Articles

Simulation & Gaming

41(4) 465­–486
Teaching Lean © 2010 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
Manufacturing With sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1046878109334331
Simulations and Games: http://sg.sagepub.com

A Survey and Future

Directions

Fazleena Badurdeen1, Philip Marksberry1,

Arlie Hall1, and Bob Gregory1

Abstract
Problem-based learning focuses on small groups using authentic problems as a means
to help participants obtain knowledge and problem-solving skills. This approach makes
problem-based learning ideal for teaching lean manufacturing, which is driven by a
culture of problem solving that values learning as one key output of manufacturing
production. Thus, simulations that organize participants in teams for realistic
manufacturing production problem solving are widespread as a way to use problem-
based learning to teach lean manufacturing. But a critical assessment of existing simulations
for lean manufacturing instruction has been lacking. Accordingly, a literature survey
is conducted and existing simulations are classified according to their emphasis on
lean tools or the overall lean system; the degree of their focus on soft skills, if any;
and their area of application, whether academic or industry. Four gaps are found in
existing simulation designs: lack of stress on soft skills, a mistaken focus on “linear
lean,” misunderstanding of the key role of the facilitator, and lack of realism. Future
directions for study and improvement in lean simulation design are suggested.

Keywords
assessment, authentic problems, facilitator, games, problem-based learning, problem
soft skills, realism, review, simulations, skills, soft lean manufacturing, solving skills,
Toyota Production System

Problem-based learning (PBL), although defined variously by researchers, is gener-

ally agreed to refer to the “many contextualized approaches to instruction that
anchor much of learning and teaching in concrete problems” (Evensen & Hmelo,
2000; Gijbels, Van den Bossche & Segers, 2005 in pp. 29), such as “active learning,”

1
University of Kentucky, USA

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

466 Simulation & Gaming 41(4)

“experiential learning,” and so on. We also have agreement that PBL, in this broad
sense, is more involving and enjoyable than more traditional approaches (Albanese
& Mitchell, 1993; Colliver, 2000; Lycke, Grøttum, & Strømsø, 2006; Norman &
Schmidt, 2000). PBL approaches not only help stimulate interest in the subject but
also—as some scholars (e.g., Riis, Hohansen, & Millelsen, 1995) have shown, although
the point is still in contention (see the reviews in Gijbels et al., 2005; Prince, 2004)—
can promote more knowledge transfer as well as long-term retention. Furthermore,
because learning styles can differ considerably from person to person, for example,
four types based on the Myers-Briggs type indicator (McCaulley, 1990) and five accord-
ing to the Felder-Silverman hearing style model (Felder, 1996), PBL accommodates
more of those styles than traditional classroom practice can.
Indeed, successful PBL is not learning for its own sake; instead, the focus is on pro-
viding an experience that gives participants a sense that they are engaging in a real
problem; learning then becomes a natural by-product of their engagement in and moti-
vation to solve the problem. In that way, concepts are introduced in a more natural way,
that is, by a facilitator or coach as needed rather than front-loaded into lectures according
to the history of a subject or the arrangement of the particular textbook. Such an approach
accords with Brown and Duguid’s (2000, pp. 136) point that true learning is demand
driven: “People learn in response to need. When people cannot see the need for what is
being taught, they ignore it, reject it, or fail to assimilate it in any meaningful way”.
Barrows (1996) identifies six core aspects of PBL: student-centered learning, learn-
ing in small groups, tutor/facilitator rather than instructor, authentic problems pre-
sented without prior student preparation or study, problems used as a means to obtain
both knowledge and problem-solving skills, and student responsibility to obtain rele-
vant information needed to solve the problems. As these core elements indicate, suc-
cessful PBL outcomes go beyond the mere acquisition of information or knowledge of
a field or subject because (a) skills needed for problem solving are also learned in an
experiential way and especially because (b) students also learn about themselves and
each other because of PBL’s team approach. For example, students in one study
reported learning to appreciate the difficulties and benefits of working in teams, arriv-
ing at a new sense of themselves as active contributors to a group and gaining a new
sense of higher expectations for others in the group (Lycke et al., 2006). PBL thus
presents learning as social and as something acquired in action; in this way, PBL pro-
vides the necessary but sometimes ignored social/cultural context for learning that
will be used in practice. That is, learning about something in order to solve problems
also means learning to be a practitioner, a member of a group who knows and uses that
knowledge (Bruner, 1960). This group-member identity formed as learners progress is
crucial because this identity acts as a framework that filters and spotlights aspects of
the subject for each individual, a framework that “determines what they pay attention
to and what they learn” (Brown & Dugiud, 2000, pp. 138).
Clearly, then, PBL is a valuable approach to learning how to implement and how to
practice lean manufacturing because it accords with lean’s emphasis on teams and on
a culture of problem solving, on learning what to pay attention to, on the value of
failure, and on the importance of learning in human development.

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Badurdeen et al. 467

Simply stated, lean manufacturing is a system for the total elimination of waste
from an operation or process. More comprehensively, lean is a management philoso-
phy evolved and adapted from the Toyota Production System with its underlying ele-
ments of a uniquely Japanese culture and practices that “made possible a commitment
to quality throughout the ranks as had existed in no other country before” (Hofstede,
1991, pp. 172).Because those underlying practices differ from traditional Western cul-
tural values and practices focused on individual achievement, independence, entre-
preneurial spirit, emphasis on short-term goals, and so on. (Hofestede, 1991), to be
successful with lean manufacturing implementation requires more than merely apply-
ing the so-called hard side: industrial engineering tools for process improvement
(Liker, Hoseus, & Center for Quality People and Organizations, 2008). Rather, it also
requires a complete transformation within the organization to embrace the values, roles,
and behaviors—the so-called soft side—vital for the culture of continuous improve-
ment demonstrated in the Toyota Production System. As Osono, Shimizu, and Takeuchi
(2008, pp. 19) put it, “it is the way Toyota combines the hard and soft sides that allow
it to continue outperforming competitors.”
Thus, learning lean manufacturing requires that there be training in both soft and
hard skills in order to solve problems in both the social/cultural and technical aspects
of production; such learning may well include the learner’s experiencing changes in
his or her values and perspectives. For example, the learner may have lived in a
culture where failure is an individual matter, where an individual effort that fails
should if possible be hidden from others; Toyota’s approach expects a certain num-
ber of failures and insists on their failure being made visible as a resource for learn-
ing. Toyota “is a learning organization that literally thrives on its people engaging
in identifying and solving problems together” (Liker et al., 2008, pp. 37). What this
means in practice can be a profound shift for those trained to teach or to control; as
one American manager gradually learned at Toyota, his job was not to improve
production but to be an enabler and coach for the workers whose job it was to improve
production, which meant he became in effect a PBL practitioner: “His training
taught him how to construct work as experiments which would yield continuous
learning and improvements” (Osono et al., 2008, pp. 176). Because it foregrounds
the social context for problem solving and learning, lean manufacturing learning must
be experiential.
So it is not surprising that those involved in teaching lean have turned to simulations
and games. According to Day and Reibstein (1997, pp. 401), a simulation represents
“what would transpire if the assumed conditions were to occur in reality.” Thus, simu-
lations and games are representations meant to be as realistic as possible for partici-
pants while avoiding some of the dangers or inconveniences of the real thing (Crookall
& Sanders, 1989). The terms simulation and game can cause some confusion. They are
used interchangeably in some of the literature, and it is true that both simulations and
games alike provide an environment for experiential learning where participants are
exposed to an imitated situation that has to be managed through the application of a set
of tools, techniques, and practices. At the same time, simulation is also a term used for
creating models of complex systems for study or to run what-if scenarios. And game

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

468 Simulation & Gaming 41(4)

can often, although not exclusively, mean an activity where computer technology is
used to provide the representation of a real situation and where learning is not necessar-
ily the primary objective of the player. For lean learning, however, in which the social
context is a crucial factor, many kinds of games designed for solitary play are not rel-
evant. And some activities that seem more like simulations are called games by their
designers, possibly for marketing purposes. However, because it is outside the scope of
this article to explore these definitions and distinctions in any depth, and for simplici-
ty’s sake, we use simulation here loosely to include any simulation or game that is a
low-tech (i.e., not generated by computer technology) representation of a real situation
in which a facilitator/coach engages the participants as teams in a realistic problem they
then attempt to solve. Game as used here does not refer to a meaningful difference but
only to the fact that some designers call their activities as “games.”
Recognizing the potential for lean learning they offer, a large number of hands-on
simulations have been developed to teach lean manufacturing concepts in academia
and for continuing education in industry. These vary from simple classroom exercises
to more comprehensive simulations based on learning factories. Descriptions of these
simulations have been presented at different conferences (such as the American Soci-
ety of Engineering Education) and published in various journals.
A comprehensive survey of lean manufacturing simulations available in all pub-
lished sources is presented. A taxonomy was developed to summarize the current state
of these resources based on the principles/practices emphasized, the focus in terms of
the activity simulated, the lean tools and techniques covered, and the use of assess-
ments to evaluate the simulations. The simulations surveyed were then assessed. Prac-
titioners of lean manufacturing agree that successful and sustained lean transformation
requires the transformation of an organization’s culture. Because the transformation
of a company’s culture is notoriously fraught with difficulties and the success rate is
low, especially the rate for sustainable long-term transformation, training lean cham-
pions to support these organizational transformations requires that they learn through
experience the social/cultural aspects of lean thinking and the soft skills needed in
addition to lean principles and practices. However, most hands-on activities devel-
oped to teach lean manufacturing tend to focus excessively on the latter.
Existing simulations were critically assessed from this perspective in the sections
that follow to identify gaps and propose best practices for developing simulations for
lean manufacturing education and training.

Simulation in Lean Manufacturing: The Current State

Lean manufacturing education and training programs are currently centered on univer-
sities, consulting firms, and professional societies representing a broad range of
capabilities. The methodology followed for the survey was a literature review of simula-
tions used to teach lean manufacturing principles and practices limited to what has been
published in academic journals and conferences. Limited information is available on
simulations used by consulting firms and professional societies. Furthermore, the review

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Badurdeen et al. 469

revealed the absence of published information on simulations used by some of the better
known universities and colleges that offer lean manufacturing education and training. In
addition, the authors feel that it is inappropriate to base the assessment merely on adver-
tising material available through the Internet and other media (e.g., a search engine listed
more than 29,000 hits when searched for “lean manufacturing simulation or game”);
such sources also do not provide in-depth information on the design and operation of the
simulations. Also, to fit the emphasis of this special issue on Advanced Manufacturing,
the scope was limited to simulations that focus on operations in the manufacturing
sector; the material available on health care and other service-based sectors was excluded.
Last, although the use of computers to simulate a learning environment is being increas-
ingly used (Feinstein, Mann, & Corsun, 2002), the effectiveness of computer-based
simulations for lean manufacturing education is limited because of the inability of the
technology to facilitate the right kinds of realistic interactivity and collaboration between
team members (Rolfe & Hampson, 2003). Therefore, this review is limited to an appraisal
of hands-on simulations used for lean manufacturing.
While there certainly exist simulations for lean manufacturing education and train-
ing that are unpublished or otherwise unavailable for review, the collection presented
in Table 1 can be considered a reasonable representation of those in common use to
simulate manufacturing-oriented operations. The following sections are devoted to a
discussion of these existing simulations, highlighting the salient features observed.

Emphasis/Scope of Simulations and Games Reviewed

Of all the simulations and games reviewed, almost 75% had a production line focus,
meaning that they emphasize the application of lean tools to improve material flow
from fabrication of components to assembly of the final product. Few of the simula-
tions have focused on the entire enterprise-wide operations, which would mean
considering other functional areas such as logistics and distribution in addition to the
shop-floor operations (e.g., Nos. 11 and 39). In addition, few simulations have focused
on the application of lean tools and techniques to the extended enterprise or the supply
chain, for example, by considering multiple tiers of raw material and parts suppliers as
well as downstream operations (e.g., Nos. 1, 3, and 27). While the majority of simula-
tions emphasize large-volume discrete product manufacturing, those developed at the
Old Dominion University (Verma, Hirkannawar, & Devulapalli, 2005; Verma,
Hughes, & Christman, 2004) are specific to the ship building industry, and those
developed by the Lean Aerospace Initiative (LAI) at MIT (McManus & Rebentisch,
2006a, 2006b; McManus, Rebentisch, Stanke, & Murman, 2007) focus on the aero-
space industry.

Construction Methods Used

The majority of the simulations and games reviewed involved assembly of finished
products using prefabricated modular components such as LEGO and K’NEX parts.

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

 Table 1. Summary of Lean Manufacturing Simulation and Games

470
No. Developers (Published Source) Yeara Name of Simulation/Game Focus Product Runs Metrics

 1 MIT (Jarmin, 1963) 1963 BEER GAME Supply chain NA M Yes

 2 University of Kentucky (Hall, 1994) 1994 UK PAPER CLIP SIMULATION Manufacturing Paper folders 4 Yes
 3 University of Kentucky (Lean 1994 UK CIRCUIT BOARD SIMULATION Manufacturing Circuit boards 4 Yes
Training, 1994)
 4 Bicheno (1995) 1995 BUCKINGHAM LEAN GAME Supply chain NA 2 Yes
 5 NIST-MEP (NIST/MEP, 1998) 1998 CIRCUIT BOARD SIMULATION Manufacturing Circuit boards 4 Yes
 6 University of Kentucky (Badurdeen 2003 CYLINDER FACTORY SIMULATION Manufacturing Pneumatic cylinders   3+ Yes
et al., 2008; Price, 2008)
 7 MEP (Verma, 2003) 2003 TIMEWISE SIMULATION Manufacturing Clocks 3 Yes
 8 University of Dayton (Verma, 2003) 2003 PIPE FACTORY SIMULATION Manufacturing Pipe products 5 Yes
 9 Donnelly Corporation (Verma, 2003) 2003 LEAN SIM MACHINE Manufacturing Metal linkages M Yes
10 Lean Aerospace Initiative (McManus 2003 LEAN ENTERPRISE VALUE Enterprise Lego aircraft 2 Yes
et al., 2007) SIMULATION
11 WCM Associates (Verma, 2003) 2003 BOX GAME SIMULATION Manufacturing Box 3 NA
12 Not known (Verma, 2003) 2003 DICE/PARADE GAME Manufacturing NA NA NA
13 University of T  ennessee (Verma, 2003) 2003 LEAN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT Product K’nex product 3 Yes
SIMULATION development
14 Visionary Products Inc. (Verma, 2003) 2003 CELLULAR MANUFACTURING Manufacturing Lego aircraft 4 NA
SIMULATION
15 Lockwood Greene (Verma, 2003) 2003 WIDGET FACTORY SIMULATION Manufacturing Widgets 3 Yes
16 Gary Randall (Verma, 2003) 2003 BALL BEARING FACTORY Manufacturing Ball bearings (golf balls) N Yes
17 Illinois Manufacturing Extension 2003 NIST BUZZ ELECTRIONICS Manufacturing Circuit boards 4 Yes
Center (Stier, 2003) SIMULATION
18 NIST-MEP (Verma, 2003) 2003 5S SIMULATION Manufacturing NA 6 Yes
19 NIST-MEP (Verma, 2003) 2003 SETUP REDUCTION SIMULATION Manufacturing Sheet metal 2 Yes

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

20 Northrop Grumman (Verma, 2003) 2003 PAPER AIRPLANE GAME Manufacturing Paper airplane NA Yes
21 University of Kentucky (Lean Boot 2004 5S MINI-FACTORY SIMULATION Manufacturing Tabletop mini factories 2 Yes
Camp, 2004a)
22 Blust and Bates (2004) 2004 WAGONS-R-US SIMULATION Manufacturing K’Nex wagons M Yes
23 Billington (2004) 2004 PAPER AIRPLANE EXERCISE Manufacturing Paper airplane 4 Yes

(continued)
 Table 1. (continued)
No. Developers (Published Source) Yeara Name of Simulation/Game Focus Product Runs Metrics

24 University of Kentucky (Boot 2004 FURNITURE FACTORY SIMULATION Manufacturing Wooden furniture 5 Yes
camp II Course, 2004a; Badurdeen
et al., 2008)
25 University of Kentucky (Lean 2004 VEEBOT SIMULATION Manufacturing Lego cars 2 Yes
Certification, 2004)
26 Old Dominion University (Verma, 2005 SHIP REPAIR DESIGN PROCESS Design process Container ship 3 Yes
2007; Verma et al., 2005) SIMULATION
27 Old Dominion University (Verma, 2005 SHIP REPAIR SUPPLY CHAIN Supply chain Submarine 3 Yes
2007; Verma et al., 2005) SIMULATION
28 Old Dominion University (Verma, 2005 SHIP REPAIR VALUE STREAM Boat assembly Boat 2 Current and
2007; Verma et al., 2005) MAPPING future V
  SM
29 Old Dominion University (Verma, 2005 SHIP REPAIR SIMULATION Ship repair Ship (wood and acrylic) 3 Yes
2007; Verma et al., 2005) process
30 Old Dominion University (Verma, 2005 SHIP REPAIR SCHEDULING Scheduling Ships 3 Yes
2007; Verma et al., 2005) SIMULATION
31 Verma and Devulapalli (2006), 2005 VALUE STREAM MAPPING BOARD Manufacturing Board game 3 Current and
Verma (2007) GAME future V
  SM
32 Verma (2007) 2005 BLOCK TOWER Manufacturing Legos

33 Winarchick and Carlisle (2006) 2006 WAGONS-R-US SIMULATION Manufacturing K’Nex wagons M Not
34 Lean Aerospace Initiative (McManus & 2006 LEAN ENTERPRISE PRODUCT Product — mentioned
Rebentisch, 2006a, 2006b) DEVELOPMENT development M Yes
35 Fang, Cook, and Hauser (2007) 2006 LEAN LEGO SIMULATION Manufacturing Lego cars
36 Ncube (2007) 2007 LEAN LEMONADE TYCOON Manufacturing Lemonade 3 Yes
37 Ozelkan and Galambosi (2007, 2008) 2007 LAMPSHADE GAME Manufacturing Lampshades N NA

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

38 University of Kentucky (Maginnis, 2008) 2007 ENTERPRISE SIMULATION Enterprise Card simulation 3 Yes
39 MacMillian (2007) 2007 NIMA’S BOARD GAME Manufacturing NA   2+ Yes
40 McManus et al. (2007) 2007 ENGR. DESIGN CLASS PDCA and NA NA NA
DMAIC NA NA
process
Note: NIST/MEP = National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
a. Indicates year of development, if that information is available. Else, it is the year of the published source.

471
472 Simulation & Gaming 41(4)

Several simulations involved fabrication-like operations using paper and easily avail-
able materials (e.g., paper folding, lampshades—Nos. 23 and 38) to process material
before the final product was assembled. A few simulations were more complex and
incorporate actual fabrication of components (e.g., wood, PVC pipes) using tabletop
machines for a more realistic representation of operations in a manufacturing plant
(e.g., Nos. 6 and 24). Such simulations were more versatile and enable the integration
of more authentic lean practices.

Lean Tools and Techniques

The coverage of various lean tools in the simulations and games reviewed in Table 1 is
summarized in Table 2. The “Emphasis” column indicates whether the simulation is
designed to demonstrate one (or a few) lean tool or whether it covers the transforma-
tion of a traditional, push-based system to one that employs one-piece flow and “pull”
production by the application of the collection of lean tools. The most commonly dem-
onstrated lean tools in the latter case were cell design and layout, line balancing, pull
production and one-piece flow to talk time, kanban, quality-at-source, standardized work,
value stream mapping, cross-training, setup reduction, 5S, and visual control.
While some simulations were applied solely for academic instruction, others were
designed and offered for industry participants. Institutions that offer lean manufactur-
ing education and training and use the simulations for both credit courses and industry
representatives have a distinct advantage because they have the ability to take lessons
learned from industry and apply them to degree programs offered to students.

Iterations
Almost all the simulations reviewed, except those focusing on specific lean tools,
involved multiple iterations during which a conventional “push” operation was trans-
formed to pull production. The time taken for the simulation runs, too, was observed
to be highly variable. Most of the simulations reviewed were used for in-class demon-
stration and emphasize the need to design the simulations to be conducted within the
time available for the lecture. A few simulations (Nos. 6, 7, and 24) that involve more
intense student participation are designed to take longer (approximately 1 hour per
run) and were found to be conducted outside regular classroom time during separate
laboratory hours. Also, some simulations/games involved a single team of participants
all working together through multiple replications to transform the process by apply-
ing lean tools. In some cases, particularly the games, multiple teams were formed, and
all teams engaged in the game in parallel and competing with each other to achieve the
greatest improvement in performance through the application of lean tools. While not
much information was available on how the teams were formed for the majority of the
simulations/games, structured techniques, such as those based on the Kolb model, were
used in some cases to divide participants in to teams based on their learning styles
(e.g., Nos. 3, 6, and 24).

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Badurdeen et al. 473

Table 2. Coverage of Lean Tools in Existing Simulations and Games

Emphasis
Application
Table 1 Name of Specific Lean Soft
No. Simulation/Game Tool System Skills Academic Industry

  1 BEER GAME √ √ √
  2 UK PAPER CLIP SIMULATION √ Moderate √ √
  3 UK CIRCUIT BOARD SIMULATION √ √ √
  4 BUCKINGHAM LEAN GAME √ √ √
  5 CIRCUIT BOARD SIMULATION √ High √ √
  6 CYLINDER FACTORY SIMULATION √ High √
  7 TIMEWISE SIMULATION √ Moderate √ √
  8 PIPE FACTORY SIMULATION √ Little √ √
  9 LEAN SIM MACHINE √ √
10 LEAN ENTERPRISE VALUE √ √
   SIMULATION
11 BOX GAME SIMULATION √ Moderate √
12 DICE/PARADE GAME √ √
13 LEAN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT √
   SIMULATION
14 CELLULAR MANUFACTURING √ √ √
   SIMULATION
15 WIDGET FACTORY SIMULATION √ √
16 BALL BEARING FACTORY √ √
17 NIST BUZZ ELECTRIONICS √ √
   SIMULATION
18 5S SIMULATION √ Moderate √
19 SETUP REDUCTION SIMULATION √ √ √
20 PAPER AIRPLANE GAME √ √ √
21 5S MINI-FACTORY SIMULATION √ √
22 WAGONS-R-US SIMULATION √ √
23 PAPER AIRPLANE EXERCISE √ √
24 FURNITURE FACTORY √ High √
  SIMULATION
25 VEEBOT SIMULATION √ High √ √
26 SHIP REPAIR DESIGN √ √ √
   PROCESS SIMULATION
27 SHIP REPAIR SUPPLY √ √ √
   CHAIN SIMULATION
28 SHIP REPAIR VALUE √ √ √
   STREAM MAPPING
29 SHIP REPAIR SIMULATION √ √ √
30 SHIP REPAIR SCHEDULING √ √ √
   SIMULATION
31 VALUE STREAM MAPPING √ √ √
   BOARD GAME
32 BLOCK TOWER √ √
33 WAGONS-R-US SIMULATION √ √
34 LEAN ENTERPRISE PRODUCT √ √
   DEVELOPMENT
35 LEAN LEGO SIMULATION √ Moderate √
(continued)

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

474 Simulation & Gaming 41(4)

Table 2. (continued)
Emphasis
Application
Table 1 Name of Specific Lean Soft
No. Simulation/Game Tool System Skills Academic Industry

36 LEAN LEMONADE TYCOON √ √

37 LAMPSHADE GAME √ √
38 ENTERPRISE SIMULATION √ Moderate √ √
39 NIMA’S BOARD GAME √ NA NA
40 ENGR. DESIGN CLASS √ NA NA

Gaps in Existing Lean Simulation Designs

Gap 1: Facilitating Change Requires Learning Soft Skills
It is estimated that 70% of lean transformations fail due to the misunderstanding of
human interaction and lack of understanding about how people deal with change (Hall,
2006). Although participants in lean simulations were there because they were or will
be responsible for some part of the lean transformation process, the social and personal
skills needed to apply true lean transformations were not commonly available in exist-
ing simulations. Most focus only on a production system in which material flow and
information can be analyzed. Unfortunately, using industrial engineering techniques
alone to become lean is not the answer. In a traditional setting, workers perform the
job when managers manage them as if they were machines, directing their work com-
pletely. In a setting exploring aspects of lean by using 5-day kaizen blitzes and value
stream mapping workshops, this situation can seem to be changed because an element
of worker participation is introduced but the participation is only temporary and after
such activities end, it is still the case that engineers (not production workers) are doing
the problem solving (Kreafle, 1994). What is often misunderstood about lean is that
because process improvement is also a form of learning and human development, the
workers must do the problem solving or no learning takes place. In effect, lean work,
unlike traditional manufacturing work, resembles a simulation in that the traditional
manager has become a facilitator and more emphasis is given to learning, more toler-
ance shown for failure than in a traditional operation (Liker et al., 2008).
Therefore, especially because of the shift in roles for managers and supervisors,
more soft skills were required in a transformation process that emphasizes change
made by the workers rather than change imposed on or done to them. Table 3 summa-
rizes reasons for incorporating soft skill development in lean simulations and games.

Gap 2: Lean Simulations Teach “Linear Lean”

Lean simulations should be a preview, a way for participants to get the experience of
the incremental changes involved in a lean transformation by seeing over a few hours

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Badurdeen et al. 475

Table 3. Lean Soft Skill Development

No. Item Description of Item Why Skill Is Needed

1 Lean roles A lean role Traditional culture looks at individual

describes strengths, talents, and capability to obtain
the interface results. Lean role definition is critical in
between the understanding the means for achieving
person and the those results. Persons working in lean have
organization. to know the system before they can teach
the system. The system is responsible for
results not the individual.
2 Lean behaviors Describes how Applying lean using traditional behaviors
and traits a lean person does not work. Individual behaviors and
should act in the traits are difficult to change; however,
organization. organizational behaviors and norms can be
changed.
Lean behaviors/traits:
• Nonconfrontational
• Know the system, teach the system
(be a coach)
• Want to include others in making
decisions
• Monitor progress
• Encourage contributions
• Couples method with results
3 Lean Basic Basic communication fundamentals that
communication communication should be practiced where decisions are
fundamentals made using teams.
in team • Nemawashi (prepare the soil
environments technique). The process of getting
that encourage concerned people involved in making
improvement. decisions. (TMMK, 2006)
• Tataki dai (bashing ideas, not people).
Technique in critiquing problems,
proposals and not the individual.
(TEMA, 2007)
Note: TMMK = Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky; TEMA = Toyota Motor Engineering and
Manufacturing North America.

why and how they will happen as ways to solve problems. Concepts can be introduced
as needed, and improvements to the system can be seen, measured, and documented
by all the participants. What is most important is that they see and experience “the
spiral of learning.” Shewhart’s (1980) approach was to argue that manufacturing qual-
ity control should be conducted scientifically in the standard steps—hypothesis,
experiment to test the hypothesis, analysis of the results, new hypothesis—as part of a
spiral of learning, which may well return to the same problem over and over again, but

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

476 Simulation & Gaming 41(4)

not in a futile circular fashion because something new is always learned: thus, the
spiral. W. Edwards Deming (2000), another thinker fundamental to Toyota’s
approach, extended Shewhart’s spiral into what he called the Plan-Do-Check-Act
(PDCA) problem-solving cycle for continuous (i.e., spiral) improvement.
However, the emphasis in most lean simulations is on a linear, one-pass approach
that demonstrates how the system can go from the current state to a future state. This
emphasis is often used in those constrained by having to fit within one class period,
which means a simulation run must take only 15 or 20 minutes to allow conducting
2 to 3 runs within a single class. This is a significant problem because such design
limits the time available to reflect upon the learning points and the application of lean
principles for continuous improvement. In these one-pass simulations, charts and
graphs are generated with apparent (and unrealistic) ease; reflection on a single round
of data appears to summarize what was done to make the improvement. After such
a simulation, learners may feel charged up, excited, and empowered to find and fix
problems. Unfortunately, in real settings, problems can and do return after the system
is improved. More time is needed to prevent problems from recurring than such linear
simulations allow for in their design; if participants have experienced a really authen-
tic lean simulation, they already understand that continued effort makes sense because
it will improve the system. Sadly, Shewhart’s (1980) PDCA learning cycle (see also
Deming, 2000) is one of the most misunderstood techniques in lean. Most lean simula-
tions only practice the PD (Plan-Do) part of the cycle, jumping from improvement to
improvement without reflection on the current system and what can be done to keep
the system stable. Improvements to the system are made without proper study (Check),
something that leaves learners with the impression that problem solving is linear and
that rapid kaizen or improvement using blitz techniques is appropriate in and of itself.
True lean emphasizes the more gradual incremental form of problem solving that
keeps problems from returning, an approach that requires a substantial amount of time
on the CA (Check-Stabilize) cycle before improvement is done. Differences in the PD
and CAPD cycles are shown in Figure 1.

Gap 3: Lean Simulations Need a Trained Facilitator, Not a Teacher

In lean simulations, learners were plunged into new environments and then were
expected to make decisions that affect them and everyone else working with them.
Instructors were expected to avoid the role of teacher and assumed instead the role of
coach to help students feel comfortable practicing new skills in new environments and
sometimes failing at first. In some examples of simulations, a teacher acted as group
leader and students assumed roles of team members and team leaders, as seen in
Figure 2. However, the role changes demanded by effective lean simulations can be
difficult to manage for all participants and could even be overwhelming for some if the
simulation was not properly facilitated. The role of the facilitator was to guide partici-
pants through the simulation to achieve the learning outcomes, not to teach a solution
but to teach the right method for problem solving and keep the group on track in this

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Badurdeen et al. 477

P-D (Plan Do) Cycle CAPD (Check Act Plan Do)

Simulations Cycle Simulations
Improvement

Improvement
Round 3
Do

Plan Round 4
Round 2 Round 3
Do

Plan Round 2

Do
Round 1
Do

Round 1
Plan Period of
instability
Check Stabilize Plan

Simulation Time Simulation Time

Figure 1. Comparison of Traditional and True Lean Simulations

Traditional Educational Lean Simulation

Structure Structure
Group
Coach and guide the Leader
Teacher learner! The student
cannot fail!

Team Leader
Establish methods to
achieve goals and
targets in the new
environment

Students Team Members

Role Change

Figure 2. Comparison of Role Change: Traditional Education Versus Lean Simulations

unfamiliar territory. It was a predictable role in the sense that the problem-solving
method was known, yet team and interpersonal dynamics will always introduce varia-
tions and surprises.
This factor was also the reason why a facilitator rather than a teacher was required.
In an important sense, this unpredictability of the simulation was a key part of the learn-
ing. For one thing, if it can happen, the problem (which includes the social dynamic
among the participants) was felt as real by the participants. On the other hand, a
teacher, one who knew the answer and was removed from the stress of the situation
thereby, made a problem situation inauthentic and suggested to the participants that

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

478 Simulation & Gaming 41(4)

Table 4. Common Facilitation Pitfalls in Lean Simulations

No. Pitfalls (Description)

1 Cannot sense where the learner is and what learning style(s) he or she uses
2 Has difficulty staying on time, redirecting activities and monitoring progress (At the
same time too rigid of a schedule can cause participants to feel rushed or unable to
explore emerging areas.)
3 Focused on task-driven activities rather than relationships and team dynamics
4 Has difficulty in relating simulation activities to real-world applications. (Facilitator
should have real-world experience in that setting to bridge learning.)
5 Does not create a learning environment
·  Participants should feel free from personal attacks
·  Feel comfortable trying new skills
·  Facilitator should seize teachable moments as they happen (i.e., when mistakes are
seen, stop and give time to discuss them; Hall, 2006)
Make the experience enjoyable
6 Students feel left out or feel they are in competition (Verma, 2006)
7 Unclear instructions and incorrect advice (Verma, 2006)

they were engaged in something pointless—that is, solving a nonproblem that had
already been solved. And the activity of a teacher (rather than of a coach) could also
suggest to participants that they would be graded on their efforts so that failure is not
an option, as the saying goes. A facilitator, one who by definition did not know the
answer to the problem, was not immune to the confusion and stress of the actual prob-
lem, something that was evident to and can make all the difference for the participants
in terms of the felt reality and urgency of the situation. In that way, despite the fact that
a simulation could be repeated over and over, this day’s particular problem (because
it includes the social dimension involving these people on this particular day) had
always not yet been solved.
Simulation design was further complicated because learners need to gain facilitation
skills from the simulation. That is, there were two types of facilitation skills required
for lean simulations: knowing how to facilitate/run the simulation itself and knowing
what the facilitation skills are that will help others apply lean problem solving in real-
world situations. Those skills needed to be part of the simulation design. Unfortu-
nately, neither type was taught in the simulations reviewed. Table 4 shows common
pitfalls in facilitating lean simulations.

Gap 4: Lean Simulations Need More Realism

Lean simulations created a situation that, in a simplified but realistic way, can be used to
learn application of lean to solve a real problem. For the simulation to be effective, it
must be learning through experience, the realism of the situation, the setting, the props,
and learners themselves were important. It is estimated that less than 5% of lean

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Badurdeen et al. 479

Table 5. Conceptual and Realistic Lean Simulated Environments Compared

Conceptual (Awareness Level) Realistic (Application Level)

Right answers Better answers

Know how to apply in one set of Know how to trouble shoot under various
conditions conditions
Rigid application of strategy (no Adjustments to strategy are constantly occurring
adjustments) (more flexible)
Lots of boundaries Few boundaries (very open ended)
Difficult to start if everything doesn’t Start by starting (make compromises, its not a
line up perfectly perfect system)

simulations actually presented a realistic environment and less than half were tactile,
that is, provided objects that can be handled and other physical aspects of a situation,
so that learners can behave as they would in producing a product and can see what hap-
pens to the product given the approach taken. Most simulations were designed for
awareness-level training and do not offer the complexity and sophistication of a real envi-
ronment. For example, most companies fail in their first attempts to become lean and
many more have repeated failures in subsequent attempts. Interestingly, most lean simu-
lations did not demonstrate failure situations, only successful improvement accomplished
by applying the tools. This approach was very misleading for participants and could leave
learners wholly unprepared for the failures they should not only expect but have some
experience in learning from. It is also untrue to Toyota’s philosophy: “Toyota does not
just tolerate failure—it embraces failure as a mechanism for learning, recognizing that
you have to fail to progress” (Osono et al., 2008, pp. 87). This trend is changing in simula-
tions where broader issues in lean are being tackled, such as supply chain and enterprise
development, yet conceptual environments still predominate. Table 5 gives a brief sum-
mary of the differences between conceptual and realistic simulated environments.

Future Directions for Lean Manufacturing

Simulation Design
Teaching and learning of lean departs significantly from traditional manufacturing
teaching and learning. While lean learning seeks to develop both the cognitive and
psychomotor skills of team members (Hall, 2006), these skills are developed in a order
different from the usual sequence. A typical training sequence would follow Bloom’s
(1956) taxonomy of cognitive skills development that begins with knowledge acquisi-
tion, followed by understanding and only then by applications, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation. For lean learning, it is the other way around. Here, psychomotor skills
development comes first; in effect, the learner is taught how to drive a car before
learning how the engine works. For example, in the case of Toyota, production work-
ers first learn the physical skills to perform a given job before learning the problem

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

480 Simulation & Gaming 41(4)

Kaizen

Standardization

Psychomotor Skills Cognitive Skills

1. Knowledge acquisition
1. Perception
2. Understanding (comprehension)
2. Prepared mentally and physically
3. Applications
3. Trial and error
4. Analysis
4. Skill is automatic
5. Synthesis (combine ideas)
5. Skill is adaptable under different conditions
6. Evaluation (assess)

(Source: after Bloom, 1956) (Source: after Simpson, 1971)

Figure 3. Learning Sequence in Lean Manufacturing Simulations

solving, the more conceptual aspect of the work (Liker et al., 2008). Figure 3 sum-
marizes the components that form this unusual learning sequence.
Similarly, in a lean simulation, the participants should plunge into problem solving
first through experimentation, learn to learn through failures and successes, understand
why things and people worked as they did, and then move to understanding the con-
cepts (social and technical) as they learn how to facilitate lean learning and problem
solving for others. In that sense, lean learning begins with hands-on activity equivalent
to psychomotor skills learning, and Davies (1981) has argued that for such learning,
60% of the time allotted should be for drill and practice, with only 15% for discussion
of the concepts and 25% on facilitator demonstration of the skills (see Figure 4).
Using the percentages above would be a first step, we feel, in designing and pre-
senting a more effective lean simulation and addressing the flaws in existing designs.
First and most important, simulations should be designed and conducted to help par-
ticipants start on the path to learning what soft skills lean manufacturing requires. One
practicable approach that surfaces the difficult issue of dealing with role change can
be to shift participants within the rounds of the simulation; once they understand their
role in a team, they can be shifted to another team and a different role. Second, simula-
tions should be designed to avoid an unrealistic and inauthentic linear approach to lean
problem solving. Third, lean simulations need to be designed to help participants learn
to facilitate and thus the role of facilitator is all important; because the facilitator
should model this approach for participants, he or she should not take the role of
teacher. Last, lean simulations need to be designed to be as realistic as possible so that
the PBL they present is effective. The realism involved is not a matter of audiovisual
effects but more a question of the right situation, the right props and allowance for

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Badurdeen et al. 481

Cognitive Skills Psychomotor Skills Psychomotor Skills Cognitive Skills

Start Start

Drill and Practice

Introduction
10% 10% of Subject
Demonstrating
25%

25
Skills 15%
15%
60%

60
Drill and
15%

15
%
Practice

%
75%
Introduction
of Subject Demonstrating
Skills
(Source: Based on literature review) (Source: after Davies, 1981)

Current Practice Preferred

Figure 4. Time Allocation in Psychomotor Skill Development in Lean Simulations

participants to experience real-life problem solving, which can include such elements
as confusion, stress, difficulty, and uncertainty.
Another area for future exploration would be the application of findings from game
theory research for simulation design. Although it may not seem relevant at first
because it primarily examines competition rather than cooperation, game theory,
which brings together teachings from economics, mathematics, and the behavioral and
social sciences to study human behavior, can offer potentially useful insights into the
way participants in an activity learn more about themselves as they learn how to play
(Erev & Roth, 1998; Slonim & Roth, 1998).

Conclusions
A review of existing simulations and games used for lean manufacturing education
and training were presented and key elements of the simulations were summarized.
They were then evaluated according to whether they could help participants acquire
the kinds of skills, knowledge, and understanding needed for successful lean transfor-
mation. The main conclusions of the evaluation are as follows:

1. In general, existing simulations fall short by not providing the opportunity

for learning soft skills (such as the interpersonal skills and behaviors needed
for teamwork).
2. Flaws in current lean manufacturing simulation design are generally caused
either by a misunderstanding of crucial role of learning as part of lean man-
ufacturing work or by lack of awareness of the unique sequence required
for lean learning.

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

482 Simulation & Gaming 41(4)

That is, it is widely known that lean manufacturing focuses on the elimination of waste
but it is not at all as widely known that for Toyota, “a person’s work may be productive
but . . . if the work does not contribute to learning and development, it will be classified
as waste” (Liker et al., 2008, pp. 38). Seeing work as a form of learning makes this
approach unique; simulations that attempt to help participants learn the approach must
be designed with an awareness of this unique perspective. Second, the sequence for
lean learning, and current practice at Toyota, is the reverse of the more usual, in that it
begins with hands-on activity and introduces conceptual aspects afterward. Therefore,
simulations that attempt to help participants learn the lean approach must also be
designed with an awareness of this unusual learning sequence.

References
Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its
outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52-81.
Badurdeen, F., Hall, A., Holloway, L., Marksberry, P., Maginnis, A., Cooper, B., et al. (2008).
Lean manufacturing boot camps at the University of Kentucky. In J. Fowler & S. Mason
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 Industrial Engineering Research Conference (pp. 212-216).
Atlanta, GA: Institute of Industrial Engineers.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L.
Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning (pp. 3-11).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bicheno, J. (1995). The Buckingham lean game (manual). Buckinghamshire, UK: PICSIE
Associates.
Billington, P. J. (2004). A classroom exercise to illustrate lean manufacturing pull concepts.
Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2, 71-76.
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: McKay.
Blust, R. P., & Bates, J. B. (2004, June). Activity based learning: WAGONS R US—A lean
manufacturing simulation. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Edu-
cation (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition: Engineering Education Reaches New
Heights, Salt Lake City, UT.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Colliver, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula. Academic Medicine,
75, 259-266.
Crookall, D., & Saunders, D. (1989). Towards an integration of communication and simulation.
In S. Crookall & D. Saunders (Eds.), Communication and simulation: From two fields to one
(pp. 3-29). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Davies, I. (1981). Instructional technique. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Day, G. S., & Reibstein, D. J. (1997). Wharton on dynamic competitive strategy. New York:
John Wiley.
Deming, W. (2000). The new economics for industry, government, education (2nd ed.),
Cambridge: MIT Press.

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Badurdeen et al. 483

Erev, I., & Roth, A. E. (1998). Predicting how people play games: Reinforcement learning in
experimental games with unique, mixed strategy equilibria. American Economic Review,
88, 848-881.
Evensen, D. H., & Hmelo, C. E. (2000). Problem-based learning: Research perspective on
learning interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fang, N., Cook, R., & Hauser, K. (2007, June). Integrating lean systems education into manu-
facturing course curriculum via interdisciplinary collaboration. Paper presented at the 2007
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition,
Honolulu, HI.
Feinstein, A. H., Mann, S., & Corsun, D. L. (2002). Charting the experiential territory: Clarify-
ing definitions and uses of computer simulation games and role play. Journal of Manage-
ment Development, 21, 732-744.
Felder, R. M. (1996). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science
education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23, 286-290.
Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learn-
ing: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 27-61.
Hall, A. (1994). Lean manufacturing certification course material. Lexington: Center for Man-
ufacturing, University of Kentucky.
Hall, A. (2006). Introduction to lean, sustainable quality systems design, integrated leadership
competencies from viewpoints of dynamic scientific inquiry learning and Toyota’s lean sys-
tem principles. Lexington, KY: Arlie Hall.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Berkshire, UK:
McGraw-Hill.
Kreafle, K. (1994). Concrete and fiber of TPS. Erlanger, KY: Toyota Motor Manufacturing and
Engineering North America.
Liker, J., Hoseus, M., & Center for Quality People and Organizations. (2008). Toyota culture.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Lycke, K. H., Grøttum, P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006). Student learning strategies, mental models and
learning outcomes in problem-based and traditional curricula in medicine. Medical Teacher,
28, 717-722.
MacMillian, A. (2007). She’s got game. Leaders for manufacturing on-line news. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Maginnis, A. (2008, May). Lean manufacturing boot camps at the University of Kentucky. Paper
presented at the 2008 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
McCaulley, M. H. (1990). The MBTI and individual pathways in engineering design. Engineer-
ing Education, 80, 537-542.
McManus, H. L., & Rebentisch, E. (2006a). Lean enterprise product development simulation
and short course. Cambridge: Lean Aerospace Initiative, MIT.
McManus, H. L., & Rebentish, E. S. (2006b). Lean enterprise value simulation: The game.
Cambridge: Lean Aerospace Initiative, MIT.
McManus, H. L., Rebentisch, E., Stanke, A., & Murman, E. (2007, June). Teaching lean think-
ing principles through hands-on simulations. Paper presented at the 3rd International CDIO
Conference, MIT, Cambridge.

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

484 Simulation & Gaming 41(4)

Ncube, L. B. (2007, October). Exploring the application of experiential learning in developing

technology and engineering concepts: The lean lemonade tycoon. Paper presented at the
37th American Society for Engineering Education/Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (ASEE/IEEE) Frontiers in Education Conference, Milwaukee, WI.
National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership. (1998).
Principles of lean manufacturing with live simulation. Gaithersburg, MD: Author.
Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula:
Theory, practice and paper darts. Medical Education, 34, 721-728.
Osono, E., Shimizu, N., & Takeuchi, H. (2008). Extreme Toyota. New York: John Wiley.
Ozelkan, E. C., & Galambosi, A. (2007, June). Lampshade game for teaching lean manufactur-
ing. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual
Conference and Exposition, Honolulu, HI.
Ozelkan, E. C., & Galambosi, A. (2008, May). Lampshade game for teaching lean manufactur-
ing. Paper presented at the 2008 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Vancouver,
BC, Canada.
Price, J. (2008, May). Lean manufacturing boot camps at the University of Kentucky. Paper
presented at the 2008 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93, 223-231.
Riis, J., Hohansen, J., & Millelsen, H. (1995). Simulation games and learning in production
management: An introduction. In J. O. Riis (Ed.), Simulation games and learning in produc-
tion management (pp. 3-11). London: Chapman & Hall.
Rolfe, J. M., & Hampson, B. P. (2003) Flight simulation: Viability versus liability issues of
accuracy, data and validation. Aeronautical Journal, 107, 631-635.
Shewhart, W. (1980). Economic control of quality of manufactured product. Milwaukee, WI:
American Society for Quality.
Simpson, E. (1971). Educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. In M. Kapfer (Ed.),
Behavioral objectives in curriculum development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology.
Slonim, R., &Roth, A. E. (1998). Learning in high stages ultimatum games: An experiment in
the Slovak Republic. Econometrica, 66, 569-596.
Stier, K. W. (2003). Teaching lean manufacturing concepts through project-based learning and
simulation. Journal of Industrial Technology, 19, 1-6.
Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America. (2007). Toyota communication
basics. Unpublished technical presentation, Toyota Motor Manufacturing and Engineering
North America, Erlanger, KY.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky. (2006). Toyota production system terms. Georgetown,
KY: Author. Retrieved March 13, 2009, from http://www.toyotageorgetown.com/terms.asp
University of Kentucky. (1994). Lean training. Lexington. KY: Center for Manufacturing, Uni-
versity of Kentucky.
University of Kentucky. (2004a). Lean manufacturing boot camp II. Lexington. KY: Center for
Manufacturing, University of Kentucky.

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Badurdeen et al. 485

University of Kentucky. (2004b). Lean manufacturing certification program. Lexington. KY:

Center for Manufacturing, University of Kentucky.
Verma, A. K. (2003, October). Simulation tools and training programs in lean manufacturing:
Current status. Report submitted to the National Shipbuilding Research, Advanced Ship-
building Enterprise Program.
Verma, A. K. (2006). Teaching lean manufacturing concepts using physical simulations within
engineering technology program. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Edu-
cation.
Verma, A. K. (2007, June). Enhancing student learning in engineering technology programs—
A case for physical simulations. Paper presented at the 2007 American Society for Engineer-
ing Education, Honolulu, HI.
Verma, A. K., & Devulapalli, J. (2006, October). Development of a board game simulation
activity for value stream mapping and analysis training. Paper presented at the annual meet-
ing of the Lean Aerospace Initiative Ed Net, Worcester, MA.
Verma, A. K., Hirkannawar, H., & Devulapalli, J. (2005, November). Design of simulation
tools for training programs in lean manufacturing. Paper presented at the 2005 ASME Inter-
national Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Orlando, FL.
Verma, A. K., Hughes, J., & Christman, S. (2004, July). Enhancing instruction in lean man-
ufacturing through development of simulation activities in shipbuilding operation. Paper
presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Expo-
sition, Salt Lake City, UT.
Winarchick, C. and Carlisle, T. (2006, June). Use of physical simulation and a common product
through a series of courses to illustrate industrial and manufacturing engineering prin-
ciples. Paper presented at the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)
Conference, Chicago.

Bios
Fazleena Badurdeen is an assistant professor of mechanical engineering, with a joint appoint-
ment in the Center for Manufacturing, at the University of Kentucky. She received her PhD in
integrated engineering from Ohio University. Her research interests are in manufacturing systems,
including lean and sustainable manufacturing. She has published in a variety of journals and pre-
sented at national and international conferences. Contact: 210A CRMS Building, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA; +1 859-257-6262 x 436 (t); badurdeen@engr.uky.edu.

Phil Marksberry works for the Center for Manufacturing, University of Kentucky Lean Manu-
facturing program, teaching both academic and industry courses. He received his PhD in
mechanical engineering from the University of Kentucky and has more than 12 years of indus-
try experience. His research interests include the study of the Toyota Production System and the
transformation process.

Arlie Hall holds a doctorate in human resource development from Vanderbilt University. He
did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering and business administration. He is a retired

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

486 Simulation & Gaming 41(4)

former IBM engineer and currently is an assistant professor in mechanical engineering, Univer-
sity of Kentucky. He developed University of Kentucky’s lean manufacturing curriculum and
has taught lean principles and concepts for more than 20 years.

Bob Gregory is a technical writer on staff at the Center for Manufacturing at the University of
Kentucky. He received his PhD in English from the University of California, Irvine. His
research interests include the function of metaphor in innovation and organizational learning
and the language issues involved in sustainable consumption.

Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016