THE BARRIERS TO LEAN MANUFACTURING IMPLEMENTATION

NORANI NORDIN
School of Technology Management & Logistics
Universiti Utara Malaysia
rani@uum.edu.my

BABA MD DEROS
Department of Mechanical dan Material Engineering
Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
hjbaba@eng.ukm.my

ABSTRACT

The transformation to a lean manufacturing system requires both radical and gradual change
involving a total reshaping of the purpose, system and culture of the organisation. There are
many variables that may impact lean implementation. This paper presents an investigation into
the barriers to smooth lean manufacturing implementation. The present study employs an
explanatory mixed-method approach that began with survey distribution, and the resulting
general picture was further refined by conducting in-depth interviews in Malaysian automotive
companies. The quantitative data showed that the main barrier to lean manufacturing
implementation is the lack of understanding on lean concept. However, the qualitative results
identified further barriers: difficulty in acquiring lean knowledge and skills, lack of support from
management, an ineffective lean team, inadequate training and communication, and employees’
attitudes. Lean implementation is a systemic and continual effort; therefore, it is important to
identify and understand the barriers to a smooth transition.

Keywords: Lean manufacturing, Barriers, Automotive industry, Implementation.

INTRODUCTION

Increasingly, challenges in today’s global competition have prompted many manufacturing

companies to adopt new manufacturing management strategies in order to enhance the
companies’ efficiency and competitiveness. For that reason, lean manufacturing has become a
widely accepted and adopted best manufacturing practice across countries and industries
(Holweg, 2007). The ultimate goal of a lean organisation is to create a smoothly-functioning,
high-quality system that can produce, without waste, the finished products of the quality that
customers demand. However, in reality, many companies are not able to transform themselves
into lean manufacturing organisations.
Lean manufacturing should be implemented comprehensively and holistically in terms of both
scope and content (Crute et al., 2003). Many researchers have argued that, rather than simply
addressing, manufacturing or technical issues, the transition from a traditional to a lean
environment requires a cultural change in the organisation radical change in the structure,
strategy and culture of an organisation (Smeds, 1994). A clear understanding of how to manage
change is required in order to ensure a successful lean transformation.

Therefore, the aim of this paper is to examine the barriers that delay or hinder lean
manufacturing implementation in manufacturing companies; failure to identify these barriers can
lead to fruitless effort. This paper commences with a discussion of why lean fails. Next the study
methodology is described used in conducting the study. Finally, the authors discuss the findings
gathered from the survey and interviews and conclude with a summary of the major barriers
encountered in the lean implementation process.

Why does lean fails?

Lean manufacturing is a manufacturing strategy that aims to achieve smooth production flow by
eliminating waste and increasing the value of manufacturing activities. Some researchers point
out that, if an organisation ignores lean manufacturing strategy, it is unlikely to succeed in the
current global competition for higher quality, faster delivery and lower costs (Fliedner &
Mathieson, 2009; Flott, 2002; Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009; Srinivasaraghavan & Allada, 2006).
This view is supported by the large cross-country analysis conducted by Oliver et al. (1996),
which demonstrated that lean manufacturing principles can create high-performance companies.
Changing from a traditional manufacturing system to lean manufacturing is not an easy task. The
change requires attention to the impacts on both processes and people. Despite extensive
documentation of awareness of the benefits gained from lean manufacturing implementation, in
reality, few companies are successful (Balle, 2005; Papadopoulou & Ozbayrak, 2005). There are
a number of reported problems and issues that contribute to the failure of lean manufacturing
implementation. Table 1 summarizes previous studies’ findings on the barriers that can delay or
prevent the implementation of lean manufacturing within organisations.

It is apparent from Table 1 that misunderstanding of the real concept and purpose of lean
manufacturing is the main barrier to lean manufacturing implementation. Herron and Braiden
(2007) and James (2006) suggest the reason for this misunderstanding is cultural differences that
arise while transitioning to or translating the lean concept. Such misunderstandings can lead to
major issues in lean implementation, including the following: piecemeal adoption of lean tools
and techniques (James, 2006), misapplication of lean tools (Herron & Braiden, 2007; Pavnaskar
et al., 2003), and failure to develop a lean culture to support the implementation of lean
manufacturing in the organisation (Jorgensen et al., 2007).
 Table 1
The Barriers to Lean Manufacturing Implementation

Authors

Scherrer-Rathje
Stewart (2001)

Doolen (2006)
Melton (2005)

Lee-Mortimer
Comm (2000)
Mathaisel and

Marin (2006)
Bonavia and
Eggelestone

Bamber and
Dale (2000)

Worley and

et al.(2009)
al.(2007b)
Sohal and

al.(2003)
Crute et

Real et
(1994)

(2008)
Misunderstanding the
concept and purpose of     
lean
Lack of resource
availability (time,     
expertise, financing)
Cultural differences
   
Lack of clear
  
communication
Lack of top management
   
support for change
Lack of interest in and
 
commitment to lean

Another major barrier to lean manufacturing implementation is lack of resources, such as time,
expertise and financing. This problem becomes central especially in the adoption of lean
manufacturing in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (Achanga et al., 2006; Bonavia &
Marin, 2006; Real et al., 2007). A study by Achanga et al (2006) concludes that SMEs are often
less successful in lean implementation compared to large companies because inadequate funding
prevents SMEs from recruiting, training, and developing a capable workforce, as well as
prevents them from implementing innovations. Support from and partnerships with consultants
or other external sources of expertise, which are important for lean transformation, are also very
costly for SMEs (Real et al., 2007a). Other major barriers to lean implementation, shown in
Table 1, are cultural differences, lack of top management support for change, lack of clear
communication and lack of interest in lean manufacturing implementation. As lean
manufacturing requires new knowledge and culture change during the transition, it is essential to
approach implementation correctly. Awareness of and attention to change are necessary for a
successful transition to a lean system (Stewart, 2001).
 RESEARCH METHODS

There are a number of mixed-method research models. For this study, an explanatory mixed-
method design was employed. Barriers to lean manufacturing implementation were first
investigated with a quantitative method and then further explained by a qualitative approach. In
this design, the quantitative and qualitative data were collected sequentially; the first phase was
survey distribution, which was then followed by in-depth interviews to explain or elaborate on
the quantitative results. The advantage of this research design is that the quantitative data and
results provide a general picture of the research problem; then, further analysis is done through
qualitative data collection to refine, extend and explain the general picture (Leech &
Onwuegbuzie, 2009).

Quantitative study

In this stage, a questionnaire was developed for data collection. In order to achieve the objectives
of the study, Malaysian automotive manufacturing companies were selected as the target
population. The database was obtained from the 2008 Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers
(FMM) and SME Corp Malaysia directories. These manufacturing companies are suppliers of
electrical, electronic, metal, plastic, rubber and other automotive components. The
manufacturing companies involved in this study ranged from mid-size medium to large compan
According to SME Corp Malaysia (2010), companies with 51-150 full-time employees are
considered mid-size, whereas those with more than 151 full-time employees are deemed large
companies. The decision to focus the present study on medium to large companies was based on
studies conducted by Shah and Ward (2003; 2007), Bonavia and Marin (2006), and Perez and
Sanchez (2000); these studies demonstrated that small manufacturing companies are less likely
to implement lean manufacturing LM concepts due to limitation in terms of human resource and
financial. The company personnel responding to the survey included managing directors,
manufacturing and/or production managers and executives, and quality managers and executives.

The questionnaire consisted of three parts: (a) background information on the organisation (year
of establishment, ownership, number of employees, and quality system certification); (b)
information on the company's lean manufacturing implementation (lean practices
implementation, lean drivers, benefits and barriers); and (c) respondent information (job title,
department and years of employment). The items in the lean manufacturing implementation
section were adapted from Shah and Ward (2003) and Panizzolo (1998). The questions used a
five-point Likert scale to measure the extent of implementation described in each item. The scale
ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 = no implementation, 2 = little implementation, 3 = some
implementation, 4 = extensive implementation, and 5 = complete implementation. For questions
concerning lean barriers, the Likert scale ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
For this survey instrument, the primary consideration in the questionnaire design was to keep it
short and focused in order to obtain an adequate response rate. To test reliability, Cronbach’s
alpha was employed to measure the internal consistency of the research instrument. The results
demonstrated that the survey instrument had high internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha
values ≥ 0.70 and, therefore, it is reliable.
Qualitative study

After the quantitative study was conducted, a multiple-case study was performed. Three
Malaysian automotive manufacturing companies were chosen for in-depth interviews. These
companies were selected based on their willingness to participate and their experience in
implementing lean initiatives. Therefore, the results from these case studies do not represent the
overall status of lean manufacturing in automotive industry. The authors prepared for data
collection by first contacting each company to be studied to gain their cooperation, explain the
purpose of the study, and record the key contact information. A semi-structured interview guide
was developed upon a common case study protocol based on the review of literature and the
quantitative survey conducted prior to the case study. The interview protocol was developed to
probe the barriers that delay the lean implementation process in automotive companies. To
improve research reliability, the same interview protocol was administered to different
interviewees for triangulation purposes. The need for triangulation arises from the ethical need to
confirm the validity of the data obtained (Yin, 1993). The interview subjects were questioned
about their actual experiences. The interviews for each respondent were conducted for
approximately two hours. These interviews involved key personnel at each company who were
directly involved in the implementation of lean manufacturing. Table 2 summarises the position
and tenure of the respondents in each company.

Table 2
Summary of the Case Companies’ Respondents

Company A Company B Company C

Manager –
Manager – TQM Manufacturing &
Position Plant Manager
Department Production
Department
Tenure in position
18 5 3 years
(years)

A plant tour was requested at all visited companies. During the tour, the lean activities involved
were demonstrated and explained in detail. Whenever possible, observation was made of the
obstacles faced by the company in implementing lean manufacturing, both as currently adopted
and as planned in the near future. The information gathered was recorded in a log book along
with the summary of the interviews. The purpose of these observations was primarily to verify
the information collected from the interviews.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Quantitative study

An initial email was sent to 250 target respondents whose email addresses were obtained from
phone calls made to each company listed in the database. Of these, 17 emails failed to be
delivered, possibly because either the email addresses were wrong or the addressee had left the
company. A follow-up email was sent one week later to remind respondents who had not yet
responded and to acknowledge those who had returned their questionnaires. A total of 19
responses were returned (11 of these were an online survey, and the remaining 7 were sent by
email), for a low response rate of 7.6%. Because this initial response rate was not satisfactory, a
second approach to the respondent was used. To increase the response rate, the questionnaire was
sent to the respondents through postal mail. As a result, the number of responses rose to 61, for a
response rate of 24.4%.

Table 3 displays the general background of the companies involved in the study. The factors
investigated were the types of product produced, age of the company, ownership, size and the
quality management system used the company. Most of the respondent companies manufacture
metal parts for the automotive industry (44.3%). The majority of the companies involved in this
study are categorised as intermediate or old companies, with 42.6% of each. An old company, as
defined in this study, is one that was established more than 20 years ago. By comparison, an
intermediate company is one that has been in existence between 11 and 20 years. New
companies are defined as those established less than 10 years ago. The percentage of new
companies in the study was only 13.1%.

Table 3
General background of the companies involved in the study (N = 61)

n %
Types of product produced
Assembly 10 16.4
Plastic parts 11 18.3
Metal parts 27 44.3
Electronic parts 10 16.4
Electrical parts 9 14.8
Rubber parts 2 3.3
Company age (year)
New (<10) 8 13.1
Intermediate (11-20) 26 42.6
Old (>20) 26 42.6
Company ownership
100% local 30 49.2
100% foreign 9 14.8
Joint venture 22 36.1
Company size (no. of employees)
Medium (50-150) 14 22.9
Large (> 151) 47 77.1
Quality management systems employed
ISO9001 35 57.4
QS9000 6 10.0
ISO/TS16949 43 70.5
ISO14000 38 62.3
OHSAS18001 12 19.7
 Respondents were also asked about the size and ownership of the companies. Table 3 shows that
77.1% of respondents were from large companies with more than 150 full-time employees. In
addition, half of the respondent companies have local ownership (49.2%), while 36.1% have
joint venture ownership, and the remaining 14.9% have full foreign ownership. All respondent
companies have at least one certification in a relevant field. Examining these results in more
detail, we found that 70.5% of total respondent companies are certified by ISO/TS16949. About
62.3% were certified by ISO14000, and 57.4% were certified by ISO9001. Other types of quality
certification, such as OHSAS18001 and QS9000, were owned by 19.7% and 10% of respondent
companies, respectively.

In order to identify the lean status of each respondent company, cluster analysis was performed
to classify whether the companies were lean, in-transition towards lean, or non-lean. A cluster is
a group computed from the average values of the lean practices variables for all the companies
and signifies the extent of lean manufacturing implementation of that group. The lean practice
variables were categorised as process and equipment, manufacturing process and control, human
resources, supplier relationships, and customer relationships. Companies were classified as non-
lean, in-transition towards lean or lean based on the hierarchical cluster analysis of their mean
scores for each individual lean practice using squared Euclidian distance between variables.
Ward’s method was used to optimise the minimum variance between clusters. Table 4 shows the
mean scores for the three cluster solutions.

Table 4
Mean values for three cluster analysis solutions for lean practices

Non-lean (A) In-transition (B) Lean (C) ANOVA

n=14 n=30 n=17 F p-value
Process and equipment 2.81 3.50 4.27 57.36 .00
Manufacturing process and control 2.90 3.54 4.44 47.08 .00
Human resources 3.10 3.50 4.39 36.80 .00
Supplier relationships 2.47 3.25 4.05 57.54 .00
Customer relationships 2.74 3.47 4.35 36.51 .00

As a result of the cluster analysis, the first group (A) comprises 14 companies and is
characterised by having low mean values for all five lean practices variables. This suggests that
the companies forming this cluster implement few lean manufacturing practices and, for this
reason, they are categorised as non-lean companies. The second group (B) includes 30
companies and is characterised having moderate mean values for each of the five variables. This
group is categorised as in-transition towards lean manufacturing systems. Finally, the third group
(C), comprising 17 companies, is classified as lean because they have high mean values for each
lean manufacturing practices variable. The values suggest that, in these companies, lean
manufacturing practices are extensively implemented in the organisation’s operation and
management.

Table 4 also displays the results of a one-way independent ANOVA test to determine the
significance of the differences between means of clusters. The purpose of this test is to examine
the cluster predictive validity and consistency with expected practice levels within groups. To
determine the homogeneity of variance, Levene's test was used to assess the equality of
variances. The Levene’s test showed that all lean practices are not significant (p>0.05) except for
process and equipment. It is assumed in Levene’s test that the population variances for each
group are relatively equal. Again, the F-ratio was used to represent whether the group means are
the same. Results for all lean practices, p< 0.05, demonstrate significantly that the mean scores
for lean manufacturing practices were different across the lean groups. Thus, the ANOVA results
contribute to evaluating the validity of the cluster analysis.

The lean barriers were analysed based on the status of lean implementation by the respondent
companies, as indicated in Table 5. The three main barriers in non-lean companies were the lack
of lean understanding, lack of senior management commitment and lack of middle management
support. On the other hand, in companies which were in-transition towards lean systems, the
primary barriers were lack of lean understanding and employees’ attitudes. For lean companies;
lack of lean understanding was identified as the main barrier to implementing lean
manufacturing systems successfully. Interestingly, all companies recognised that the main barrier
was the lack of lean understanding. This is a significant barrier because lean manufacturing
requires new knowledge and cultural change during the transition. Lean manufacturing principles
and concepts should be applied comprehensively and holistically (Crute, et al., 2003; James,
2006). The ability of employees to respond and adapt to change is critical. Appropriate
communication of and training in the concepts and basic principles of lean manufacturing
systems would create greater levels of understanding, provide motivation for employees and
encourage a spirit of innovation in the company's work culture (Puvanasvaran et al., 2009).

Table 5
Lean Barriers

Description Mean
Non lean In-transition Lean Total
Company culture 3.79 3.37 2.57 3.23
National culture 3.79 2.97 2.69 3.08
Attitude of shop floor employees 4.00 3.50 2.88 3.45
Attitude of middle management 3.86 3.37 2.75 3.32
Lack of senior management commitment 3.93 3.10 2.94 3.25
Nature of manufacturing facility 3.36 2.97 2.44 2.92
Investment cost 3.71 3.37 2.69 3.27
Inability to quantify benefits 3.36 3.37 2.44 3.12
Lack of communication 3.86 3.37 2.63 3.28
Lack of understanding of LM concepts 4.14 3.70 3.25 3.68

Qualitative study

Analysis of the three companies selected for the qualitative study yielded valuable results. Table
6 presents a summary of the case companies’ characteristics.
 Table 6
Summary of the case companies’ characteristics

Company A Company B Company C

Type of product Electronics Metal Metal
Company age
27 11 22
(years)
Company
Foreign Local Local
ownership
Large (>150 Large (>150 Large (>150
Company size
employees) employees) employees)
1996 (1st attempt), 2004 (1st attempt),
Lean effort 2009
2002 (2nd attempt) 2007 (2nd attempt)

The three companies, which manufacture different automotive components, are all categorised as
part of the automotive industry. Companies A and C can be classified as old companies
(established more than 20 years); in contrast, Company B had been incorporated for only 11
years. Company A is owned by a Japanese corporation headquartered in Japan, while both
Company B and Company C are locally-owned. All three companies are considered large, each
having more than 150 employees. In implementing lean manufacturing, Companies A and B had
been unsuccessful in their first attempts. However, Company A, after making changes with
respect to the implementation approach in their second lean attempt beginning in 2002, has been
successful in implementing lean manufacturing. Company B reenergised its lean attempt in 2007
with the assistance of a government agency and has shown some progress in lean
implementation. On the other hand, Company C had just started its journey to lean
implementation. As a beginner and first-timer, Company C faced many problems and crises but
was determined to transform itself into a lean company.

Apparently, Company A had a much more positive experience with lean implementation than
Company B and Company C. This raises key questions: Why was Company A successful in
implementing lean? What were the barriers that Company B and Company C experienced in
their attempts to implement lean manufacturing? In order to establish the factors that prevented a
smooth transition to lean manufacturing systems, a cross-case analysis was conducted using data
obtained from each of the case companies. Despite the intention of top management to
implement lean manufacturing in their companies, the effort encountered difficulties in all three
companies. These difficulties or barriers can be summarised as follows: difficulty in acquiring
lean knowledge, lack of support from management, ineffective lean teams, inadequate training
and communication, and employees’ attitudes.
Difficulty in acquiring lean knowledge

Company A was successful in lean implementation because few barriers arose during
implementation. The success of lean implementation in Company A began with the appointment
of a new Managing Director (MD) transferred from the company's headquarters in Japan. He
came with a reputation as a transformational manager who could create change within the
company. The company also provided with direct advice, resources and training from its parent
company. In both the first and second lean attempts, groups of employees were sent to Japan for
training on lean, and an advisor from the parent company was sent to assist the company's
transition to lean.

This experience contrasts with that of locally-owned Companies B and C. In acquiring lean
knowledge, these companies depended on government agencies, expensive external consultants
and customers. Moreover, translating lean knowledge to non-Japanese companies required
changes in organizational culture and mindset, a process beset by incomplete information,
misunderstanding, and failure to consider differences in context To add to the problem, most of
the Japanese experts hired by government agencies spoke only Japanese. This hindered the
transfer of knowledge, as described by one of the respondents:

Every fortnight, the Japanese expert came to this company to transfer his “know-how”
knowledge on lean. His knowledge and expertise were indisputable, but the problem was the
way he conveyed his knowledge. Sometimes, he even argued with his translator. It was a
nightmare.

Lack of management support

The role of leadership and management is critical in the conversion to lean (Achanga, et al.,
2006; Real, et al., 2007a; Sim & Rogers, 2009; Worley & Doolen, 2006). Even though a
company's initiatives for lean manufacturing implementation should come from both senior and
middle management, visible and active senior management is critical (Scherrer-Rathje et al.,
2009; Worley & Doolen, 2006). Loss of interest, declining support, lack of focus, low
commitment and lack of follow-through from top and middle management can lead to lean
implementation failure. The following comments from respondents in Company B and Company
C reflect these factors:

(a) Lack of focus and planning from top management in Company B

Our management is very open. First, we were involved in a TQM project and now lean.
The problem occurs when there is conflict in term of approaches because each project
has a different approach.

At that time, we expected results from lean implementation too quickly. That’s what
happened to us. We collapsed because the process stability was not there.
(b) Loss of interest and commitment from top management in Company B

Especially, to be successful in or to be able to implement lean, the most important thing is

top management. If the top management does not have a real understanding of lean
manufacturing, then the down-line people will definitely face problems…

In the first stage, training was conducted by the agency for team members and
department heads for two months. The training should also have involved top
management, but everybody said they were too busy.

(c) Lack of commitment and follow-through from middle management in Company C

The top management was very supportive especially in financial and time. However, we
have problems among middle management because we are on the same level. Ego and "I
know what I am doing" dominate.

But certain middle management, they do not follow [fundamental lean concepts such as
Kaizen and 5S]. They feel that “I am one or two levels higher in the company than you,
so why should I follow?” But if you don’t lead by example, how can you expect them to
follow?

Ineffective Lean Teams

For an effective transition to lean manufacturing, a strong team, with a strong team leader,
should be developed to drive the change (Sohal & Egglestone, 1994). The main team's objectives
are to inspire motivation for change and to ensure that the translation of the lean manufacturing
change process can be understood by everyone in the organisation (Herron & Hicks, 2007).
Company A was successful in its second lean attempt because its lean team met these objectives.
In contrast, the lean teams in both Company B and Company C showed little progress due to
having part time-team leaders. In both companies, the lean team leaders were department
managers. The resulting problems were highlighted in the interviews:

Many companies have a part-time lean team. Lots of companies fail because, first, they
do not have top management that clearly understands lean. Secondly, they just simply
select whoever is available but do not consider their capabilities or their responsibilities
for other current work. So you must understand….you need a person who is there full-
time.

We don’t have a champion. But we have a committee (ad hoc). Previously, we had a
person to be the leader; that was me. But currently, I am very busy. So, we asked our
QA/QC Manager to be the leader. In fact, he too has other functional duties to handle
and is unable to balance his day-to-day responsibilities with the lean project.
Inadequate Training and Communication

Misunderstanding of lean manufacturing also contributes to the interruption of smooth lean

implementation; this misunderstanding may result from inadequate training and communication
within the company. Balle (2005) states that lean implementation involves three dimensions –
cognitive (requiring good understanding of lean thinking and methodology), effectiveness, and
behavioural (derived through experience and shop floor practicality). As Company A reported,
the top management should have a clear understanding of basic lean concepts, and the lean team
should have deeper understanding of lean tools and techniques. In contrast, Company C did not
focus on teaching lean principles to all employees, especially operators. Even top managers were
reluctant to attend the basic lean training. There are many reasons for this situation, including the
difficulty of forming an effective lean team and the lack of a strong lean champion to lead the
training. Instead, the lean activities were put in place and driven by a consultant; thus, no
fundamental mind-shift or commitment to lean occurred. In Company B, training was extensive
and conducted intensively during the early stage of lean implementation, lean promotion. Then,
after the lean promotion stage, the training focussed only on developing a lean trainer in each
department. However, frequent meetings and discussions among the team members and
operators supported the lean implementation process. As discussed by Fairris and Tohyama
(2002), cooperation between workers and management is crucial to the success of lean
manufacturing. This cooperation is most likely to occur when there is good communication and
an atmosphere of trust between workers and management.

Employees’ Attitudes

The transition to lean requires changes in perspective and attitude (Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard-Park,
2006). In a lean system, employees are expected to demonstrate voluntary Kaizen initiatives,
teamwork, and active problem-solving (Stewart, 2001). However, there were serious problems in
changing the work culture of two case companies, Company B and Company C. Table 7 lists
respondent comments that explain these problems in each case company.
 Table 7
Comments on Employees’ Attitudes in the Case Companies

Comments
Company A Some workers, especially at the supervisor level, felt satisfied with their
achievement once a lean project was completed. Further improvements are
rarely initiated unless they are ordered by the LPS (Lean Production System)
department. Sometimes, supervisors are not able to manipulate or apply the
knowledge gained from the project to implement other lean activities.

Company B In lean, the worker must not wait for a command, but here the management
needs to give commands.

The "Kaizen mind" should be a change that occurs throughout the company's
culture, but this has not happened yet in this company.
Company C We encourage our workers to be involved in Kaizen activities. We have Small
Group Activity (SGA) meetings every week, but, most of the time; we need to
force them, as the motivation for improvement is not there.

We used to have Kaizen boxes on the production floor, but, instead of

suggestions, we got hate mail.

As shown in Table 7, Company A had managed to ensure that lean culture and its way of
thinking were embedded in the company. At this stage, the company's challenges lay in attaining
sustainability in lean. However, Company B and C were still struggling to develop their workers’
attitudes toward work. The unique challenge of lean manufacturing, compared to other
management practices, is that a lean system requires its workers to “work smarter, not harder”
(Stewart, 1998). The key to long-term lean sustainability is workers who support the
development of a lean culture (Hines et al., 2004; Jorgensen et al., 2007).

CONCLUSION

Implementing a lean manufacturing system is not an easy task. For any change in an organisation
to take hold and succeed, the barriers and forces of resistance need to be identified and
understood. Failure to assess organisational and individual readiness for change may lead
management to waste significant time and energy.

Given the observations and results of this study, it appears that barriers can delay or weaken the
lean implementation process. The barriers identified in the case companies are difficulty in
acquiring lean knowledge, lack of support from management, ineffective lean teams, inadequate
training and communication, and employees’ attitudes. Because lean implementation is a
systemic effort; therefore, it is important to identify and understand the barriers to smooth
transition. Not every company will be successful in its first attempt to implement lean, as
evidenced by the experiences of Companies A and B. However, the most critical factors for
success are support from top and middle management, a strong lean team and effective
communication. The change to a lean manufacturing system requires attention to the impact on
both processes and people. By understanding the barriers to the lean implementation process in
Companies A, B and C, practitioners can take one step closer to the successful application of
lean.

REFERENCES

Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R., & Nelder, G. 2006. Critical success factors for lean
implementation within SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 17 (4),
460-471.

Balle, M. 2005. Lean attitute - Lean application often fail to deliver the expected benefits but
could the missing link for successful implementations be attitude? Manufacturing Engineer.
84 (2), 14-19.

Bamber, L., & Dale, B. G. 2000. Lean production: a study of application in a traditional
manufacturing environment. Production Planning & Control. 11 (3), 291-298.

Bonavia, T., & Marin, J. A. 2006. An empirical study of lean production in the ceramic tile
industry in Spain. International Journal of Operation & Production Management. 26 (5),
505-531.

Crute, V., Ward, Y., Brown, S., & Graves, A. 2003. Implementing lean in aerospace -
challenging the assumptions and understanding the challenges. Technovation. 23, 917-928.

Dahlgaard, J. J., & Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. 2006. Lean production, six sigma quality, TQM and
company culture. The TQM Magazine. 18 (3), 263-281.

Fairris, D., & Tohyama, H. 2002. Productive efficiency and the lean production system in Japan
and the United States. Economic and Industrial Democracy. 23 (4), 529-554.

Fliedner, G., & Mathieson, K. 2009. Learning lean: A survey of industry lean needs. Journal of
Education for Business, 194-199.

Flott, L. W. (2002). Industry in transition. Metal Finishing,pp. 77-82.

Herron, C., & Braiden, P. M. (2007). Defining the foundation of lean manufacturing in the
context of its origins (Japan). Paper presented at the IET International Conference on Agile
Manufacturing, Durham.

Herron, C., & Hicks, C. 2007. The transfer of selected lean manufacturing techniques from
Japanese automotive manufacturing into general manufacturing (UK) through change
agents. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. 24 (4), 524-531.
Hines, P., Holweg, M., & Rich, N. 2004. Learning to evolve: A review of contemporary lean
thinking. International Journal of Operation & Production Management. 24 (10), 994-1011.

Holweg, M. 2007. The genealogy of lean production. Journal of Operations Management. 25 (2),
420-437.

James, T. (2006). Wholeness as well leanness. IET Manufacturing Engineer,pp. 14-17.

Jorgensen, F., Matthiesen, R., Nielsen, J., & Johansen, J. 2007. Lean maturity, lean
sustainability. IFIP International Federation for Information Precessing. 246, 371-378.

Lee-Mortimer, A. 2008. A continuing lean journey: an electronic manufacturer's adopting of

Kanban. Assembly Automations. 28 (2), 103-112.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. 2009. A typology of mixed methods research designs.
Quality & Quantity. 43, 265-275.

Mathaisel, D. F. X., & Comm, C. L. 2000. Developing, implenting and transferring lean quality
initiatives from the aerospace industry to all industries. Managing Service Quality. 10 (4),
248-256.

Melton, T. 2005. The benefits of lean manufacturing: What lean thinking has to offer the process
industries. Chemical Engineering Research and Design. 83 (A6), 662-673.

Oliver, N., Delbridge, R., & Lowe, J. 1996. Lean production practices: International comparisons
in the auto components industry. British Journal of Management. 7 (Special Issue), 29-44.

Panizzolo, R. 1998. Applying the lessons learned from 27 lean manufacturers. The relevance of
relationships management. International Journal of Production Economics. 55, 223-240.

Papadopoulou, T. C., & Ozbayrak, M. 2005. Leaness: experiences from the journey to date.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 16 (7), 784-807.

Pavnaskar, S. J., Gershenson, J. K., & Jambekar, A. B. 2003. Classification scheme for lean
manufacturing tools. International Journal of Production Research. 41 (13), 3075-3090.

Perez, M. P., & Sanchez, A. M. 2000. Lean production and suplier relations: a survey of
practices in he Aragonese automotive industry. Technovation. 20, 665-676.

Puvanasvaran, P., Megat, H., Hong, T. S., & Muhamad, M. R. 2009. The roles of communication
process for an effective lean manufacturing implementation. Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management. 2 (1), 128-152.

Real, R., Pralus, M., Pillet, M., & Guizzi, L. (2007). A study of supporting programs for small
and medium enterprises: a first stage going to "lean". Paper presented at the IEEE
 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management,
Singapore.

Sawhney, R., & Chason, S. (2005). Human behavior based exploratory model for successful
implementation of lean enterprise in industry. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18,pp.
76-96.

Scherrer-Rathje, M., Boyle, T. A., & Deflorin, P. 2009. Lean, take two! Reflections from the
second attempt at lean implementation. Business Horizon. 52, 79-88.

Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. 2003. Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles and performance.
Journal of Operations Management. 21, 129-149.

Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. 2007. Defining and developing measures of lean production. Journal of
Operations Management. 25, 785-805.

Sim, K. L., & Rogers, J. W. 2009. Implementing lean production systems: barriers to change.
Management Research News. 32 (1), 37-49.

SMECorp. (2010). Definition of SMEs. Retrieved 1 May 2010, from SME Corps Malaysia:
http://www.smidec.gov.my/node/33

Smeds, R. 1994. Managing change towards lean enterprises. International Journal of Operation
& Production Management. 14 (3), 66-82.

Sohal, A. S., & Egglestone, A. 1994. Lean production: Experience among Australian
organization. International Journal of Operation & Production Management. 14 (11), 35-51.

Srinivasaraghavan, J., & Allada, V. 2006. Application of mahalanobis distance as a lean

assessement metric. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 29,
1159-1168.

Stewart, D. (2001). Change management in lean implementation. In J. Allen, C. Robinson & D.

Stewart (Eds.), Lean Manufacturing: A plant floor guide (pp. 157-172). Michigan: Society
of Manufacturing Engineers.

Stewart, P. 1998. Out of chaos comes order: from Japanization to lean production. Employee
Relations. 20 (3), 213-223.

Worley, J. M., & Doolen, T. L. 2006. The role of communication and management support in a
lean manufacturing implementation. Management Decision. 44 (2), 228-245.

Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. California: Sage Publications.