Wilfred H. Knol, Kristina Lauche, Roel L.J. Schouteten and Jannes Slomp
Building on the routine dynamics literature, this paper aims to expand our philosophical, practical and infrastructural understanding of implementing lean production. The authors…
Abstract
Purpose
Building on the routine dynamics literature, this paper aims to expand our philosophical, practical and infrastructural understanding of implementing lean production. The authors provide a process view on the interplay between lean operating routines and continuous improvement (CI) routines and the roles of different actors in initiating and establishing these routines.
Design/methodology/approach
Using data from interviews, observations and document analysis, retrospective comparative analyses of three embedded case studies on lean implementations provide a process understanding of enacting and patterning lean operating and CI routines in manufacturing SMEs.
Findings
Incorporating the “who” and “how” next to the “what” of practices and routines helps explain that rather than being implemented in isolation or even in conjunction with each other, sustainable lean practices and routines come about through team leader and employee enactment of the CI practices and routines. Neglecting these patterns aligned with unsustainable implementations.
Research limitations/implications
The proposed process model provides a valuable way to integrate variance and process streams of literature to better understand lean production implementations.
Practical implications
The process model helps manufacturing managers, policy makers, consultants and educators to reconsider their approach to implementing lean production or teaching how to do so.
Originality/value
Nuancing the existing lean implementation literature, the proposed process model shows that CI routines do not stem from implementing lean operating routines. Rather, the model highlights the importance of active engagement of actors at multiple organizational levels and strong connections between and across levels to change routines and work practices for implementing lean production.
Details
Keywords
Wilfred H. Knol, Jannes Slomp, Roel L.J. Schouteten and Kristina Lauche
This paper examines whether and when improvement routines are critical for implementing lean practices in small- and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises (SMEs). Improvement…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper examines whether and when improvement routines are critical for implementing lean practices in small- and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises (SMEs). Improvement routines such as “employees initiate and carry through improvement activities” are generally seen as an important means to achieve the full benefit of structural lean interventions. Womack and Jones (2003) suggest that these improvement routines should be developed as the company becomes more experienced in lean. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relative importance of individual improvement routines at various degrees of lean practice implementation.
Design/methodology/approach
A Between-Case Comparison Analysis (Dul and Hak, 2012) and a Necessary Condition Analysis (Dul, 2016) were performed on self-assessment data from 241 respondents at 38 Dutch manufacturing SMEs.
Findings
The importance of improvement routines depended on the degree of lean practice implementation. Lean practices could be implemented to some extend without developing specific improvement routines, yet certain routines were necessary for more advanced implementations of lean. These routines relate to employees conducting shared improvement activities and in the most advanced cases to aligning different improvement activities.
Originality/value
These findings question existing lean implementation models that neglect improvement routines and indicate the need to integrate improvement routines into every lean transformation for it to be sustainable.
Details
Keywords
This paper explores the changes in communication patterns when companies implement lean, and how those changes relate to implementation success.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper explores the changes in communication patterns when companies implement lean, and how those changes relate to implementation success.
Design/methodology/approach
This is a multiple-site case study involving four business units of a manufacturing company in South America, including two repeated measurement instances separating 24 months for approximately 600 direct workers and 65 supervisors. The analytical models include social network analysis measures and Ordinary Least Squares regression.
Findings
When companies implement lean, (1) teams have a higher frequency of communication among members; (2) teams become more decentralized; (3) teams communicate more with supervisors and (4) supervisors communicate more amongst themselves and collaborate more. Also, (5) better performing teams change more pronouncedly.
Research limitations/implications
The study contains data for four business units but within only one company, limiting the external validity of the conclusions. The sample was predominantly male. Participant attrition and other potential covariates not included in the study can be additional limitations.
Practical implications
Lean implementations could be practically helped by managers by embracing and supporting the more intense communication patterns associated with lean success, and alternatively, they could proactively detect barriers in communication by measuring how these patterns change or fail to change and try to unlock communication by working on those barriers and supply communications infrastructure and opportunities for collaboration to try to boost the chances of success.
Originality/value
This is to our knowledge the first study measuring communication networks from the point of view of team members and low-level supervisors in lean implementations. This is also the first study showing that communication patterns change more rapidly in more successful teams, and also that communication pattern changes when implementing lean can be an indicator of success.