a review of input manifests for lean...

International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 8, Issue 2 (December 2017) International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 8, Issue 2 (December 2017)

Protik Basua*, Pranab K Danb

aFaculty, Army Institute of Management, Judges Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata – 700027, India

bFaculty, Rajendra Mishra School of Engineering Entrepreneurship, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India

* Corresponding author:

E-mail:[email protected], Tel.:+91-9831190934

A REVIEW OF INPUT MANIFESTS FOR LEAN

MANUFACTURING IMPLEMENTATION

A B S T R A C T K E Y W O R D S

A R T I C L E I N F O

Received 10 November 2017

Accepted 25 December 2017

Available online 31 December 2017

This research is to review the input enablers towards lean

manufacturing (LM) implementation to group them into

a set of significant factors, enabling the manufacturing

industries to administer the implementation process

successfully. This is not a conventional paper on review

of LM or its development since quite a few of such

similar papers already exist in literature. This study is the

first of its kind, which, based on literature survey,

attempts to frame an exhaustive list of all the technical

and human inputs for LM implementation and it not only

focuses on the internal parameters but also brings the role

of customers and suppliers under its purview. No such

holistic approach has been taken in the past to explore all

the possible enablers of LM implementation. An

extensive literature survey reveals an initial list of 208

attributes which were further combined to a practically

feasible list of 46 manifest inputs through Delphi

exercise. These manifests are then conceptually grouped

under 11 latent constructs. Based on these findings, a

conceptual model is suggested to provide further insights

towards successful LM implementation. The model

conceptualized from the review is expected to provide

further insights for lean implementation and will be very

helpful to integrate the lean principles and tools into a

unified coherent complete lean manufacturing system.

Lean Manufacturing;

Lean Enablers; Input

Manifests; Latent

Constructs; Conceptual

Model for Lean

Implementation.

Protik Basu, Pranab K Dan / International Journal of Lean Thinking

Volume 8, Issue 2 (December 2017)

2

1. Introduction

Lean management is an integrated socio-technical system (Saurin et al., 2013), focusing on

streamlining the processes in an organization. In the recent years, Lean Manufacturing (LM) is

gaining considerable importance (Shah et al., 2008) and popularity as an approach that can

achieve considerable performance improvement in the industry (Susilawati et al., 2015).

Though the lean concept itself was not a single-point invention but the outcome of a dynamic

learning process that adapted practices emanating from the automotive and textile sectors in

response to environmental uncertainties in Japan (Holweg, 2007), the term “lean” was coined

by Krafcik (1988), In his landmark paper Krafcik introduced the term “lean” to describe a

production system that uses less resources of everything compared to mass production

(Papadopoulou and Özbayrak, 2005). The innovations at Toyota Motor Corporation, resulting

from a scarcity of resources and intense domestic competition in the Japanese market for

automobiles, included the just-in-time (JIT) production system, the Kanban method of pull

production, respect for employees and high levels of employee problem-solving and automated

mistake proofing. Derived originally from the Toyota Production System or TPS, the principles,

methods and tools of LM became immensely popular after the release of the book ‘The Machine

that Changed the World’ (Womack et al., 1990) and lean practices are no longer culturally

bound to Japan; they are indeed transferable to other countries and organisations (Holweg,

2007).

A lot of study has been done on the practices in defining, describing and measuring lean

production. The existing literature on LM implementation is disperse and diverse in nature

(Yadav et al., 2017), making it difficult to have an integrated and holistic view of the input

variables of LM implementation. Articles have demonstrated a growing recognition of the

importance of LM and though there have been a few studies on the review of lean production,

there is no comprehensive study of all the input enablers for LM implementation. There is

hardly any study that has simultaneously focused on the technical factors and the managerial

factors necessary for successful LM implementation. The purpose of this research is to have a

comprehensive literature survey of the variables affecting LM implementation and the focus of

this study is purely on the input parameters of LM implementation in a manufacturing setup.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the research methodology. A brief review

of literature is presented in Section 3, summarizing the review works on lean till date and



3

detailing the research gap, leading to the research questions. The manifest variables have been

identified and enumerated in Section 4. The conceptual model thus developed is presented in

the same section, followed by a discussion on each of the eleven distinct dimensions towards

LM implementation. Section 5 contains the limitations of the present study and provides scope

for future research.

2. Methodology

This research article is based on a systematic literature review. In the initial research, there were

more than 25,000 research papers on lean. However, the focus was then narrowed down to the

implementation of lean in the manufacturing sector. By a different combination of key words,

around 400 journal papers were finally shortlisted, which focused on the implementation of LM

in the manufacturing sector, the objective of this study. The target journal articles for this review

were those published after 1990 that is, post publication of the book, ‘The Machine that

Changed the World’ (Womack et al., 1990).

3. Literature Review

The emerging concept of LM is gaining popularity as an approach to achieve significant

improvements in the industry (Susilawati et al., 2015). LM is that manufacturing approach

which involves an integrated set of activities, that aims to achieve high volume, flexible

production, comparable to mass production but using minimal inventories (So and Sun, 2011).

In the past four decades much attention has centred on lean and many researchers have

contributed to the definition of LM (Vinodh and Chintha, 2011a). Bhamu and Singh Sangwan

(2014) have provided 33 such definitions of lean in a chronological order, “reflecting the

changing goals, principles and scope”.

Being a multi-dimensional concept (Dora et al., 2013; Shah and Ward, 2003), lean includes a

variety of management principles and practices under its umbrella (Shah et al., 2008). Recently

rigorous academic research has highlighted a broad set of such practices under LM (Shah et al.,

2008) to reduce cost through the persistent removal of waste and through the simplification of

all manufacturing and support processes (Kajdan, 2008). Focus is to produce only what is

demanded by the customer and only at the necessary time and quantity, thereby eliminating

waste and utilizing resources efficiently (Chavez et al., 2015).



4

Review papers on lean have been very few in number, though there have been a few hundreds

of publications on lean. Let us briefly discuss the review papers on lean so far. Hines et al.

(2004), in their review on the evolution of lean thinking, provide a framework for understanding

lean and its implementation in an organization. A review by Doolen and Hacker (2005)

identified LM practices and existing lean assessment tools to develop an instrument to assess

the implementation of lean practices. Bendell (2006) carried out a review and comparison of

lean and six sigma principles for process improvements while Shah and Ward, in their seminal

paper in 2007, had an extensive review to clarify the semantic confusion regarding LM,

empirically identifying 10 underlying components for LM implementation. An assessment on

the effects of lean on the working environment and the employees, focusing on both positive

and negative effects, and stressing on a healthy working environment including employee

involvement was carried out by Hasle et al. (2012). Moyano-Fuentes and Sacristán-Díaz (2011)

performed a review to analyze the lean research so as to develop a model to have an extended

and comprehensive understanding of lean production. Following a systematic review of

scholarly lean literature, Stone (2012) deciphered five phases of lean concept development

namely, Discovery, Dissemination, Implementation, Enterprise and Performance phases. Gupta

and Jain (2013) did a review on the philosophy, tools and techniques of LM, as well as, the

barriers towards LM implementation. A study was performed by Stentoft Arlbjørn and Vagn

Freytag (2013) to examine how lean is perceived in literature and how it is implemented in

practice. Bhamu and Singh Sangwan (2014) endeavored a review on various aspects of LM

definitions, scopes, objectives, and tools used while a review on the empirical research on LM

, focusing on descriptive statistics of empirical research in LM was attempted by Jasti and

Kodali (2014). Martinez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014 had done a study to assess the links

between LM, supply chain management and sustainability, mentioning the contradictions and

inconsistencies found in the literature and new opportunities and challenges for future research.

A review paper on LM implementation techniques, proposing a detailed roadmap for lean

implementation was published by Sundar et al. (2014). Based on a review of lean supply chain

management (LSCM) frameworks, Jasti and Kodali (2015a) developed a conceptual LSCM

framework with standard lean elements. They also observed an increase in empirical research

and implementation of LM principles in ‘bits-and-pieces’ and not as a complete package in

their taxonomical and integrated review of articles on lean production (2015b). Hu et al. (2015)

did a review on LM implementation in small and medium sized enterprises, evaluating the key

themes for LM implementation. Recently, Negrão et al. (2017) published an article, having a

review of 83 studies on adoption of LM practices, revealing application of lean practices in a



5

fragmented way and the positive and negative effects of lean implementation, and Yadav et al.

(2017) carried out a review on the extant lean implementation literature, validating lean

implementation to be a transformational process, requiring organizational level support and

changes. From all these review papers, it is observed that authors have mostly focused on the

concept of lean and its development.

An effective management approach of the manufacturing firms to meet the current challenges

of the dynamic market is the LM system (Zahraee, 2016). It is observed from the above

discussion that review papers on lean have been very few in number, though there have been a

few hundreds of publications on lean. Moreover, authors have focused mostly on the concept

of lean and its development.

There have been no such studies to provide a comprehensive list of all the input parameters

towards successful implementation of LM. No single has been found, which may guide the lean

practitioner on a complete list of input enablers for lean implementation in the manufacturing

sector. Though many researchers have supported the fact that an integrated holistic approach is

necessary for lean implementation, there is no such research contribution, till date, which has

focused on all the possible enablers for LM implementation from all aspects of a manufacturing

organization. This paper is an endeavour to bridge the gap and provide an exhaustive list of the

said parameters, focusing on the tools, techniques, methodologies, elements, practices and

activities related to LM implementation. From the review of past literature, this study has

attempted to embrace both the technical parameters and the soft skills on one hand and also

both the internal and external factors on the other hand.

4. Identification of Input Manifest Variables and Latent Constructs

In this study, the focus was a comprehensive study on the manufacturing and related practices

towards LM implementation. Lack of awareness and training about the lean concepts is one

the major challenges in implementing lean though there is a significant scope of LM

implementation that can result in numerous benefits (Panwar et al., 2015). By input manifest

variables, we mean those principles, methods, tools, techniques or characteristics of the

manufacturing process, which are enablers towards LM implementation. This study, through

extensive literature survey, explores the input variables which may be considered as

constituting the tools and practices towards implementation of LM. In the first phase of the



6

research, 208 various terminologies are identified from literature survey as input enablers for

LM implementation. Since all of these 208 items are not distinct in nature, these were verified

and based on the similarity of the attributes, combined into 46 manifest variables through a

Delphi exercise with seven practitioners and researchers known for their knowledge and

experience in lean production. These 46 manifest variables are conceptually mapped onto 11

distinct latent constructs, considering the salient inherent similarities between them. The latent

constructs and their respective manifest variables are enumerated in Table 1. The conceptual

model thus developed is illustrated in Figure 1 (See Appendix).

5. Implications of the Study

A careful analysis of the input constructs and the manifest variables included therein leads to

identification of eleven distinct dimensions towards LM implementation. These are briefly

discussed below (respective and relevant references have been mentioned in Table 1).

5.1.1. Customer Management

This construct focuses on maximization of customer value and customer satisfaction. It is one

of the externally oriented value chain strategies to gain competitive advantage. A customer

driven approach is necessary in today’s competitive environment, giving equal importance to

both internal and external customers to provide more improved services to the final customer.

Focus is on long-term customer relationship through customer involvement in product planning

and design and in quality programmes. Customer feedback may be used to measure customer

satisfaction. One of the best characteristics of the LM is producing customer needed products

at the right time, right quantity and right place, based on prior information on customer needs.

In today’s dynamic environment where demand is changing and competition is increasing, more

flexibility in the production process is becoming necessary. One of the primary objectives of

LM is to be flexible so as to be responsive to customer needs and environmental changes.

5.1.2. Human Resource Management

This construct focuses on the human resources of the organization, the primary drivers of LM

implementation. One of the primary requirements of HRM is to enable workforce

empowerment and have a strong committed executive leadership to apply the best practices



7

most effectively. LM talks about multi-skilled workers to maximize their utilization and

training becomes an essential part to develop new skills in the workforce. Teamwork and team

management for decision making are important in lean implementation because they provide

knowledge sharing opportunities. “Nemawashi” is one of the lean principle to make decisions

slowly by consensus, thoroughly considering all options and then to implement them rapidly.

Respect for humanity is one of the important principles necessary for the sustainability of LM.

Genchi Genbutsu is one of the principles of Toyota, which means, go and see for yourself to

thoroughly understand the situation to solve the problem. Lean believes in participative

management, i.e., the involvement of employees at all levels. Additionally, employee

satisfaction is also necessary for lean implementation. To improve employee motivation, some

monetary benefits may be passed down to them, along with implementing innovative

performance appraisal and performance related pay systems. Understanding the culture of the

organization and having a systemic approach to organizational change and improvement are

also very important for LM implementation. Facilitator Sensei is another important feature of

lean. A company needs a sensei to provide technical assistance and change management advice

when it is trying something for the first time to help facilitate the transformation.

5.1.3. Integrative Planning and Scheduling

Sequence of activities and operations needs to be planned to obtain a true unidirectional

seamless flow that requires minimum cycle time. Cycle time management requires all

employees to be involved in an orderly and continuous process. Takt time is based on customer

demand. TOC can be employed to remove bottlenecks and thus achieve proper balancing to

enhance the productivity of a manufacturing flow line. However, levelling of production load

may not always be in conjunction with customer demand. A proper trade-off between heijunka

and takt time will ensure maximum resource utilization. Standardizing work methods and

parts/components facilitates cycle time management in achieving higher productivity.

Integrative planning and scheduling is not a technology but it is an implementation process,

involving all people in the manufacturing process entailing careful and optimal allocation of

resources to satisfy the demand of the market. A holistic perspective is required for

implementation of leanness, with a focus on integration of business processes. Integrative

planning and scheduling actions are essential for continued commitment to productivity

improvement; the more integrative the planning and scheduling will be, the better will be the

implementation process of LM.



8

5.1.4. Internal Operations Synchronization

All the activities of the organization need to work in synchronization to ensure a smooth

uninterrupted flow in order to achieve the strategic goals of the manufacturing firm and satisfy

customers at the lowest possible cost. The entire production process works together in harmony

to achieve the objectives. The pull approach is a better method for synchronization than the

push approach, the production schedule in the former closely following the level of customer

orders. Each station produces only when demand is triggered from a customer station, that is,

customer need triggers production. Kanban offers a comprehensive way to create a pull system

of continuous flow and inform the supplier station about the need of the customer station. A

unit is produced or delivered only when the customer station needs it, thereby avoiding

overproduction and inventories of unwanted units. Synchronization is achieved in case of level

production which requires reducing the lot (batch) size. This can be made feasible only if the

cost and time of changeover are minimized, else excessive changeover cost will jeopardize the

entire objective of cost reduction. Hence, SMED and allied tools gain prominence in such a

setting where improvements in the changeover process are focused upon. Single piece flow is

the ideal situation of lot size reduction. However, batch size also depends upon the cost and

quantity of the item/part required in the process. A trade-off is required to minimize the overall

cost of production.

5.1.5. Management Information System

Management information system is an essential construct of lean systems. Focus on lean

information management enables an organization to increase the benefits already obtained by

applying lean production principles. We often tend to neglect the “muda” in information.

Information flow inside an organization connects the different functions of the organization and

their members. For an effective LM implementation, one needs to focus on a an effective

communication plan which enables a smooth and adequate information flow, and transparent

information sharing that reduces unnecessary production, transportation and inventory. For

successful LM implementation, an effective communication process at all levels, vertically and

horizontally, is essential. It helps in ensuring proper direction, feedback and conflict resolution.

Additionally, a well-balanced knowledge base is critical for lean sustenance and a knowledge-



9

sharing culture of an organization supports employees in their problem-solving activities and

promotes encouragement and creation of more opportunities.

5.1.6. Management Role

Lean is a corporate vision. Clarity of vision and proper strategic direction smoothen the lean

implementation process and focus is to be given on the long term adoption of lean production

principles. Management support should be based on a long-term philosophy, even at the

expense of short-term financial goals. Senior management support is critical for LM

implementation and is required to approach LM in a systemic or holistic way. Management

needs to be actively and visibly connected to the project and participate in the lean

manufacturing events. Flat organization facilitates LM implementation through

a decentralized decision-making process and faster responses. A common Japanese

management tool, hoshin kanri, also known as policy deployment, breaks down high-level

corporate goals into meaningful objectives at the working level of the organization.

5.1.7. Product Design and Development

There needs to be a proper coordination and synchronization with the product design and

development function for LM implementation. Optimization comes from an effective R&D

process. Concurrent Engineering (CE) or Simultaneous Engineering technique is one of the

most popular practices being considered as one of the criteria for lean implementation in the

manufacturing sector to reduce time-to-market of new product development and also to

integrate customer early in the process. To understand the needs of the customer, market

research is necessary because the product design and development will ultimately depend on

the ‘voice of customer’ which needs to be carefully translated into technical requirements. To

meet the technical requirements and to improve product manufacturability and assembly, parts

standardization or modularization is a significant lean practice being considered. Mushroom

concept is used to bring in flexibility within standardization. The product needs to be so

designed that standard components and parts can be used to produce a large variety of the final

finished product. This reduces the manufacturing cost, facilitates product producibility and

hence plays an important role in LM implementation. Product data management (PDM) system

is the use of software to manage product data and process-related information in a single, central

system and assists in leanness improvement.



10

5.1.8. Quality Governance

A proper orientation towards quality methods will facilitate the LM implementation process.

Importance of TQM as a lean practice is accepted by all researchers and practitioners. TQM

principles are to be adopted to raise quality consciousness among all the employees, which will,

in turn drive organisational effectiveness. Kaizen, the continual pursuit of improvements in

quality, cost, delivery and design, is again one of the most common tools referred by researchers

on lean. Through kaizen, organizations strive to incrementally improve performance and to

sustain a culture of continuous improvement. In lean production, one of the objectives of quality

management is to achieve a higher degree of process capability and control, in which SPC/SQC

plays a major role. Implementation of concepts like ZQC and poka yoke ensures variability

reduction and defect prevention. The quality tools which are considered as lean enablers are 7

QC Tools, 5 Why’s, Root Cause Analysis, QFD and FMEA. The quality practices of

management which assist in LM implementation are 5S, Quality Circle, Jidoka, PDCA and

Kaikaku. By Quality Governance, we mean that collective process of governing the quality

methods, practices, tools and techniques, which will lead to a proper and smooth LM

implementation in a manufacturing setup.

5.1.9. Strategic Process Management

A process may be considered as an ensemble of activities that transforms the input resources

into outputs that are valued by customers. By strategic process control we mean a set of

activities of monitoring the performance of a manufacturing process. It is the application of

knowledge, skills, technologies, tools and techniques or structured methods to define, explicate,

visualize, study, measure and control the processes to provide the desired utilities to the

customer while meeting the organizational objectives. The objective of strategic process control

is to institutionalize the elimination of wastes as well as allow quick response to customer

demands and product changes. Visual management, coupled with proper equipment layout and

materials handling techniques, goes a long way in reducing wastes. The very first step of

strategic process control is process mapping, that is, a systematic study of each activity of the

current process to understand what it aims to do, how it actually performs, what resources are

consumed and what value addition it really does. It should look at every step in the process of

producing an output. This is very useful in identifying which are wasteful activities or which



11

activities are consuming unnecessary extra resources. Success depends on how well value

analysis can be done and how well VSM can be employed to identify and eliminate non-value

added (NVA) activities and reduce necessary but non-value added (NNVA) activities. The

expected outcome of an effective implementation of strategic process control is higher

productivity.

5.1.10. Supplier Management

Suppliers play a vital role in successful LM implementation. Lean philosophy focuses on

supplier development and involvement and believes in having long term relationship with

suppliers. Supplier development not only focuses on supplier training but also gives due

importance to the feedback received from suppliers. LM emphasizes on supplier dependency

and thus advocates reduction in supplier base but increase in two-way communication between

supplier and purchaser. The manufacturing firm needs to build up long term relationship with

supplier and to have a “trickle-down effect” through the supply chain such that suppliers should

develop the urge for lean adoption.

5.1.11. Role of Technology

Technology plays a role in improving the existing manufacturing process and implementing a

successful LM system. One of the most common manufacturing setup for LM is the cellular

manufacturing which depends on Group Technology to physically systemize all the facilities

required for one or more similar products into one manufacturing location or cell. Focused

factory, one of the lean concepts, attempts to reduce the complexities of the manufacturing

process by simplifying the organizational structure, reducing the numbers of products or

processes, and minimizing the complexities of the physical constraints. Since lean evolved from

empirical experience of practitioners, it is necessary to monitor technological development for

its successful implementation. In this respect, adopting new process equipment or technologies

have been considered as an effective lean practice

6. Conclusion

A comprehensive study of the input manifest variables for successful lean implementation has

been focussed upon in this work. Though lot of work has been done on LM, very few researches



12

have been done on its review. In the last four decades many researchers have put forward many

factors responsible for LM implementation but there is no such publication which put all these

factors in one place. This work is an attempt to bridge this gap and enumerate all the input

manifest enablers for LM implementation in a manufacturing setup. Based on literature survey,

followed by Delphi exercise, a conceptual model has been suggested for the said purpose. This

model may be considered as truly holistic in nature since it does not entail only a few selected

factors of LM but includes all the possible factors which have been presented in numerous

literatures in the past.

Certain limitations of this work confine the interpretation of our findings. This study is limited

to the manufacturing sector and has scope for extending the concept to the service sector as

well. Since there is a myriad of literature on lean implementation, with a view to making the

analysis and its presentation effective, those articles were chosen where at least three manifests

were mentioned in order to be considered with a degree of significance. Considering the

plethora of references available, for practical purposes, the references with less than three

manifests have been excluded. Hence, Table 1 is an effective-comprehensive list of articles that

have been considered here but not exhaustive in the sense that those articles where the mention

of manifests is less than three have been excluded. Secondly, only the articles published in

refereed journals have been examined in this study.

The objective of this work was to provide a comprehensive list of all the input factors

considered by researchers and practitioners for LM implementation. This work purely focuses

on a review of past literature, based on which a conceptual model has been developed. Scope

remains for statistically validating the proposed model with the use of appropriate statistical

tools. The list provided in this study and the model suggested may be easily considered as

guidelines to implement lean successfully in a manufacturing organization.

References

Abdulmalek, F. A., & Rajgopal, J. (2007). Analyzing the benefits of lean manufacturing and value stream

mapping via simulation: A process sector case study. International Journal of Production

Economics, 107(1), 223-236.

Abdulmalek, F. A., Rajgopal, J., & Needy, K. L. (2006). A classification scheme for the process industry to

guide the implementation of lean. Engineering Management Journal, 18(2), 15-25.

Almeida Marodin, G., & Saurin, T. A. (2015). Managing barriers to lean production implementation:

context matters. International Journal of Production Research, 53(13), 3947-3962.



13

Almomani, M. A., Aladeemy, M., Abdelhadi, A., & Mumani, A. (2013). A proposed approach for setup

time reduction through integrating conventional SMED method with multiple criteria decision-

making techniques. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 66(2), 461-469.

Alsmadi, M., Almani, A., & Jerisat, R. (2012). A comparative analysis of Lean practices and

performance in the UK manufacturing and service sector firms. Total Quality Management &

Business Excellence, 23(3-4), 381-396.

Al-Tahat, M. D., & Jalham, I. S. (2015). A structural equation model and a statistical investigation of

lean-based quality and productivity improvement. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 26(3), 571-

583.

Alves, J. R. X., & Alves, J. M. (2015). Production management model integrating the principles of lean

manufacturing and sustainability supported by the cultural transformation of a

company. International Journal of Production Research, 53(17), 5320-5333.

Amin, M. A., & Karim, M. A. (2013). A time-based quantitative approach for selecting lean strategies

for manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Production Research, 51(4), 1146-1167.

Anand, G., & Kodali, R. (2010). Analysis of lean manufacturing frameworks. Journal of Advanced

Manufacturing Systems, 9(01), 1-30.

Arnheiter, E. D., & Maleyeff, J. (2005). The integration of lean management and Six Sigma. The TQM

Magazine, 17(1), 5-18.

Bayou, M. E., & De Korvin, A. (2008). Measuring the leanness of manufacturing systems—a case study

of Ford Motor Company and General Motors. Journal of Engineering and Technology

Management, 25(4), 287-304.

Belekoukias, I., Garza-Reyes, J. A., & Kumar, V. (2014). The impact of lean methods and tools on the

operational performance of manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Production

Research, 52(18), 5346-5366.

Bendell, T. (2006). A review and comparison of six sigma and the lean organisations. The TQM

magazine, 18(3), 255-262.

Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F. E., & Paciarotti, C. (2015). Implementing lean information management:

the case study of an automotive company. Production Planning & Control, 26(10), 753-768.

Bhamu, J., & Singh Sangwan, K. (2014). Lean manufacturing: literature review and research

issues. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(7), 876-940.

Bhasin, S. (2008). Lean and performance measurement. Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management, 19(5), 670-684.

Bhasin, S. (2012). Performance of Lean in large organisations. Journal of Manufacturing

Systems, 31(3), 349-357.

Bicheno, J., Holweg, M., & Niessmann, J. (2001). Constraint batch sizing in a lean

environment. International Journal of Production Economics, 73(1), 41-49.

Black, J. T. (2007). Design rules for implementing the Toyota Production System. International Journal

of Production Research, 45(16), 3639-3664.

Bokhorst, J. A., & Slomp, J. (2010). Lean production control at a high-variety, low-volume parts

manufacturer. Interfaces, 40(4), 303-312.



14

Bruun, P., & Mefford, R. N. (2004). Lean production and the Internet. International Journal of

Production Economics, 89(3), 247-260.

Camacho-Miñano, M. D. M., Moyano-Fuentes, J., & Sacristán-Díaz, M. (2013). What can we learn

from the evolution of research on lean management assessment?. International Journal of

Production Research, 51(4), 1098-1116.

Chavez, R., Yu, W., Jacobs, M., Fynes, B., Wiengarten, F., & Lecuna, A. (2015). Internal lean practices

and performance: The role of technological turbulence. International Journal of Production

Economics, 160, 157-171.

Chen, F. F. (2009). Decision support for lean practitioners: A web-based adaptive assessment

approach. Computers in Industry, 60(4), 277-283.

Chiarini, A. (2011). Japanese total quality control, TQM, Deming's system of profound knowledge,

BPR, lean and Six Sigma: comparison and discussion. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 2(4),

332-355.

Chun Wu, Y. (2003). Lean manufacturing: a perspective of lean suppliers. International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, 23(11), 1349-1376.

Cullinane, S. J., Bosak, J., Flood, P. C., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job design under lean manufacturing

and the quality of working life: a job demands and resources perspective. The International Journal

of Human Resource Management, 25(21), 2996-3015.

De Haan, J., Naus, F., & Overboom, M. (2012). Creative tension in a lean work environment:

Implications for logistics firms and workers. International Journal of Production Economics, 137(1),

157-164.

Deflorin, P., & Scherrer-Rathje, M. (2012). Challenges in the transformation to lean production from

different manufacturing-process choices: a path-dependent perspective. International Journal of


Detty, R. B., & Yingling, J. C. (2000). Quantifying benefits of conversion to lean manufacturing with

discrete event simulation: a case study. International Journal of Production Research, 38(2), 429-

445.

Di Pietro, L., Mugion, R. G., & Renzi, M. F. (2013). An integrated approach between Lean and customer

feedback tools: An empirical study in the public sector. Total Quality Management & Business

Excellence, 24(7-8), 899-917.

Doolen, T. L., & Hacker, M. E. (2005). A review of lean assessment in organizations: an exploratory

study of lean practices by electronics manufacturers. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 24(1), 55.

Dora, M., Kumar, M., Van Goubergen, D., Molnar, A., & Gellynck, X. (2013). Operational performance

and critical success factors of lean manufacturing in European food processing SMEs. Trends in

Food Science & Technology, 31(2), 156-164.

Eswaramoorthi, M., Kathiresan, G. R., Prasad, P. S. S., & Mohanram, P. V. (2011). A survey on lean

practices in Indian machine tool industries. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing

Technology, 52(9-12), 1091-1101.

Forza, C. (1996). Work organization in lean production and traditional plants: what are the

differences?. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(2), 42-62.

Gao, S., & Low, S. P. (2014). The Toyota Way model: an alternative framework for lean

construction. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(5-6), 664-682.



15

Ghobakhloo, M., & Hong, T. S. (2014). IT investments and business performance improvement: the

mediating role of lean manufacturing implementation. International Journal of Production

Research, 52(18), 5367-5384.

Ghosh, M. (2012). Lean manufacturing performance in Indian manufacturing plants. Journal of

Manufacturing Technology Management, 24(1), 113-122.

Godinho Filho, M., Ganga, G. M. D., & Gunasekaran, A. (2016). Lean manufacturing in Brazilian small

and medium enterprises: implementation and effect on performance. International Journal of


Green, J. C., Lee, J., & Kozman, T. A. (2010). Managing lean manufacturing in material handling

operations. International Journal of Production Research, 48(10), 2975-2993.

Gupta, S., & Jain, S. K. (2013). A literature review of lean manufacturing. International Journal of

Management Science and Engineering Management, 8(4), 241-249.

Haque, B., & James-Moore, M. (2004). Applying lean thinking to new product introduction. Journal of

Engineering Design, 15(1), 1-31.

Hasle, P., Bojesen, A., Langaa Jensen, P., & Bramming, P. (2012). Lean and the working environment:

a review of the literature. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32(7),

829-849.

Hines, P., Holweg, M., & Rich, N. (2004). Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean

thinking. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(10), 994-1011.

Hofer, C., Eroglu, C., & Hofer, A. R. (2012). The effect of lean production on financial performance:

The mediating role of inventory leanness. International Journal of Production Economics, 138(2),

242-253.

Holweg, M. (2007). The genealogy of lean production. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 420-

437.

Hoss, M., & ten Caten, C. S. (2013). Lean schools of thought. International Journal of Production

Research, 51(11), 3270-3282.

Houshmand, M., & Jamshidnezhad, B. (2006). An extended model of design process of lean production

systems by means of process variables. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 22(1), 1-

16.

Hu, Q., Mason, R., Williams, S. J., & Found, P. (2015). Lean implementation within SMEs: a literature

review. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 26(7), 980-1012.

Huxley, C. (2015). Three Decades of Lean Production: Practice, Ideology, and Resistance. International

Journal of Sociology, 45(2), 133-151.

Janoski, T. (2015). The New Division of Labor as Lean Production. International Journal of

Sociology, 45(2), 85-94.

Jasti, N. V. K., & Kodali, R. (2014). A literature review of empirical research methodology in lean

manufacturing. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(8), 1080-1122.

Jasti, N. V. K., & Kodali, R. (2015a). A critical review of lean supply chain management frameworks:

proposed framework. Production Planning & Control 26(13), 1051-1068.

Jasti, N. V. K., & Kodali, R. (2015b). Lean production: literature review and trends. International

Journal of Production Research, 53(3), 867-885.



16

Jayaram, J., Vickery, S., & Droge, C. (2008). Relationship building, lean strategy and firm performance:

an exploratory study in the automotive supplier industry. International Journal of Production

Research, 46(20), 5633-5649.

Kajdan, V. (2008). Bumpy road to lean enterprise. Total Quality Management, 19(1-2), 91-99.

Karlsson, C., & Åhlström, P. (1996). Assessing changes towards lean production. International Journal

of Operations & Production Management, 16(2), 24-41.

Khanchanapong, T., Prajogo, D., Sohal, A. S., Cooper, B. K., Yeung, A. C., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2014).

The unique and complementary effects of manufacturing technologies and lean practices on

manufacturing operational performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 153, 191-

203.

Kosonen, K., & Buhanist, P. (1995). Customer focused lean production development. International

Journal of Production Economics, 41(1), 211-216.

Krafcik, J. F. (1988). Triumph of the lean production system. MIT Sloan Management Review, 30(1),

41-52.

Laosirihongthong, T., Tan, K. C., & Kannan, V. R. (2010). The impact of market focus on operations

practices. International Journal of Production Research, 48(20), 5943-5961.

Losonci, D., Demeter, K., & Jenei, I. (2011). Factors influencing employee perceptions in lean

transformations. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 30-43.

Lyons, A. C., Vidamour, K., Jain, R., & Sutherland, M. (2013). Developing an understanding of lean

thinking in process industries. Production Planning & Control, 24(6), 475-494.

Marin-Garcia, J. A., & Bonavia, T. (2015). Relationship between employee involvement and lean

manufacturing and its effect on performance in a rigid continuous process industry. International


Marodin, G. A., & Saurin, T. A. (2013). Implementing lean production systems: research areas and

opportunities for future studies. International Journal of Production Research, 51(22), 6663-6680.

McDonald, T., Ellis, K. P., Van Aken, E. M., & Patrick Koelling, C. (2009). Development and

application of a worker assignment model to evaluate a lean manufacturing cell. International


Melton, T. (2005). The benefits of lean manufacturing: what lean thinking has to offer the process

industries. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 83(6), 662-673.

Mirdad, W. K., & Eseonu, C. I. (2015). A Conceptual Map of the Lean Nomenclature: Comparing

Expert Classification to the Lean Literature. Engineering Management Journal, 27(4), 188-202.

Mostafa, S., Lee, S. H., Dumrak, J., Chileshe, N., & Soltan, H. (2015). Lean thinking for a maintenance

process. Production & Manufacturing Research, 3(1), 236-272.

Motwani, J. (2003). A business process change framework for examining lean manufacturing: a case

study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 103(5), 339-346.

Näslund, D. (2008). Lean, six sigma and lean sigma: fads or real process improvement

methods?. Business Process Management Journal, 14(3), 269-287.

Nepal, B. P., Yadav, O. P., & Solanki, R. (2011). Improving the NPD process by applying lean

principles: A case study. Engineering Management Journal, 23(1), 52-68.



17

Paez, O., Dewees, J., Genaidy, A., Tuncel, S., Karwowski, W., & Zurada, J. (2004). The lean

manufacturing enterprise: An emerging sociotechnological system integration. Human Factors and

Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 14(3), 285-306.

Pakdil, F., & Leonard, K. M. (2014). Criteria for a lean organisation: development of a lean assessment

tool. International Journal of Production Research, 52(15), 4587-4607.

Panizzolo, R., Garengo, P., Sharma, M. K., & Gore, A. (2012). Lean manufacturing in developing

countries: evidence from Indian SMEs. Production Planning & Control, 23(10-11), 769-788.

Panwar, A., Jain, R., & Rathore, A. P. S. (2015). Lean implementation in Indian process industries–

some empirical evidence. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 26(1), 131-160.

Papadopoulou, T. C., & Özbayrak, M. (2005). Leanness: experiences from the journey to date. Journal

of Manufacturing Technology Management, 16(7), 784-807.

Pavnaskar, S. J., Gershenson, J. K., & Jambekar, A. B. (2003). Classification scheme for lean

manufacturing tools. International Journal of Production Research, 41(13), 3075-3090.

Pettersen, J. (2009). Defining lean production: some conceptual and practical issues. The TQM

Journal, 21(2), 127-142.

Pool, A., Wijngaard, J., & Van der Zee, D. J. (2011). Lean planning in the semi-process industry, a case

study. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 194-203.

Powell, D., Riezebos, J., & Strandhagen, J. O. (2013). Lean production and ERP systems in small-and

medium-sized enterprises: ERP support for pull production. International Journal of Production

Research, 51(2), 395-409.

Pullan, T. T., Bhasi, M., & Madhu, G. (2013). Decision support tool for lean product and process

development. Production Planning & Control, 24(6), 449-464.

Ramesh, V., & Kodali, R. (2012). A decision framework for maximising lean manufacturing

performance. International Journal of Production Research, 50(8), 2234-2251.

Salem, R., Musharavati, F., Hamouda, A. M., & Al-Khalifa, K. N. (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.

Salimi, M., Hadjali, H. R., & Sorooshian, S. (2012). A lean production framework for Malaysian

automotive and heavy machinery industry. Journal of Applied Sciences, 12(13), 1402.

Saurin, T. A., Marodin, G. A., & Ribeiro, J. L. D. (2011). A framework for assessing the use of lean

production practices in manufacturing cells. International Journal of Production Research, 49(11),

3211-3230.

Saurin, T. A., Rooke, J., & Koskela, L. (2013). A complex systems theory perspective of lean

production. International Journal of Production Research, 51(19), 5824-5838.

Serrano Lasa, I., Castro, R. D., & Laburu, C. O. (2009). Extent of the use of Lean concepts proposed for

a value stream mapping application. Production Planning & Control, 20(1), 82-98.

Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2003). Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and

performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 129-149.

Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2007). Defining and developing measures of lean production. Journal of

Operations Management, 25(4), 785-805.



18

Shah, R., Chandrasekaran, A., & Linderman, K. (2008). In pursuit of implementation patterns: the

context of Lean and Six Sigma. International Journal of Production Research, 46(23), 6679-6699.

Sharma, V., Dixit, A. R., & Qadri, M. A. (2016). Modeling Lean implementation for manufacturing

sector. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(2), 405-426.

Shewchuk, J. P. (2008). Worker allocation in lean U-shaped production lines. International Journal of


Singh Sangwan, K., Bhamu, J., & Mehta, D. (2014). Development of lean manufacturing

implementation drivers for Indian ceramic industry. International Journal of Productivity and

Performance Management, 63(5), 569-587.

So, S., & Sun, H. (2011). An extension of IDT in examining the relationship between electronic-enabled

supply chain integration and the adoption of lean production. International Journal of Production

Research, 49(2), 447-466.

Stentoft Arlbjørn, J., & Vagn Freytag, P. (2013). Evidence of lean: a review of international peer-

reviewed journal articles. European Business Review, 25(2), 174-205.

Stone, K. B. (2012). Four decades of lean: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Lean

Six Sigma, 3(2), 112-132.

Sundar, R., Balaji, A. N., & Kumar, R. S. (2014). A review on lean manufacturing implementation

techniques. Procedia Engineering, 97, 1875-1885.

Susilawati, A., Tan, J., Bell, D., & Sarwar, M. (2015). Fuzzy logic based method to measure degree of

lean activity in manufacturing industry. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 34, 1-11.

Taj, S. (2005). Applying lean assessment tools in Chinese hi-tech industries. Management

Decision, 43(4), 628-643.

Taylor, A., Taylor, M., & McSweeney, A. (2013). Towards greater understanding of success and

survival of lean systems. International Journal of Production Research, 51(22), 6607-6630.

Thanki, S. J., & Thakkar, J. (2014). Status of lean manufacturing practices in Indian industries and

government initiatives: A pilot study. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 25(5),

655-675.

Thanki, S., Govindan, K., & Thakkar, J. (2016). An investigation on lean-green implementation

practices in Indian SMEs using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 135, 284-298.

Tuli, P., & Shankar, R. (2015). Collaborative and lean new product development approach: a case study

in the automotive product design. International Journal of Production Research, 53(8), 2457-2471.

Vinodh, S., & Chintha, S. K. (2011a). Leanness assessment using multi-grade fuzzy

approach. International Journal of Production Research, 49(2), 431-445.

Vinodh, S., & Chintha, S. K. (2011b). Application of fuzzy QFD for enabling leanness in a

manufacturing organisation. International Journal of Production Research, 49(6), 1627-1644.

Vinodh, S., & Joy, D. (2012). Structural equation modelling of lean manufacturing

practices. International Journal of Production Research, 50(6), 1598-1607.

Wang, L., Ming, X. G., Kong, F. B., Li, D., & Wang, P. P. (2011). Focus on implementation: a

framework for lean product development. Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management, 23(1), 4-24.



19

Warnecke, H. J., & Hüser, M. (1995). Lean production. International Journal of Production

Economics, 41(1), 37-43.

Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., Roos, D., & Carpenter, D. S. (1990). The machine that changed the world.

New York: Rawson Associates, Macmillan Publishing Company. ISBN 0-89256-350-8.

Yadav, O. P., Nepal, B. P., Rahaman, M. M., & Lal, V. (2017). Lean Implementation and Organizational

Transformation: A Literature Review. Engineering Management Journal, 29(1), 2-16.

Zahraee, S. M. (2016). A survey on lean manufacturing implementation in a selected manufacturing

industry in Iran. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 7(2), 136-148.

Table 1. Input latent constructs and manifest variables for successful LM implementation.

Latent

Construct

Manifest Variables Attributes collated from Literature Survey References

Customer

Management

(CM)

Customer Relationship

(CM1) Long Term Customer Relationship / Close Customer

Contact

Chavez et al., 2015; Jasti and Kodali, 2015a; Jayaram et al.,

2008; Panizzolo et al., 2012.

Customer Involvement

(CM2)

Active Involvement of Customer / Direct Involvement of

Customer / Feedback from Customers

Di Pietro et al., 2013; Dora et al., 2013; Haque and James-

Moore, 2004; Hofer et al., 2012; Panizzolo et al., 2012;

Pool et al., 2011; Tuli and Shankar, 2015.

Customers’ Demand

Analysis

(CM3)

Information from Customers regarding Customer

Demands / Customer Requirement Analysis / Understand

Customer Needs

Bicheno et al., 2001; Hofer et al., 2012; McDonald et al.,

2009; Panizzolo et al., 2012; Pool et al., 2011; Pullan et al.,

2013.

Flexibility to meet

Customer Requirements

(CM4)

Flexibility in Product Customization to meet Customer

Requirements / JIT Delivery to Customer / Reliable and

Prompt Delivery

Al-Tahat and Jalham, 2015; Jayaram et al., 2008;

Laosirihongthong et al., 2010; Susilawati et al., 2015;

Vinodh and Chintha, 2011b.

Human Resource

Management

(HRM)

Workforce

Empowerment and

Leadership

(HRM1)

Self-Directed Work Teams / Workforce Empowerment /

Decentralized Responsibilities / Work Delegation /

Employee and Labour Utilization / Effective Leadership

De Haan et al., 2012; Kosonen and Buhanist, 1995; Marin-

Garcia and Bonavia, 2015; Motwani, 2003; Papadopoulou

and Özbayrak, 2005; Shah and Ward, 2003; So and Sun,

2011; Susilawati et al., 2015.

Training and Cross-

Functional Workforce

(HRM2)

Individual Training / Team Training / Employee

Development / Multi- Skilled Workers / Improving

Workforce Capability / Labour Flexibilization /

Workforce Capability

Garcia and Bonavia, 2015; Hofer et al., 2012; Kosonen and

Buhanist, 1995; Marin- Motwani, 2003; Panizzolo et al.,

2012; Shah and Ward, 2003; Shah et al., 2008; Singh et al.,

2014.

Teamwork and Problem

Solving

(HRM3)

Problem Solving by all / Gain Support at all Levels /

Teamwork / Effective Team Management / Roles &

Responsibilities / Decision Making / Nemawashi /

Respect for People / Respect for Humanity

Alves and Alves, 2015; Bevilacqua et al., 2015; Bruun and

Mefford, 2004; Mirdad and Eseonu, 2015; Pakdil and

Leonard, 2014; Saurin et al., 2013; Shah and Ward, 2003;



21

Latent

Construct


Taylor et al., 2013; Vinodh and Chintha, 2011a; Vinodh

and Joy, 2012.

Employee Involvement

and Satisfaction

(HRM4)

Employee Spirit / Cooperation / Involvement / Morale /

Motivation / Commitment / Willingness to Learn /

Innovative Performance Appraisal / Performance Related

Pay System / Rewards & Recognition / Incentives /

Employee Satisfaction

Bhasin, 2008; Bicheno et al., 2001; Chiarini 2011; Hofer et

al., 2012; Marin-Garcia and Bonavia, 2015; Panizzolo et

al., 2012; Singh et al., 2014.

Culture of the

Organization (HRM5) Culture of the Organization / Change Management /

Genchi Genbutsu / Facilitator Sensei or Engagement

Alves and Alves, 2015; Bhasin, 2008; Elshennawy, 2015;

Losonci et al., 2011; Mirdad and Eseonu, 2015; Näslund,

2008.

Integrative

Planning and

Scheduling

(IPS)

Cycle and Lead Time

Reduction

(IPS1)

Reduction of Cycle Time / Reduction of Lead Time Doolen and Hacker, 2005; Ghosh, 2012; Maley et al., 2013;

Mirdad and Eseonu, 2015; Nepal et al., 2011;

Papadopoulou and Özbayrak, 2005; Pettersen, 2009; Shah

and Ward, 2003; Susilawati et al., 2015.

Production Smoothing

(IPS2)

Heijunka / Streamlining Manufacturing Process /

Balanced Operations / Production Leveling / Production

Smoothing / Reduction of Mura (Unevenness) / Line

Balancing / Bottleneck Removal / Removal of

Constraints / Theory of Constraints / Commercial Actions

to Stabilize Demand

Abdulmalek et al., 2006; Alsmadi et al., 2012; Belekoukias

et al., 2014; Black, 2007; Gao and Low, 2014; Melton,

2005; Paez et al., 2004; Pakdil and Leonard, 2014;

Panizzolo et al., 2012; Pavnaskar et al., 2003; Pool et al.,

2011; Powell et al., 2013; Serrano Lasa et al, 2009; Shah

and Ward, 2003; Shah et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2014;

Vinodh and Chintha, 2011a; Vinodh and Joy, 2012.

Time Management and

Scheduling

(IPS3)

Takt Time Control / Proper Scheduling / Planning &

Scheduling Strategies

Abdulmalek and Rajgopal, 2007; Bayou and De Korvin,

2008; Belekoukias et al., 2014; Bicheno et al., 2001; Black,

2007; Bokhorst and Slomp, 2010; Deflorin and Scherrer-

Rathje, 2012; Detty and Yingling, 2000; Karlsson and

Åhlström, 1996; Kosonen and Buhanist, 1995; Lyons et al.,



22

Latent

Construct


2013; Marodin and Saurin, 2013; McDonald et al., 2009;

Mostafa et al., 2015; Pakdil and Leonard, 2014;

Papadopoulou and Özbayrak, 2005; Pool et al., 2011;

Salimi et al., 2012; Shah and Ward, 2003; Susilawati et al.,

2015; Taj, 2005; Thanki and Thakkar, 2014; Vinodh and

Chintha, 2011a; Vinodh and Chintha, 2011b; Vinodh and

Joy, 2012.

Work Standardization

(IPS4)

Standardization of Manufacturing Processes /

Standardization of Work / Standardized Work

Almeida Marodin and Saurin, 2015; Arnheiter and

Maleyeff, 2005; Deflorin and Scherrer-Rathje, 2012; Gao

and Low, 2014; Haque and James-Moore, 2004; Huxley,

2015; Kajdan, 2008; Lyons et al., 2013; Mirdad and

Eseonu, 2015; Mostafa et al., 2015; Papadopoulou and

Özbayrak, 2005; Pettersen, 2009; Pullan et al., 2013; Singh

et al., 2014; Susilawati et al., 2015.

Internal

Operations

Synchronization

(IOS)

Continuous Flow (IOS1) Just-In-Time / Continuous Flow Production without

Interruptions, Backflow or Scrap

Alsmadi et al., 2012; Bevilacqua et al., 2015; Bruun and

Mefford, 2004; Camacho-Miñano et al., 2013; Cullinane et

al., 2014; Hofer et al., 2012; Janoski, 2015;

Khanchanapong et al., 2014; Melton, 2005; Serrano Lasa et

al, 2009; Shah and Ward, 2003; Shah and Ward, 2007; Shah

et al., 2008; Zahraee, 2016;

Pull System (IOS2) Pull Production / Kanban System Abdulmalek and Rajgopal, 2007; Almomani et al., 2013;

Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005; Bayou and De Korvin,

2008; Belekoukias et al., 2014; Bevilacqua et al., 2015;

Bokhorst and Slomp, 2010; Bruun and Mefford, 2004;

Hofer et al., 2012; Khanchanapong et al., 2014; Melton,

2005; Mirdad and Eseonu, 2015; Mostafa et al., 2015;



23

Latent

Construct


Powell et al., 2013; So and Sun, 2011; Vinodh and Chintha,

2011a; Zahraee, 2016.

Setup Reduction (IOS3) Quick Changeover Techniques / SMED / Setup

Reduction / Reducing Setup Time

Abdulmalek and Rajgopal, 2007; Abdulmalek et al., 2006;

Almomani et al., 2013; Bicheno et al., 2001; Black, 2007;

Hofer et al., 2012; Karlsson and Åhlström, 1996; Marodin

and Saurin, 2013; Serrano Lasa et al, 2009; Vinodh and

Chintha, 2011a.

Lot Size Reduction and

SPF (IOS4) Small Batches / Single Piece Flow / One Piece Flow Almomani et al., 2013; Al-Tahat and Jalham, 2015;

Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005; Belekoukias et al., 2014;

Black, 2007; Doolen and Hacker, 2005; Eswaramoorthi et

al., 2011; Haque and James-Moore, 2004; Marodin and

Saurin, 2013; Nepal et al., 2011; Panwar et al., 2015; Shah

and Ward, 2003; So and Sun, 2011; Susilawati et al., 2015.

Total Productive

Maintenance (IOS5) TPM / Worker Training on Maintenance / Predictive

Maintenance / Preventive Maintenance / Planned

Equipment Maintenance / Zero Breakdowns / Zero

Defects / Zero Accidents / Maintenance Optimization /

OEE / Equipment Utilization / Improvements in

Equipment Effectiveness / Safety / Safety Improvement

Methods and Programs

Abdulmalek and Rajgopal, 2007; Alsmadi et al., 2012; Al-

Tahat and Jalham, 2015; Amin and Karim, 2013; Anand

and Kodali, 2010; Bayou and De Korvin, 2008;

Belekoukias et al., 2014; Camacho-Miñano et al., 2013;

Godinho Filho et al., 2016; Green et al., 2010; Gupta and

Jain, 2013; Hofer et al., 2012; Mostafa et al., 2015; Salem

et al., 2016; Saurin et al., 2011; Shah and Ward, 2003; Shah

and Ward, 2007; Susilawati et al., 2015; Thanki et al., 2016.

Management

Information

System

(MIS)

Information Flow &

Information Sharing

(MIS1)

Smooth Information Flow / Vertical Information System

/ Transparency in Information Sharing

Bevilacqua et al., 2015; De Haan et al., 2012; Deflorin and

Scherrer-Rathje, 2012; Houshmand and Jamshidnezhad, 2006;

Jasti and Kodali, 2015a; Sharma et al., 2016.

Communication Plan

(MIS2) Clear Communication Plan Green et al. 2010.



24

Latent

Construct


Effective

Communication

(MIS3)

Effective Process of Communication Losonci et al., 2011; Marin-Garcia and Bonavia, 2015; Pool

et al., 2011; Zahraee, 2016.

Knowledge Sharing

(MIS4) Knowledge Sharing / Knowledge Management /

Knowledge Transfer

Cullinane et al., 2014; Melton, 2005.

Management Role

(MR)

Top Management

Support (MR1) Top Management Involvement / Support / Suitable

Infrastructure with required Resources, Tools

Jasti and Kodali, 2015a; Motwani, 2003; Näslund, 2008.

Few Levels of

Management (MR2) Flat Organization Janoski, 2015; Panizzolo et al., 2012.

Vision and Long Term

Commitment (MR3) Clarity of Vision / Long Term Commitment / Long Term

Strategy / Long Term Philosophy

Houshmand and Jamshidnezhad, 2006; Losonci et al.,

2011; Motwani, 2003; So and Sun, 2011.

Hoshin Kanri (MR4) Hoshin Kanri / Policy Deployment Chiarini 2011; Hoss and ten Caten, 2013; Pettersen, 2009;

Taylor et al., 2013.

Product Design

and Development

(PDD)

Research &

Development (PDD1) Research & Development Paez et al., 2004; Sharma et al., 2016; Susilawati et al.,

2015.

Concurrent Engineering

(PDD2) Concurrent Engineering / Simultaneous Engineering /

Lead Time Reduction of Product Development

Jayaram et al., 2008; Marodin and Saurin, 2013; Nepal et

al., 2011; Pullan et al., 2013; Sharma et al., 2016; Singh et

al., 2014; Wang et al., 2011.

Parts Standardization /

Modularization (PDD3) Design for Manufacture & Assembly (DFMA) /

Mushroom Concept

Doolen and Hacker, 2005; Marodin and Saurin, 2013;

Panizzolo et al., 2012.

Market Research (PDD4) Market Research Susilawati et al., 2015; Thanki and Thakkar, 2014.

Product Data

Management Systems

((PDD5)

Product Data Management Systems / PDM Systems Haque and James-Moore, 2004; Vinodh and Chintha,

2011a.



25

Latent

Construct


Quality

Governance

(QG)

TQM & Kaizen (QG1) Total Quality Management / Total Quality Control /

Competitive Benchmarking / Continuous Improvement /

Kaizen / PDCA Cycle / Deming Cycle

Abdulmalek and Rajgopal, 2007; Al-Tahat and Jalham,

2015; Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005; Camacho-Miñano et

al., 2013; Huxley, 2015; Jasti and Kodali, 2015b; Losonci

et al., 2011; Mirdad and Eseonu, 2015; Susilawati et al.,

2015; Vinodh and Chintha, 2011a; Vinodh and Chintha,

2011b.

SPC and Process

Capability (QG2) Process Control Focus / Process Capability Measurement

/ Statistical Process Control (SPC) / Statistical Quality

Control (SQC) / Variability Reduction / Variation

Reduction / Six Sigma / Zero Quality Control (ZQC) /

Error Proofing / Mistake Proofing / Poka Yoke / Defect

Prevention / Foolproof / Pursuit of Perfection

Al-Tahat and Jalham, 2015; Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005;

Bendell, 2006; Bendell, 2006; Chiarini 2011; Forza, 1996;

Forza, 1996; Godinho Filho et al., 2016; Hines et al., 2004;

Hofer et al., 2012; Laosirihongthong et al., 2010; Marodin

and Saurin, 2013; Panwar et al., 2015; Pavnaskar et al.,

2003; Shah and Ward, 2003; Shah and Ward, 2007; Taj,

2005; Thanki and Thakkar, 2014.

Quality Tools and

Techniques (QG3) 7 Quality Control (QC) Tools / 7 Quality Control Tools /

Pareto Analysis / 5 Why’s / Root Cause Analysis / Quality

Function Deployment (QFD) / Failure Mode and Effects

Analysis (FMEA)

Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005; Deflorin and Scherrer-

Rathje, 2012; Eswaramoorthi et al., 2011; Houshmand and

Jamshidnezhad, 2006; Maley et al., 2013; Marodin and

Saurin, 2013; Mirdad and Eseonu, 2015; Mostafa et al.,

2015; Vinodh and Chintha, 2011b; Vinodh and Joy, 2012;

Wang et al., 2011.

Quality Practices (QG4) 5 S Practice / Shop floor Organization / Workplace

Organization / Quality Circle / Jidoka (Autonomation) /

Kaikaku (Radical Change)

Anand and Kodali, 2010; Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005;

Belekoukias et al., 2014; Bhasin, 2012; Chiarini 2011;

Eswaramoorthi et al., 2011; Gao and Low, 2014; Godinho

Filho et al., 2016; Hoss and ten Caten, 2013; Jasti and

Kodali, 2015a; Karlsson and Åhlström, 1996; arin-Garcia

and Bonavia, 2015; Marodin and Saurin, 2013; Mirdad and

Eseonu, 2015; Motwani, 2003; Pavnaskar et al., 2003;



26

Latent

Construct


Pettersen, 2009; Pool et al., 2011; Salem et al., 2016; Sharma

et al., 2016; Sundar et al., 2014; Thanki et al., 2016.

Strategic Process

Control

(SPC)

Process and Value

Stream Mapping (SPC1) Process Mapping / Value Stream / Value Stream Mapping

(VSM) / Activity Based Management

Bendell, 2006; Bhasin, 2012; Camacho-Miñano et al.,

2013; Chen, 2009; Green et al., 2010; Pavnaskar et al.,

2003; Pool et al., 2011; Ramesh and Kodali, 2012; Stentoft

Arlbjørn and Vagn Freytag, 2013; Sundar et al., 2014;

Taylor et al., 2013.

Value Analysis and

Waste Elimination

(SPC2)

Removal of 7 Wastes:

a) Transportation b) Waiting c) Overproduction

d) Defective Units e) Inventory f) Movement

g) Excess Processing

Abdulmalek et al., 2006; Amin and Karim, 2013; Bendell,

2006; Bicheno et al., 2001; Deflorin and Scherrer-Rathje,

2012; De Haan et al., 2012; Gupta and Jain, 2013; Haque

and James-Moore, 2004; Jayaram et al., 2008; Lyons et al.,

2013; Paez et al., 2004; Pettersen, 2009; Shah and Ward,

2007; Tuli and Shankar, 2015; Vinodh and Chintha, 2011a;

Vinodh and Chintha, 2011b; Vinodh and Joy, 2012.

Visual Management

(SPC3) Visual Control / Andon / Visualization / Visual System /

Visual Communication

Bhasin, 2008; 2015; Eswaramoorthi et al., 2011; Gao and

Low, 2014; Mostafa et al., 2015; Pool et al., 2011;

Susilawati et al., 2015.

Equipment Layout and

Materials Handling

(SPC4)

Equipment Layout / Materials Handling / Plant Layout /

Workplace Design

Abdulmalek et al., 2006; Forza, 1996; Salimi et al., 2012;

Green et al., 2010; Khanchanapong et al., 2014; Losonci et

al., 2011; Shah and Ward, 2007; Taj, 2005; Taylor et al.,

2013; Thanki and Thakkar, 2014.

Supplier

Management

(SM)

Supplier Development

(SM1) Supplier Improvement / Supplier Training / Supplier

Empowerment / Supplier Support / Proximity of Supply

Source / Location of Suppliers / Feedback and Information

to Supplier / Supplier Evaluation and Certification /

Minimizing Supplier Variability / Supplier Certification

Alsmadi et al., 2012; Belekoukias et al., 2014; Chavez et

al., 2015; Chun Wu, 2003; Cullinane et al., 2014; Dora et

al., 2013; Ghobakhloo and Hong, 2014; Hofer et al., 2012;

Jasti and Kodali, 2015a; Jayaram et al., 2008;

Laosirihongthong et al., 2010; Pakdil and Leonard, 2014;



27

Latent

Construct


Program / Quality at the Source / Supplier Quality Level /

Supplier Base Reduction / Supplier Number Reduction) /

E-Procurement

Panizzolo et al., 2012; Shah and Ward, 2007; Susilawati et

al., 2015; Taylor et al., 2013.

Supplier Involvement

(SM2) Supplier Involvement / Supplier Integration / Supplier

Participation / Supplier Network/ Supplier Association /

Supplier Coordination / Kyoryoku Kai / Keiretsu /

Feedback from Supplier

Chavez et al., 2015; Dora et al., 2013; Gupta and Jain, 2013;

Hofer et al., 2012; Hu et al., 2015; Jasti and Kodali, 2015a;

Jasti and Kodali, 2015b; Karlsson and Åhlström, 1996;

Panizzolo et al., 2012; Susilawati et al., 2015.

Long Term Relationship

and Contract (SM3) Long Term Relationship with Supplier / Partnership /

Long Term Contracts / Close Supplier Contact / Supplier

Relationship

Alsmadi et al., 2012; Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005;

Chavez et al., 2015; Chun Wu, 2003; Huxley, 2015; Jasti

and Kodali, 2015a; Jayaram et al., 2008; Laosirihongthong

et al., 2010; Panizzolo et al., 2012; Shah and Ward, 2007;

Susilawati et al., 2015; Warnecke and Hüse, 1995.

Delivery from Supplier

(SM4) Supplier's Delivery Program / JIT Delivery / Lean

Supplier

Alsmadi et al., 2012; Chun Wu, 2003; Dora et al., 2013;

Gupta and Jain, 2013; Panizzolo et al., 2012; Shah and

Ward, 2007; Susilawati et al., 2015.

Role of

Technology

(RT)

Cellular Manufacturing

(RT1) Cellular Layout / Group Technology / U-Line System Abdulmalek and Rajgopal, 2007; Abdulmalek et al., 2006;

Bhasin, 2012; De Haan et al., 2012; Jayaram et al., 2008;

McDonald et al., 2009; Mirdad and Eseonu, 2015;

Pavnaskar et al., 2003; Pullan et al., 2013; Salem et al.,

2016; Shah and Ward, 2003; Shewchuk, 2008; Sundar et

al., 2014; Thanki et al., 2016; Zahraee, 2016;

Focused Factory

Production (RT2) Focused Factory Production Bayou and De Korvin, 2008; Marodin and Saurin, 2013;

Salimi et al., 2012; Shah and Ward, 2003; Shah et al., 2008;

Vinodh and Chintha, 2011a.

https://www.kbresearch.com/cips-files/Supplier%20Co-ordination.pdf



28

Latent

Construct


Technological

Development (RT3) New Process Equipment / New Technology Bayou and De Korvin, 2008; Eswaramoorthi et al., 2011;

Gao and Low, 2014; Hoss and ten Caten, 2013; Houshmand

and Jamshidnezhad, 2006; Kosonen and Buhanist, 1995;

Laosirihongthong et al., 2010; Losonci et al., 2011; Mirdad

and Eseonu, 2015; Shah and Ward, 2003.

CM

HRM

IPS

IOS

MIS

MR

PDD

QG

SPC

SM

CM1

CM2

CM3

CM4

HRM1

HRM2

HRM3

HRM4

HRM5

CM: Customer Management

HRM: Human Resource Management

IPS: Integrative Planning and Scheduling

IOS: Internal Operations Synchronization

MIS: Management Information System

MR: Management Role

PDD: Product Design and Development

QG: Quality Governance

SPC: Strategic Process Control

SM: Supplier Management

RT: Role of Technology

IPS1

IPS2

IPS3

IPS4

IOS1

IOS2

IOS3

IOS4

IOS5

MIS1

MIS2

MIS3

MIS4

MR1

MR2

MR3

MR4

PDD1

PDD2

PDD3

PDD4

PDD5

QG1

QG2

QG3

QG4 SPC1

SPC2

SPC3

SPC4

SM1

SM 2

SM3

SM4

RT1

RT2

RT3

Successful Lean

Manufacturing

Implementation

RT Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Lean Inputs for Administering Lean Implementation.

a review of input manifests for lean...

Documents