Original article

20th Anniversary Volume

Optimisation of large-scale food production using Lean

Manufacturing principles
Eva Høy Engelund,* Gitte Breum† and Alan Friis*
*Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark; †The Central Kitchen, Glostrup Hospital,
DK-2600 Glostrup, Denmark

Abstract

Correspondence: This paper discusses how the production principles of Lean Manufacturing
Eva Høy Engelund, The (Lean) can be applied in a large-scale meal production. Lean principles are
National Food Institute briefly presented, followed by a field study of how a kitchen at a Danish
Building 227,1.,
Technical University of
hospital has implemented Lean in the daily production. In the kitchen, the
Denmark, DK-2800 main purposes of implementing Lean were to rationalise internal procedures
Lyngby, Denmark. Tel: and to increase production efficiency following a change from cook-serve
+45 45255505; Fax: production to cook-chill, and a reduction in the number of employees. It was
+45 45939600; E-mail: also important that product quality and working environment should not be
ehe@food.dtu.dk
negatively affected by the rationalisation of production procedures. The field
Keywords: study shows that Lean principles can be applied in meal production and can
foodservice, Lean result in increased production efficiency and systematic improvement of
Manufacturing, meal product quality without negative effects on the working environment. The
production, meals, results show that Lean can be applied and used to manage the production of
optimisation, planning
meals in the kitchen.

packing, hot fill and similar packing methods,

Introduction
Public foodservice in many countries, including
Denmark, is currently undergoing changes
(Hwang et al. 1999; Silverman et al. 2000; Mibey
& Williams 2002; Engelund et al. 2007). Tradi-
tionally, foodservice has been organized with
meal production carried out in kitchens placed
near the end-users of the services. To reduce pro-
duction costs, sites have been concentrated in
fewer, larger kitchens from where food is distrib-
uted to satellite kitchens for final preparation and
serving (Engelund et al. 2007). This restructuring
has often been combined with a change in pro-
duction methods and production technologies
used to increase output quantities. Cook-chill is
the prevalent production principle that is often
combined with the use of modified atmosphere
which all aim at prolonging the shelf life of meals
(Benner et al. 2003; McClelland & Williams
2003). Cook-chill systems are more efficient than
traditional cook-serve production, and generally
bring the possibility of reducing staff and thereby
costs of production (Clark 1997; McClelland &
Williams 2003).
The replacement of traditional cooking proce-
dures with cook-chill technology and concurrent
separation of cooking and serving introduce a
new paradigm in a large-scale meal production.
When technology changes and output reaches a
certain size, the traditional cooking procedures
established for smaller scale cook-serve pro-
duction are no longer suitable. They do not
automatically fit production systems with in-
creased scales of output because criteria, such as

4 © 2008, The Authors

Journal compilation © 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 4–14
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0159.2008.00109.x

volume-to-surface ratio and product time tem-
perature history, are altered (Rodgers 2005c).
Internal production processes must change to
reflect the demands for increased output, espe-
cially when the number of employees is simul-
taneously reduced. Hence, the rethinking of
procedures and management of operations are
becoming increasingly necessary to maintain the
control of product quality when changing pro-
duction systems (Rodgers 2005b).
An industrial production principle, ‘Lean
Manufacturing’ (Lean), which originally stems
from the mass production of automobiles, has
successfully been applied to manage a variety of
production and service industries, and resulted
in both increased efficiency of procedures and
improved product quality (Bowen & Youngdahl
1998; Bicheno 2004). As large-scale foodservice
in general is facing demands for increased effi-
ciency of production, the application of mana-
gement principles in the foodservice sector is
becoming increasingly relevant.
Applications of Lean in the food industry have
been described and discussed previously (Cox
& Chicksand 2005; Lehtinen & Torkko 2005;
Stevenson & Jain 2005; Simons & Zokaei 2006;
Taylor 2006); however, this does not include the
applicability of Lean in the production of meals
for catering purposes.
This paper discusses the possibility of using
Lean Manufacturing principles in the manage-
ment of large-scale catering, and incorporates a
field study with the practical implementation in a
large kitchen. It commences with an introduction
to Lean, followed by a presentation of the case
kitchen and a description of the implementation
of Lean.
Lean Manufacturing
Lean Manufacturing originally stemmed from the
Japanese car producer Toyota. The production
principle was later described and conceptualised
by Womack & Jones (2003) and Bicheno (2004),
who found Toyota’s car production highly com-
petitive and superior to western production
systems, and made it their mission to spread the
knowledge of this production principle. To reflect
the fitness of the system, they gave it the name
‘Lean’. Car production can be characterised as
© 2008, The Authors
Journal compilation © 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 4–14
Lean Manufacturing & Meal Production 5
high-volume repetitive manufacturing (Hines
et al. 2004) or mass production (James-Moore &
Gibbons 1997), and the original version of Lean
focused on explaining the benefits in similar
operations. However, over the years, Lean has
been adapted to fit a variety of industries, admin-
istration and services with great success (Bowen
& Youngdahl 1998; Bicheno 2004).
Womack & Jones (2003) claim that Lean is a
tool to ‘banish waste and create wealth in your
corporation’. Others characterise Lean as ‘an
intellectual approach consisting of a system of
measures and methods, which when brought all
together have the potential to bring about a
“lean” and therefore particularly competitive
state in a company’ (Warnecke & Hüser 1995).
Yet others say that Lean is ‘giving people at all
levels of an organisation the skills and shared
means of thinking, to systematically drive out
waste by designing better ways of working,
improving connections and easing flows within
supply chains’ (Wood 2004). No matter what the
definition is, the message is that a continuous
focus on value-adding activities through the elimi-
nation of waste and connection of production
processes in a flow line will cut down costs of
production and increase the competitiveness of a
company.
Value and waste in a production line
Lean Manufacturing aims to increase customer-
perceived value of products in every production
step. Value here is a characteristic that makes the
product or service more valuable to the end cus-
tomer, for example, heat-treating components of
a meal or mixing components in a culinary attrac-
tive way.
The contrast to value is waste, which is seen as
any activity that absorbs resources but creates no
value (Wood 2004). Examples are excess heat
treatment of food or an increased number of han-
dlings resulting from less than optimal planning
procedures. Originally, seven types of waste were
identified: waste from waiting, transporting, over-
production, defects (rework products, paper-
work errors and mistakes), unnecessary motion
(moving of people), inventories (overstocking),
and finally from unnecessary processing (packag-
ing, wrong equipment for job). Later, two more
6 Lean Manufacturing & Meal Production
types of waste have been added: design of goods
and services, which does not meet customer
needs, and untapped human potential.
This categorisation implies that waste is not
only assigned to products but also to activities.
Wasteful activities must be avoided as they
increase the overall production time, reduce effi-
ciency of the line, and absorb resources. Hence,
waste increases the costs of production (Womack
& Jones 2003), and eliminating this category of
activities is the means to increase the efficiency of
the production line (Simons & Zokaei 2006). But
actually, Lean, as a production philosophy, is
about preventing waste more than eliminating it
(Wood 2004).
To facilitate the process of preventing waste in
production, Womack & Jones (2003) have sum-
marised the essence of Lean in five principles that
can be introduced into a production line using
Lean management tools. These Lean principles
and tools are described singly by Womack &
Jones (2003) but work together systemwise in a
Lean setting. In the following section, Lean prin-
ciples and the tools relevant for this study are
presented.
The five Lean principles
The critical starting point when changing a con-
ventional production line into a Lean process is
the determination of value from the customers’
points of view, which is important as the goal of
the Lean process is a line where every activity
adds a specified customer value to the product.
Having identified the value of products, the
second step is to identify and map the value
stream in the production line. Value stream
mapping refers to the mapping of a product’s
route and is explained in more detail further.
The third principle is the connection of value-
creating activities in a continuous flow process.
Every bottleneck or ‘batch and queue’ process
must be avoided to obtain an uninterrupted flow
throughout the production. The ‘ideal’ produc-
tion flow is drawn on a map, and existing proce-
dures changed and equipment relocated to reflect
this.
The fourth principle is not to produce anything
‘upstream’ unless it is needed ‘downstream’. The
principle is in contrast to batch and queue proce-
Journal compilation © 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 4–14
dures, as seen in mass production, and aims to
reduce the amount of resources locked up in
inventories. It implies that production must be
just-in-time, both internally between processes
and externally when delivering products to the
end-user.
The fifth principle is about pursuing perfection
through a continuous improvement. This is not
only about creating a product that the customer
requires with a minimum of defects, but also
includes the perfection of every action in connec-
tion with the production process. It involves all
employees as they know procedures the most and
are closest to make suggestions for improvement.
The involvement of everyone in the continuous
improvement is what makes Lean a philosophy –
improving working processes is integrated in job
routines (Womack & Jones 2003; Bicheno 2004).
The Lean management tools applied
in the field study
Value stream mapping
The tool ‘value stream mapping’ refers to the
identification and mapping of the processing of a
product or product group. It is used to get an
overview of existing production and activities as
it identifies all procedures from product design to
production and distribution of end products. The
mapping (a real map is drawn) shows the location
of production equipment in use, and from the
map, the production process can be seen. With
the customers’ requirements for product charac-
teristics in mind, the map is used to characterise
activities as ‘value-creating’ or ‘nonvalue-
creating’, the latter being eliminated in order to
obtain an efficient and customer-oriented produc-
tion line consisting of value-creating activities.
The housekeeping tool ‘5S’
Organisation of raw materials and utensils is also
a way to prevent wasteful production activities.
The ‘housekeeping’ tool 5S, which stands for sort
(equipment, remove what is not used), simplify
(equipment and tools must be in the right place),
sweep (tidiness, but also routine checking of
equipment for defects), standardise (working pro-
cedures) and sustain (housekeeping is an ongoing
© 2008, The Authors

procedure), supplies a set of practices that results
in improved organisation of production if incor-
porated in the daily routines. Implementation
leads to a reduction in time wasted on nonvalue-
adding activities, for example, locating tools or
raw materials that are needed in production,
thereby increasing the time available for value-
adding activities leading to a more efficient
production.
Improvement of production processes: Kaizen
and Kaizen Blitz
There are two elements to improvement: the
daily continuous improvement (Kaizen), that is,
everyday small improvements of processes, and
breakthrough improvements (Kaizen Blitz), the
result of a concentrated effort on one area of
production.
Kaizen involves all employees in production as
they are encouraged to come up with all kinds of
suggestions for improvement of daily processes.
In theory, nothing is too inferior and suggestions,
such as switching locations of two raw materials
or mounting a lamp in the production line, are all
considered, so long as they improve the efficiency
of production. To practise Kaizen, the collection
of ideas is needed as well as the routines for
follow-up on the suggestions received.
Kaizen Blitz is a ‘here-and-now’ process to
improve the performance of one aspect of produc-
tion, for example, one process, one area in the
plant, or one safety issue. It involves a team of
both employees and management, who review
machinery set-ups and production procedures to
identify possibilities for increasing efficiency.
During the Kaizen Blitz event, changes are imple-
mented and alterations in equipment are made to
observe the effect of the ideas, which may also
cause new ideas to emerge. This process continues
until the team is satisfied or the Kaizen Blitz event
is over.
Kaizen Blitz events are highly efficient tools and
are responsible for improvements to production
performance as resources are concentrated
(Bicheno 2004). However, it typically increases
flow and efficiency in one area of the production
and not in the production line, and hence needs to
be repeated frequently to continuously increase
efficiency.
© 2008, The Authors
Journal compilation © 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 4–14
Lean Manufacturing & Meal Production 7
Use of measurable parameters and exchange of
information in production
Preventing waste is also about the clear commu-
nication of goals in production, and Lean favours
measurable parameters to express the state of
production, customer satisfaction with products,
number of defects, or other parameters that are
found to be important for production perfor-
mance. It demands the systematic collection of
data on performance, which, for example, in pro-
duction can be performed by scheduling several
short meetings (5 min) among team leaders. The
purpose of these meetings is to exchange informa-
tion on the workload of single teams and on the
progress of their tasks. The information should
be displayed in the production area to ensure
communication of the state of production to all
employees. The scheduled meetings are also a way
to systematise communication among teams,
and facilitate redistribution of resources with
the purpose of maximizing the efficiency of
production.
In summary, Lean is about delivering the best
possible product value to the customer while opti-
mizing the use of production resources, and the
method applied to achieve this is the elimination
of waste-using Lean tools. The involvement of
everyone in the continuous process of driving
out wasteful procedures is what makes Lean a
philosophy rather than merely a production
principle, and, once started, it is a never-ending
procedure that must be integrated into job rou-
tines (Womack & Jones 2003; Bicheno 2004).
Lean and meal production
The central hypothesis of this paper is that Lean
principles can be applied in meal production to
increase the efficiency of processes without reduc-
ing the quality of meals prepared. The questions
to be answered are as follows: How this may look
in reality, What challenges this may bring, and
Why the principles may be useful.
Lean stems from mass production of non-
perishable goods, thus, all Lean principles and
tools may not be equally applicable in food pro-
duction, but it is, of course, important to consider
this aspect when discussing the implementation of
Lean in meal production.
8 Lean Manufacturing & Meal Production
Lean and product quality control
The most important characteristics of meal prod-
ucts include the perishable nature of raw and
processed materials (Stevenson & Jain 2005). It
implies that product quality will change irrevers-
ibly during processing and storing (Mibey &
Williams 2002; Benner et al. 2003).
The quality of meals produced is complex to
define, and usually parameters, such as odour,
colour, microbial population and vitamin reten-
tion, are used as indicators along with texture
(Rodgers 2005c). These parameters are difficult
to measure in a large-scale kitchen, thus, it is
extremely important to control the production
parameters to avoid unintended changes in
product quality. During processing, in the storage
of intermediate produce and in the storage of
finished products, controlling the production
parameters are decisive to achieve the required
meal quality. It should also be recognised that
non-optimal processing may not have an imme-
diate effect on product quality but can show later
when, for example, the storage ability is reduced
or the product sensory quality is impaired. There-
fore, a production principle suitable for meal
production must both focus on controlling the
process parameters and on increasing the flow in
line.
In Lean, analyses of the production line are
performed to optimise the use of resources and
avoid wasteful procedures with the overall aims
of increasing the in-line flow and product value to
the customer. This, it is argued, is in agreement
with the need to control the parameters during
meal production, and Lean principles can support
the process of adequate planning and managing
meal production processes.
It is, however, important to remember that
Lean does not, in its original form, address the
safety aspects of food production. In meal pro-
duction, the documentation of food safety is sup-
ported by quality control programmes, which are
often developed from Hazard Analysis Critical
Control Point (HACCP) procedures in agree-
ment with national legal requirements (Rodgers
2005a). Although Lean aims to deliver value to
the customer, it is a production philosophy and
not a quality control programme, and there are
major differences between Lean and HACCP.
Journal compilation © 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 4–14
Lean deals with the identification of customer
demands, flow in the production line, organisa-
tional issues of production and continuous
improvement of processes, whereas HACCP pro-
grammes identify if and how product quality can
be challenged in a production line. The safety
aspects of meal production are an example of the
need to adjust Lean principles to the specific
requirements of a production scenario where it is
necessary to take these into account.
Pace and flow of production
Another major difference between Lean and
traditional food production is the standardisation
of products and coordination of procedures to
follow a certain pace in the production line. Stan-
dardised procedures are extremely useful in food
production, especially to ensure the chilling of
food within the required time frame, and deter-
mining the pace of production (the time used for
preparation of single components) is advanta-
geous in all kinds of mass production including
food (Simons & Zokaei 2006). In meal produc-
tion, however, procedures can only be standard-
ised to the point where natural variation in raw
materials is still considered. The variation in size
and shape of similar ingredients is a major differ-
ence between the production of spare parts in
car production and the production of food. To
achieve standardisation and flow under these con-
ditions is another challenge when applying Lean
principles to meal production.
Lean as a quality management tool
It may be questioned if the purposes and tools of
Lean differ from those found in other manage-
ment principles, for example, the total quality
management (TQM) or Six Sigma. These produc-
tion principles all stem from the Japanese quality
evolution, but where the origin of TQM has not
been identified, Lean stems from Toyota, and Six
Sigma from Motorola. Identification of the
origins makes it possible to observe how Lean and
Six Sigma are practised within their original
frameworks, and makes the theoretic principles
less diffuse and easier to translate into actions
than those of the TQM (Andersson et al. 2006;
Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard-Park 2006). Lean, Six
© 2008, The Authors

Sigma and TQM can be seen as complementary
management principles as they differ in both
theory and approach, and the principles can be
used singly or combined (Andersson et al. 2006).
Both Lean and Six Sigma can be used as ‘road
maps’ that support the practice of TQM
within an organisation (Andersson et al. 2006;
Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard-Park 2006). However,
as Six Sigma is based primarily on statistics, Lean
focuses on improving production flow and reduc-
ing waste. This difference in approach may be
part of the explanation why Lean is more widely
applied than the Six Sigma (Andersson et al.
2006), and it is also the reason why Lean prin-
ciples are likely to be more suitable for meal pro-
duction than either the TQM or the Six Sigma.
Methodology
This research is a field study of how large-scale
meal production can benefit from applying Lean in
daily management and production planning. Data
were obtained through interviews with kitchen
managers supplemented with observations of
kitchen facilities and production procedures.
The case kitchen at Glostrup Hospital,
Denmark, was visited twice during the implemen-
tation process, and the managers were inter-
viewed about procedures and perspectives of
working with Lean. Based on these interviews, the
practical application of Lean in the kitchen is
discussed. At the time of the interviews, the
process of implementing Lean had been running
for about 1 year, and the discussion deals with the
results gained so far, as the process of implement-
ing is ongoing. From the observations, those Lean
principles and tools that have proved most appli-
cable in attaining the goals set by the managers
are also discussed.
Lean is discussed at a plant level in contrast to
supply chain level, multiple plants and single-
process levels (Rother & Shook 1999), and is
limited to the production plant level, and internal
procedures with supply and distribution only
briefly being considered. A similar approach is
used in the discussion of Lean in red meat pro-
cessing (Simons & Zokaei 2006) and in the pro-
duction of ketchup, jams and the like (Lehtinen &
Torkko 2005), and is generally accepted (Rother
& Shook 1999).
© 2008, The Authors
Journal compilation © 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 4–14
Lean Manufacturing & Meal Production 9
The case study kitchen
Glostrup Hospital is situated in the greater
Copenhagen area in Denmark. The central
kitchen is situated inside the Hospital grounds in
a separate building, and every day, meals for
approximately 1000 patients are produced and
distributed from the kitchen.
In 2005, the hospital’s management took the
decision that all services should be Lean, and to
cut the costs of meal production, the kitchen
was forced to replace cook-serve with cook-chill
production and reduce the number of foodser-
vice employees from 71 to 54. This brought
about a need to review and optimise the produc-
tion procedures to maintain both output quan-
tity and quality. The change of production
system to cook-chill also had an impact on
the end-product quality as recipes and produc-
tion procedures needed adjustments. Therefore,
the systematic evaluation and improvement of
product quality was given a high priority in the
kitchen.
The internal working environment in the
kitchen was important to the manager as she
insisted on maintaining this as a high priority
during and after the rationalisation process, and
that increased efficiency of production processes
was obtained by the optimisation of procedures
and not by making the staff work faster. Because
of these reservations, the implementation of Lean
was expected to result in both increased efficiency
of processes and improved product quality while
ensuring a pleasant working environment for the
remaining employees. The implementation of
Lean in the kitchen began shortly after the change
to cook-chill processing and before procedures
became routine.
Meal production in Glostrup Hospital’s
central kitchen
The kitchen produces most components of the
meals themselves including breads, soups and
processed vegetables. Previously with cook-serve
production, there were separate production lines
for hot meal components, vegetables, baked
products, desserts and cold products (traditional
Danish ‘smørrebrød’ or open sandwiches, sand-
wiches, breakfast items, etc.). For these meals,
10 Lean Manufacturing & Meal Production
all items were prepared, processed and kept
warm until service. Initially, when changing to
cook-chill production, the separation of produc-
tion according to meal was maintained with pro-
cessed meal components being assembled into
meals, packed and stored for up to 3 days before
final distribution to hospital wards. The packag-
ing was standardised in two, five or seven por-
tions per pack, and the wards received the
portion sizes equal to or the closest number
above their actual orders. This practice of stan-
dardizing packaging was accepted by the man-
agement as a pragmatic practice of cook-chill
production.
The kitchen staff are very international as
employees come from 12 different nationalities,
which in turn complicates conversations. The
manager chose to overcome this problem by using
both visual effects and written words in her daily
communication.
Application of Lean in the kitchen
The kitchen had three areas of focus during the
change to Lean, namely, improved efficiency to
reduce costs, improved product quality and
maintenance of a pleasant working environment
in the kitchen. The following describes how
Lean was applied in these areas and the results
achieved.
Improving efficiency of production processes in
the kitchen
The challenges in becoming Lean are to increase
the production efficiency through a reduction of
product waste and an increased process flow.
Selected Lean tools were applied in the produc-
tion to establish how existing procedures could be
optimised, namely, value stream, Kaizen Blitz and
the housekeeping discipline 5S.
Value stream mapping of a single product was
the first tool used to visualise the flow in existing
processes, and the experience from this was sub-
sequently used to identify the flow in other pro-
cesses. Value stream mapping highlighted the
procedures of packing and storing meals for up to
3 days before use. Meals were prepared, por-
tioned and packed before actual orders were
received, and the routine often hindered distribu-
Journal compilation © 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 4–14
tion of the exact number of meals ordered. This
procedure contradicted the ‘pull’ principle in
Lean, which dictates that products should only be
processed when orders are received in order to
minimise waste. As the routine of storing prod-
ucts for 3 days did not add value to the meals, it
was categorised as waste and should be avoided,
thereby increasing efficiency.
Kaizen Blitz activities were performed in
selected areas of production. ‘Cold production’
was the first to have its routines observed, dis-
cussed and optimised as procedures were found to
include considerable excesses in the handling of
products. Next in line were the packing facilities
and transport equipment.
The housekeeping system 5S was first applied
in the storage facilities and in separate areas of the
kitchen. The purpose was to minimise the time
used to locate ingredients and equipment needed
in the production by systematically increasing the
organisation of the facilities.
Evaluation and improvement of
product quality
To improve product quality, the Lean tool of mea-
surable or visual parameters to express the state
of processes and to facilitate communication
among groups of employees was used. The imple-
mentation of cook-chill production procedures
called for a systematic evaluation of product
quality. A graph on display in the production
facility showing the daily number of comments on
food quality was chosen as an expression of cus-
tomer satisfaction with product quality. The
number of complaints for each meal component,
based on feedback received from wards and
patients, was totalled and each day marked on the
graph. This procedure was chosen as a way to
ensure communication of customer product satis-
faction to all employees.
An internal quality control system was devel-
oped to reflect the need for adjusting recipes to
improve meal quality after the change from cook-
serve to cook-chill production. It consisted of a
three-colour gradation of product acceptability
where red refers to ‘not acceptable’; yellow,
‘acceptable’; and green, ‘good’. The testing of
product quality was performed internally in the
kitchen, and the products had to obtain a yellow
© 2008, The Authors

to pass. This system was developed to visualise
the progress of adjusting existing procedures to
cook-chill production.
Maintaining focus on the working
environment
The Lean principle of involving all employees in
the daily improvement of production processes
(Kaizen) was applied as part of the effort to
improve the working environment. Before Lean
was implemented, the working environment was
already addressed through teamwork and joint
responsibility. During Lean, it was extended to
involve the continuous improvement of processes
(Kaizen). Process improvement was based on the
facilitation of job routines as the way to optimise
production flow. To involve staff as much as
possible in the continuous improvement of pro-
cesses, the systematic collection of suggestions
for improvement was needed. A system to do so
was established (a whiteboard with a drawing of
production facilities, ‘post-it’ stickers and a pen
to write down suggestions were located in the
production area). Every morning, a meeting for
all employees was held in front of this white-
board, as were three daily briefings where team
managers reported production status. The use of
the whiteboard as a meeting place ensured that
staff had regular contact with the whiteboard,
which enabled them to give suggestions for im-
provement by placing stickers on the board. This
could also be carried out at any time throughout
the day and independent of the presence of the
managers, and was considered more flexible to
collect ideas. The systematic communication
among team managers also facilitated the reloca-
tion of resources between teams when workloads
demanded it.
All employees participated in a weekly meeting
to follow up on existing projects and prioritise
new suggestions for improvements. The accept-
ability of the working environment was expressed
through employee absence because of illness and
the amount of overtime. The change to cook-chill
technology had increased overtime in the kitchen,
and employees wanted to reduce this burden;
therefore, these parameters were chosen to
express the state of the working environment in
the kitchen.
© 2008, The Authors
Journal compilation © 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 4–14
Lean Manufacturing & Meal Production 11
Results and discussion
Improving production process efficiency
with Lean
The three tools, value stream mapping, Kaizen
Blitz and implementation of 5S, all contributed to
improved production efficiency by reducing the
amount of product waste and wasteful proce-
dures. Value stream mapping made it clear that
the procedure of storing finished meals included
wasteful activities as it contradicted the principle
of letting customers pull products from produc-
tion. Waste from the distribution of excess meals
was estimated as being up to 10% of the number
of meals distributed. The portioning procedure
was changed, and only low cost products (por-
ridge, sauces and soups) were portioned in stan-
dard sizes, while meat dishes were portioned and
packed when orders were received. This reduced
the number of meals wasted to 5%. A further
reduction demands a feedback of waste at the
ward level, but this cannot be established at the
moment because of internal organisational barri-
ers among the staff.
The Kaizen Blitz events and the implementation
of 5S supported the process of increasing the flow
in production. Kaizen Blitz caused changes in the
processes and relocation of equipment in three
areas: cold production, packing room and trans-
port equipment, which have benefited the flow in
production. Defects were fixed and equipment
were optimised to facilitate production routines.
Still, some nonvalue-adding handling had to
remain because of the temperature requirements
(quality related) of cooling products. The imple-
mentation of 5S in the storage facilities resulted in
improved organisation of ingredients and raw
materials, which decreased the time needed to
locate these. Alhough Kaizen Blitz and 5S had
different roles in the process, it was difficult to
make a fair split of results according to each tool,
and both helped to facilitate the process of main-
taining output quantity with fewer production
employees.
Another initiative designed to increase effi-
ciency was to change the production planning
from meals to processes. Production of similar
components but of different meals was changed to
one consecutive procedure, in contrast to the
12 Lean Manufacturing & Meal Production
former procedure of finishing one meal at a time.
The new practice reduced change-over times in
processing, and was extremely advantageous in
cook-chill production. This is because the distri-
bution must be timely and separated from the
processing of meals to show an effect of gathering
production of similar products.
Evaluation and improvement of product quality
The use of measurable parameters (the number of
customer complaints and the colour system for
recipe acceptability) provided the staff with
benchmarks for product quality. The systematic
evaluation of product quality clarified where
improvements were needed, and facilitated the
communication between managers and respon-
sible employees. Combined with the use of cook-
chill technology, the systematic evaluation of
product quality has made the kitchen less liable to
distribute meal products of a questionable quality.
It has also changed the culture in the kitchen as it
is now generally acceptable to ‘re-do’ products in
order to improve product quality. The additional
waste that this may cause is considered part of the
costs of training and adhering to processes in a
new production system.
Maintaining focus on the working environment
The involvement of staff in the continuous
improvement of working processes and the estab-
lishment of ways to collect suggestions increased
the number of ideas for changes. The actual
number of suggestions before and after the imple-
mentation of Lean was not collected, but the
manager’s clear impression was that the number
has risen. The suggestions cover everything from
the relocation of process equipment and raw
materials in storage facilities, to changes in pro-
duction procedures.
The weekly follow-up meetings have made
more people interested in taking part in action to
improve the working processes. It is the manag-
er’s opinion that before the introduction of Lean,
a limited number of staff commented on pro-
duction procedures, and process improvements
were seen as the management’s responsibility.
However, as the new processes became more
established and employees could see that their
Journal compilation © 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 4–14
suggestions were actioned, an increasing number
of staff took an interest. Team spirit across
existing teams has been improved with the
establishment of three daily status meetings. As
information of workloads and time pressures was
shared among teams, they increasingly helped
each other finish the production tasks.
The focus on the reduction of overtime caused a
more flexible approach to the planning and perfor-
mance of production. As a reduction in the staff
numbers, because of illnesses and holidays, was a
reoccurring event, a general procedure to minimise
production tasks during these periods was estab-
lished. This involved a change in the menu so that
less work-intensive meals were substituted for the
more demanding menus during these periods, and
in this way, overtime was reduced.
Another outcome of the focus on working envi-
ronment and reduction of overtime was the estab-
lishment of more flexible job tasks. An employee
with, for example, an aching back was offered a
part-time job or a change in job tasks to reduce
the amount of absence because of illness and to
minimise the loss of resources. This caused a
change in attitude among the staff when they were
too ill to go to work, and was part of the solution
to the problem of reducing overtime in the
kitchen.
The field study showed how Lean principles
and tools can be successfully applied in a meal
production in a hospital kitchen. The implemen-
tation of Lean is a continuous change process,
and thus it is difficult to quantify all results.
Instead, progress can be expressed by qualitative
evaluation of the effects of the principles imple-
mented, actions taken and changes made to the
organisation to achieve an improved performance
(Karlsson & Åhlström 1996). Following this pro-
cedure, the results can be summarised as follows:
1 Increased flow as a result of optimizing han-
dling routines in selected areas and better plan-
ning of the daily production;
2 reduced product waste resulting from changed
storage and portioning routines;
3 improved efficiency in storage, transporting
and packing procedures;
4 a common system involving all employees in
improving/evaluating product quality;
5 increased team spirit; and
6 reduction of overtime.
© 2008, The Authors

These results show that implementing Lean
principles and tools have caused positive changes
to the focus areas ‘efficiency’ (1–3), ‘product
quality’ (4) and ‘working environment’ (5–6).
Hence, the Lean tools have proven to be appli-
cable in meal production although the success has
varied. Value stream mapping, use of measure-
ment and visual presentation of key parameters,
5S, Kaizen Blitz, and increased involvement of
staff in the process improvement have brought
visible results to the kitchen. The efforts to
increase efficiency did not result in the achieve-
ment of just-in-time production and consistent
pull production as this required a dedicated cook-
serve production. Still, the principles challenged
the managers to change portioning procedures
towards just-in-time, and portioning of more
expensive meal components now reflects actual
orders.
In meal production, the management and staff
are forced to consider special routines and the
unique characteristics of food, and to take into
account legal temperature requirements. This
may cause handling procedures that in the Lean
terminology are categorised as waste. An example
of this was seen in the ‘cold kitchen’ area where
optimised procedures still contained nonvalue-
added handling to ensure the adequate cooling of
products. In addition, the meal distribution
system at the hospital limited the successful
reduction of product waste, because of internal
organisational barriers. Thus, the successful
application of Lean in meal production depends
not only on the internal production planning and
performance, but is also influenced by the choice
of system, official requirements and work organi-
sation in surrounding systems.
It should finally be noted that a production
principle like Lean can never be a substitute for
‘good’ management in meal production. Lean can
supply tools to plan and manage the production
line, but for the success of the foodservice, good
communication, care and attention in the process-
ing of food is still the basis on which the service
relies.
Conclusions
Traditional large-scale meal production often
has problems obtaining the desired quality of
© 2008, The Authors
Journal compilation © 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 4–14
Lean Manufacturing & Meal Production 13
meals served and maintaining the costs within
what might be a low budget. The use of cook-
chill systems has made the large-scale cooking of
meals comparable to the larger scale industrial
production, and this has brought about a need
to review the planning procedures and the
management of operations. Lean Manufacturing
theoretically fits the special characteristics of
meal production as improved product quality,
through optimised production planning and
strict control with the process parameters, is its
main objective.
A field study in a hospital central kitchen shows
that the Lean tools, value stream mapping, use
of measurement and visual presentation of key
parameters, 5S, Kaizen Blitz, and increased
involvement of staff in the improvement of pro-
cesses (Kaizen), have led to an increased efficiency
in the kitchen. The implementation of Lean has
also resulted in continuous evaluation of product
quality and of the visual presentation of daily
customer satisfaction. From the continuous col-
lection of customer feedback, systematic efforts to
improve product quality were established. In the
kitchen, Lean tools have also shown to be useful
to increase employee involvement in the improve-
ment of production and in increasing team spirit.
The field study also shows that Lean Manufactur-
ing principles can improve the efficiency of meal
production, but that the resulting effect is depen-
dent on the particular production system and
external conditions.
References
Andersson R, Eriksson H, Torstensson H (2006). Simi-
larities and differences between TQM, Six Sigma and
Lean. The TQM Magazine 18:282–96.
Benner M et al. (2003). A chain information model for
structured knowledge management: towards effec-
tive and efficient food product improvement. Trends
in Food Science and Technology 14:469–77.
Bicheno J (2004). The New Lean Toolbox. PICSIE
Books: Buckingham.
Bowen DE, Youngdahl WE (1998). [‘Lean’ service: in
defence of a production-line approach. International
Journal of Service Industry Management 9:207–25.
Clark JR (1997). Improving catering productivity.
Food Service Management December:60–7.
Cox A, Chicksand D (2005). The limits of lean man-
agement thinking: multiple retailers and food and
farming supply chains. European Management
Journal 23:648–62.
14 Lean Manufacturing & Meal Production
Dahlgaard JJ, Dahlgaard-Park SM (2006). Lean pro-
duction, Six Sigma, quality, TQM and company
culture. The TQM Magazine 18:263–81.
Engelund EH, Lassen A, Mikkelsen BE (2007). The
modernization of hospital foodservice – findings
from a longitudinal study of technology trends in
Danish hospitals. Nutrition and Food Science 37:90–
100.
Hines P, Holweg M, Rich N (2004). Learning to evolve
– a review of contemporary lean thinking. Interna-
tional Journal of Operations and Production Man-
agement 24:994–1011.
Hwang JL-J, Terry D, Eves A, Kipps M (1999). An
analysis of catering options within NHS acute hos-
pitals. International Journal of Health Care Quality
Assurance 12:293–305.
James-Moore SM, Gibbons A (1997). Is Lean Manu-
facturing universally relevant? An investigative meth-
odology. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 17:899–911.
Karlsson C, Åhlström P (1996). Assessing changes
towards Lean production. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management 16:24–41.
Lehtinen U, Torkko M (2005). The Lean concept in the
food industry: a case study of a contract manufac-
turer. Journal of Food Distribution Research 36:57–
67.
McClelland A, Williams P (2003). Trends to better
nutrition on Australian hospital menus 1986–2001
and the impact of cook-chill food service systems.
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 16:245–
56.
Mibey R, Williams P (2002). Food services trends in
New South Wales hospitals, 1993–2001. Food
Service Technology 2:95–103.
Journal compilation © 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 4–14
Rodgers S (2005a). Food safety research underpinning
food service systems – a review. Food Service Tech-
nology 5:67–76.
Rodgers S (2005b). Selecting a food service system: a
review. International Journal of Contemporary Hos-
pitality Management 17:157–69.
Rodgers S (2005c). Technological development and the
need for technical competencies in food services. The
Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of
Health 125:117–23.
Rother M, Shook J (1999). Learning to See, 12th edn.
The Lean Enterprise Institute: Brookline.
Silverman MR, Gregoire MB, Lafferty LJ, Dowling RA
(2000). Current and future practices in hospital
foodservice. Journal of the American Dietetic Asso-
ciation 100:76–80.
Simons D, Zokaei K (2006). Application of Lean para-
digm in red meat processing. British Food Journal
107:192–211.
Stevenson L, Jain R (2005). Lean manufacturing in
the food industry. Food Science and Technology
19:32–4.
Taylor DH (2006). Strategic considerations in the
development of Lean agri-food supply chains: a case
study of the UK pork sector. Supply Chain Manage-
ment 11:271–80.
Warnecke HJ, Hüser M (1995). Lean production. Inter-
national Journal of Production Economics 41:37–
43.
Womack JP, Jones DT (2003). Lean Thinking: Banish
Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation.
Simon & Schuster UK Ltd: London.
Wood N (2004). Lean thinking: what it is and what it
isn’t. Management Services 48:8–10.
© 2008, The Authors