-
质量管理中英文对照外文翻译文献
质量管理中英文对照外文翻译文献
(
文档含英文原文和中文翻译
)
Defining lean
production: some
conceptual and
practical issues
Abstract:
Purpose
–
The purpose of this paper
is to investigate the definition of lean
production and
the methods and goals
associated with the concept as well as how it
differs from other
popular management
concepts.
Design/methodology/approach
–
The
paper is based on a review of the contemporary
literature on lean production,
both
journal articles and books.
Findings
–
It is shown in the paper
that there is no consensus on a definition of lean
production between the examined
authors. The authors also seem to have different
opinions on which characteristics
should be associated with the concept. Overall it
can
be concluded that lean production
is not clearly defined in the reviewed literature.
This
divergence can cause some
confusion on a theoretical level, but is probably
more
problematic on a practical level
when organizations aim to implement the concept.
This paper argues that it is important
for an organization to acknowledge the different
variations, and to raise the awareness
of the input in the implementation process. It is
further argued that the organization
should not accept any random variant of lean, but
make active choices and adapt the
concept to suit the organization's needs. Through
this process of adaptation, the
organization will be able to increase the odds of
performing a predictable and successful
implementation
Originality/value
–
This paper provides a critical
perspective on the discourse
surrounding lean production, and gives
an input to the discussion of the
implementation of management models.
Keywords:
Lean production;
Total quality management
1
Article
Introduction
When
initiating
research
concerning
the
concept
of
lean
production
(LP) one line of
questions naturally comes to mind: “What is lean?
How is
lean
defined?
How
does
lean
relate
to
other
management
concepts?
What
does
lean
have
in
common
with
other
management
concepts?
What
discriminates lean from
other managem
ent concepts?”
Seeking
answers
to
these
questions,
will
lead
to
the
realization
that
they
are
exceedingly
hard
to
find.
It
seems
logical
that
a
management
concept as popular as lean should have
a clear and concise definition. Much
disappointingly,
the
definition
of
lean
production
is
highly
elusive.
Some
authors have made attempts to define
the concept (e.g. Lewis, 2000; Hines
et
al., 2004; Shah and Ward, 2007), while others have
raised the question of
whether the
concept is clearly defined (see Dahlgaard and
Dahlgaard
‐
Park,
2006; Engstr?
m et al., 1996;
Lewis, 2000).
A justified question is
whether the convergent validity of lean actually
makes
any
difference
–
does
it
matter
how
we
define
lean?
There
are
various opinions on the effects of
this.
The
absence
of
a
clear
definition
has
a
number
of
consequences
for
practitioners
seeking
to
implement
lean
as
well
as
researchers
trying
to
capture the essence of
the concept. These issues have been addressed by a
number of researchers. The lack of a
definition will lead to communication
difficulties
(Dale
and
Plunkett,
1991
in
Boaden,
1997).
It
will
complicate
education
on
the
subject
(Boaden,
1997).
Researching
the
subject
will
be
difficult
(Godfrey
et
al.,
1997;
Parker,
2003)
–
although
Boaden
(1997)
2
states
that
this
is
not
essential.
There
will
also
be
difficulties
in
defining
overall goals of the concept (Andersson
et al., 2006).
Parker (2003) states
that the multitude of interpretations on what lean
really
is
makes
it
harder
to
make
claims
towards
the
effects
of
lean,
thus
increasing
the
requirements
that
researchers
specify
exactly
what
they
are
researching.
Karlsson
and
?hlstr?
m
(1996)
point
out
that
the
lack
of
a
precise
definition
also
will
lead
to
difficulties
in
determining
whether
changes
made
in
an
organization
are
consistent
with
LP
or
not,
and
consequently difficulties in evaluating
the effectiveness of the concept itself.
Purpose of the article
The
main purpose of this article is to give a
presentation of what lean
production
is. This will be done through a review of
contemporary literature
on lean and
summary of practices associated with lean as well
as the stated
purpose of the concept.
Based on this, an evaluation of the construct
validity
of lean will be made.
The paper will conclude with a
discussion of the practical implications
of the construct validity of lean.
Research approach
Hackman
and Wageman (1995) reviewed the TQM concept and
raised
the question of “whether there
really is such a thing as TQM or whether it
has
become
mainly
a
banner
under
which
a
potpourri
of
essentially
unrelated organizational
changes
are undertaken”.
This
is
a valid question
for any construct similar to TQM, and
the concept of lean production is no
exception.
Following
the
reasoning
of
Hackman
and
Wageman,
this
question
calls
for
the
evaluation
of
the
concept's
convergent
and
discriminant validity.
Hackman and Wageman (1995) describe the two kinds
of validity as follows:
Convergent validity reflects the degree
to which [different] versions [of the concept] […]
share a comm
on set of
assumptions and prescriptions. […]
3
Discriminant validity refers to the
degree to which [the concept] can be reliably
distinguished from other strategies for
organizational improvement (Hackman and
Wageman, 1995).
In
other
words,
the
discriminant
validity
tells
us
whether
or
not
a
concept
carries
any
news
value
compared
to
other
existing
concepts,
whereas the convergent validity,
strictly speaking, tells us whether or not the
concept itself really exists.
For this article, the two major
citation databases ISI and Scopus have
been searched for
articles
containing the terms “lean production”
or “lean
manufacturing”
in
the
topic,
abstract
or
keywords.
The
20
most
cited
articles from each database were
selected for further study.
Through
reading
these
and
other
articles
on
the
subject,
the
most
influential
books
were
identified.
This
list
was
verified
through
using
the
citation analysis software “publish or
perish”.
The reviewed
literature will be compared by listing the
characteristics
of lean presented by
each author. The idea is that a method, tool or
goal that
is
central
to
lean
will
be
mentioned
by
every
author
on
the
topic.
The
purpose
or
goal
of
lean
should
logically
be
the
same
for
all
authors.
Concurrence
among the
authors will
signify
a high
convergent
validity.
If
lean
passes
this
convergent
validity
criterion,
an
evaluation
of
the
discriminant
validity
can
be
made,
based
on
a
comparison
with
TQM.
Hackman
and
Wageman
(1995)
concluded
that
TQM
passed
the
tests
of
both
convergent
and
discriminant
validity,
making
it
a
good
concept
to
compare against lean production.
Literature review
The
two
database
searches
produced
a
total
of
37
articles
(see
Appendix),
of
which
12
of
them
contained
presentations
of
techniques
4
and/or
overall
goals
associated
with
LP,
thus
contributing
to
a
conceptual
discussion.
The
12
articles
that
are
deemed
suitable
for
a
further
analysis
are
Krafcik
(1988),
Oliver
et
al.
(1996),
S
á
nchez
and
P
é
rez
(2001),
Lewis
(2000), Mumford (1994),
James
‐
Moore and Gibbons
(1997), MacDuffie et
al. (1996),
Dankbaar (1997), White and Prybutok (2001), Hayes
and Pisano
(1994), Jagdev and Browne
(1998) and Cusumano (1994).
A number of
books turned up in the literature search. An
investigation
of
the
books'
citation
rankings
led
to
a
filtering
process
with
13
books
remaining.
These
are
Womack
et
al.
(1990),
Womack
and
Jones
(2003),
Bicheno (2004), Ohno
(1988), Monden (1998), Liker (2004), Feld (2001),
Dennis
(2002),
Schonberger
(1982),
Shingo
(1984),
Rother
and
Shook
(1998), Jones and Womack (2002) and
Smalley (2004).
The publications by the
Lean Enterprise Institute (Rother and Shook,
1998; Jones and Womack, 2002; Smalley,
2004) are very specific on certain
tools
(mainly
value
stream
mapping),
and
were
not
deemed
suitable
for
a
conceptual discussion about lean in
general.
An overview of lean
characteristics
Table
I
is
a
presentation
of
the
most
frequently
mentioned
characteristics of lean in the reviewed
books. Characteristics that have been
discussed
by
less
than
three
authors
have
been
excluded
from
the
presentation. The characteristics in
the table are sorted based on frequency
of discussion in the reviewed
literature.
Looking
at
the
table
reveals
some
interesting
aspects
about
the
ideas
surrounding
lean.
The
only
two
characteristics
that
all
authors
discuss
are
“setup time reduction” and “continuous
improvement”, indicating that these
are
central to the concept. On the condition that pull
production can be seen
as
a
special
case
of <
/p>
just
‐
in
‐
time
production,
all
authors
lift
this
5
characteristic
as
well.
Failure
prevention
(poka
yoke)
and
production
leveling
(heijunka)
also
seem
to
be
central
characteristics
of
lean
production.
Analysis
Convergent validity of lean
The
characteristics listed in Table I have some
relation to one another,
motivating an
affinity analysis. One way of grouping these
characteristics is
presented in Table
II.
Through
grouping
the
characteristics
a
more
homogeneous
image
of
the
lean
characteristics
arises.
For
all
but
three
of
the
groups
all
authors
have discussed at
least one of the characteristics in the group. In
the group
labeled
as
human
resource
management
none
of
the
characteristics
are
discussed
by
authors
Bicheno
and
Shingo.
The
authors
Ohno
and
Schonberger
have
not
discussed
any
of
the
characteristics
in
the
group
labeled
as supply chain management. Furthermore, the
bundled techniques
have
slightly
lower
figures.
This
indicates
that
the
two
groups
human
relations
management
and
supply
chain
management
are
not
definable
characteristics
of
lean,
contrary
to
the
findings
of
Shah
and
Ward
(2003).
However,
the
scores
are
quite
high,
indicating
that
they
are
important
(although not
vital) parts of the lean concept.
Looking at the goals presented by the
reviewed authors (Table I) raises
some
questions towards the convergent validity of lean.
The general opinion
that the purpose of
lean is to reduce waste does not seem to hold,
although
some authors (Bicheno, 2004;
Monden, 1998; Shingo, 1984) argue for this.
As
discussed
above
there
are
two
main
traditions
of
lean;
“toolbox
lean”
and “lean thinking”.
This is also evident in the differences of goals
in the
reviewed
literature.
Generally
speaking,
there
are
two
different
types
of
goals,
internally
focused
(Liker,
2004;
Feld,
2001;
Ohno,
1988;
Monden,
1998; Schonberger, 1982; Shingo, 1984)
and externally focused (Womack et
6
al.,
1990;
Womack
and
Jones,
2003;
Bicheno,
2004;
Dennis,
2002;
Schonberger, 1982). One could argue
that the differences in formulation of
purpose are very small thus making it a
minor issue. However, an internally
focused cost reduction initiative will
differ substantially from an externally
focused initiative to improve customer
satisfaction.
The division
of lean production in
the
two parts discussed above has
led to
discussions of which one is more correct. A common
statement is that
“lean
is
more
than
a
set
of
tools”
(Bicheno,
2004),
arguing
for
a
more
philosophical approach
to lean. However, there is also another position
that
argues for a more practical and
project based approach to lean and that “lean
is a co
llection of waste
reduction tools”. This kind of statement is hard
to
find
explicitly
in
academic
texts,
but
very
common
among
certain
practitioners.
Neither
of
the
positions
are
more
correct
than
the
other,
since
lean
exists
at
both
levels,
having
both
strategic
and
operational
dimensions
(Hines
et
al.,
2004).
In
addition,
lean
can
be
seen
as
having
both
a
philosophical as well as a
practical orientation (Shah and Ward, 2007).
Through
adapting
and
combining
the
four
approaches
to
lean
suggested
by
Hines
et
al.
(2004)
and
Shah
and
Ward
(2007)
respectively,
lean
can
be
characterized
in
four
different
ways.
The
terms
practical
and
philosophical are substituted by the
terms performative and ostensive. The
terms
operational
and
strategic
are
substituted
by
the
terms
discrete
and
continuous.
In Table III
four different approaches to lean production are
presented.
The
term
ostensive
signifies
a
shift
of
focus
from
general
philosophy
towards issues that can only be defined
by examples, whereas performative
and
practical focus on the things that are done. The
term discrete signifies a
focus on
isolated events, such as individual improvement
projects using the
“lean toolbox” (see
Bicheno, 2004; Nicholas and Soni, 2006), or the
final
7
state of “leanness” (see Krafcik,
19
88). As a contrast, the term
continuous
signifies a process oriented
perspective, focusing on the continuous efforts;
the
philosophy
of
“lean
thinking”
or
“the
Toyota
way”
(see
Womack
and
Jones,
2003;
Liker,
2004)
or
the
process
of
“becoming
lean”
(see
Lik
er,
1998; Karlsson and?hlstr?
m,
1996).
Although
the
score
is
not
perfect,
lean
seems
to
be
a
reasonably
consistent
concept
comprising
just
in
time
practices,
resource
reduction,
improvement
strategies,
defects
control,
standardization
and
scientific
management techniques. However, it is
hard to formulate a clear definition
that captures all the elements of lean
and integrates the various goals in the
reviewed
literature.
In
other
words,
lean
can
be
said
to
(barely)
pass
the
convergent
validity
test,
although
there
is
no
clear
agreement
among
the
authors
as to the overall purpose of the concept.
Discriminant validity of lean
So what is then the difference between
TQM and lean production? In
the
following
section
Lean
and
TQM
are
compared
based
on
the
analysis
made by Hackman and
Wageman (1995). The discussion is done with three
different aspects; basic assumptions,
change principles and interventions:
1.
Basic assumptions:
?
Quality.
In
lean,
quality
does
not
receive
the
same
amount
of
attention as in the TQM literature. The
main focus in the lean literature is on
just
‐
in
‐
< br>time
(JIT)
production.
JIT
is
assumed
to
decrease
total
cost,
as
well as
highlight problems. This is done through reducing
the resources in
the system, so that
buffers do not cover up the problems that arise.
In the
short
‐
term
perspective,
the
reduction
of
resources
implies
a
direct
reduction of cost. In the long run, the
reduction and subsequent elimination
of
buffers is assumed to highlight the problems that
exist in production, thus
being a vital
source of continuous improvement (e.g. Shingo,
1984; Ohno,
8
1988;
Krafcik,
1988).
A
common
opinion
is
that
the
purpose
of
lean
is
waste
elimination.
The
literature
review
does
not
show
support
for
this
being
the
very
purpose,
but
waste
elimination
is
definitely
an
important
aspect of the
concept. Some authors argue that waste is reduced
in order to
increase
the
value
for
the
customer
(e.g.
Dennis,
2002;
Bicheno,
2004),
whereas others argue that it is a
strategy for reducing cost (e.g. Ohno, 1988;
Monden, 1998). Reducing waste is also a
significant part of TQM, but under
the
banner
of
poor
‐
quality
‐
costs
(see
Hackman
and
Wageman,
1995;
S?
rqvist,
1998). A major difference between TQM and lean in
this aspect is
the precision in
defining waste. In the majority of the lean
literature, waste
or muda is based on
the seven forms[1] defined by Ohno (1988), whereas
TQM
has
a
very
general
definition
of
poo
r
‐
quality
‐
costs,
including
everything that could be eliminated
through improvement (S?
rqvist, 1998).
? Emplo
yees and
the quality of their work. One major critique of
the
lean
concept
is
that
it
is
generally
weak
concerning
the
employees”
perspective.
The
proponents
of
lean
production
usually
have
a
strong
instrumental and
managerial perspective, discussing employees in
terms of
components in the production
system (see Kamata, 1982; Berggren, 1992,
1993).
The
extensive
discussion
about
jidoka
and
poka
yoke
in
the
lean
literature suggests that employees
cannot be trusted to produce good quality,
thus creating a necessity for removing
the possibility of human error from
the
system.
?
Organizations
as
systems.
One
thing
that
lean
and
TQM
have
in
common
is
seeing
the
organization
as
a
system
(see
Womack
and
Jones,
2003;
Bicheno,
2004).
But
there
is
a
slight
difference
in
perspective
between the two
concepts. Whereas TQM has a strong focus on the
internal
structure
and
integration
of
departments
within
the
organization,
lean
stresses
a
supply
chain
perspective,
seeing
the
internal
production
operations
as
a
part
of
a
value
stream
from
the
sub
‐
suppliers
to
the
end
9
customer (e.g. Rother and Shook, 1998;
Jones and Womack, 2002).
?
Quality is the responsibility of senior
management. This is another
perspective
that
lean
and
TQM
share,
but
again
with
some
differences.
TQM
‐
managers
should
create
structures
that
support
the
employees
in
producing products of high quality
(Deming, 1986; Hackman and Wageman,
1995). The idea is the same in lean,
but the rationale for doing this seems to
be centered around eliminating the
human factor from the system through
jidoka and poka yoke. Using the
terminology of McGregor, one could argue
that TQM seems to be based on theory
Y
, whereas lean seems to be based
on theory X (see Ezzamel et al., 2001).
2.
Change principles:
?
Focus on
process
es. Within the lean concept the
term value stream
is usually preferred
(Womack and Jones, 2003). The term process is
usually
used
at
a
lower
level
of
abstraction
that
TQM
theorists
would
call
sub
‐
processes or
activities (see Riley, 1998). The conception that
management
should analyze and improve
the processes and train
the employees
is
also
shared by the two
concepts.
? Management by
fact. The literature on lean does not really
stress the
management by facts
explicitly. However, this is implicit in the
description
of
lean
practices,
many
of
which
are
analytical
tools
designed
to
help
achieve JIT production. Although this
is a shared perspective between lean
and
TQM,
there
is
a
difference.
Within
TQM
the
analysis
of
variability
through using
statistical tools is a central concept (Hackman
and Wageman,
1995).
In
the
lean
tradition,
this
is
not
seen
as
equally
important.
In
fact,
some
authors
argue
against
the
use
of
statistical
tools
for
analyzing
production
performance, recommending alternative tools such
as increased
inspection and
visualization of problems (e.g. Dennis, 2002;
Liker, 2004).
?
Learning and continuous improvement. In the words
of Hackman
and Wageman (1995) TQM is
“pro
‐
learning, with a
vengeance” (p. 330).
10
The learning aspects are
not emphasized as much in literature on lean. As
discussed
above,
the
lean
literature
is
generally
weaker
on
the
human
behavior
side,
focusing
more
on
instrumental
techniques
for
improving
system
performance.
There
is
a
clear
focus
on
continuous
improvement,
which implies that some form of
learning is required. However, the question
is who is learning. TQM is focused on
stimulating creativity and individual
efforts
for
improvement
(Hackman
and
Wageman,
1995),
whereas
lean
places
strong
emphasis
on
the
standardization
of
work
and
collective
learning (Niepce
and Molleman, 1998; Thompson and Wallace, 1996).
3.
Interventions
?
Analysis
of
customer
requirements.
Customer
focus
is
one
of
the
hallmarks
of
TQM,
where
every
improvement
should
be
based
on
an
investigation
of
the
customer's
requirements,
whether
the
customer
is
internal or external. The lean concept
does not emphasize customer interests.
Some authors argue that the very
purpose of lean is to please the customer
(e.g. Dennis,
2002), but
methods
for
analyzing
customer
requirements are
extremely rare in the
reviewed literature, suggesting this is not a
typical lean
intervention.
? Supplier partnerships.
The suppliers are seen as important in both
lean
and
TQM.
Both
concept
stress
the
point
that
long
term
partnerships
should
be
made
with
suppliers
and
that
improvements
should
be
done
in
collaboration with them.
Although this matter is not discussed by all
authors
in this analysis, the majority
of them do (see Table I).
? Improvement
teams. Quality circles have a cent
ral
role in much of the
TQM literature, and
can be put to use in problem solving or
improvement
activities. In the lean
literature, improvement teams are explicitly
discussed
by
just
about
half
of
the
reviewed
authors.
However,
they
are
often
implicated in discussions about
improvement activities.
?
Scientific methods for performance measurement and
improvement.
11