Managing barriers to lean production implementation: context matters

As the barriers to lean production implementation (LPI) are influenced by the context, the search for generalisable barriers, relationships, priorities and control measures is to some extent elusive. This study introduces a framework for managing barriers to LPI in specific companies, which is comprised of five stages: (i) description of the context; (ii) identification of the barriers; (iii) analysis of the influence of the context on the barriers; (iv) analysis of the relationships among the barriers using interpretive structural modelling – this sets a basis for prioritising the barriers; and (v) a feedback meeting to discuss the results of data collection, which also informs on the development of an action plan to control the barriers. The use of the framework is illustrated by a case study of a manufacturing plant. Data collection involved interviews, observations and document analysis. A follow-up visit to the company was conducted 18 months after the initial data collection, in order to identify changes in the context. The framework is a contribution in terms of prescriptive theory related to LPI, and is also a means for the generation of data for developing descriptive theory related to the barriers to LPI.

[1]  Andrew Taylor,et al.  Towards greater understanding of success and survival of lean systems , 2013 .

[2]  Ravi Shankar,et al.  Supply chain risk mitigation: modeling the enablers , 2006, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[3]  Sanjay Bhasin,et al.  Prominent obstacles to lean , 2012 .

[4]  J. W. Rogers,et al.  Implementing lean production systems: barriers to change , 2008 .

[5]  Todd A. Boyle,et al.  Lean, take two! Reflections from the second attempt at lean implementation , 2009 .

[6]  José Moyano-Fuentes,et al.  International Journal of Operations & Production Management Emerald Article: Learning on lean: a review of thinking and research , 2012 .

[7]  Krisztina Demeter,et al.  Factors influencing employee perceptions in lean transformations , 2011 .

[8]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[9]  P. Garengo,et al.  Lean manufacturing in developing countries: evidence from Indian SMEs , 2012 .

[10]  Peter T. Ward,et al.  Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance , 2003 .

[11]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  The Cycles of Theory Building in Management Research , 2005 .

[12]  Giuliano Almeida Marodin,et al.  Implementing lean production systems: research areas and opportunities for future studies , 2013 .

[13]  Lauri Koskela,et al.  A complex systems theory perspective of lean production , 2013 .

[14]  Hal W. Hendrick,et al.  Macroergonomics: An Introduction to Work System Design , 2000 .

[15]  Taho Yang,et al.  The use of a multiple attribute decision-making method and value stream mapping in solving the pacemaker location problem , 2011 .

[16]  Christopher A. Voss,et al.  Case research in operations management , 2002 .

[17]  Peter Boxall,et al.  Lean production, employee learning and workplace outcomes: a case analysis through the ability‐motivation‐opportunity framework , 2013 .

[18]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[19]  Sanjay Bhasin,et al.  Lean viewed as a philosophy , 2006 .

[20]  Lars Skyttner,et al.  General Systems Theory: Problems, Perspectives, Practice , 2006 .

[21]  Ethan Bernstein,et al.  The Transparency Paradox , 2012 .

[22]  Ravi Shankar,et al.  An ISM approach for modelling the enablers of flexible manufacturing system: the case for India , 2008 .

[23]  Maike Scherrer-Rathje,et al.  Learning to be lean : the influence of external information sources in lean improvements , 2011 .

[24]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[25]  J. Gerring.  A case study , 2011, Technology and Society.

[26]  Giuliano Almeida Marodin,et al.  Classification and relationships between risks that affect lean production implementation , 2015 .

[27]  Toni L. Doolen,et al.  Critical success factors for human resource outcomes in Kaizen events: An empirical study , 2009 .

[28]  William Dairymple.  The Case for India , 2006 .

[29]  E. Hollnagel.  FRAM: The Functional Resonance Analysis Method: Modelling Complex Socio-technical Systems , 2012 .

[30]  Michael Lewis,et al.  Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage , 2000 .

[31]  Taho Yang,et al.  Lean-pull strategy in a re-entrant manufacturing environment: a pilot study for TFT-LCD array manufacturing , 2011 .

[32]  Jeffrey K. Liker,et al.  The Toyota way : 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer , 2004 .

[33]  J. Wacker.  A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management , 1998 .

[34]  Pius Achanga,et al.  Critical success factors for lean implementation within SMEs , 2006 .

[35]  Nikhil Dev,et al.  Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) approach: An Overview , 2013 .

[36]  Elizabeth F Turesky,et al.  Off the rails: understanding the derailment of a lean manufacturing initiative , 2010 .

[37]  Charles R. Standridge,et al.  A simulation-enhanced lean design process , 2009 .

[38]  Paul Cilliers,et al.  Boundaries , Hierarchies and Networks in Complex Systems , 2005 .

[39]  S. Spear,et al.  Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System , 1999 .

[40]  Peter Kroes,et al.  Treating socio-technical systems as engineering systems: some conceptual problems , 2006 .

[41]  Enid Mumford,et al.  The story of socio‐technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential , 2006, Inf. Syst. J..