
importance weight associated with the interdepen-
dently pair-wise comparison matrices.
Table 3. Pair-wise comparison matrix for resource cap- Note also that the values in Table 6 are before
ability under the on-time delivery determinant.
convergence, which means the values are not stable. In
On-time order to get a long-term stable set of weights, the
delivery LS MC MQ Eigenvector super-matrix needs to be converged. This is usually
done by raising the power of the super-matrix to an
LS 0.714 0.806 0.455 0.658 arbitrarily large number. In our example, convergence
MC 0.143 0.161 0.455 0.253
MQ 0.143 0.032 0.091 0.089 is reached at 74th power. Table 7 illustrates the weight
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013

values after convergence, e.g., for determinant on-time

delivery.
Step 5: calculation of the integrated leanness index
Table 4. Pair-wise comparison matrix for enablers under
on-time delivery, resource capability and LSs. We then calculate the leanness index based on
Equations (1) and (2). Table 8 shows the relative
LS MC MQ Eigenvector weights for each attribute and the integrated weight for
the index in each paradigm for determinant on-time
MC 0.833 0.833 0.833 delivery. Note that in Table 8, the Pja values are
MQ 0.167 0.167 0.167
obtained from Table 2 i.e., the eigenvector of each
associated dimension, WD kja was obtained from the
eigenvectors of Table 3, WIkja from Table 6 and S
values from Table 5. The product of the weights, Pja
WD I
kja Wkja Sskj were then calculated for each dimension,
Table 5. Pair-wise comparison matrix for alternative’s and finally the integrated weight W0 following
impact on on-time delivery, resource capability and LSs.
Equation (1) for each alternative lean paradigm is
Process Human estimated by summing the values of the product
oriented oriented Socio-technical weights. The results from Table 8 show that the
(L1) (L2) (L3) Eigenvector integrated weight for on-time delivery with respect to
each alternative paradigms is 0.055 for process-
L1 0.083 0.040 0.130 0.085
L2 0.500 0.240 0.217 0.319 focused, 0.089 for human-focused and 0.283 for
L3 0.417 0.720 0.652 0.596 socio-technical. Since the highest integrated weight is
0.283, this means that socio-technical paradigm best

Table 6. Super-matrix M for on-time delivery before convergence.

On-time delivery LS MC MQ WS MS MP IP DA MI L EA C

LS 0.000 0.833 0.833 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MC 0.833 0.000 0.167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MQ 0.167 0.167 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WS 0 0 0 0.000 0.833 0.833 0 0 0 0 0 0
MS 0 0 0 0.833 0.000 0.167 0 0 0 0 0 0
MP 0 0 0 0.167 0.167 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0
IP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.889 0.889 0 0 0
DA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.833 0.000 0.111 0 0 0
MI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.167 0.111 0.000 0 0 0
L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.900 0.900
EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.889 0.000 0.100
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.111 0.100 0.000
 Production Planning & Control 11

suits the environment for lean transformation if the
only determinant (evaluation criteria) is on-time
delivery.
In a similar manner, the integrated weights were
calculated for the other two determinants which are
cost and quality. After obtaining the integrated
weights, the integrated leanness index can then be
estimated using Equation (2). Table 9 shows the
integrated leanness index values. Note that the weights
for the determinants are the eigenvector values from
Table 1, while the index for the alternatives with
respect to each determinants are estimated from the
preceding section (e.g. from Table 8 for the determi-
nant on-time delivery). The indexes are normalised to
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013
the company is 0.662 (note that in comparison to the
other alternatives, the impact of silo-typed paradigm is
minimal and thus negligible). Note also that the results
from Table 8 show that on-time delivery (Ca ¼ 0.658) is
the most important determinant for leanness perfor-
mance. The result indicates that the management of
lean should focus on improving on-time delivery. This
result could be due to the customer pressure for on-
time delivery. Quality (0.253) and cost (0.089) play the
next most important roles but are less important than
on-time delivery. The obtained results were validated
with the managers and they agreed that it was coherent
with their perception. Thus, this validates that the
socio-technical framework was indeed suitable to be

facilitate benchmark and ease of references. the base for the lean performance measurement. To
From Table 9, based on the socio-technical para- further validate our framework, we conducted the
digm, the current leanness level (lean performance) of sensitivity analysis with respect to the variations in the

Table 7. Super-matrix M for on-time delivery after convergence (M74).

On-time
delivery LS MC MQ WS MS MP IP DA MI L EA C

LS 0.455 0.455 0.455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MC 0.403 0.403 0.403 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MQ 0.143 0.143 0.143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WS 0 0 0 0.455 0.455 0.455 0 0 0 0 0 0
MS 0 0 0 0.403 0.403 0.403 0 0 0 0 0 0
MP 0 0 0 0.143 0.143 0.143 0 0 0 0 0 0
IP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.471 0.471 0.471 0 0 0
DA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.406 0.406 0.406 0 0 0
MI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.124 0.124 0.124 0 0 0
L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.455 0.455 0.455
EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.403 0.403 0.403
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.143 0.143 0.143

Table 8. Weight indices for on-time delivery.

Pja WD I
kja Wkja Sskja

Dimension Pja Enabler WD

kja WIkja S1 S2 S3 s¼1 s¼2 s¼3

Resource capability 0.069 LS 0.658 0.455 0.085 0.319 0.596 0.002 0.007 0.012
0.069 MC 0.253 0.403 0.692 0.084 0.223 0.005 0.001 0.002
0.069 MQ 0.089 0.143 0.607 0.090 0.303 0.001 0.000 0.000
Planning control and execution 0.099 WS 0.658 0.455 0.539 0.164 0.297 0.016 0.005 0.009
0.099 MS 0.253 0.403 0.679 0.079 0.241 0.007 0.001 0.002
0.099 MP 0.089 0.143 0.679 0.079 0.241 0.001 0.000 0.000
Projects and IT implementation 0.275 IP 0.747 0.471 0.071 0.217 0.712 0.007 0.021 0.069
0.275 DA 0.189 0.406 0.071 0.206 0.723 0.001 0.004 0.015
0.275 MI 0.064 0.124 0.253 0.089 0.658 0.001 0.000 0.001
Corporate and intra-organisation alignment 0.556 L 0.736 0.455 0.065 0.197 0.738 0.012 0.037 0.137
0.556 EA 0.211 0.403 0.063 0.256 0.681 0.003 0.012 0.032
0.556 C 0.053 0.143 0.063 0.375 0.562 0.000 0.002 0.002
Integrated weight, W0 0.055 0.089 0.283
 12 W.P. Wong et al.

Table 9. Leanness level (or lean indexes).

Lean Normalised
On-time index values
Alternatives delivery Quality Cost (Lindex) for (Lindex)

Weights 0.658 0.253 0.089

Process-focused 0.055 0.042 0.048 0.051 0.120
Human-focused 0.089 0.094 0.119 0.093 0.218
Socio-technical 0.283 0.292 0.252 0.283 0.662

experts’ (or managers’) opinion towards on-time Sensitivity analysis plot

delivery, cost and quality.
0.606
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013

0.506 Process-focused

Norm
5.1. Sensitivity analysis 0.406 Human-focused

Sensitivity analysis is important to validate the effec- 0.306 Socio-technical

tive use of any quantitative decision model (Agarwal 0.206

et al. 2006). In our research, sensitivity analysis is
implemented to find out the changes in the lean index
for process-focused, human-focused and socio-
technical paradigms with variation in the managers’
opinion in assigning the relative weights for the
determinants. Overall objective of sensitivity analysis
is to see the robustness of proposed framework due to
variation in the managers’ opinion in assigning the
weights during comparison. Based on the interviews
with the managers, we understand that the overall
objective of the company is to improve on-time
delivery, which is an important market winning criteria
in the semiconductor industry. Note that the results
obtained from earlier section correspond exactly with
the perception of the managers, that is more weight is
emphasised on on-time delivery, compared to cost and
quality. Therefore, the determinant, on-time delivery is
chosen as the variable. We further examine through
sensitivity analysis, if the weights given to on-time
delivery varies, will the priority on the alternatives
paradigms change? This question is relevant because,
the weights were obtained from subjective judgements
of the respondents, e.g., if a different group of senior
managers was interviewed, different relative weights
will be obtained.
In the present ANP framework, managers have
assigned a relative weight of 5 to on-time delivery in
comparison with quality and cost on lean performance.
With this relative weight, the integrated lean index for
socio-technical lean environment is the highest fol-
lowed by human-focused and process-focused (refer
Table 9). This implies that when the perception of
managers is more inclined towards on-time delivery in
comparison to quality and cost, they will prefer a lean
environment to be socio-technical. Both social and
technical aspects contribute towards on-time delivery,
0.106
0 5
Row average
Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis on robustness of paradigms.
unlike cost and quality which is more silo-typed
focused. Costs are affected by how well the process is
in control, hence it is more process focused. While
quality is associated with the capability of the process,
both (i.e. quality and process capability) are actually
affected by the skills and knowledge of the employees
(e.g. if training was provided to the workers as
continuous improvement efforts, this could lead to
higher quality of the product and services offered),
therefore, quality is more oriented towards human-
focused paradigm. Note that from Figure 3, if the
relative weight given to on-time delivery if less than 5,
the socio-technical paradigm still remains as the
preferred environment for lean implementation.
Similarly, if the value is more than 5, the priority of
socio-technical paradigm does not change. Hence, it is
pertinent to mention that to sustain lean performance
in an organisation, the desired lean performance alone
cannot be achieved either by process or by human-
focused paradigm. Process and human paradigms are
not mutually exclusive, therefore proper combination
of process and human which is the socio-technical
paradigm is required to suit the need for sustainable
lean performance.
In a nutshell, the results as depicted in Figure 3
show that the socio-technical-based framework is
robust. The values of the leanness index in the socio-
technical paradigm do not significantly change with
variation in the opinion of decision-makers in assign-
ing the weights. Further, the leanness values in this
 Production Planning & Control
paradigm always supersede the values in other para-
digms. This result exactly fits the perceptions of the
managers, hence the proposed framework is validated.
It should also be noted that higher values of the lean
index indicate better performance. From our analysis,
based on the current performance of the company, the
leanness level varies between 0.5 and 0.6.
5.2. Implications
From the academic perspective, this research has
extended the theories of RBV and DCs to the area of
lean operations, which to the best knowledge of the
authors had not been explored before. A lean perfor-
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013
mance framework was constructed using these under-
pinning theories and this framework has been
validated through the results obtained which were
coherent with the perceptions of the managers. Besides,
the method used in this research is trans-disciplinary,
which combines the operational research technique
e.g., ANP with the theoretical method i.e., using
grounded theories to prove an assertion or certain
assumptions. Hence, this innovative method will pave
the way towards the exploration of more trans-
disciplinary type of research in future.
From the practitioner perspective, it is proved
through the validation with the managers that the
socio-technical paradigm-based framework is suitable
to model lean performance. Lean should be seen as a
direction, rather than as a state to be reached after a
certain time and, therefore, the focus lies on the
collective decisions on rankings of all managers from a
socio-technical perspective, and not on the actual
values of the individual determinants (performance
indicators). The output from the model which is the
lean index serves as a measure to operationalise lean
implementation for sustainable performance through
creation of a common goal and a direction for the
employees to focus. To achieve sustainability, the lean
index can be further monitored using the concept of
statistical process control (SPC). The lean index values
can be recorded in a chart similar to the SPC charts. A
lower limit range can be imposed to monitor the lean
level. For example, if the lower limit is set at 0.5, and if
the value of the lean index is less than 0.5, this indicates
that the leanness level is out of control. This could be
probably due to natural variations or unassignable
cause (i.e. a particular problem). Hence, investigations
should be carried out to find out the cause of leanness
deterioration. By using such monitoring technique,
managers can sustain leanness performance.
The proposed framework and methodology have
been developed into a simple excel module for the users
13
in the company. The preliminary version of the module
had been presented to the managers. Although there
were some minor resistance from the managers as they
thought that the framework was very complex, never-
theless, since the module was a very simple program
with minimal space storage requirements, it was
accepted by the managers. Managers also accepted
the suggestion of monitoring the leanness level like a
cpk chart to know whether the lean level is in control
or not. Being part of the main project under the
umbrella of ‘Lean Transformation Research’, this
project together with the other four projects had
significant impact in the lean transformation process in
the organisation. In particular, the managers gave
feedback that it is much clearer now to the employees
what the focus of lean is and the integrated lean index
has managed to align the different objectives of various
departments. There are less fire-fights and conflicts
among employees. All these create a conducive work-
ing environment, which eventually helps to prolong the
lean behaviour among the employees. As such, the
proposed measure is able to sustain the lean perfor-
mance of the organisation. Further improvements on
the module are still on-going. The improvements
include enhancing the module with graphical user
interface and extending the structures to include
measures of evaluating a lean supply chain.
6. Conclusion
This research has provided an overall view of how
ANP can be applied for lean performance evalua-
tion. The stand taken here is of an overall view of
the organisation. The ANP methodology adopted
here arrives at a leanness index, which is quite
useful for decision-makers engaging in performance
assessment. The purpose of the leanness index is to
align the focus to sustain lean behaviour among the
employees of the organisation. The ANP method-
ology is a robust technique for integrating the
various dimensions governing an organisation’s lean
performance. It also allows a vivid framework to
be communicated to the decision-makers. The ANP
approach captures the various criteria and their
relationships as well as interdependencies across and
along the hierarchies.
However, there are limits to the present research.
The main limitation is that the focus presently is
broader and confines to a cross-sectional analysis of
the firm. This means that performance evaluation
monitoring between stages or time-based monitoring is
not modelled. Nonetheless, such capabilities can be
easily extended and provided for in subsequent
research.
 14 W.P. Wong et al.
The second improvement could be in extending
the present ANP structure to include measures of
evaluating a lean supply chain. Taking from a more
in-depth perspective, an organisation may intend to
analyse the performance of its business unit in
relation to the overall supply chain of the organisa-
tion. In such situations, sensitivity analysis can be
provided for each business unit, relative to the overall
company’s performance and supply chain. Another
aspect, of performance evaluation in a supply chain,
is in time-based monitoring decisions which can be
readily automated, where performances are derived
from lead time and stock levels. Hence, lean moni-
toring can be integrated with both subjective and
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013
objective data.
Future research in performance monitoring
requires tools such as ANP to be able to quickly
respond to the variations in customer demand with its
corresponding cost reduction. An improved frame-
work of leanness would consider other concepts such
as agility. This is to ensure that the upstream supply
chain players are cost-effective and the downstream
players could achieve high service levels in a compet-
itive environment.
Notes on contributors
Wai Peng Wong is a Senior Lecturer
in Operations at School of
Management, Universiti Sains
Malaysia. She obtained her PhD in
Industrial & Systems Engineering
from the National University of
Singapore. Her research interests
include application of simulation and
optimisation techniques in efficiency
analysis. Her papers have appeared in numerous ISI journals,
such as IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Industrial
Management and Data Systems and Expert Systems with
Applications.
Joshua Ignatius is a Senior Lecturer in
Operations Research at the School of
Mathematical Sciences, Universiti
Sains Malaysia. His research interests
are in fuzzy multi-criteria decision
making, game theoretic models and
the application of structural equation
modelling in empirical research. His
papers have appeared in numerous ISI
journals, such as Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems,
International Journal of Information Technology & Decision
Making, International Journal of Innovative Computing,
Information & Control and Group Decision & Negotiation.
He is the recipient of the Endeavour Executive Award for high
achieving professionals by the Australian Government in
2010/2011.
Keng Lin Soh started teaching in
Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM),
Penang, Malaysia in 1995. He teaches
Operations Management, Quality
Management and Project
Management. He also supervises
undergraduate and graduate students
in research. The research topics that
have come his way are lean
manufacturing, quality management, logistics and transpor-
tation. Keng Lin’s other responsibilities include that of
introducing new courses into the operations management
curriculum.
References
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., and Tiwari, M.K., 2006. Modeling
the metrics of lean, agile and leagile supply chain: an ANP-
based approach. European Journal of Operational
Research, 173 (1), 211–225.
Allen, J., Robinson, C., and Stewart, D., 2001. Lean
manufacturing: a plant floor guide. Dearborn, MI: Society
of Manufacturing Engineers.
Bititci, U.S., et al., 2011. Managerial processes: an
operations management perspective towards dynamic
capabilities. Production Planning & Control, 22 (2),
157–173.
Bowman, C. and Ambrosini, V., 2003. How the resource
based and dynamic capability views of the firm inform
competitive and corporate level strategy. British Journal of
Management, 14 (4), 289–303.
Conner, G., 2001. Lean manufacturing for the small shop.
Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
Cross, K.F. and Lynch, R.L., 1988. The smart way to define
and sustain success. New York: National Productivity
Review.
Detty, R.B. and Yingling, J.C., 2000. Quantifying
benefits of conversion to lean manufacturing
with discrete event simulation: a case study.
International Journal of Production Research, 28 (2),
429–445.
Dinesh, S. and Vaibhav, G., 2005. An application of value
stream mapping for lean operations and cycle time
reduction: an Indian case study. Production Planning &
Control, 16 (1), 44–59.
Feld, W.M., 2000. Lean manufacturing: tools, techniques, and
how to use them. Alexandria, VA: St. Lucie Press.
Fogarty, D.W., 1992. Work in process: performance
measures. International Journal of Production Economics,
26 (1), 169–172.
Genaidy, A. and Karwowski, W., 2003. Human performance
in lean production environment: critical assessment and
research framework. Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing, 13 (1), 317–330.
Jannes, S., Josec, B., and Remco, G., 2009. A lean
production control system for high-variety/low-volume
 Production Planning & Control
environments: a case study implementation. Production
Planning & Control, 20 (7), 586–595.
Jordan, J.A., Jordan Jr, J.A., and Michel, F.J., 2001. The
lean company: making the right choices. Dearborn, MI:
Society of Manufacturing Engineering.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., 1992. The Balanced
Scorecard – measures that drive performance. Harvard
Business Review, Jan/Feb, 71–80.
Karlsson, C. and Ahlstrom, P., 1996. Assessing
changes towards lean production. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 16 (2), 24–41.
Karsak, E.E., Sozer, S., and Alptekin, S.E., 2002. Product
planning in quality function deployment using a combined
analytic network process and goal programming
approach. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 44 (1),
171–190.
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 09:42 02 October 2013
Karwowski, W., et al., 1994. Integrating people, organiza-
tion, and technology in advanced manufacturing: A
position paper based on the joint view of industrial
managers, engineers, consultants and researchers. The
International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing,
4 (1), 1–19.
Karwowski, W., et al., 1997. Human factors in manufactur-
ing. In: G. Salvendy, ed. Handbook of human factors and
ergonomics. New York: Wiley, 1865–1925.
Katayama, H. and Bennett, D., 1999. Agility, adaptability and
leanness: a comparison of concepts and a study of practice.
International Journal of Production Economics, 60/61, 43–51.
Kennerley, M. and Neely, A., 2003. Measuring performance
in a changing business environment. International Journal
of Operations and Production Management, 23 (1),
213–229.
Lee, J.W. and Kim, S.H., 2000. Using analytic network
process and goal programming for interdependent infor-
mation system project selection. Computers and Operations
Research, 27 (1), 367–382.
Leung, S. and Lee, W.B., 2004. Strategic manufacturing
capability pursuance: a conceptual framework.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11 (2), 156–174.
Levinson, W.A. and Rerick, R.A., 2002. Lean enterprise: a
synergistic approach to minimizing waste. Milwaukee, WI:
American Society for Quality.
Lichtenstein, B. and Brush, C., 2001. How do
‘‘resource bundles’’ develop and change in new
ventures? A dynamic model and longitudinal exploration.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25 (3), 37–59.
Mahidhar, V., 2005. Designing the lean enterprise perfor-
mance measurement systems. Master thesis. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
McIvor, R., 2001. Lean supply: the design and cost reduction
dimensions. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, 7 (1), 227–242.
Meade, L.M. and Presley, A., 2002. R&D project selection
using the analytic network process. IEEE Transactions of
Engineering Management, 49 (1), 59–66.
Nachmais, C.F. and Nachmais, D., 2008. Research methods
in the social sciences. 7th ed. New York, NY: Worth
Publishers.
15
Niepce, W. and Molleman, E., 1998. Work design issues in
lean production from a sociotechnical systems perspective:
neo-Taylorism or the next step in sociotechnical design?
Human Relations, 51 (3), 259–287.
Nightingale, D.J. and Mize, J.H., 2002. Development of a lean
enterprise transformation maturity model. Journal of
Information, Knowledge and Systems Management, 3 (1),
15–30.
Paez, O., et al., 2004. The Lean Manufacturing Enterprise: an
emerging sociotechnological System Integration. Human
Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 143 (1), 285–306.
Pavnaskar, S.J., Gerhenson, J.K., and Jambekar, A.B., 2003.
Classification scheme for lean manufacturing tool.
International Journal of Production Research, 41 (13),
3075–3090.
Radnor, Z.J. and Boaden, R., 2004. Developing and under-
standing of corporate anorexia. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 24 (4), 424–440.
Rother, M. and Shook, J., 1998. Learning to see – value
stream mapping to add value and eliminate muda.
Brookline, MA: The Lean Enterprise Institute.
Saaty, T.L., 1996. Decision making with dependence and
feedback: the analytic network process. Pittsburgh, PA:
RWS Publication.
Saaty, T.L. and Takizawa, M., 1986. Dependence and
independence: from linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks.
European Journal of Operational Research, 26 (1), 229–237.
Sanchez, A.M. and Perez, M.P., 2001. Lean indicators and
manufacturing strategies. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 21 (11), 1433–1452.
Sarkis, J., 2002. Quantitative models for performance
measurement systems alternative considerations.
International Journal of Production Economics, 86, 81–90.
Soriano-Meier, H. and Forrester, P.L., 2002. A model for
evaluating the degree of leanness of manufacturing firms.
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13 (2), 104–109.
Srinivasaraghavan, J. and Allada, V., 2006. Application of
Mahalanobis distance as a lean assessment metric.
International Journal of Advance Manufacturing
Technology, 29 (1), 1159–1168.
Vinodh, S. and Balaji, S.R., 2011. Fuzzy logic based leanness
assessment and its decision support system.
International Journal of Production Research, 49 (13),
4027–4041.
Vinodh, S., Gautham, S.G., and Anesh Ramiya, R., 2011.
Implementing lean sigma framework in Indian automotive
valves manufacturing organization: a case study.
Production Planning & Control, 22 (7), 708–722.
Wan, H. and Chen, F., 2006. An application of slacks-based
measure on quantifying leanness. In: Annual industrial
engineering research conference, Orlando, FL.
Wan, H. and Chen, F., 2008. A leanness measure of
manufacturing systems for quantifying impacts of lean
initiatives. International Journal of Production Research, 46
(23), 6567–6584.
Yin, R., 2003. Case study research: design and
methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi:
Sage Publications.