Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

ISSN: 1478-3363 (Print) 1478-3371 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

Critical factors for lean and innovation in

services: from a systematic review to an empirical
investigation

Maria Gabriela Lins, Luis Perez Zotes & Rodrigo Caiado

To cite this article: Maria Gabriela Lins, Luis Perez Zotes & Rodrigo Caiado (2019): Critical factors
for lean and innovation in services: from a systematic review to an empirical investigation, Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2019.1624518

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2019.1624518

Published online: 05 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 212

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20
Total Quality Management, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2019.1624518

Critical factors for lean and innovation in services: from a systematic

review to an empirical investigation
Maria Gabriela Linsa, Luis Perez Zotesa and Rodrigo Caiado a,b,c*

a
Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Brazil; bPontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; cTecgraf Institute of Technical-Scientific Software Development, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil

This paper aims to investigate the synergy between the innovation and lean philosophy
in the services context. The research is composed of a systematic literature review (SLR)
on critical success factors (CSFs) related to innovation and lean initiatives applied to
services. From this extensive review, 16 common CSF were identified. This analysis
is limited to peer review articles from Scopus, ISI Web of Science and SciELO
databases. Then, a survey was applied to evaluate the perception of professionals
working in services, on the relevance of these factors in the context of innovation and
lean initiatives in services. The results show that there is synergy between the CSFs
of innovation in services and CSFs of lean initiatives. The selected factors cover
organisational aspects, people management, processes and customer. This paper
offers interesting implications for managers, pointing out which factors should be
prioritised for synergies between lean and innovation, thus achieving more
competitive advantage and the success of the organisation. Therefore, it is the first
SLR on synergies between CSFs for innovation and CSFs of lean philosophy applied
to services; it also provides practical analyses of the current state of these synergisms
by the perception of professionals who work in services.
Keywords: lean services; innovation; critical success factors; systematic review

1. Introduction
Strenuous international competition, accelerated technological evolution and more discern-
ing customer expectations have produced unprecedented challenges in the service sector
(Jaw, Lo, & Lin, 2010). The context in which the service is rendered and experienced
has changed in many ways. Advances in technology, specifically Information Technology
(IT), have led to a variety of revolutionary services and changed the way customers serve
themselves, before, during and after purchase (Ostrom, Parasuraman, Bowen, Patrício, &
Voss, 2015).
Services permeate all aspects of a modern economy and are key to connecting nations
with each other with information, knowledge, goods and services. In this perspective, the
services sector has been presented as a key factor in the growth and competitiveness of
developed countries (Javalgi, Gross, Joseph, & Granot, 2011). In most developed econom-
ies, the services sector represents a large proportion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
(Jiménez-Zarco & Martínez-Ruiz, 2011). In this way, academics and practitioners recog-
nise the importance of product and service innovation as the key driver of business
growth as new offers represent opportunities to increase revenue, expand market share,
and increase profits (Melton & Hartline, 2010).

*Corresponding author. Email: rodrigoggcaiado@gmail.com

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 M.G. Lins et al.

The innovation in services, or the so-called development of new services, has been
researched by authors in several service sectors, such as Financial (Brentani, 1989; Olden-
boom & Abratt, 2000), Technology services (Van Riel, Lemmink, & Ouwersloot, 2004;
Ottenbacher & Harrington, 2008; Ratten, 2016), Tourism (Jiménez-Zarco & Martínez-
Ruiz, 2011) and Telecommunications (Taghizadeh, Jayaraman, Ismail, & Rahman, 2014).
Although the service sector is identified as a top priority for economic development and inno-
vation is one of the main drivers of business success, service innovation is still an area with
limited academic theory and, in particular, for empirical work (O’Cass, Song, & Yuan, 2013).
It is noticed that the service companies are living with the demands of the clients for a
service of better quality, and managerial demands of reduction of costs. In this sense, the
application of lean production (LP) approaches to the context of the service was suggested
as an alternative to solve this dilemma, reducing costs and improving quality (Piercy &
Rich, 2009). Today, lean is not just limited to the manufacturing industry. Service companies
are increasingly adopting lean strategies and practices tailored to the needs of the service
industry and with the goal of streamlining their processes (Krishnan & Parveen, 2013).
Lean’s central idea is to maximise customer value and reduce waste. Lean means creating
more value for customers with fewer resources (Martin, Gustafsson, & Choi, 2016).
Researchers point out that lean philosophy has been applied to the Insurance (Allway &
Corbett, 2002; Swank, 2003), Call Center (Piercy & Rich, 2009), Financial Services (Bor-
tolotti, Romano, & Nicoletti, 2010), Public sector (Suarez-Barraza & Ramis-Pujol, 2010;
Pedersen & Huniche, 2011), Health (Laganga, 2011), Technology (Staats, Brunner, &
Upton, 2011; Kundu & Manohar, 2012; Kundu & Bairi, 2014) and Telecommunications
(Psychogios, Atanasovski, & Tsironis, 2012).
Innovation management and lean management play important roles in business success,
increasing profit and reducing waste (Peek & Chen, 2011). While innovations create new
business values, turning original ideas into products or services that meet customer
needs, lean thinking focuses on cost savings. Consequently, they increase the company’s
market share and strengthen its global competitiveness (Chen & Taylor, 2009).
According to Abuhejleh, Dulaimi, and Ellahham (2016), an organisation that success-
fully accommodates lean and innovation will gain greater competitive advantage and
achieve long-term sustainability. Lean innovation and philosophy are strategies considered
essential for the long-term survival of organisations. For these organisations to survive, they
must continuously evolve to meet the changing needs of the various stakeholders, who must
be satisfied with the organisation (Srinivasan, 2010). From a business perspective, lean
transformation and innovation are complementary strategies that, when implemented
directly, reinforce each other (Srinivasan, 2010).
Service innovation is crucial to maintaining a company’s competitive advantage, while
implementing lean initiatives aims for operational excellence. Thus, in an increasingly
service-centric economy, exploring the combination of these two approaches in the
service context is a challenge that can lead to a sustainable competitive advantage. In
this context, this research seeks to answer the following question: Is there a synergy
between innovation and lean initiatives applied in services? To answer this question,
this study uses the method of critical success factors (CSFs) according to Rockart
(1979). The objective of this paper is threefold:

(1) Identify CSFs in service innovation;

(2) Identify CSFs in implementing lean initiatives in services;
(3) Evaluate whether there are synergisms or disagreements between the CSFs in
service innovation and the CSFs in lean service management.
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 3

Since most economic activities around the world are service oriented (O’Cass et al.,
2013), there is still very little research on the critical factors of lean services (Antony &
Cudney, 2016), very few scientific papers combining lean initiatives with innovation
(Hoppmann, Rebentisch, Dombrowski, & Thimo, 2011) and still less exploring lean inno-
vation or their synergies in the service context (Gong & Janssen, 2015). Thus, the main con-
tribution of this paper is the analysis of CSF of lean and innovation in the service industry,
which highlights its synergisms to aid organisations to balance the need for continuous
improvement and waste decrease with innovation. Moreover, this study provides both aca-
demics and practitioners a better panorama to understand service innovation, which still an
area with limited academic theory and empirical research (O’Cass et al., 2013) and these
analyses can serve as benchmarking for future lean services initiatives and applications
(such as Healthcare, Call centre, Financial services and IT).

2. Background
2.1 Lean services
Levitt (1972), in his article entitled Production-line approach to service, suggests the adop-
tion of production principles in the customer service industry to increase the quality and
efficiency of these services. Bowen and Youngdahl (1998) corroborate Levitt (1972)
regarding the transfer of manufacturing principles to the service sector.
Lean service (LS) refers to the application of Lean Production (LP) tools in a service
context and has the following characteristics, according to Bowen and Youngdahl (1998):

. reduction of performance conflict: the objectives of the operation include both

internal efficiency and customer-defined flexibility;
. pull production flow (or just-in-time – JIT): minimises set-up time, allowing for
smoother flow and in-and-out JIT levels;
. value chain oriented: applies the service blueprint and value analysis to eliminate
non-value-added activities;
. customer focus and training: engages the customer in the design and service package,
trains employees in customer service skills and behaviours, and empowers customers
to contribute to quality service;
. employee autonomy: invests in employees (ability, training and participation) and
autonomy for employees to leverage value for the client.

The basic assumptions of LS design in service organisations, such as determining value,

identifying value streams, flowing, pulling, and striving for perfection, have similar applications
to manufacturing organisations (Lisiecka & Burka, 2016). Abdi, Shavarini, and Hoseini (2006)
address the five lean principles from the service sector perspective, assess the characteristics of
LS, and emphasise the importance of human resources in the service sector.
Lean is applicable to services, although the transfer of LP principles to services has
certain limitations due to the characteristics of the services. The need is to focus on the
difference between the service process and manufacturing. Respect for people and involve-
ment in work is essential for lean service (Gupta, Sharma, & Sunder, 2016). Indeed, some
respect for people’ practices such as employee motivation and participation are essential to
alleviate the emotional burnout related to the pressure to work at minimum cost, producing
maximum quality, also known as management by stress, related to lean practices and tools
(Sartal, Martinez-Senra, & Cruz-Machado, 2018). In addition, unlike other process
improvement methodologies such as Six Sigma, lean is not being a data driven approach
4 M.G. Lins et al.

and the lean bottom-up orientation hinders the commitment of leaders (Sunder, Ganesh, &
Marathe, 2018), transferring responsibility to the lower levels of the hierarchy, what can
difficult even more lean implementation together with the lack of senior management com-
mitment and team autonomy (Sunder et al., 2018). In this vein, it is necessary to consider
LS as a strategic system that invests in employee engagement mechanisms at the individual
and team levels (Caiado, Nascimento, Quelhas, Tortorella, & Rangel, 2018).
Service companies are increasingly adopting and modifying lean strategies and prac-
tices in line with the needs of the service industry and thus streamlining their processes
(Krishnan & Parveen, 2013). Some of the practices used in the implementation of lean
initiatives applicable to services are autonomation / jidoka (Bortolotti et al., 2010), loop-
back elimination (Swank, 2003), A3 form (Doman, 2011), Gemba (Suarez-Barraza &
Ramis-Pujol, 2010), visual management (Staats et al., 2011), implantation of policies or
Hoshin hari (Swank, 2003), JIT (Staats et al., 2011), kaizen (Staats et al., 2011), kanban
(Gong & Janssen, 2015), Value stream mapping (Allway & Corbett, 2002; Piercy &
Rich, 2009; Bortolotti et al., 2010; Laganga, 2011; Staats et al., 2011).
Furthermore, for Johnstone, Pairaudeau, and Pettersson (2011), the principles of lean
thinking can support innovation in the following aspects:

(a) stimulate the root cause analysis of problems by creating a rich and constructive
environment for new ideas;
(b) provide tools for people to solve problems with autonomy and flexibility;
(c) value and encourage learning and present risks as an opportunity to learn;
(d) create an involved and committed team that takes pride in its achievements, gen-
erating self-confidence, new cycles of ideas and innovations.
Furthermore, for Johnstone

2.2 Service innovation

Innovation in services was neglected for a long time, but was established in the early years
of this century (Djellal, Gallouj, & Miles, 2013). It is usually a continuous process charac-
terised by incremental changes in processes and products. The distinction between product
and process, in innovation in service, is sometimes hampered, because in this area pro-
duction and consumption occur simultaneously (OCDE, 2005).
Gallouj and Savona (2009) present three theoretical approaches, referring to the process
of innovation in so-called services: the technician, the service-oriented and the integrator.
The technicist approach associates service innovation with the adoption and use of technol-
ogy, such as Information and Communication Technology (ICT). The service-oriented
approach seeks to identify the specificities of services, while the integration approach
seeks convergence in a single structure of goods and services.
Gallouj and Weinstein (1997) classify the taxonomy of innovation models in the service
sector into six types:

. Radical innovation: denotes the creation of a totally new product, with characteristics
totally different from the previous products;
. Incremental innovation: consists of adding or replacing features to the system;
. Improvement innovation: consists in simply improving certain characteristics
without causing any change in the structure of the system;
. Ad Hoc innovation: this is the interactive creation of a solution to a specific customer
demand, where the accumulated knowledge and experience are used to create new
knowledge and new solutions;
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 5

. Innovation by recombination: this innovation explores the possibilities available by

the new combinations of various technical and service characteristics and derived
from a vast knowledge or from a certain existing technological base;
. Formalisation innovation: consists in structuring the characteristics of the service,
specifying them clearly and giving them a form. This formalisation model is also a
way of clarifying the correlation between these technical characteristics and the
characteristics of the service.

Avlonitis, Papastathopoulou, and Gounaris (2001) propose a classification of service

innovation into six types: new services for the market, new services for the company,
new delivery processes, modified services, service line extensions and service reposition-
ing. Snyder, Witell, Gustafsson, Fombelle, and Kristensson (2016), through a review of
the literature, have identified four categories that classify innovation in service:

. in terms of the degree of change, service innovation is based on new features or

improvements in existing key features; in this category authors include radical or
incremental innovation;
. in terms of the type of change, service innovation consists of changes in the key
characteristics related to the product or to the provision of services; in this change
the distinction between innovation in the process or the product is made;
. in terms of the degree of novelty, service innovation requires that the service be ‘new’
for the company and for the customer;
. in terms of the provisioning environment, the resources used to operationalise in-
service innovation, provided in a new way, through technology or organisation,
are considered.

Mina, Bascavusoglu-Moreau, and Hughes (2014) present some characteristics of the

innovation in service, if compared to the innovation in the manufacture:

. services generally consist of processes that are difficult to separate from the output
they produce;
. in-service innovation involves collaboration with customers; and
. service innovation tends to emphasise intangible factors, such as human and organ-
isational capital, rather than emphasising tangible assets.

Banks, insurance companies, hospitals and universities are some sectors that have high
levels of innovation activity (Melton & Hartline, 2010). For Gong and Janssen (2015), a
service innovation can be considered as a new service experience or service solution in
one or more of the following ways: new service concepts, new customer experiences,
and new systems.
According to Martin et al. (2016), innovations in service begin to serve different pur-
poses. These goals include differentiating, assisting, simplifying, creating unique experi-
ences, or monetising in different ways. These aspects help to understand the types of
service innovation development: innovation in service packages, social innovation,
process innovation, experimental innovation or business model innovation. Service inno-
vations are often synonymous with brand names, but in reality they are multiple innovations
or groupings of innovations that fit together and are organised under a brand, platform or
innovation in service packages that make the service difficult to be copied and help differ-
entiate the brand, in contrast to innovations in process-type services, which competitors are
6 M.G. Lins et al.

more likely to imitate. Finally, experimental innovations create a distinct experience, diffi-
cult to be copied, while social innovations aim to assist as many people as possible and seek
to create a sustainable business model (Martin et al., 2016).

3. Research methodology
Regarding the objectives, the research is exploratory, as it uses bibliographic research as the
basis for more in-depth studies; and descriptive, because it analyses and describes the data
collected in the field. For Gray (2012), descriptive surveys are often applied to assess atti-
tudes, opinions, and values. In this case, caution is needed, as there may be differences in
relation to people’s perceptions and practical reality.
According to the nature of the data, the research is qualitative, aiming to collect and
describe the facts from the answers to the questions by the respondents. The methodology
also includes quantitative research, to summarise data obtained from the results. The
research methodology is composed of multiple methods of data collection and analysis
(Figure 1) and comprises the following research steps:

(1) systematic literature review (SLR) to identify critical success factors for innovation
and lean initiatives applied to services;
(2) analysis of critical factors common to innovation in services and lean initiatives in
services, cited in the literature;
(3) deployment and application of the research instrument (survey questionnaire) to a
group of professionals working in the service sector. This stage consisted of pro-
cedures for data collection, data processing and analysis of results;
(4) analysis in order to know if the most cited CSFs in the literature review are the most
relevant in the professionals’ perception.

Figure 1. Research methods.

 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 7

The first step of the research encompasses a systematic literature review (SLR) in three
databases: Scopus (Elsevier), ISI Web of Science (Thomson Reuters Scientific) and Scien-
tific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), in order to locate relevant existing studies of the
last ten years that address critical success factors for innovation in service and for lean
initiatives in the context of the service sector, to evaluate and synthesise their respective
contributions. This SLR consists of five consecutive phases: (a) formulation of the question,
(b) location of studies, (c) evaluation and selection of studies, (d) analysis and synthesis,
and (e) reporting and use of the results (Garza-Reyes, 2015).
Identifying the keywords is extremely critical to a comprehensive and unbiased review. The
search is limited to a set of keywords: ‘lean’, ‘innovat*’, ‘service’, ‘success factor*’ and ‘critical
factor*’. The conducted research had combined the search terms into title, abstract or keywords,
limited to papers published in peer-reviewed journals, when they were available. 2530 records
were identified through databases searching. Then, after elimination of duplicities, 1327
records were refined by titles/abstracts screening analysis and 1239 records were excluded.
Besides that, as inclusion criteria, it was considered: articles of renowned authors on the
topics innovation in services (e.g. Brentani (1989, 1991) and Edgett (1994)) and lean in
service (e.g. Allway and Corbett (2002), Swank (2003)) published before 2006. On the
other hand, as exclusion criteria, articles dealing with critical success factors in lean man-
ufacturing and product innovation were disregarded. Following that, 88 articles were ana-
lysed in depth in an iterative process in which two researchers participated in the filtering of
articles while another co-author helped in the selection of the most adherent articles.
Based on the full text analysis, a total of 32 articles complied with the selection criteria
and represent the bibliographic portfolio of this research. Hence these were all the articles
that, to a certain extent, referred to factors of Lean or innovation related to services. In order
to synthesise knowledge in a replicable and transparent way, the technique of content analy-
sis was used. The content analysis was based on the work of Mayring (2008), through the
following steps: (1) discussion and delimitation of the relevant material to be analysed: 32
selected articles; (2) descriptive analysis of formal characteristics, using Microsoft Excel
worksheet.; (3) selection and construction of CSFs for lean services and service innovation
in an inductive way: thematic synthesis of content in 16 CSFs related to lean or innovation;
(4) evaluation of the material according to the factors.
Besides that, we also employed an empirical study with the purpose to verify which
of the CSFs individualised in the literature review are considered more relevant to their
companies (Laureani & Antony, 2012). In this sense, we aimed to understand if compa-
nies that implemented lean services and service innovation still recognise the same set of
CSFs and to compare the most cited CSFs in the literature with the CSFs considered
more relevant from the practical point of view. To do this, we designed a questionnaire
based on the critical factors common to innovation and lean initiatives found in the SLR.
Firstly, a pilot questionnaire was applied with three professionals with high experience
and knowledge in services innovation and lean services, in order to test content validity
and readability of the issues. The pilot questionnaire provided a better refinement of the
questions, ensuring that there was clarity and objectivity in answering the questions that
would compose the web questionnaire. The web questionnaire was structured as follows:

. background of respondent and the organisation;

. the relevance of: CSFs for Lean services and CSFs for services innovation.

The first part contained closed questions related to general information regarding
respondents such as level of education, area of activity in the company in which they
8 M.G. Lins et al.

work, sector in which they work, time of professional experience, degree of knowledge on
the lean subject, current function and focus of action (innovation / development of new ser-
vices, management / operation of lean services, management / operation of services). In the
last part of the questionnaire, related to CSFs, the respondents were asked to choose the
most relevant factors, according to the function informed by them. Thus, the second part
aimed to understand the respondent’s views on the level of relevance of the CSF.
The questionnaire was developed in the Google Forms search tool and made available
on the LinkedIn site, through contact with professionals who work in the services sector in
the insurance, consulting, information technology, telecommunications, education and
energy segments. The survey became available in September 2017.
After a four-week survey period, a total of 86 experts agreed to participate, in which 15
professionals working with innovation / development of new services; 13 professionals
working in the management / operation of new lean services; and 58 professionals involved
in the management / operation of services. Of this total, 10 responses were excluded for
incomplete data, totalling 76 valid answers, with complete answers, which represents a
return of more than 88.3%. The sample is considered non-probabilistic (sampling for conven-
ience), since the researcher does not know the probability that an element of the population
must belong to the sample (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010) and that the publics were selected
according to the platforms, criteria of accessibility and availability (Megliorini, 2004).
The descriptive statistical analysis and the treatment of the data were carried out from
the answers collected and through radar chart graphs containing the frequency of data.
Thus, it is possible to check the points of synergy or divergence between the factors.

4. Findings
4.1 Theoretical findings
The literature review covered the analysis of articles published in the last ten years on the
critical success factors in innovation and the implementation of lean initiatives applied to
service.
The articles selected included studies published in different countries as: USA, Canada,
Australia, South Africa, Europe, UK, Mexican, Italy, Brazil, Germany, Taiwan, Malaysia,
Holland, Portugal, Danish, India, Poland e Tehran. The studies covered several sectors such
as business service, financial service, bank, insurance, technology, tourism, health, telecom-
munication and public sector.
The results of the literature review reveal 44 CSFs in implementing lean and/or in inno-
vation applied in services. Table 1 shows the CSFs, description, author references in
chronological order and frequency by factor.
Factors related to customers, employees and management were identified. With regard to
customers, the critical factors found in the literature review include customer-oriented and cus-
tomer involvement. The first matches the degree to which the new service meets customer
needs (Lightfoot & Gebauer, 2011). It also consists of often monitoring the level of commit-
ment with the goal of meeting customer expectations and developing a competitive advantage
based on customer satisfaction (Jaw et al., 2010). On the other hand, the term customer invol-
vement goes beyond meeting a customer needs. In fact, it means the customer wants an experi-
ence of getting involved in the process of experiencing a product or service and an opportunity
to have new things (Lee, Olson, & Trimi, 2012). Customer involvement can occur during the
innovation process or in the customisation of a service. While in the innovation process the cus-
tomer actively participates in the development of the new service, in the customisation it con-
sumes the service during the value creation process (Sjödin & Kristensson, 2012).
Table 1. CSFs in implementing lean initiatives and innovation applied in services.
Lean,
Innovation or
Lean/Innovation Factors Description (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)
L/I Employee Degree of employees X X X X X X X X X X X
involvement involvement in process
L/I Top management Degree of top management X X X X X X
support support
L/I Communication Establishment of an X X X X X
effective
communication system
L/I Customer oriented Satisfies clearly identified X X X X X X X

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

customer need
L/I Formal Process Formal and detailed X X X X X
development process
L/I Employee Levels of commitment and X X X X X X
commitment motivation of
employees
L/I Multifunctional Degree of integration X X X X X X
integration between among
multiple functions and
team.
L/I Organisational Define how beliefs, norms, X X X
culture values and customs
governing how
individuals act and
behave in the
organisation.
L Training Training of employees in X
lean practices and tools
L/I Leadership Leadership active and X X X
Involvement commitment

(Continued )

9
Table 1. Continued.

10
Lean,
Innovation or

M.G. Lins et al.

Lean/Innovation Factors Description (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)
L Performance Establishment of a service X X X
Management process performance
measurement system
L/I Employee Autonomy of the team and X X
empowerment decentralised decision
making
I Launch proficiency Ability of the company to X X X X X
launch new services that
respond to market
demand
L/I Customer Customer can contribute, X X X
Involvement collaborate and
participate during
process
L/I Knowledge Mechanisms of knowledge
management integration and sharing
I Service offering Degree of differentiation X X X X
advantage of the new service in
relation to competitors
L Simplify process Focus on the simplicity X X
and practicality
I Synergy The firm’s ability to X X X X
exploit in-house its
human resources,
financial resources and
management skills.
L/I Teamwork Use of the practice of X X
teamwork
L Continuos Continuous improvement,
improvement also designated Kaizen,
use tools and methods
for process
improvement,
I Efficiency of Efficiency for service X X X
development innovation performance
process
L/I Financial capacity Sufficient resource X
allocation
L/I Use of ICT Use of information and
communication
technologies (ICT)
I Market The attractiveness of the X X X

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

attractiveness marketplace and
capacity firms to
respond the marketplace
L/I Service quality Quality of service in the X X X
perception of the
customer
L Supplier partnership Long-term partnership in X
relations with suppliers
L Visualization Use of visual control chart X
L Change The need to change
management organisational culture
L Problem solving Identify system changes to
create a stable
continuous flow
L Project Project management skill
management and prioritizationn
I Service innovative Degree of originality in X X
which the new service
differs from the current
requirements and
experiences of the

11
consumer.

(Continued )
 12
Table 1. Continued.

M.G. Lins et al.

Lean,
Innovation or
Lean/Innovation Factors Description (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)
L Work environment Workplace organisation
I Absorptive capacity Ability to identify new
knowledge, assimilate it
and put it into practice
I Competitor Ability to understand
orientation competitors’ strengths
and weaknesses
L Holistic approach Holistic thinking means X
seeing the whole
process
L Long term vision Drive the organisation X
from medium to long
term vision
L Reduce Reduce energy
consumption of consumption used for
energy processes
L Reduce waste in Focus on minimising
processes waste in processes
L Redution waste Focus on reducing
environmental environmental waste
L Reward Competitions and awards
system.
I Service Ability to respond to X
responsiveness changes in customer
needs and expectations.
I Strategy position Define strategic
positioning to meet the
objectives of firm.
I System integration Consists of win-win
relationships with
external parties to obtain
more knowledge and
improve performance.
L Transparency The introduction of
transparency in the
organisation
Lean,
Innovation or
Lean/Innovation Factors Description (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) Frequency
L/I Employee Degree of employees X X X X 15

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

involvement involvement in process
L/I Top management Degree of top management X X X X X X X 13
support support
L/I Communication Establishment of an X X X X X 10
effective
communication system
L/I Customer oriented Satisfies clearly identified X X X 10
customer need
L/I Formal Process Formal and detailed X X X X 9
development process
L/I Employee Levels of commitment and X X 8
commitment motivation of
employees
L/I Multifunctional Degree of integration X X 8
integration between among
multiple functions and
team.
L/I Organisational Define how beliefs, norms, X X X X X X 9
culture values and customs
governing how
individuals act and

13
(Continued )
Table 1. Continued.

14
Lean,
Innovation or

M.G. Lins et al.

Lean/
Innovation Factors Description (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) Frequency
behave in the
organisation.
L Training Training of employees in X X X X X X X X 9
lean practices and tools
L/I Leadership Leadership active and X X X X 7
Involvement commitment
L Performance Establishment of a service X X X 6
Management process performance
measurement system
L/I Employee Autonomy of the team and X X X 5
empowerment decentralised decision
making
I Launch proficiency Ability of the company to 5
launch new services that
respond to market
demand
L/I Customer Customer can contribute, X 4
Involvement collaborate and
participate during
process
L/I Knowledge Mechanisms of knowledge X X X X 4
management integration and sharing
I Service offering Degree of differentiation 4
advantage of the new service in
relation to competitors
L Simplify process Focus on the simplicity X X 4
and practicality
I Synergy The firm’s ability to 4
exploit in-house its
human resources,
 financial resources and
management skills.
L/I Teamwork Use of the practice of X X X 5
teamwork
L Continuos Continuous improvement, X X X 3
improvement also designated Kaizen,
use tools and methods
for process
improvement,
I Efficiency of Efficiency for service 3
development innovation performance
process
L/I Financial capacity Sufficient resource X X 3
allocation

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

L/I Use of ICT Use of information and X X X 3
communication
technologies (ICT)
I Market The attractiveness of the 3
attractiveness marketplace and
capacity firms to
respond the marketplace
L/I Service quality Quality of service in the 3
perception of the
customer
L Supplier partnership Long-term partnership in X X 3
relations with suppliers
L Visualization Use of visual control chart X X 3
L Change The need to change X X 2
management organisational culture
L Problem solving Identify system changes to X X 2
create a stable
continuous flow
L Project Project management skill X X 2
management and prioritizationn

15
(Continued )
Table 1. Continued.

16
Lean,
Innovation or

M.G. Lins et al.

Lean/
Innovation Factors Description (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) Frequency
I Service innovative Degree of originality in 2
which the new service
differs from the current
requirements and
experiences of the
consumer.
L Work environment Workplace organisation X X 2
I Absorptive capacity Ability to identify new X 1
knowledge, assimilate it
and put it into practice
I Competitor Ability to understand X 1
orientation competitors’ strengths
and weaknesses
L Holistic approach Holistic thinking means 1
seeing the whole
process
L Long term vision Drive the organisation 1
from medium to long
term vision
L Reduce Reduce energy X 1
consumption of consumption used for
energy processes
L Reduce waste in Focus on minimising X 1
processes waste in processes
L Redution waste Focus on reducing X 1
environmental environmental waste
L Reward Competitions and awards X 1
system.
I Service Ability to respond to 1
responsiveness
 changes in customer
needs and expectations.
I Strategy position Define strategic X 1
positioning to meet the
objectives of firm.
I System integration Consists of win-win X 1
relationships with
external parties to obtain
more knowledge and
improve performance.
L Transparency The introduction of X 1
transparency in the
organisation

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

Authors: (1) Brentani (1989, 1991); (2) Brentani and Cooper (1992); (3) Edgett (1994); (4) Martin and Horne (1995); (5) Atuahene-Gima (1996); (6) Oldenboom and Abratt (2000); (7)
Brentani (2001); (8) Allway and Corbett (2002); (9) Swank (2003); (10) Van Riel et al. (2004); (11) Ottenbacher, Gnoth, and Jones (2006); (12) Ottenbacher and Harrington (2008); (13)
Piercy and Rich (2009); (14) Bortolotti et al. (2010); (15) Delgado et al. (2010); (16) Melton and Hartline (2010); (17) Suarez-Barraza and Ramis-Pujol (2010); (18) Jiménez-Zarco and
Martínez-Ruiz (2011); (19) Laganga (2011); (20) Pedersen and Huniche (2011); (21) Staats et al. (2011); (22) Kundu and Manohar (2012);(23) Psychogios et al. (2012); (24) Huang
(2014); (25) Kundu and Bairi (2014); (26) Taghizadeh et al. (2014); (27) Gong and Janssen (2015); (28) Ratten (2016); (29) Costa, Filho, Rentes, Bertani, and Mardegan (2017); (30)
Noori (2015); (31) Lisiecka and Burka (2016); (32) Sreedharan and Sunder (2018)

17
18 M.G. Lins et al.

The critical factors related to Employees include involvement, commitment, empower-

ment and teamwork. Employee involvement means giving employees opportunities to
influence decisions and actions related to their jobs. As Bayraktar, Araci, Karacay, and
Calisir (2017), it entails motivating them to perform their best and encouraging them to par-
ticipate actively in solving organisational problems and carrying organisational goals by
using their knowledge, expertise and skill. Employee commitment, in a distinctive way,
display high levels of motivation and commitment (Edgett, 1994; Chen, Damanpour, &
Reilly, 2010). Empowerment is the mechanism of provide an employee the authority to
make decisions (Saif & Saleh, 2013). Teamwork is a collaborative and shared activity
that is directed towards accomplishing goals. It’s a group of employees who work together
in order to achieve a certain goal (Rochon, 2014).
Critical factors related to management include leadership and top management support.
The commitment of top management is relevant because managers are the elements that
drive the organisational culture (Delgado, Ferreira, & Branco, 2010). The commitment
of senior management can be demonstrated through a visible management, guarantee of
sufficient financial resources and provide a strategic leadership (Alefari, Salonitis, & Xu,
2017). The leader recognises competencies and capabilities of employees, identify develop-
ment opportunities and promote talent among employees (Aij & Teunissen, 2017). Leader-
ship is evident even in the form of informal authority that complements the formal ones
(Alefari et al., 2017).
Therefore, the conceptual map presented in Figure 2 shows the intersection between the
critical success factors selected in the literature related to innovation in services and the
implementation of lean initiatives applied to services. The sixteen common factors ident-
ified are: (1) Top management support; (2) Employee empowerment; (3) Communication;
(4) Organisational culture; (5) Customer involvement; (6) Leadership involvement; (7)
Employee involvement; (8) Knowledge management; (9) Multifunctional integration;

Figure 2. Conceptual map of the CSFs of innovation and the CSFs of the lean initiatives selected in
the literature in the context of services.
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 19

(10) Customer oriented; (11) Formal process; (12) Service quality; (13) Employee commit-
ment; (14) Teamwork; (15) Use of ICT; (16) Financial capacity. These 16 factors were
selected for application in the survey.
Factors that did not appear at the intersection of the conceptual map should be con-
sidered for future work. In innovation in services, 11 factors identified in the literature
were not evidenced in the literature related to lean initiatives. Among them: synergy,
absorptive capacity and service innovative.
On the other hand, some critical factors identified in the literature of lean services initiat-
ives were not found in the literature on service innovation, such as: project management;
organisational change management; visual management.

4.2 Survey results

The questionnaire applied to the sample aimed to evaluate the respondents’ perception of
the sixteen factors common to innovation / development of new services, lean services
operation / management and service operation / management.
In the first part of the questionnaire, we tried to identify the profile of the respondents,
through questions related to educational level, activity area of the company, sector, and time
of professional experience, degree of knowledge on the lean topic, current function and pro-
fessional action area.
Took part at survey professionals who work in insurance, financial, energy, education,
technology, consulting and telecommunications sectors. The respondents were managers
(28%), coordinators / supervisors (18%), analysts (18%), consultants / specialists (13%),
directors and superintendents (13%).
With regard to the education level, 51% of respondents have postgraduate or MBA;
24%, master’s or doctorate; 21%, complete higher education; and 4%, incomplete higher
education. Most of them have more than 11 years of professional experience, which corre-
sponds to 89% of the total; 7% have experience between six and ten years, and 4% have
experience of up to five years at most.
The distribution of the sample by the predominant professional action area presented the
following distribution: 67% of the respondents act in the management / operation of ser-
vices; 20% in innovation / new services development; and 13% in the management / oper-
ation of lean services.
In the second part of the questionnaire, participants assessed which critical factors were
relevant to the success of the management operation of services, innovation / new service
development, management / operation lean service, according to the predominant area of
the respondents.
Based on the results of the research, we compared the perceptions about the CSFs of the
innovation / development of new services and the perceptions about the CSFs of the man-
agement / operation of lean services. Figure 3 shows the comparison based on the relative
frequency.
The comparative analysis between the respondents ‘perceptions about the CSF of the
innovation / development of new services and the respondents’ perceptions about the
CSFs of the lean service management / operation evidenced the existence of synergies
between these two approaches.
Lean service management / operation accommodates almost every factor. In the inno-
vation / development of new services, the factors that most diverge in relation to the lean
management / operations are: use of ICT, financial capacity and formal process.
20 M.G. Lins et al.

Figure 3. Comparison between CSFs of innovation / development of new services and management /
operation of lean services (lean).

In order to analyse the synergy between the critical success factors of innovation and
lean initiatives, CSFs were subdivided into three groups: the group of factors that had
the highest response rate and synergy between the two initiatives, the group of factors
that most diverged and the other CSFs.
The group of CSFs that had the highest response rate and synergy in both initiatives
included: top management support, communication, organisation culture, leadership invol-
vement, employee involvement and employee commitment. It is worth mentioning that in
the bibliographic review, these factors are among the ten factors most cited by the authors,
thus being considered the critical factors for Lean service innovation.
The CSFs that most diverged in respondents’ responses were: use of ICT, financial
capacity and formal process. The use of Information and Communication Technology is
strategic in services innovation, which corroborates with the result of the research carried
out by the professionals who work in this area. Huang (2014), in his research with
service companies in Taiwan, demonstrated that companies that can align strategic IT
use and service innovation demonstrate a high degree of performance. On the other
hand, the use of ICT in the management of lean services presented a low response rate,
which demonstrates that process and operation professionals did not identify the use of
ICT as a relevant factor for the success of lean service management. This is surprising
given the fact that there are lean initiatives in IT, such as the use of IT support services
(Kundu & Bairi, 2014), and the use of lean principles in conjunction with the agile software
development method (Gong & Janssen, 2015). This gap leaves the field open for research
into the disconnect between lean and IT. In practice, lean management can contribute to IT
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 21

in cost reduction initiatives, quality improvement through the use of lean tools and prac-
tices, and in improving IT processes. While IT can contribute to lean management in
process automation, cloud computing, and IT operations management.
The financial capacity factor was considered relevant in the result of the research of ser-
vices innovation. The budget constraint impacts or even impedes the launch of a new
service in the market. Ratten (2016), in a study on innovation in cloud computing
service, points out the need for financial investments in technology-driven innovations.
On the other hand, it is not surprising that the financial capacity factor in the management
of lean services presents a low response rate, since lean focuses on eliminating waste and
reducing costs. The financial capacity factor in lean management and innovation in services
is antagonistic. In practice, the financial capacity factor in lean service management can
complement service innovation through resource optimisation.
The formal process factor in the innovation service also presented a low index of
answers. In this case, it was observed that most of the respondents in the Technology
area did not point this factor as relevant in the innovation in service. The formal process
is cited in the literature as a success factor in innovation / development of new services
(Ottenbacher & Harrington, 2008; Taghizadeh et al., 2014), which demonstrates a gap
between theory and practice. In practice the use of formal processes is seen as a bureaucracy
that inhibits or hinders creativity and collaboration during the process of developing a new
service. In this sense, in the technology sector, the method of agile software development
values more the interaction between people than the processes. On the other hand, in the
management of lean services, the formal process is relevant and corroborates with the
results of the research. It is reason to analyse the divergence of the formal process factor
between theory and practice.
The congruent factors identified in service innovation and lean service management
were: employee involvement, employee commitment, employee empowerment, teamwork,
and multifunctional integration. The empirical results showed that there are synergies of
these factors between lean service and service innovation. The use of human resources prac-
tices is of paramount importance to the service sector. It is suggested the creation of syner-
gies between the human resources that act in the innovation in services and those that act in
the management of lean services with the objective of optimisation of resources.
Regarding the factors related to the customer, the customer-oriented factor and custo-
mer involvement presented synergy both in service innovation and lean service manage-
ment, and corroborate with the literature. The focus of the service process and its
outcome should focus on what the internal customer wants, in order to establish standards
that help minimise the degree of intangibility (Suarez-Barraza & Ramis-Pujol, 2010). In
practice, the use of co-creation consisting of the client’s involvement in the service
process contributes to the creation of value for the client. Co-innovation is presented as
the new innovation paradigm, which helps organisations create value through convergence,
collaboration, and co-creation (Lee et al., 2012).
Regarding leadership and management factors, the research results showed the synergy
between these factors within service innovation and lean service management. Frederick,
Lam, and Martin (2014) cite the importance of leadership commitment to innovation and the
need for an organisation to have an Innovation Director or person responsible for innovation.

5. Discussions and conclusions

This study conducted a systematic review about CSFs in implementing lean and innovative
initiatives in services research published in the past ten years. Our findings revealed synergy
22 M.G. Lins et al.

between innovation and lean in a service context. The combination of these two initiatives
can be enhanced or complemented, as they have found common points that help one
another.
The six factors most cited as relevant in the empirical research, common to both initiat-
ives, were: top management support, leadership involvement, employee commitment,
organisational culture, communication and employee involvement. Regarding the manage-
ment of people, in both initiatives the adoption of: teamwork, multifunctional integration
and autonomy is observed as relevant. These factors can be influenced by organisational
culture and leadership. From the client’s point of view, attention is focused on the creation
of value for the client, through the customer’s involvement in the service process, percep-
tion of quality under their perspective and focus on their needs and desires.
Finally, it is recommended to promote solutions for the use of Information and Com-
munication Technology (ICT) to complement the management / operation of lean services.
This study has important implications in services companies once prioritise what is impor-
tant for an innovation and as lean initiatives, as it presents factors to which managers must
give focus, in order to the sustainable competitive appraisal for an organisation.
From a practical point of view, this study can help service organisations to seek inno-
vative solutions for competitive advantage and serve as a guide to lean service success
implementation. In addition, it is expected that companies prioritise what is most important
to improve the services through higher productivity and better customer’s satisfaction, as
well as be able to mix lean and innovation in a complementary way to explore the oper-
ational and sustainable gains. Moreover, during the construction of the work, it was
noticed the importance of practices as people management, knowledge management and
collaboration between both initiatives.
From the theoretical point of view, the research contributes to the literature on lean ser-
vices and service innovation, by adopting a mixed-methods approach composed of a sys-
tematic literature review on critical success factors and a survey to evaluate the
perception of professionals who work with innovation and lean initiatives in services.
The findings of this study have two important implications for the theory of lean service
innovation. First, seeks to fill the gap in the lack of scientific work on the combination
of innovation and lean initiatives in the context of services. In addition, this is one of the
first studies that empirically tests the synergisms between lean and innovation in the
service context.
As in all studies, this research also faced some limitations in relation to the literature
review, in which certain keywords and databases were considered more adherent by the
researchers’ view. In addition, the research was carried out in a specific period of time.
Regarding the empirical research, limitations were observed regarding the size and
nature of the sample and because it is a single application. Furthermore, suggestions for
future work include:

. Evaluate solutions for the use of ICTs in the management / operation of lean services.
. Apply research in service organisations with the objective of evaluating the appli-
cation of the critical success factors in innovation and in the management / operation
of lean lean services.
. Carry out studies on the differences of critical success factors by the service sector.
. Apply research in service organisations in different countries to evaluate the influence
of organisational culture on critical success factors.
. Apply research in service organisations including the factors that were outside the
intersection
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 23

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Rodrigo Caiado http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3290-8385

References
Abdi, F., Shavarini, S., & Hoseini, S. (2006). Glean lean: How to use lean approach in services indus-
tries? Journal of Services Research, 6(special issue), 191–206.
Abuhejleh, A., Dulaimi, M., & Ellahham, S. (2016). Using lean management to leverage innovation
in healthcare projects: Case study of a public hospital in the UAE. BMJ Innovations, 2(1),
22–32.
Aij, K. H., & Teunissen, M. (2017). Lean leadership attributes: A systematic review of the literature.
Journal of Health Organization and Management, 31(7/8), 713–729.
Alefari, M., Salonitis, K., & Xu, Y. (2017). The role of leadership in implementing lean manufactur-
ing. Procedia CIRP, 63(2017), 756–761.
Allway, M., & Corbett, S. (2002). Shifting to lean service: Stealing a page from manufactures’ play-
books. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 21(2), 45–54.
Antony, J., & Cudney, E. A. (2016, June 26-29). Lean six sigma Journey in a UK higher education
Institute: Challenges, projects, and key lessons learned. 2016 ASEE Annual Conference and
Exposition., 25527, American Society for Engineering education, 123rd ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition 2016, New Orleans, United States.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Differential potency of factors affecting innovation performance in man-
ufacturing and service firms in Australia. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(1),
35–52.
Avlonitis, G. J., Papastathopoulou, P. G., & Gounaris, S. P. (2001). An empirically-based typology of
product innovativeness for new financial services: Success and failure scenarios. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 18(5), 324–342.
Bayraktar, C., Araci, O., Karacay, G., & Calisir, F. (2017). The mediating effect of rewarding on the
relationship between employee involvement and job satisfaction. Human Factors &
Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 27(1), 45–52.
Bortolotti, T., Romano, P., & Nicoletti, B. (2010). Lean first, then automate: An integrated model for
process improvement in pure service-providing companies. In B. Vallespir, & T. Alix (Eds.),
Advances in production management systems. New challenges, New approaches. APMS 2009.
IFIP Advances in information and Communication technology (Vol. 338, pp. 579–586).
Berlin: Springer.
Bowen, D. E., & Youngdahl, W. E. (1998). “Lean” service in defense of a production-line approach.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(3), 207–225.
Brentani, U. d. (1989). Success and failure in new industrial services. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 6(4), 239–258.
Brentani, U. d. (1991). Success factors in developing new business services. European Journal of
Marketing, 25(2), 33–59.
Brentani, U. d. (2001). Innovative versus incremental new business services: Different keys for
achieving success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(3), 169–187.
Brentani, U. d., & Cooper, R. G. (1992). Developing successful new financial services for businesses.
Industrial Marketing Management, 21(3), 231–241.
Caiado, R., Nascimento, D., Quelhas, O., Tortorella, G., & Rangel, L. (2018). Towards sustainability
through green, lean and six sigma integration at service industry: Review and framework.
Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(4), 1659–1678.
Chen, J., Damanpour, F., & Reilly, R. R. (2010). Understanding antecedents of new product devel-
opment speed: A meta-analysis. Journal of Operations Management, 28(1), 17–33.
Chen, H., & Taylor, R. (2009). Exploring the impact of lean management on innovation capability.
Management of Engineering & technology, PICMET 2009. Portland international Conference
on (pp. 826–834). Portland, Oregon USA.
24 M.G. Lins et al.

Costa, L. B. M., Filho, M. G., Rentes, A. F., Bertani, T. M., & Mardegan, R. (2017). Lean healthcare
in developing countries: Evidence from Brazilian hospitals. The International Journal of
Health Planning and Management, 32(1), e99–e120.
Delgado, C., Ferreira, M., & Branco, M. C. (2010). The implementation of lean Six Sigma in financial
services organizations. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 21(4), 512–523.
Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which
place for public services? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 98–117.
Doman, M. S. (2011). A new lean paradigm in higher education: A case study. Quality Assurance in
Education, 19(3), 248–262.
Edgett, S. J. (1994). The traits of successful new service development. Journal of Services Marketing,
8(3), 40–49.
Frederick, T., Lam, T., & Martin, V. (2014). A lean innovation model to help organizations leverage
innovation for economic value: A proposal. International Journal of Management &
Information Systems (Online), 18(2), 99.
Gallouj, F., & Savona, M. (2009). Innovation in services: A review of the debate and a research
agenda. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 19(2), 149–172.
Gallouj, F., & Weinstein, O. (1997). Innovation in services. Research Policy, 26(4-5), 537–556.
Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2015). Lean and Green – A systematic review of the state of the art literature.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 102, 18–29.
Gong, Y., & Janssen, M. (2015). Demystifying the benefits and risks of lean service innovation: A
banking case study. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 17(4), 364–380.
Gray, D. E. (2012). Pesquisa no mundo real. Porto Alegre: Penso.
Gupta, S., Sharma, M., & Sunder, M. V. (2016). Lean services: A systematic review. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(8), 1025–1056.
Hoppmann, J., Rebentisch, E., Dombrowski, U., & Thimo, Z. (2011). A framework for organizing
lean product development. Engineering Management Journal, 23(1), 3–15.
Huang, H. L. (2014). Performance effects of aligning service innovation and the strategic use of infor-
mation technology. Service Business, 8(2), 171–195.
Javalgi, R. R. G., Gross, A. C., Joseph, W. B., & Granot, E. (2011). Assessing competitive advantage
of emerging markets in knowledge intensive business services. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 26(3), 171–180.
Jaw, C., Lo, J., & Lin, Y. (2010). The determinants of new service development: Service character-
istics, market orientation, and actualizing innovation effort. Technovation, 30(4), 265–277.
Jiménez-Zarco, A. I., Martínez-Ruiz, M. P., & Izquierdo-Yusta (2011). Key service innovation
drivers in the tourism sector: Empirical evidence and managerial implications. Service
Business, 5(4), 339–360.
Johnstone, C., Pairaudeau, G., & Pettersson, J. A. (2011). Creativity, innovation and lean sigma: A
controversial combination. Drug Discovery Today, 16(1-2), 50–57.
Krishnan, V., & Parveen, C. M. (2013, July 3–5). Comparative study of lean manufacturing tools used
in manufacturing firms and service sectors. Proceedings of the world Congress on Engineering
2013 Vol. I, WCE 2013 (pp. 604–608). London, U.K.
Kundu, G. K., & Bairi, J. (2014). A scale for measuring the applicability of lean practices in IT support
services. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(5), 623–643.
Kundu, G., & Manohar, M. B. (2012). Critical success factors for implementing lean practices in IT
support services. International Journal for Quality Research, 6(4), 301–312.
Laganga, L. R. (2011). Lean service operations: Reflections and new directions for capacity expansion
in outpatient clinics. Journal of Operations Management, 29(5), 422–433.
Laureani, A., & Antony, J. (2012). Critical success factors for the effective implementation of lean
Sigma: Results from an empirical study and agenda for future research. International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 3(4), 274–283.
Lee, S. M., Olson, D. L., & Trimi, S. (2012). Co-innovation: Convergenomics, collaboration, and
co-creation for organizational values. Management Decision, 50(5), 817–831.
Levitt, T. (1972), Production-line approach to service. Harvard Business Review Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/1972/09/production-line-approach-to-service
Lightfoot, H. W., & Gebauer, H. (2011). Exploring the alignment between service strategy and service
innovation. Journal of Service Management, 22(5), 664–683.
Lisiecka, K., & Burka, I. (2016). Lean service implementation success factors in polish district heating
companies. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 20(1), 72–94.
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 25

Martin, D., Gustafsson, A., & Choi, S. (2016). Service innovation, renewal, and adoption/rejection in
dynamic global contexts. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2397–2400.
Martin, C. R., & Horne, D. A. (1995). Level of success inputs for service innovations in the same firm.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6(4), 40–56.
Mayring, P. (2008). Qualitative Inhaltanalyse – Grundlagen und Techniken (qualitative content
analysis). Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.
Megliorini, E. (2004). Amostragem. São Paulo: Atlas.
Melton, H. L., & Hartline, M. D. (2010). Customer and frontline employee influence on new service
development performance. Journal of Service Research, 13(4), 411–425.
Mina, A., Bascavusoglu-Moreau, E., & Hughes, A. (2014). Open service innovation and the firm’s
search for external knowledge. Research Policy, 43(5), 853–866.
Noori, B. (2015). Identifying critical issues in lean implementation in hospitals. Hospital Topics, 93
(2), 44–52.
O’Cass, A., Song, M., & Yuan, L. (2013). Anatomy of service innovation: Introduction to the special
issue. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1060–1062.
OCDE – Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico. (2005). Manual de Oslo:
Proposta de diretrizes para coleta e interpretação de dados sobre inovação tecnológica, 3ª
edição. Tradução português, 2005. Retrieved from www.finep.gov.br/images/apoio-e-
financiamento/manualoslo.pdf
Oldenboom, N., & Abratt, R. (2000). Success and failure factors in developing new banking and
insurance services in South Africa. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18(5), 233–245.
Ostrom, A. L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D. E., Patrício, L., & Voss, C. A. (2015). Service research
priorities in a rapidly changing context. Journal of Service Research, 18(2), 127–159.
Ottenbacher, M., Gnoth, J., & Jones, P. (2006). Identifying determinants of success in development of
new high-contact services: Insights from the hospitality industry. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 17(4), 344–363.
Ottenbacher, M. C., & Harrington, R. J. (2008). New service development of entrepreneurial inno-
vations in the IT sector. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 9
(1), 21–31.
Pedersen, E. R. G., & Huniche, M. (2011). Determinants of lean success and failure in the Danish
public sector: A negotiated order perspective. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 24(5), 403–420.
Peek, B., & Chen, H. (2011). Promoting innovations in a lean organization through innovative value
stream mapping. 2011 Proceedings of PICMET ‘11: Technology management in the energy
Smart world (PICMET).
Piercy, N., & Rich, N. (2009). Lean transformation in the pure service environment: The case of the call
service centre. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 29(1), 54–76.
Psychogios, A. G., Atanasovski, J., & Tsironis, L. K. (2012). Lean six sigma in a service context: A
multi-factor application approach in the telecommunications industry. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 29(1), 122–139.
Ratten, V. (2016). Service innovation in cloud computing: A study of top management leadership,
absorptive capacity, government support and learning orientation. Journal of the Knowledge
Economy, 7(4), 935–946.
Rochon, A. (2014). Teamwork and staffing in an acute care hospital (Doctoral dissertation).
Laurentian University of Sudbury.
Rockart, J. F. (1979), Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review
Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1979/03/chief-executives-define-their-own-data-needs
Saif, N. I., & Saleh, A. S. (2013). Psychological empowerment and job satisfaction in Jordanian hos-
pitals. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(16), 250–257.
Sartal, A., Martinez-Senra, A. I., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2018). Are all lean principles equally eco-
friendly? A panel data study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 362–370.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (5th
ed.). Haddington: John Wiley & Sons.
Sjödin, C., & Kristensson, P. (2012). Customers’ experiences of co-creation during service inno-
vation. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 4(2), 189–204.
Snyder, H., Witell, L., Gustafsson, A., Fombelle, P., & Kristensson, P. (2016). Identifying categories
of service innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Business Research,
69(7), 2401–2408.
26 M.G. Lins et al.

Sreedharan, V. R., & Sunder, M. V. (2018). Critical success factors of TQM, Six Sigma, lean and lean
Six Sigma: A literature review and key findings. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25
(9), 3479–3504.
Srinivasan, J. (2010). Creating a lean system of innovation: The case of Rockwell Collins.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(3), 379–397.
Staats, B. R., Brunner, D. J., & Upton, D. M. (2011). Lean principles, learning, and knowledge work:
Evidence from a software services provider. Journal of Operations Management, 29(5), 376–390.
Suarez-Barraza, M. F., & Ramis-Pujol, J. (2010). Implementation of lean-kaizen in the human
resource service process: A case study in a Mexican public service organization. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 21(3), 388–410.
Sunder, M. V., Ganesh, L. S., & Marathe, R. R. (2018). A morphological analysis of research litera-
ture on lean Six Sigma for services. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 38(1), 149–182.
Swank, C. K. (2003), The lean service machine. Harvard Business Review Retrieved from https://hbr.
org/2003/10/the-lean-service-machine
Taghizadeh, S. K., Jayaraman, K., Ismail, I., & Rahman, S. A. (2014). A study of service innovation
management in the Malaysian telecommunications industry. Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, 34(1), 67–77.
Van Riel, A. C. R., Lemmink, J., & Ouwersloot, H. (2004). High-technology service innovation
success: A decision-making perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5),
348–359.