Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:216788 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Implementation
A methodology for effective of lean strategies
implementation of lean strategies
and its performance evaluation in
169
manufacturing organizations
Azharul Karim and Kazi Arif-Uz-Zaman
School of Engineering Systems, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop an effective methodology for implementing lean
manufacturing strategies and a leanness evaluation metric using continuous performance
measurement (CPM).
Design/methodology/approach – Based on five lean principles, a systematic lean implementation
methodology for manufacturing organizations has been proposed. A simplified leanness evaluation
metric consisting of both efficiency and effectiveness attributes of manufacturing performance has
been developed for continuous evaluation of lean implementation. A case study to validate the
proposed methodology has been conducted and proposed CPM metric has been used to assess the
manufacturing leanness.
Findings – Proposed methodology is able to systematically identify manufacturing wastes, select
appropriate lean tools, identify relevant performance indicators, achieve significant performance
improvement and establish lean culture in the organization. Continuous performance measurement
matrices in terms of efficiency and effectiveness are proved to be appropriate methods for continuous
evaluation of lean performance.
Research limitations/implications – Effectiveness of the method developed has been
demonstrated by applying it in a real life assembly process. However, more tests/applications will
be necessary to generalize the findings.
Practical implications – Results show that applying the methods developed, managers can
successfully identify and remove manufacturing wastes from their production processes. By
improving process efficiency, they can optimize their resource allocations. Manufacturers now have a
validated step by step methodology for successfully implementing lean strategies.
Originality/value – According to the authors’ best knowledge, this is the first known study that
proposed a systematic lean implementation methodology based on lean principles and continuous
improvement techniques. Evaluation of performance improvement by lean strategies is a critical issue.
This study develops a simplified leanness evaluation metric considering both efficiency and
effectiveness attributes and integrates it with the lean implementation methodology.
Keywords Leanness, Lean implementation methodology, Continuous performance measurement,
Lean strategies, Lean production, Performance management
Paper type Research paper
The organization of this paper is as follows. The Section 2 defines and explains the
basic concept of lean, lean principles, lean implementation methodologies, lean
assessment methods and current research gaps. Proposed lean implementation
methodology with different leanness measuring methods, continuous performance
measurement (CPM) technique has been discussed in the following section. The Section 4
describes the implementation of the proposed methodology by a case study to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the methodology. Finally the conclusions are presented
where limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are also presented.
2. Literature review
2.1 Lean process and principle
Lean approach was first pioneered by Toyota. However, the concept was first appeared
in a book named The Machine that Changed the World (Womack et al., 1991); which
mainly highlighted Japanese production methods as compared to traditional mass
production systems. The follow-on book, Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create
Wealth in Your Organization, was also a milestone contribution in the history of lean as
it summarizes the lean principles and coined the phrase “lean production”. The term
“lean” means a series of activities or solutions to minimize waste and NVA operations,
and improve the value added (VA) process. This VA and NVA concept was derived from
the Japanese style production, especially the TPS. Waste is defined as anything that
interferes with the smooth flow of production (MacDufile and Helper, 1997). Wastes
highlighted in TPS were overproduction, waiting, conveyance, over processing,
excess inventory, unnecessary movement, defects and unused employee creativity.
Brintrup et al. (2010) also pointed those stated wastes in terms of value drivers to
perform the improvement opportunities throughout the production and manufacturing
process. The term “lean process” in the literature has many definitions. Shah and Ward
(2007) defined lean process as “an integrated socio-technical system whose main
objective is to eliminate waste by concurrently reducing or minimizing supplier,
customer, and internal variability”. Hopp and Spearman (2004) defined lean as the
production of goods or services that minimizes buffering costs associated with excess
lead times, inventories, or capacity. According to other researchers (Rother and Shook,
1999; Abdulmaleka and Rajgopal, 2007) lean production means identification of all types
of waste in the value stream of supply chain and implementation of necessary tools to
eliminate them for minimizing lead time.
The lean philosophy seeks to reduce waste anywhere in the company, optimize core
resources and establish a corporate culture dedicated to identifying and continuously
BPMJ fostering customer satisfaction. This philosophy was based on lean principles.
19,1 The three core principles are identified as:
(1) identification of value;
(2) elimination of waste; and
(3) the generation of smooth flow (Womack et al., 1990).
172 These principles were further expanded by the same researchers into five principles
(Womack and Jones, 2003):
(1) Identifying customer defined value.
(2) Optimizing the value stream.
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
(3) Converting the value flow smoothly by controlling and eliminating wastes.
(4) Activating the demand pull by synchronizing customer demand and
information flow.
(5) Perfection of all products processes and services.
The customers create value for the organization based on needs, pricing, and timing for
products or services. So, this customer information and value transformation create the
value stream for the product demanded by customer. The VA steps for product creation
identify the product flow for production. Customers pull products from producers
through product order. The final principle integrates and perfects the system so the first
four principles can be effectively implemented. These principles guide the elimination of
waste and the simplification of all manufacturing and support processes.
their investment in implementing new lean strategies may desire certain theoretical ground
to assure that their investment decisions are logically sound (Wacker, 1998), it is necessary
to develop a methodology to implement appropriate lean strategies along with proper
methodology to evaluate the continuous performance improvement.
manufacturing system to determine the profit (Hofmann and Locker, 2009; Meade
and Kumar, 2010; Parry and Mills, 2010).
Process Type
Order Volume
Define System
Demand
Life Cycle
176 Management
Commitment
Lean
Transformation Yes
Culture
Value
Plan
Existing? Proposition
Knowledge of No
Lean
Lean Training Lean Team
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
Non-Value
Value
Added data Identify Wastes Stream
Time study
Value Stream mapping
Visual Control Existing System Performance
Yes Company
Objective
Knowledge Satisfies?
Management
No
Line Balancing
Concurrent Design New
Engineering
Method
TQM
TPM
Cellular Implement New
Manufacturing Method
SMED
Process Layout
Single Piece Flow
Flow
5S
Waste
No
Minimization
Accomplish?
Yes
Efficiency Proposed Performance
Effectiveness
Performance
Productivity
Overall Lean
Utilization
Assessment
VA/NVA Ratio
Throughput
Defect Rate
Value
NO Conformation
JIT
Satisfactory?
Process Integration
Cellular Pull
Manufacturing
Yes
Adaptive Method
implementation
methodology
3.4 Current process map Implementation
The next phase in the proposed methodology is to sketch the existing process status and of lean strategies
their interrelationships. Manufacturing processes are visualized and the value streams
of that process are identified using VSM, visual control and time study method.
Eventually this is the second principle of lean philosophy. This map represents all the
existing wastes, NVA activities in a process that transforms raw materials into a
finished good and includes flow of information and materials throughout the process. 177
Wu and Wee (2009) used VSM as a lean tool for measurable indices of cost and lead time
reduction through P-D-C-A cycle. In another research, Wan et al. (2007) measured the
leanness of VSM using cost, time, and output value through developing decision making
unit (DMU) in terms of both input and output values. Simulation modeling, which had
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
been used as an extended phase of VSM and process map to calculate time and
variability, was also developed to validate a future map of a process (Zarei and
Fakhrzad, 2011). Wan and Chen (2009) used VSM in their web-based lean assessment
models to identify possible areas of removing wastes and improvements. Karim et al.
(2010) proposed an on-time delivery (OTD) improvement model for manufacturing
organizations using event driven process chain (EPC) methodology. The proposed
methodology had identified VSM, time study and visual controls as the possible tools to
visualize current states of any process and identify wastes and NVA activities.
3.6 Design new process: lean tools, techniques and continuous improvement
3.6.1 Selection of appropriate lean tools. Selecting and implementing new lean tools and
techniques is the next phase of the project. Waste minimization is the core objective in
this phase. Various lean strategies have been developed to reduce the non-value adding
activities and enhance leanness of manufacturing systems. However, the selection of
lean strategies should be in such a way that implementing lean strategies should not
increase other non-value adding activities in the manufacturing process. Therefore,
appropriate lean strategies must be selected to eliminate wastes or improve the
performance metrics in the manufacturing process. Moreover, it would be preferable to
select the lean strategies that have the most overall impact on the identified wastes or
performance metrics, according to manufacturer’s priority. As a result, applying the
appropriate tool/s at the right time within the budget for the right type of company is
very important. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a proper relationship between
the closely related lean strategies and manufacturing wastes. An overall concept of
how the facility should ideally operate is developed and expressed here which follows
the third principle of lean, i.e. flow of the production.
BPMJ Lean thinking starts with customer demands and finishes with delivering values to
19,1 customers removing possible wastes and NVA activities. For this reason, researchers
and lean practitioners use different lean tools for different production environments.
Lewis’ (2000) analysis confirmed that organizations do not all follow the same path or
employ the same tools in their efforts to develop a lean production system. White et al.
(1999) compared the implementations of lean production techniques at small and large
178 US manufacturers. Results of the study showed that large manufacturers were more
likely to implement these techniques than the small US manufacturers. Although some
of the techniques provided better results depending on the firm size; practices such as
setup time reduction, multifunction employees and Kanban system provide better
organizational performance regardless of firm size. In another research, Jina and
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
Bhattacharya (1997) pointed out that it is difficult to apply lean principles to the “high
product variety and low volumes” environments due to turbulences in schedule, product
mix, volume, and design. In adaptive assessment model, Wan and Chen (2009) identified
12 groups of lean tools (Autonomation, concurrent engineering, line balancing,
manufacturing cell, productivity, pull, quality, single minute exchange of die (SMED),
standard work, visual control, VSM, and worker flexibility) to implement in two type of
systems (quantitative and repetitiveness of product). Shah and Ward (2003) identified 22
lean practices and classified these practices into four main categories: just-in-time, total
productive maintenance, total quality management, and human resource management.
VSM technique developed by Rother and Shook (1999) becomes one of the most
commonly used lean tools. Current state and future state maps visually display the flow
of value streams together with time-based performance pressing a sense of urgency and
indicating improvement opportunities. Melton (2005) also suggested five key lean tools
especially for process industries namely, kanban, 5S, visual control, Poke Yoke and
SMEDs. Eswaramoorthi and Kathiresan (2011) pointed out 36 different lean tools for
machine tool industry. Pavnaskar et al. (2003) identified 101 lean manufacturing tools
and developed a seven-level classification scheme to categorize these tools. It can be seen
that many researchers had discussed and proposed some of the more commonly
implemented lean manufacturing tools (Shah and Ward, 2007; Karlsson and Ahlstrom,
1996; Detty and Yingling, 2000; Sánchez and Pérez, 2011; Motwani, 2003; Bhasin and
Burcher, 2006). The most commonly used lean tools which are especially applicable in
this step of designing new method are line balancing, concurrent engineering, cellular
manufacturing, process layout, 5S, SMED, TQM, TPM, and Autonomation. However,
selection and implementation these tools strongly depend on the product volume and
initial investment capability of the company. It is challenging to identify the right lean
tool based on the current production process of a company. The first author of this paper
has developed a comprehensive methodology to identify appropriate lean strategies to
reduce the most critical wastes from the manufacturing process (Al Amin and Karim,
2012). This method can be used to select right lean tools within manufacturer’s resource
constraint.
After selecting and implementing suitable lean tools, the performance and efficiency
of the proposed process will be further evaluated in the next phase. CPM method is
again applied here to compare the system efficiency based on lean implementation.
3.6.2 Continuous performance improvement techniques and tools. According to the
fourth principle of lean, production process should be arranged like a pull system
where the wastes are eliminated from the process and the flow of the product is smooth
and with minimum NVA activities. Various lean adaptive methods (just-in-time, Implementation
cellular manufacturing, and process integration) are applied in this phase to confirm of lean strategies
the value of the customer with minimum wastes in the process. For any change or
improvement in the process, manufacturer needs to confirm and adopt that approach
and for this reason, this adoptive method is the essential phase of lean implementation
project. The final phase is the establishment of long-term method. Anvari et al. (2010)
included continuous improvement techniques as a change agent in third stage (lean 179
implementation) of his three stage lean implementation road map. Hobbs (2004)
implemented Kaizen as a continuous improvement method in his methodological
model of lean manufacturing. Wan and Chen (2009) developed a web-based decision
tool using adaptive lean assessment approach where they used continuous
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
improvement stage (final stage) to assess manufacturing leanness. The culture for
continuous improvement techniques are developed and every personnel related to
process are willing to change their mind set as well as working attitude towards lean
system or continuous improvement philosophy.
The lean implementation methodology described above has developed a general
road map considering lean principle and lean tools together. The overall objective is to
implement lean tools in manufacturing process as well as to develop continuous
improvement techniques within organizations. The overall performance of the
manufacturing process is measured by considering both effectiveness and efficiency of
the production process.
However, there are some limitations of this proposed methodology. The method
suggests that at early stage of lean implementation, a lean team needs to be formed
with skilled personnel from different department of the company. The team members
should have sufficient expertise in lean strategies and implementation methodology.
Many companies may not have people with this expertise. A team member without
necessary knowledge and skills adversely affect the overall success of the project and
can measure unrealistic performance of production system. Identification of key
performance indicators is also crucial for leanness evaluation. Sometimes, it is not
possible to identify and measure all the measures of performance indicators in a
specific company. Finally, implementation of this method may be costly and time
consuming but new methods and techniques need to be applied within company’s
budget and resources.
the personnel related to process need to change their mind set as well as working
attitude towards lean system or continuous improvement philosophy.
Figure 2.
Lean implementation
project team
BPMJ improvements on new assembly layout and process in terms of efficiency and
19,1 effectiveness. The lean team also formed a skilled operator team (consisted of operators
from different production departments) and set monthly meeting and discussions
among the operators. In that meeting, the operators discussed about new techniques to
be implemented in their production floor. The objective of forming that team was to set
a culture of discussion and continuous improvement among operators.
182 It is a practice that most of the companies report performance improvement to
justify the implementation of new tools and methods. However, there is no standard
way of reporting the performance improvement. Therefore, identification of right
performance variables is essential and crucial for lean implementation. Researchers
had identified many performance indicators but most widely used variables are time,
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
cost, quality and flexibility. In this project, time (processing times and lead times) had
been extensively used to evaluate efficiency and productivity for the assembly process
of cubicle modules.
The lean team broke down the total assembly process into different sub-functions and
tasks to get better picture of the process. The existing process is shown in Figure 3.
The activities which did not add values to the final product were termed as NVA
activities and wastes. As shown in, first two stages of assembly process had NVA
activities namely unload container of raw materials, unpack box and separate them.
Before accessory assembly, there was also a significant amount of delay in that process.
Similarly, other unpacking tasks and paper works had been considered as NVA tasks.
Operators needed to travel a total of 251 meters in the production floor according to the
existing layout of the cubicle assembly process. The team further investigated the
assembly process with time study to evaluate the wastes in the existing system.
Here time study for an operator who worked in RC cubicle assembly process had been
conducted and shown in Figure 4.
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
Get cables
From
Cable
Room
Walking
Recycle Deliver Wait for Back and
and Cubicle Hanger Forth to
Walk to Get
80 m
Rubbish To Unit 1 1 day Walk to bench
Dexion Dexion Door
20 m 10 m 10 m 20 m 15 m 15 m 15 m 15
15 m
m 50 m
Dexion WIP Breather 10
Unload 2 weeks Unpack box m 1 day 0m Fit Doors Fit Fit Fit WA3
20 & Earth
Containe & separate & Hardware Housing Aux
Frame Supply
Deliver 15 m
Other parts
To Unit 1 Get rating Rating Cut Door
Plate Plate Rods
B = 150
Route Cables
Fit Modules Total Distance
15 m 15 m 5m 15 m Travelled/Walked
per Cubicle 251 m
Fit BAT Fit MPM Fit MPM Paper work
Unpack
WA01 Label & Door
modules
Value Added
Delay Storage
Operation
19,1
184
BPMJ
Figure 4.
Time study sheet for RC
cubicle assembly process
TIME STUDY RESULTS
No: Stop Watch Element Description Time Non Value Added (NVA) Activities
3.walk to 5.Unpack&
2.walk to 4.get
get disassembl 6.inspection/
parts parts e
0 0:00:13 1. Adjust tools paperwork 7.handling 8.cleaning 9.rework
1 0:00:16 2 Walk to stock shelf to get cubicle 0:00:03 0:00:03 0:00:00
2 0:00:30 4 take cubicle to hanger 0:00:14 0:00:14 0:00:00
3 0:00:39 7 fit to hanger 0:00:09 0:00:09 0:00:00
4 0:00:41 2 walk to bench 0:00:02 0:00:02 0:00:00
5 0:00:48 4 get earth stickers 0:00:07 0:00:07 0:00:00
6 0:00:50 2 walk back to cubicle 0:00:02 0:00:02 0:00:00
7 0:00:56 10 apply earth stickers 0:00:06 0:00:06
8 0:01:02 2 walk to parts 0:00:06 0:00:06 0:00:00
9 0:01:10 4 get parts 0:00:08 0:00:08 0:00:00
10 0:01:12 2 walk back to cubicle 0:00:02 0:00:02 0:00:00
11 0:01:32 10 fit glands to cubicle 0:00:20 0:00:20
12 0:01:34 2 walk back to parts bench 0:00:02 0:00:02 0:00:00
13 0:01:36 4 get radio tray 0:00:02 0:00:02 0:00:00
14 0:01:45 5 unpack radio tray 0:00:09 0:00:09 0:00:00
15 0:01:50 4 get wing nuts 0:00:05 0:00:05 0:00:00
16 0:01:52 2 walk back to cubicle 0:00:02 0:00:02 0:00:00
17 0:02:21 10 fit radio tray to cubicle with wing nuts x4 0:00:29 0:00:29
18 0:02:22 2 walk to bench 0:00:01 0:00:01 0:00:00
19 0:02:29 3 get screws 0:00:07 0:00:07 0:00:00
20 0:02:35 3 walk to bench to get tools 0:00:06 0:00:06 0:00:00
21 0:02:38 2 walk back to cubicle 0:00:03 0:00:03 0:00:00
22 0:02:41 2 walk to bench 0:00:03 0:00:03 0:00:00
23 0:03:02 4 get screws 0:00:21 0:00:21 0:00:00
24 0:03:05 2 walk back to cubicle 0:00:03 0:00:03 0:00:00
25 0:03:15 10 fit door upper hinges to cubicle 0:00:10 0:00:10
26 0:03:39 7 put nuts on 0:00:24 0:00:24 0:00:00
27 0:03:45 10 fit door lower hinges to cubicle 0:00:06 0:00:06
28 0:04:08 7 put nuts on 0:00:23 0:00:23 0:00:00
29 0:04:28 7 tight nuts with spanner 0:00:20 0:00:20 0:00:00
Time to complete the entire assembly process had been recorded by time study Implementation
method. Total process had been broken down into 302 motions and the operator took of lean strategies
about 62 min to complete that job. The team also found that, the operator spent more
than half of the time (34.46 min) on non-value adding tasks and only 27.15 min on value
adding tasks. Nine types of NVA activities had been identified in that process
including adjusting parts, walk to hold parts, walk to get tools, get parts, unpack and
disassembly, inspection, handling parts and tools, cleaning, rework. 185
These NVA times were then further analyzed and found that majority of the wastes
(around 49 percent) came from walking, holding and handling the parts and tools.
Distance travelled by the operator (251 meters), shortage of appropriate tool and poor
quality of product were the three main reasons for those major wastes. Detail
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
19,1
186
BPMJ
Figure 5.
CPM for existing
assembly process
Continuous Performance Measurement (CPM) Sheet (Before lean Implementation)
Hours Worked
Date: 05/11/2008 Time to complete 1 Unit in Mins Average Pitch Time (APT) in Mins Daily target @100 % Capacity Operators 1 2 3
1 st Operator 1 62
2 nd Operator 2 79 69 20 Yes Yes Yes
7.00-8.00
3 rd Operator 3 67
Yes Yes Yes
8.00-9.00
`
Time Units produced Yes Yes Yes
9.00-10.00
1 2 3 4 5
1 st Operator Red Time Time Lost Operator Reason Yes Yes Yes
10.00-11.00
7.00-9.30 2 nd Operator
1 30 mins 2 No Cable
3 rd Operator Yes Yes Yes
11.00-12.00
1 st Operator
2 72 mins 3 No holes for Maxico Radio
9.30-12.00 2 nd Operator 1 Rest Rest Rest
12.00-13.00
3 rd Operator
1 st Operator Yes Yes Yes
13.00-14.00
1.00-3.30 2 nd Operator 2
3 rd Operator Yes Yes Yes
14.00-15.00
working stations, and the machines located in optimum distance for operators which
actually reduced walking distances among them. Handling problems were identified as
the second most crucial waste in the process. The work station had been separated
with specific task allocations for each operator which ultimately balanced the
workloads. Eventually the handling waste was minimized by the separation of the
tasks. In order to overcome the problem related to shortage of parts and tools in work
stations, different trolleys in each work station was allocated with necessary tools and
working parts. These changes had significantly reduced the walking distances as well
as time required for holding and handling tools and parts.
5.6.1 Proposed process map. As mentioned earlier, the lean project team separated
the assembly floor into three separate work stations to balance the assembly process.
Three operators then worked separately in those stations to complete a whole cubicle
assembly unit. In the first station, operator did the main frame assembly and fitted
breather, earth, doors and other housing frames to the main cubicle frame. The next
station was named as cable connection station as all the auxiliary cables and accessories
were connected to the main frame in this station. In the last station, which is termed as
“final assembly”, operator assembled all the modules, battery and other accessories to
complete the cubicle assembly process. All these processes are shown in Figure 6.
The new layout was designed with the aim of significant reductions in distance
travelled by operators and processing time. In the redesigned process, the travel
distance was 60 meters compared to original distance of 251 meters. The proposed
layout had reduced a significant amount of processing time from the process.
19,1
188
BPMJ
Figure 6.
Proposed cubicle
assembly process map
Work Station 1 Work Station 2 Work Station 3
20 m 30 m 10 m
Unload Container Dexion 2 weeks Unpack Box & Seperate P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P10 P11 Paper Work
19,1
190
BPMJ
Figure 7.
CPM after lean
implementation
Continuous Performance Measurement (CPM) Sheet (After lean Implementation)
Hours Worked
Date: 02/02/2009 Time to complete 1 Sub- Unit in Mins Average Pitch Time (APT) in Mins Daily target @100 % Capacity Operators 1 2 3
1 st Operator 1 18
2 nd Operator 2 18 51 26 Yes Yes Yes
7.00-8.00
3 rd Operator 3 16
Total
otal Units 19 Half Half Half
15.00-16.00
.
The proposed leanness measuring metric (CPM) and lean implementation
method are innovative new models.
.
Manufacturers can evaluate the process efficiency and effectiveness
continuously to identify and monitor firm performance.
.
The proposed lean implementation methodology can be applied in
manufacturing organizations (especially in assembly productions) to improve
operational performance.
7. Conclusions
Increasing global competitiveness worldwide has forced manufacturing organizations
to produce high-quality products at a faster rate and at a competitive cost. In order to
reach these goals, today’s manufacturing organizations are required to compete with
modern manufacturing paradigms such as lean manufacturing and continuous
improvement techniques. Despite the great potential of lean manufacturing strategies,
many studies reported about failures in achieving expected outcome from lean
implementation. Because of following inappropriate method in implementing lean
strategies, changes caused disruptions in the process instead of expected improvement.
Literature reported numerous methods and models to measure the effectiveness of lean
implementation. These matrices and models include qualitative, quantitative, survey
based and fuzzy logic-based matrices. Most of them have little practical application as
manufacturers are overwhelmed with the number and complexity of the performance
measurement methods.
In this paper, a structures methodology of implementing lean strategies had been
proposed and a new method of leanness evaluation metric (CPM) had been introduced.
Note
1. For reasons of confidentiality, the name of the manufacturer cannot be disclosed. EXCEL
Limited is a pseudonym.
References
Abdulmaleka, F.A. and Rajgopal, J. (2007), “Analyzing the benefits of lean manufacturing and
value stream mapping via simulation: a process sector case study”, Int. J. Prod. Economics,
Vol. 107, pp. 223-36.
Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2006), “Critical success factors for lean
implementation within SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 17, pp. 460-71.
Agus, A. and Hajinoor, M.S. (2012), “Lean production supply chain management as driver
towards enhancing product quality and business performance”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 92-121.
Allway, M. and Corbett, S. (2002), “Shifting to lean service: stealing a page from manufacturers’
playbooks”, Journal of Organizational Excellence, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 45-54.
Amin, A.A. and Karim, M.A. (2012), “A time based quantitative approach for selecting lean
strategies for manufacturing organizations”, International Journal of Production Research
(in press, accepted on 10 April) .
Anvari, A.R., Norzima, Z., Rosnay, M.Y., Hojjati, M.S.H. and Ismail, Y. (2010), “A comparative
study on journey of lean manufacturing implementation”, AIJSTPME, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 77-85.
Bayou, M.E. and de Korvin, A. (2008), “Measuring the leanness of manufacturing systems: a case
study of Ford Motor Company and General Motors”, Journal of Engineering & Technology
Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 287-304.
Behrouzi, F. and Wong, K.Y. (2011), “Lean performance evaluation of manufacturing systems:
a dynamic and innovative approach”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 3, pp. 388-95.
Bhasin, S. and Burcher, P. (2006), “Lean viewed as a philosophy”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
Brintrup, A., Ranasinghe, D. and McFarlane, D. (2010), “RFID opportunity analysis for leaner
manufacturing”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 9, pp. 2745-64.
Browning, T.R. and Heath, R.D. (2009), “Reconceptualizing the effects of lean on production costs
with evidence from the F-22 program”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 23-44.
Dai, J.B. and Lee, N.K.S. (2009), “Performance analysis of flexible material handling systems for Implementation
the apparel industry”, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., Vol. 44, pp. 1219-29.
of lean strategies
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,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 429-45.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14, pp. 532-50. 193
Eswaramoorthi, M. and Kathiresan, G.R. (2011), “A survey on lean practices in Indian machine
tool industries”, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., Vol. 52, pp. 1091-101.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1995), “The impact of quality management
practices on performance and competitive advantage”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26,
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
pp. 659-91.
Fogarty, D.W. (1992), “Work in process: performance measures”, Int. J. Prod. Economics, Vol. 26,
pp. 169-72.
Fullerton, R.R. and Wempe, W.F. (2009), “Lean manufacturing, non-financial performance
measures, and financial performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 214-40.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Gunasekaran, A. and Kobu, B. (2007), “Performance measures and metrics in logistics and
supply chain management: a review of recent literature (1995-2004) for research and
applications”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 12, pp. 2819-40.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and McGayghey, R.E. (2004), “A framework for supply chain
performance measurement”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3,
pp. 333-47.
Hobbs, D.P. (2004), Lean Manufacturing Implementation: A Complete Execution Manual for Any
Size Manufacturer, J. Ross Pub, Boca Raton, FL.
Hofmann, E. and Locker, A. (2009), “Value-based performance measurement in supply chains:
a case study from the packaging industry”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 68-81.
Hon, K.K.B. (2003), Performance and Evaluation of Manufacturing Systems, Department of
Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
Hopp, W.J. and Spearman, M.L. (2004), “To pull or not to pull: what is the question?”,
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 133-48.
Jina, J. and Bhattacharya, A.K. (1997), “Applying lean principles for high product variety and low
volumes: some issues and propositions”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 5-13.
Karim, M.A., Smith, A.J. and Halgamuge, S. (2008a), “A comparative study of manufacturing
practices and performance variables”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 112, pp. 841-59.
Karim, M.A., Smith, A.J. and Halgamuge, S. (2008b), “Empirical relationships between some
manufacturing practices and performance”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 46 No. 13, pp. 3583-613.
Karim, M.A., Samaranayake, P., Smith, A.J. and Halgamuge, S. (2010), “An on-time delivery
improvement model for manufacturing organisations”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 2373-94.
BPMJ Karlsson, C. and Ahlstrom, P. (1996), “Assessing changes towards lean production”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16, pp. 24-41.
19,1
Kuhlang, P., Edtmayr, T. and Sihn, W. (2011), “Methodical approach to increase productivity and
reduce lead time in assembly and production-logistic processes”, CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology, Vol. 4.
Leung, H. (2002), “A research in manufacturing strategy and competitiveness: models and
194 practices”, PhD thesis, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
Leung, S. and Lee, W.B. (2004), “Strategic manufacturing capability pursuance: a conceptual
framework”, Benchmarking: An Int. Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 156-74.
Levinson, W.A. and Rerick, R.A. (2002), Lean Enterprise: A Synergistic Approach to Minimizing
Waste, AsQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
Lewis, M.A. (2000), “Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 959-78.
MacDufile, J.P. and Helper, S. (1997), “Creating lean suppliers: diffusing lean production through
the supply chain”, paper presented at International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP),
FY’97 IMVP working papers.
Marvel, J.H. and Standridge, C.R. (2009), “A simulation-enhanced lean design process”, Journal of
Industrial Engineering & Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 90-113.
Meade, D. and Kumar, S. (2010), “Analysing the impact of the implementation of lean
manufacturing strategies on profitability”, Journal of the Operational Research Society,
Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 858-71.
Mejabi, O.O. (2003), “Framework for a lean manufacturing planning system”, International
Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 563-78.
Melton, T. (2005), “The benefits of lean manufacturing: what lean thinking has to offer the
process industries”, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 662-73.
Moore, J. and Gibbons, S.M. (1997), “Is lean manufacturing universally relevant? An integrative
methodology”, International Journal of Operations & Product Management, Vol. 17 No. 9,
pp. 899-911.
Moore, R. (2007), Selecting the Right Manufacturing Improvement Tools, Saunders, M., Lewis, P.,
and Thornhill, A. (Eds), Elsevier Science & Technology Books, Maryland Heights, MO.
Motwani, J. (2003), “A business process change framework for examining lean manufacturing:
a case study”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103 No. 5, pp. 339-46.
Papadopoulou, T.C. and Ozbayrak, M. (2005), “Leanness: experiences from the journey to date”,
Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 784-807.
Parry, G. and Mills, J. (2010), “Lean competence: integration of theories in operations
management practice”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 216-26.
Pavnaskar, S.J., Gershenson, J.K. and Jambekar, A.B. (2003), “Classification scheme for lean
manufacturing tools”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 13, p. 16.
Rother, M. and Shook, J. (1999), Learning to See – Value Stream Mapping to Create Value and
Eliminate Muda, Version 1.2, The Lean Enterprise Institute Brookline, Brookline, MA,
available at: www.lean.org
Sánchez, A.M. and Pérez, M.P. (2011), “Lean indicators and manufacturing strategies”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 11, pp. 1433-51.
Schonbergerm, R.J. (2007), “Japanese production management: an evolution with mixed success”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp. 403-19.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and Implementation
performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, pp. 129-49.
of lean strategies
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of lean production”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 785-805.
Soriano-Meier, H. and Forrester, P.L. (2002), “A model for evaluating the degree of leanness of
manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13,
pp. 104-9. 195
Sun, C.-C. (2010), “A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS
methods”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 12, pp. 7745-54.
Tiwari, A., Turner, C. and Sackett, P. (2007), “A framework for implementing cost and quality
practices within manufacturing”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
Further reading
Bhasin, S. (2008), “Lean and performance measurement”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 670-84.
Deif, A. (2010), “Computer simulation to manage lean manufacturing systems”, 2nd International
Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology, Vol. 6, pp. 677-81.
BPMJ Feld, W.M. (2001), Lean Manufacturing: Tools, Techniques, and How to Use Them, Lucie Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
19,1 Liker, J.K. (1998), “Introduction: bringing lean back to the USA”, in Liker, J.K. (Ed.), Becoming
Lean, Inside Storied of US Manufacturers, Productivity Press, Portland, OR, pp. 3-40.
Samson, D. and Terziovski, M. (1999), “The relationship between total quality management
practices and operational performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17,
196 pp. 393-409.
developed/invented energy and water efficient ultrasonic washing machine (patent WO02089652)
and ultrasonic dishwasher (patent no. WO0229148). He has significant contribution in product
quality and manufacturing process improvement. Using a wide variety of research methods,
he investigated the challenging problems faced by the manufacturers and developed improvement
models to overcome them. He also has substantial industry experience in manufacturing process
improvement. During his research/teaching career, he successfully led different research and
product development projects involving $1.7 million grant. He has more than 60 peer reviewed
research papers in high impact international journals and conference proceedings with more than
160 citations. He has chaired many reputed conferences and is reviewer of many reputed journals.
His current research interests include solar thermal storage, low cost concentrating collector,
lean manufacturing and manufacturing data mining. Azharul Karim is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: azharul.karim@qut.edu.au
Kazi Arif-Uz-Zaman is a Postgraduate Research Student in the School of Engineering
Systems at QUT.
1. Martin Dörnhöfer, Falk Schröder, Willibald A. Günthner. 2016. Logistics performance measurement
system for the automotive industry. Logistics Research 9:1. . [CrossRef]
2. NawanirGusman Gusman Nawanir Gusman Nawanir is a PhD candidate in the School of Technology
Management and Logistics at the Universiti Utara Malaysia. His bachelor degree was in industrial
engineering department at the Andalas University. His master of science was completed in operations
management program (by full research) at the College of Business of Universiti Utara Malaysia. His main
research interests include Lean manufacturing, inventory management and performance measurement.
He has published his papers in several journals and conferences. LimKong Teong Kong Teong Lim Dr
Kong Teong Lim is an Associate Professor of Operations Management and former Head of Department
of Operations Management at Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM). He received his BSc in Applied
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
Statistics in 1991, MSc in Mathematics (Applied Statistics) in 1993 from Universiti Sains Malaysia and
PhD in Quality Management in 2003 from UUM. He has been at UUM since 1994. His primary
research and publication areas are quality improvement and management, production and operations
management, Lean operations, knowledge management, performance management and appraisal. His
teaching interests are in the areas of quality management, statistical process control and improvement,
production management and statistical data analysis. He is a member of the Editorial Board for the
Journal of Technology and Operations Management. In addition, he was also appointed as the external
course assessor for the course operations management, as well as the reviewer for academic papers
published in local and international journals and conference proceedings. OthmanSiti Norezam Siti
Norezam Othman Dr Siti Norezam Othman is an Associate Professor of Operations Management at
Universiti Utara Malaysia. She attained her Doctor of Engineering in Engineering Management from
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in 2007. Her research interests cover topics in supplier-buyer relationships,
technology transfer, technology assessment and operations management. In relation to her research
interest, she has supervised PhDs and Master students. She is also the managing editor for Journal of
Technology and Operations Management as well as referee for journal and proceeding articles, and was
nominated as internal examiner for postgraduate thesis. She has authored a number of academic papers for
journals, international conferences and modules. To strengthen her research interest, she affiliates with
the International Association of Management of Technology. School of Technology Management and
Logistics, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia . 2016. Lean manufacturing practices in Indonesian
manufacturing firms. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 7:2, 149-170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Guilherme Luz Tortorella, Giuliano Almeida Marodin, Diego de Castro Fettermann, Flavio Sanson
Fogliatto. 2016. Relationships between lean product development enablers and problems. International
Journal of Production Research 54:10, 2837-2855. [CrossRef]
4. Osama Alaskari School of Science and Engineering, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK Mohammad
Munir Ahmad School of Science and Engineering, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK Ruben
Pinedo-Cuenca School of Science and Engineering, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK . 2016.
Development of a methodology to assist manufacturing SMEs in the selection of appropriate lean tools.
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 7:1, 62-84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Roba Salem, Farayi Musharavati, Abdel Magid Hamouda, Khalifa N. Al-Khalifa. 2016. An empirical study
on lean awareness and potential for lean implementations in Qatar industries. The International Journal
of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 82:9-12, 1607-1625. [CrossRef]
6. Ala'a Abuhejleh, Mohammed Dulaimi, Samer Ellahham. 2016. Using Lean management to leverage
innovation in healthcare projects: case study of a public hospital in the UAE. BMJ Innovations 2:1, 22-32.
[CrossRef]
7. Rabiha Asnan, Norani Nordin, Siti Norezam Othman. 2015. Managing Change on Lean Implementation
in Service Sector. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 211, 313-319. [CrossRef]
8. Vikram Sharma Mechanical-Mechatronics Engineering Department, The LNM Institute of Information
Technology, Jaipur, India Amit Rai Dixit Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian School of
Mines, Dhanbad, India Mohammad Asim Qadri Mechanical Engineering Department, Galgotias College
of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida, India . 2015. Impact of lean practices on performance
measures in context to Indian machine tool industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
26:8, 1218-1242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Waleed K. Mirdad, Chinweike I. Eseonu. 2015. A Conceptual Map of the Lean Nomenclature: Comparing
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
Expert Classification to the Lean Literature. Engineering Management Journal 27:4, 188-202. [CrossRef]
10. Zhixiang Chen Department of Management Science, School of Business, Sun Yat-Sen University,
Guangzhou, China . 2015. The relationships among JIT, TQM and production operations performance.
Business Process Management Journal 21:5, 1015-1039. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. TickFei Chay Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Mechanical Engineering Division,
Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Setapak, Kuala Lumpur AND Manufacturing and Materials
Department, School of Applied Sciences Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK YuChun Xu Manufacturing
and Materials Department, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK Ashutosh Tiwari Manufacturing and
Materials Department, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK FooSoon Chay Faculty of Applied Sciences
and Computing, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Johor, Malaysia . 2015. Towards lean
transformation: the analysis of lean implementation frameworks. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management 26:7, 1031-1052. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Guilherme Luz Tortorella, Giuliano Almeida Marodin, Flávio Sanson Fogliatto, Rogério Miorando. 2015.
Learning organisation and human resources management practices: an exploratory research in medium-
sized enterprises undergoing a lean implementation. International Journal of Production Research 53:13,
3989-4000. [CrossRef]
13. Guilherme Luz Tortorella, Giuliano Almeida Marodin, Rogério Miorando, André Seidel. 2015. The
impact of contextual variables on learning organization in firms that are implementing lean: a study in
Southern Brazil. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 78:9-12, 1879-1892.
[CrossRef]
14. Andrés Jiménez-Ramírez, Barbara Weber, Irene Barba, Carmelo Del Valle. 2015. Generating optimized
configurable business process models in scenarios subject to uncertainty. Information and Software
Technology 57, 571-594. [CrossRef]
15. Sherif Mostafa, Sang-Heon Lee, Jantanee Dumrak, Nicholas Chileshe, Hassan Soltan. 2015. Lean
thinking for a maintenance process. Production & Manufacturing Research 3:1, 236-272. [CrossRef]
16. Xinwei Zhu International School of Software, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China Jan Recker Information
System School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia Guobin Zhu International
School of Software, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China Flávia Maria Santoro Applied Informatics
Department, Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil . 2014. Exploring
location-dependency in process modeling. Business Process Management Journal 20:6, 794-815. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
17. Saja Albliwi Department of Design Manufacture and Engineering Management, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, UK Jiju Antony Department of Business Management, School of Management and Languages,
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK Sarina Abdul Halim Lim Department of Design Manufacture
and Engineering Management, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK Ton van der Wiele Department
of Management of Technology and Innovation, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University,
Rotterdam, Netherlands . 2014. Critical failure factors of Lean Six Sigma: a systematic literature review.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 31:9, 1012-1030. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Ioannis Belekoukias, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Vikas Kumar. 2014. The impact of lean methods and
tools on the operational performance of manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Production
Research 52:18, 5346-5366. [CrossRef]
19. Dr Thomas Kohlborn, Dr Oliver Mueller, Professor Jens Poeppelbuss and Dr Maximilian Roeglinger
Jan vom Brocke University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Principality of Liechtenstein Theresa Schmiedel
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)