Sei sulla pagina 1di 18

Measuring Business Excellence

Measuring parameters of lean manufacturing realization


Gulshan Chauhan T.P. Singh
Article information:
To cite this document:
Gulshan Chauhan T.P. Singh, (2012),"Measuring parameters of lean manufacturing realization", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 16 Iss
3 pp. 57 - 71
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683041211257411
Downloaded on: 03 September 2016, At: 21:39 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 42 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3412 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2013),"A methodology for effective implementation of lean strategies and its performance evaluation in manufacturing organizations",
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 1 pp. 169-196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151311294912


(2014),"Lean manufacturing: literature review and research issues", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.
34 Iss 7 pp. 876-940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2012-0315
(2012),"Lean manufacturing performance in Indian manufacturing plants", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 24 Iss 1
pp. 113-122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410381311287517

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:216788 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


Measuring parameters of lean
manufacturing realization
Gulshan Chauhan and T.P. Singh

Gulshan Chauhan is Head Summary


of the Department of Purpose – Manufacturing organizations are under pressure to improve productivity and reduce costs
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

Mechanical Engineering, through the realization of lean manufacturing. This paper approaches lean manufacturing and aims to
Panipat Institute of identify and measure the intimately associated parameters of lean manufacturing and also examines the
Engineering & Technology, weight of their contribution to overall lean manufacturing.
Samalkha, India. T.P. Singh Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire survey study was performed in Indian
is Director of the Symbiosis manufacturing industries to collect data. The reliability of the survey instrument was pre-tested and
Institute of Technology, an acceptable value of Cronbach’s a (a reliability coefficient) was found. Three experts determined the
Pune, India. relative weight of various parameters using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Pearson’s coefficient of
correlation analysis was used to measure the strength of the relationships between various parameters
of lean manufacturing.
Findings – The experts found ‘‘elimination of waste’’ to be the most important parameter of lean
manufacturing, followed by ‘‘just in time deliveries’’. The survey shows that most of the responding firms
are in transition towards the realization of lean manufacturing. These firms believe that the factors that
drive the realization of lean manufacturing are ‘‘just in time deliveries’’ and achieving ‘‘continuous
improvement’’. This study also revealed that Indian manufacturing industries are still overlooking the
elimination of waste, the most important parameter of lean manufacturing.
Research limitations/implications – The major limitation of this paper is the sample size (n ¼ 52).
Practical implications – The present study provides guidelines to assess the status of leanness in the
manufacturing industries. According to conclusions, feeble areas in the manufacturing system can be
identified and a suitable course of action might be planned for the improvement. Hopefully this study will
help the firm’s management to identify the problems to implement an effective lean manufacturing.
Originality/value – In this work, the theoretical perspective was used not only to update the original
instrument, but also to study the subject from a perspective beyond that usually associated with lean
manufacturing.
Keywords Lean manufacturing, Parameters, Manufacturing industry, Survey, Lean production,
Process efficiency
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Manufacturing organizations are under tremendous pressure to improve productivity and
quality while reducing costs. Manufacturing parts that are fault-free from the beginning has
profound consequences for productivity (Hayes and Clark, 1986). Lean manufacturing aims
at the elimination of waste in every area of production, including customer relations, product
design, supplier networks and factory management (Karlsson and Ahlstorm, 1996). The
goal of lean manufacturing is to expend less human effort, less inventory, less time to
develop products, and less space to become highly responsive to customer demand, while
at the same time producing quality products in the most efficient and economical manner
(Motwani, 2003). In the current dynamic business context, leanness has undergone and is
still undergoing a process of continuous and never-ending evolution. It is hard to deny that

DOI 10.1108/13683041211257411 VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012, pp. 57-71, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1368-3047 j MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE j PAGE 57
most of the manufacturing companies that are focusing on a company strategy of cost
reduction through eliminating wastage are going to be sustainable in this competitive world
(Papadopoulau and Ozbayrak, 2005).
Lean manufacturing evolved out of lean thinking, the antidote to waste (Chauhan and Singh,
2011). Waste specifically means any activity that absorbs resources but creates no value. It
is derived from the Toyota Production System (TPS) and its objective is to increase
value-added work by eliminating seven basic types of waste:
1. over-production;
2. motion (of operator, material or machine);
3. waiting of operator, material or machine;
4. conveyance;
5. processing itself;
6. inventory; and
7. corrections (rework and scrap).
The technique often decreases the time between a customer order and shipment, and it is
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

designed to improve profitability, customer satisfaction, throughput time, and employee


motivation. The benefits of lean manufacturing generally are lower costs, higher quality, and
shorter lead times (Puvanasvaran et al., 2008).
The basic ideas behind lean manufacturing, which have been practiced for many years in
Japan, are the elimination of waste, cost reduction, and employee empowerment (Ohno,
1988). The Japanese philosophy of doing business is totally different from the philosophy
that has long been prevalent in the USA (Monden, 1998). The traditional belief in the West
had been that the only way to make profit is to add it to manufacturing costs in order to come
up with a desired selling price. In contrast, the Japanese approach believes that customers
are the generator of the selling price. The more quality one builds into the product and the
more service one offers, the greater the price that customers will pay. The difference
between the cost of the product and this price is what determines the profit (Ohno, 1988).
Cutting the cost of production through the elimination of waste is essential for survival. This
has led manufacturing organizations to implement lean manufacturing. Manufacturing firms
has taken lean manufacturing as a great management tool and many of them have adopted
lean techniques in many different forms and names. Thus, it seems to be important to gain an
understanding of how lean manufacturing can be measured and realized in manufacturing
systems. This paper is focused on the measurement of lean manufacturing parameters and
their realization in Indian manufacturing industry, and also on investigating the areas that
require immediate attention for the realization of lean principles.

2. Literature review
In today’s industrial environment of unprecedented competition coupled with acute resource
crisis, especially of energy and materials, lean manufacturing is a keyword to success (Shah
and Ward, 2007). The lean concept is not a single-point invention, but the outcome of a
dynamic learning process (Holweg, 2007). The attainment of a lean engineering
organization is the critical requirement for ensuring a return on investment in intelligent
manufacturing (Acaccia et al., 1995).
‘‘Lean’’ focuses on reducing waste and on maximizing or fully utilizing activities that add
value from the customer’s perspective (Ohno, 1988; Womack et al., 1990). Waste specifically
means any activity that absorbs resources but creates no value. Lean thinking provides a
way to specify value, line up value-creating actions in the best sequence, conduct these
activities with less human effort, less equipment, less time, and less space, while coming
closer and closer to providing customers with exactly what they want (Womack et al., 1990).
Waste elimination and JIT are the most important components of lean performance (Behrouzi

j j
PAGE 58 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012
and Wong, 2011). Lean manufacturing and environmental management practices are
synergistic in terms of their focus on reducing waste and inefficiency (Yang et al., 2011).
Imai (1986) described the concept, core values and principles, its relation to other concepts
and the practices used in process improvement. According to Imai (1986), before results
can be improved, the process must be improved. Lean emphasizes teamwork, continuous
training and learning, production to demand, mass customization and batch-size reduction,
cellular flow, quick changeover, total productive maintenance, and so on. Not surprisingly,
the implementation of lean utilizes continuous improvement approaches that are both
incremental and breakthrough (Alukal and Manos, 2006). Kaizen requires the continuous
revision of standards and aims at continuous improvement (Robertson et al., 1992). Chiarini
(2011) reviewed six important management systems:
1. Japanese total quality control;
2. quality management;
3. Deming’s philosophy;
4. business process reengineering
5. lean thinking; and
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

6. Six Sigma using Deming’s plan-do-check-act cycle.


He concluded that the common factors in these six systems are:
B results and benefits;
B management style;
B deployment of the system;
B employee management, deployment and participation;
B the voice of the customer;
B tools, techniques and IT; and
B optimization of the system.
According to Robertson et al. (1992) varying the functions of the work team structure
provides a vehicle for job rotation, training and productivity improvement activities. Teams
reduce non value-added activity. Yamaji and Amasaka (2008) proposed the ‘‘New Japan
Quality Management Model’’, which mainly aimed at sharing intellectual information and
strengthening cross-department cooperation. The effectiveness of this model is verified for
the realization of simultaneous achievement of quality, cost and delivery (QCD).
Process improvement activities are crucial tools for companies undergoing lean
transformation and removing waste from their processes (Bateman, 2005). the
commitment of management and the ability of change agents are the key determinants of
success that help companies to improve productivity through applying lean manufacturing
(Herron and Hicks, 2008). Firms that apply lean practices widely have a higher inventory
turnover than those that do not rely on lean manufacturing (Demeter and Matyusz, 2010).
Staats et al. (2011) find that lean software projects perform better than non-lean software
projects for most performance outcomes.
Lean production is an intellectual approach consisting of a system of measures and
methods (Warnecke and Huser, 1995). Karlsson and Ahlstrom (1995) found a significant role
of the remuneration system in the lean production management and realized a need for
congruence between the principles of organization and remuneration. Effective
implementation of lean manufacturing mainly depends on commitment from management
at the top level and the total involvement of staff at all levels within the firm (Mary, 2000).
Seven best practice components – i.e. environment change, leadership, culture, employee
empowerment, training, communication and measurement – must be present in order to
apply lean (Clare, 2005). Top managers who practice lean management must make greater
efforts to ensure that they understand the true meaning of kaizen – i.e. ‘‘change for the

j j
VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 59
better’’ – and ‘‘continuous improvement’’ and ‘‘respect for people’’ principles (Emiliani,
2006). Problem solving capability and top management commitment can achieve a better
level of leanness through infrastructural investments (Puvanasvaran et al., 2009). Lean
manufacturing can be achieved through process improvement and better utilization of
resources (Chauhan et al., 2009). Al-Aomar (2010) presents three lean measures to
characterize the leanness of the underlying production system:
1. productivity;
2. cycle time; and
3. work-in-process inventory.
Chiarini (2011) Integrated lean thinking into ISO 9001 and found that in general, lean thinking
implementation affects documentation such as quality manual, procedures and work
instructions. Furthermore, tools and principles such as value stream mapping, lean metrics,
5S and Takt time are the most used techniques in companies, whereas jidoka and total
productive maintenance are more formalized into ISO 9001 documents. Karthi et al. (2011)
presented a framework to integrate lean Six Sigma requirements as appended additional
sub-clauses in the ISO 9001:2008 standard. They also developed from the process based
quality management system model of ISO 9001:2008 standard based quality management
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

system which aids an organization in implementing a lean Six Sigma program with minimum
effort and expenditure.
Lean manufacturing is not a panacea to solve short-term competitive problems, and its
effects can only be seen in the long term (Soriano-Meier and Forrester, 2002). Rivera and
Chen (2007) proposed the cost-time profile (CTP) as a useful tool for the evaluation of the
improvements achieved by the implementation of lean techniques. Lean manufacturing is
the need of hour in every area of manufacturing for the survival of the companies in fierce
competition.

3. Research methodology
A comprehensive questionnaire covering important parameters of lean manufacturing was
specially designed by referring to previous research conducted by Karlsson and Ahlstorm
(1996) and Soriano-Meier and Forrester (2002) A seven point Likert scale was provided for
responses. While designing the questionnaire, factors like time constraints of people in
industry, reluctance to furnish information on a subject like lean manufacturing and the
actual form in which this information would be available within the industry were taken into
consideration. To ensure the effectiveness and relevance of the questions to the industry,
suggestions given by senior executives from industry and academicians were incorporated.
In total, 53 questions were framed to cover all the parameters of lean manufacturing. The
status of lean manufacturing (LM) was found out for each company from the response to the
questions framed on the following parameters:
B elimination of waste (EOW);
B continuous improvement (CI);
B zero defects (ZD);
B just in time deliveries (JIT);
B pull of raw materials (PRM);
B multifunctional teams (MT);
B decentralization (DC);
B integration of functions (IOF); and
B vertical information systems (VIS).
Although various parameters, as listed above, contribute towards lean manufacturing yet
their contribution cannot be assumed equal. Weights of some parameters may be more than

j j
PAGE 60 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012
others. To determine their relative weights, the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was
employed (Saaty, 1980). Each parameter was compared with other parameters pair-wise.
The comparison was carried out by experts chosen for the purpose. The experts included an
industrial manager, an academician and the researcher himself. The respondents compared
the parameters on a qualitative scale of very low, low, medium, high and very high as the
difference in the importance of two parameters. However, these responses were provided in
quantitative terms by converting the qualitative response as very low ¼ 1, low ¼ 3,
medium ¼ 5, high ¼ 7 and very high ¼ 9. The weight of each parameter towards lean
manufacturing was determined by calculating an eigenvector and normalizing it, as
presented in Table I.
The most important parameter of lean manufacturing is ‘‘elimination of waste’’, with a
weighting of 35.15 percent. This was followed by ‘‘just in time deliveries’’ with 19.56 percent
and ‘‘multifunctional teams’’ with a weighting of 12.59 percent. Other parameters had a
weighting of less than 10 percent, as shown in Table I, showing that they are comparatively
less important in the realization of lean manufacturing. Elimination of waste is significant as it
enables the utilization of resources and maximization of the productivity of an organization.

3.1 Measurement of lean manufacturing


Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

All questions had seven point Likert scales. The scale ranged from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to
‘‘strongly agree’’, with a middle anchor point of ‘‘neither agree nor disagree’’. Each question
had seven options and thus a score between 1 and 7 was awarded. Therefore, a maximum
score of 7 for each question and 7 £ n (where n is the number of questions in each
parameter) for each parameter is possible. Thus the actual score is divided by the maximum
possible score for each parameter, which gives the value of each parameter on a scale of 0
to 1. To calculate the value of each parameter from the raw scores of the questionnaire and
the status of lean manufacturing following equations are used:
P
S ai
Parameter value LMi ¼ ; ð1Þ
nS m
P
where S ai is the sum of actual score of the ith parameter, which is further equal to:
X
S ai ¼ S1 þ S2 þ . . . þ S n ; ð2Þ

where n is the number of questions in a parameter, and Sm is the maximum possible score for
a question (i e. 7):

X
n
Lean manufacturing ðLMÞ ¼ LMi *WFi ; ð3Þ
i¼0

where LMi is the ith parameter value of lean manufacturing and WFi is its weight calculated
from AHP.

Table I Weighting of lean manufacturing parameters


No. Parameter Researcher weight Industrial manager weight Academician weight Mean weight Percentage weight

1 EOW 0.3365 0.3588 0.3593 0.3515 35.15


2 CI 0.0434 0.0462 0.0461 0.0453 04.53
3 ZD 0.0892 0.0999 0.0999 0.0963 09.63
4 JIT 0.1780 0.2045 0.2044 0.1956 19.56
5 PRM 0.0434 0.0462 0.0999 0.0632 06.32
6 MT 0.1780 0.0999 0.0999 0.1259 12.59
7 DC 0.0212 0.0223 0.0222 0.0219 02.19
8 IOF 0.0891 0.0999 0.0461 0.0784 07.84
9 VIS 0.0212 0.0223 0.0222 0.0219 02.19

j j
VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 61
3.2 The survey
An Indian engineering manufacturing firm was chosen as the unit of analysis for this study for
several reasons. First, a manufacturing firm is likely to reflect to some degree all nine
parameters of lean manufacturing included in the study. Secondly, the targeted survey
respondent should possess adequate knowledge to complete the instrument accurately. The
lean manufacturing parameters included in the present study were within the responsibility of
top management. Consequently, plant managers or senior executives of manufacturing
systems were the targeted respondents. The third, the selection criterion was firm size.
Manufacturing firms of a reasonable size (medium to large) were chosen for the sample frame.
To meet these needs, the automobile, automotive parts, machinery and metal part industries
were selected by referring to the Directory of Industries 2009. To ensure the relevance and
effectiveness of questions to the industry, the questionnaire was pre-tested on a random
sample of 12 units and the suggestions received were incorporated. Internal reliability of
questionnaire items was also tested using the SPSS 11.01 software and found to be
acceptable, with a Cronbach’s a coefficient equal to 0.9119 (Radhakrishna, 2007). Cronbach’s
a is a coefficient of reliability. It is commonly used as a measure of the internal consistency or
reliability and validation of measurement instruments such as questionnaires. It was first
named a by Lee Cronbach in 1951. The final survey instrument was mailed to 186 organizations
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

in the sample frame along with a write-up on the objective of the survey and its usefulness for the
industry in the states of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and the
National Capital Region of India. Of 186 industrial units to whom the questionnaire was sent, 142
were private sector firms and 44 belonged to the public sector. These industries produce a wide
range of products, such as tractors, machine tools, cycles, auto parts, pressure vessels,
presses, electrical and construction machinery, plant and machinery for cement, paper and
sugar, and a large number of other industrial and consumer goods. In spite of all efforts 37
responses were received in the first 12 weeks. Follow-up phone calls were made to many of the
non-responding firms, resulting in 15 additional responses. A total of 52 responses were
received, resulting a response rate of 27.96 percent, which is satisfactory in comparison with
other empirical research (e.g. Hyer and Wemmerlov, 1989; Sethi and King, 1994; Koste et al.
2004) and considered acceptable in operations management survey research (Malhotra and
Grover, 1998). Using equation (3), the values of lean manufacturing of the units surveyed are
found on a scale 0 to 1; they are displayed in Table II.

4. Results and discussion


Analysis was been carried out to assess the status of each parameter of lean manufacturing
and the overall value of lean manufacturing in surveyed units. The average value of lean
manufacturing among the companies surveyed is 0.6178. The average value shows that the
status of the vital aspects of lean manufacturing is not very good in industry. Thus there is
broad scope for improving the degree of realization of lean manufacturing in Indian
manufacturing industries. There is only one unit with a score of above 0.90. Two more
organizations have a score of above 0.80. Five units have a score of 0.70 and can be termed
good. At the other extreme four units are below or near a score of 0.50. These can be termed
poor from a lean manufacturing point of view. Figure 1 shows a histogram presenting the
number of units falling in each broad range of lean manufacturing.
Table III presents the descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviations) of lean
manufacturing parameters of the surveyed units. Table III shows that ‘‘elimination of waste’’
achieved a maximum value (0.6748), followed by ‘‘continuous improvement’’ (0.6648),
‘‘vertical information system’’ (0.6398) and ‘‘zero defects’’ (0.6385). This shows that industry
has put an emphasis on these areas. Further, ‘‘elimination of waste’’ and ‘‘vertical information
system’’ have low standard deviation values of 0.0824 and 0.0848, respectively. This
indicates that industry has uniformly paid attention to these areas. However, a higher
standard deviation value of 0.1599 in the case of ‘‘integration of functions’’ shows large
variations within the units surveyed with regard to this aspect. The lowest value was
achieved by ‘‘pull of raw materials’’, followed by ‘‘just in time deliveries’’ and ‘‘multifunctional
teams’’, showing that these areas are neglected and have not come to a satisfactory level.

j j
PAGE 62 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012
Table II Status of lean manufacturing in surveyed companies
Company Lean manufacturing

1 0.8196
2 0.4713
3 0.6178
4 0.6267
5 0.6382
6 0.7244
7 0.5455
8 0.5802
9 0.6285
10 0.5112
11 0.5224
12 0.5005
13 0.9193
14 0.8830
15 0.5946
16 0.5547
17 0.5599
18 0.5143
19 0.4963
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

20 0.5348
21 0.4858
22 0.5468
23 0.5315
24 0.5796
25 0.6780
26 0.5489
27 0.5850
28 0.5795
29 0.6299
30 0.7692
31 0.5694
32 0.6724
33 0.6135
34 0.6649
35 0.6680
36 0.6753
37 0.6812
38 0.6344
39 0.6646
40 0.6606
41 0.6567
42 0.6447
43 0.6372
44 0.6693
45 0.6246
46 0.5687
47 0.5928
48 0.6237
49 0.5876
50 0.5532
51 0.6322
52 0.6534

Note: Average value of LM ¼ 0:6178

‘‘Integration of functions’’ also has a large standard deviation value, showing that in some
companies integration of functions is done regularly, while in others it is not.

4.1 Correlation between various parameters of lean manufacturing


To find the relationships between various parameters of lean manufacturing, Pearson’s
coefficient of correlations were worked out using SPSS 11.01. Pearson’s coefficient of
correlation (r) is a measure of the strength of the association between two variables. It can
have a value anywhere between 21 and 1. The larger r is, ignoring sign, the stronger is the

j j
VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 63
Figure 1 Range of lean manufacturing in surveyed companies

14

12

10

No. of Companies
8

0
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

0.45-0.50

0.50-0.55

0.55-0.60

0.60-0.65

0.65-0.70

0.70-0.75

0.75-0.80

0.80-0.85

0.85-0.90

0.90-0.95
Lean Manufacturing

Table III Descriptive statistics of LM parameters


Parameter Mean SD n

EOW 0.6748 0.0824 52


CI 0.6648 0.1067 52
ZD 0.6385 0.1030 52
JIT 0.5558 0.1312 52
PRM 0.5544 0.1329 52
MT 0.5648 0.1615 52
DC 0.6398 0.1195 52
IOF 0.5885 0.1599 52
VIS 0.6398 0.0848 52

association between the two variables and the more accurately one can predict one variable
from knowledge of the other. At its extreme, a correlation of 1 or 2 1 means that the two
variables are perfectly correlated, meaning that one can predict the values of one variable
from the values of the other variable with perfect accuracy. At the other extreme, an r value of
zero implies an absence of a correlation, i.e. there is no relationship between the two
variables. The value of Pearson’s coefficient of correlation between various parameters and
overall lean manufacturing are presented in Table IV.
Table IV shows that all correlations are positive, i.e. change in any one parameter affects all
the other parameters and overall lean manufacturing positively. A total of 90 correlations
were determined, of which 88 proved to be significant. Further, 80 of these correlations were
significant at a level of p # 0:01 and eight at a level of p # 0:05. This reflects that all
parameters of lean manufacturing are complementary to each other. If an improvement is
made in one the others also get improved.

To understand the realization of lean manufacturing in Indian manufacturing industries, the


relationship of various parameters with overall lean manufacturing are shown in Figure 2 to
illustrate the driving parameters that force the respondent companies to implement lean
manufacturing. As can be seen, the main driver that influences the realization of lean

j j
PAGE 64 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012
Table IV Coefficient of correlation between various parameters of lean manufacturing
Parameter EOW CI ZD JIT PRM MT DC IOF VIS LM

EOW 1 0.498** 0.378** 0.544** 0.347* 0.285* 0.442** 0.252 0.635** 0.699**
CI 0.498** 1 0.763** 0.797** 0.704** 0.740** 0.634** 0.574** 0.503** 0.861**
ZD 0.378** 0.763** 1 0.632** 0.592** 0.625** 0.412** 0.526** 0.535** 0.741**
JIT 0.544** 0.797** 0.632** 1 0.778** 0.731** 0.599** 0.659** 0.422** 0.922**
PRM 0.347* 0.704** 0.592** 0.778** 1 0.809** 0.511** 0.495** 0.285* 0.797**
MT 0.285* 0.740** 0.625** 0.731** 0.809** 1 0.573** 0.662** 0.297* 0.820**
DC 0.442** 0.634** 0.412** 0.599** 0.511** 0.573** 1 0.518** 0.679** 0.680**
IOF 0.252 0.574** 0.526** 0.659** 0.495** 0.662** 0.518** 1 0.414** 0.712**
VIS 0.635** 0.503** 0.535** 0.422** 0.285* 0.297* 0.679** 0.414** 1 0.598**
LM 0.699** 0.861** 0.741** 0.922** 0.797** 0.820** 0.680** 0.712** 0.598** 1

Notes: *Correlation is significant at p # 0:05 level; **correlation is significant at p # 0:01 level

Figure 2 Contribution of driving parameters towards lean manufacturing


Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

Vertical information systems 0.598

Integration of functions 0.712

Decentralization 0.680

Multifunctional teams 0.820

Pull of raw materials 0.797

Just in time deliveries 0.922

Zero defects 0.741

Continuous improvement 0.861

Elimination of waste 0.699

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Lean Manufacturing

manufacturing is ‘‘just in time deliveries’’. Figure 2 shows that ‘‘just in time deliveries’’ contribute
92.2 percent to lean manufacturing. As well as just in time deliveries, other lean parameters that
affect lean manufacturing are continuous improvement (86.1 percent) and multifunctional
teams (82.0 percent). It is surprising to find that a vertical information system is the smallest
driving parameter to implement lean manufacturing of all the parameters, with 59.8 percent.

5. Conclusion
The results show that most of the respondent firms have implemented a lean manufacturing
system up to a certain extent. Of all of the lean manufacturing parameters, just in time deliveries
(JIT) are found to be the leading lean manufacturing parameter, with a mean score 0.922. Other
lean parameters that have been implemented extensively are continuous improvement (0.861)
and multifunctional teams (0.820). However, the least practiced lean parameters are a vertical
information system (0.598) and decentralization (0.680), which indicates that some
implementation of these parameters has occurred in the companies. It is surprising to find
that the elimination of waste is still present in Indian manufacturing industries with a mean score
of 0.699, as it was rated highest by our experts to realize lean manufacturing.
The present study provides the most important parameters for managers to measure the
status of lean manufacturing. All the parameters are significantly correlated with overall lean
manufacturing, as shown by Pearson’s coefficient of correlation. The correlation strength

j
VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 65 j
presents a guiding benchmark to the manufacturing organizations to decide the hierarchy of
parameters for implementation. Therefore it is concluded that there is a broad scope to focus
on the elimination of different forms of wastes from manufacturing systems for the realization
of lean manufacturing in an Indian context.

References
Acaccia, G.M., Callegari, M., Michelini, R.C., Milanesio, R., Molfino, R.M. and Rossi, A. (1995), ‘‘Pilot CIM
implementation for lean engineering experimentation’’, Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 185-92.
Al-Aomar, R. (2010), ‘‘Handling multi-lean measures with simulation and simulated annealing’’, Journal
of Franklin Institute, Vol. 348 No. 7, pp. 1506-22.
Alukal, G. and Manos, A. (2006), Lean Kaizen: A Simplified Approach to Process Improvements, ASQ
Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Bateman, N. (2005), ‘‘Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement’’, International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 261-76.
Behrouzi, F. and Wong, K.Y. (2011), ‘‘Lean performance evaluation of manufacturing systems: a dynamic
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

and innovative approach’’, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 3, pp. 388-95.


Chauhan, G. and Singh, T.P. (2011), ‘‘Lean manufacturing through management of labor and machine
flexibility: a comprehensive review’’, Global Journal of Flexible Management Systems, Vol. 12 Nos 1/2,
pp. 69-90.
Chauhan, G., Singh, T.P. and Sharma, S.K. (2009), ‘‘Cost reduction through lean manufacturing: a case
study’’, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Practice, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Chiarini, A. (2011), ‘‘Integrating lean thinking into ISO 9001: a first guideline’’, International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 96-117.
Clare, C.L. (2005), ‘‘A case study in applying lean sustainability concepts to universities’’, International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6, pp. 134-46.
Demeter, K. and Matyusz, Z. (2010), ‘‘The impact of lean practices on inventory turnover’’, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 154-63.
Emiliani, M.L. (2006), ‘‘Origins of lean management in America: the role of Connecticut businesses’’,
Journal of Management History, Vol. 12, pp. 167-84.
Hayes, R.H. and Clark, K.B. (1986), ‘‘Why some factories are more productive than others’’, Harvard
Business Review, September, pp. 66-73.
Herron, C. and Hicks, C. (2008), ‘‘The transfer of selected lean manufacturing techniques from
Japanese automotive manufacturing into general manufacturing (UK) through change agents’’,
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 24, pp. 524-31.
Holweg, M. (2007), ‘‘The genealogy of lean production’’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 420-37.
Hyer, N.L. and Wemmerlov, U. (1989), ‘‘Group technology in the US manufacturing industry: a survey of
current practices’’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1287-304.
Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.
Karlsson, C. and Ahlstrom, P. (1995), ‘‘Change processes toward lean production: the role of the
remuneration system’’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 11,
pp. 80-99.
Karlsson, C. and Ahlstorm, P. (1996), ‘‘Assessing changes towards lean production’’, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 24-41.
Karthi, S., Devadasan, S.R. and Murugesh, R. (2011), ‘‘Integration of Lean Six-Sigma with ISO
9001:2008 standard’’, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 309-31.
Koste, L.L., Malhotra, M.K. and Sharma, S. (2004), ‘‘Measuring dimensions of manufacturing flexibility’’,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 171-96.
Malhotra, M.K. and Grover, V. (1998), ‘‘An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to
theory’’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, pp. 407-25.

j j
PAGE 66 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012
Mary, O. (2000), ‘‘A study of the influence of company culture, communications and employees’
attitudes on the use of 5Ss for environmental management at Cooke Brothers Ltd’’, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 12, pp. 321-30.
Monden, Y. (1998), Toyota Production System, An Integrated Approach to Just-In-Time, 3rd ed.,
Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA.
Motwani, J. (2003), ‘‘A business process change framework for examining lean manufacturing: a case
study’’, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 103 No. 5, pp. 339-46.
Ohno, T. (1988), The Toyota Production System: Beyond Large Scale Production, Productivity Press,
Portland, OR.
Papadopoulau, T.C. and Ozbayrak, M. (2005), ‘‘Leanness: experiences from the journey to date’’,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 784-807.
Puvanasvaran, A.P., Megat, M.H.M.A., Tang, S.H., Muhamad, M.R. and Hamouda, A.M.S. (2008),
‘‘A review of problem solving capabilities in lean process management’’, American Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 504-11.
Puvanasvaran, A.P., Tay, C.H., Megat, M.H.M.A., Tang, S.H., Rosnah, M.Y., Muahamad, M.R. and
Hamouda, A.M.S. (2009), ‘‘Leanness achievement through people development system in
implementing lean process management’’, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 105-19.
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

Radhakrishna, R.B. (2007), ‘‘Tips for developing and testing questionnaires/instruments’’, Journal of
Extension, Vol. 45 No. 1, article 1TOT2, available at: www.joe.org/joe/2007february/tt2.php
Rivera, L. and Chen, F.F. (2007), ‘‘Measuring the impact of lean tools on the cost-time investment of a
product using cost-time profiles’’, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 684-9.
Robertson, D., Rinehart, J. and Huxlay, C. (1992), ‘‘Team concept and kaizen: Japanese production
management in a unionized Canadian auto plant’’, Studies in Political Economy, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 77-107.
Saaty, T.L. (1980), The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Sethi, V. and King, W.R. (1994), ‘‘Development of measures to assess the extent to which an information
technology application provides competitive advantage’’, Management Science, Vol. 40 No. 12,
pp. 1601-27.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), ‘‘Defining and developing measures of lean production’’, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 785-805.
Soriano-Meier, H. and Forrester, P.L. (2002), ‘‘A model for evaluating the degree of leanness of
manufacturing firms’’, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 104-9.
Staats, B.R., Brunner, D.J. and Upton, D.M. (2011), ‘‘Lean principles, learning, and knowledge work:
evidence from a software services provider’’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29, pp. 376-90.
Warnecke, H.J. and Huser, M. (1995), ‘‘Lean production’’, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 41, pp. 37-43.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson
Associates, New York, NY.
Yamaji, M. and Amasaka, K. (2008), ‘‘New Japan quality management model: implementation of new JIT
for strategic management technology’’, International Business and Economics Research Journal, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 107-14.
Yang, M.G., Hong, P. and Modi, S.B. (2011), ‘‘Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental
management on business performance: an empirical study of manufacturing firms’’, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 129, pp. 251-61.

Further reading
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, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 332-55.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking, Simon and Schuster, London.

j j
VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 67
Appendix. The questionnaire

Figure A1 The questionnaire

This questionnaire has been developed into two sections. Section 1 seeks general
information of the industrial units. Section 2 seeks the information on the status of lean
manufacturing parameters.
SECTION : I

Name of Industry : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Address : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total no. manpower : ------------------------- Size of Industry : -----------------------


Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

Sector : Private or Public Products : -----------------------

SECTION : II

Please tick (√) the appropriate box on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree) and middle point of 4 (neither agree nor disagree).

Extent of Lean Manufacturing Implication

(i) Elimination of waste (EOW):

1. The rate at which correction, repairs or rework done is very low.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. The rate of scrap generation is very low.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Motion - any wasted motion to pick up parts or stack parts is not a regular feature.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Over production - producing more than needed is not a regular feature.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Over production - before it is needed is not a regular feature.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Extent of wasted effort to transport raw material is very low.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Extent of wasted effort to transport finished goods into or out of storage is very low.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Extent of wasted effort to transport WIP between processes is very low.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Maintaining inventory (raw material) level not more than lead time consumption.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Inventory (WIP) is very small.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(continued)

j j
PAGE 68 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012
Figure A1

11. Inventory (finished goods) is not very large.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Inventory level over the passage of time shows declining trend.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Over work is not a regular feature.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Waiting for tools and machines is very low.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Waiting for supplies, parts, etc. is very low.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(ii) Continuous improvement (CI):

1. Annual percentage scraps shows declining trend.


Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Labor productivity shows rising trend over the passage of time.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Machine productivity shows rising trend over the passage of time.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Efforts towards implementation of TQM and Kaizen are sincere.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Training Programs for latest techniques and methods are held regularly.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Up gradation of machines and tools are done regularly.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(iii) Zero defects (ZD):

1. Using quick release fixtures, star knobs and locking levers often.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Verification gages are mounted on the machines or workstation and be easily
replaceable.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Replacement of a malfunctioning machine or equipment is easy.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Positive attitude of worker and management on reconfiguration and changeovers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Implementation of TQM: for achieving zero defects.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Six sigma: being followed holistically.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Control charts are being plotted for quality control of the process and products both.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(continued)

j j
VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 69
Figure A1

(iv) Just in time deliveries (JIT):


1. Inventory investment shows declining trend over passage of time.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Production lead times as well as setup times reduced /shortened over the time.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Sensitive to demand change if any at different stages.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Following Group Technology or cellular manufacturing system.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Adopts total preventive maintenance.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Utilizing ERP packages for inventory control.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

(v) Pull of raw materials (PRM):


1. Utilizing Kanban cards for material movement and production purposes.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. One piece lot is followed ideally.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Excellent provision for quality check at supplier end.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Stock level in stores is reducing over the time passage.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(vi) Multifunctional teams (MT):


1. Cross training of workers is a regular feature.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Empowerment of workers is enough.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Projects are finalized with the consent of experts of various areas.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Quality circle concept is utilized holistically.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(vii) Decentralization (DC):


1. Authority and responsibility is delegated to lower levels also.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Financial power is also delegated at different levels.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Workload is equally distributed at different levels and structured.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Authority and responsibility is clearly communicated and published.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(continued)

j j
PAGE 70 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012
Figure A1

(viii) Integration of functions (IOF):

1. Product integration is done regularly.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Quality policy is integrated with production functions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Quality objectives are integrated with production objectives.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Different operations are integrated regularly.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(ix) Vertical information systems (VIS):

1. Information flows from top to bottom only.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

2. Information flows from bottom to top only.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Information flows in both directions from top to bottom and bottom to top.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

About the authors


Gulshan Chauhan is Professor and Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department at
Panipat Institute of Engineering & Technology, Samalkha (Panipat), India. He received his
BE and PhD in Mechanical Engineering with honors from National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra, India and his MTech in Industrial Engineering from Punjab Technical University,
Jalandhar, India. His research interests include manufacturing flexibility, lean manufacturing,
productivity improvement, waste management and capacity utilization. He has more than 18
years of experience in industry, research and academia. Gulshan Chauhan is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: chauhanreck@gmail.com
Dr T.P. Singh, Director of the Symbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International
University, Pune, received his BE degree in Mechanical Engineering, and his ME and PhD in
Industrial Engineering from Thapar University, Patiala. He has supervised ME and PhD
research and has worked on many sponsored research and consultancy projects. His
specialization areas include waste minimization, lean manufacturing, flexibility, technology
management and electric discharge machining.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com


Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 71
This article has been cited by:

1. Muhittin Sagnak, Yigit Kazancoglu. 2016. Integration of green lean approach with six sigma: an application for flue gas emissions.
Journal of Cleaner Production 127, 112-118. [CrossRef]
2. Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Bernardo Villarreal, Vikas Kumar, Patricia Molina Ruiz. 2016. Lean and green in the transport and
logistics sector – a case study of simultaneous deployment. Production Planning & Control 1-12. [CrossRef]
3. NawanirGusman Gusman Nawanir Gusman Nawanir is a PhD candidate in the School of Technology Management and Logistics
at the Universiti Utara Malaysia. His bachelor degree was in industrial engineering department at the Andalas University. His
master of science was completed in operations management program (by full research) at the College of Business of Universiti
Utara Malaysia. His main research interests include Lean manufacturing, inventory management and performance measurement.
He has published his papers in several journals and conferences. LimKong Teong Kong Teong Lim Dr Kong Teong Lim is
an Associate Professor of Operations Management and former Head of Department of Operations Management at Universiti
Utara Malaysia (UUM). He received his BSc in Applied Statistics in 1991, MSc in Mathematics (Applied Statistics) in 1993
from Universiti Sains Malaysia and PhD in Quality Management in 2003 from UUM. He has been at UUM since 1994. His
primary research and publication areas are quality improvement and management, production and operations management, Lean
operations, knowledge management, performance management and appraisal. His teaching interests are in the areas of quality
management, statistical process control and improvement, production management and statistical data analysis. He is a member
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

of the Editorial Board for the Journal of Technology and Operations Management. In addition, he was also appointed as the
external course assessor for the course operations management, as well as the reviewer for academic papers published in local
and international journals and conference proceedings. OthmanSiti Norezam Siti Norezam Othman Dr Siti Norezam Othman
is an Associate Professor of Operations Management at Universiti Utara Malaysia. She attained her Doctor of Engineering in
Engineering Management from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in 2007. Her research interests cover topics in supplier-buyer
relationships, technology transfer, technology assessment and operations management. In relation to her research interest, she has
supervised PhDs and Master students. She is also the managing editor for Journal of Technology and Operations Management
as well as referee for journal and proceeding articles, and was nominated as internal examiner for postgraduate thesis. She
has authored a number of academic papers for journals, international conferences and modules. To strengthen her research
interest, she affiliates with the International Association of Management of Technology. School of Technology Management
and Logistics, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia . 2016. Lean manufacturing practices in Indonesian manufacturing
firms. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 7:2, 149-170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. SharmaVikram Vikram Sharma Vikram Sharma is currently serving as Associate Professor of mechanical engineering at Galgotia’s
College of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida, India. He has over 12 years of teaching and research experience. He
holds a BE degree in Mechanical Engineering, and an ME degree in CAD/CAM. He has presented several papers in international
conferences and journals. His current research interests include supply chain modeling and Lean manufacturing. DixitAmit
Rai Amit Rai Dixit Amit Rai Dixit is serving as an Associate Professor of mechanical engineering at the Indian School of
Mines, Dhanbad, India. He has over 10 years of teaching and research experience. He holds a BTech degree in Mechanical
Engineering, and an ME degree in Production and PhD in the field of cellular manufacturing systems. He has presented
several papers in international conferences and journals. His current research interest includes advanced production systems.
QadriMohd. Asim Mohd. Asim Qadri Mohd. Asim Qadri is a Professor in Mechanical Engineering Department of Galgotia’s
College of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida, India. He did his BSc in Mechanical Engineering and MSc in Mechanical
Engineering from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, and Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, respectively. He obtained his
PhD from Jamia Millia Islamia in the area of green supply chain management. His research interests include green supply
chain management, optimization techniques and operations management, among others. The LNM Institute of Information
Technology, Jaipur, India Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Galgotia’s College of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida, India . 2016. Modeling Lean
implementation for manufacturing sector. Journal of Modelling in Management 11:2, 405-426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Mohammad Ali Maasouman, Kudret Demirli. 2016. Development of a lean maturity model for operational level planning. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 83:5-8, 1171-1188. [CrossRef]
6. Yuanzhu Zhan, Kim Hua Tan, Guojun Ji, Leanne Chung, Anthony S.F. Chiu. 2016. Green and lean sustainable development
path in China: Guanxi, practices and performance. Resources, Conservation and Recycling . [CrossRef]
7. Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes. 2015. Lean and green – a systematic review of the state of the art literature. Journal of Cleaner
Production 102, 18-29. [CrossRef]
8. Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes Centre for Supply Chain Improvement, University of Derby, Derby, UK . 2015. Green lean and the
need for Six Sigma. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 6:3, 226-248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Gurinder Singh based at Government Polytechnic College, Mohali, Khunimajara, Punjab, India Inderpreet Singh Ahuja Professor
based at University College of Engineering, Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab, India . 2014. An evaluation of just in time
(JIT) implementation on manufacturing performance in Indian industry. Journal of Asia Business Studies 8:3, 278-294. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
10. D.T. Matt Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy . 2014. Adaptation of the value
stream mapping approach to the design of lean engineer-to-order production systems. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management 25:3, 334-350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Wilfried Sihn, Matthias Pfeffer. 2013. A method for a comprehensive value stream evaluation. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing
Technology 62:1, 427-430. [CrossRef]
12. Dominik T. Matt, Erwin RauchImplementing Lean in Engineer-to-Order Manufacturing 148-172. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:39 03 September 2016 (PT)

Potrebbero piacerti anche