The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm

IJLSS
4,2 Impact of corporate culture
on the adoption of the
Lean principles
118
Sanjay Bhasin
Quality Assurance, NOMS Civil Service College, Rugby, UK

Abstract
Purpose – Empirical evidence suggests corporate culture and change contribute to every Lean
failure. Whilst the prevailing research implies that successful Lean implementations lead to a
profitable organisation, it also points towards the low numbers of organisations fully adopting the
Lean principles. The purpose of this paper is to identify the existing prevalence of culture in explaining
the low numbers (less than 10 per cent) of successful British manufacturing organisations that have
fully adopted the concepts of Lean and to advocate preventative actions that organisations could
pursue in order to improve the UK implementation records.
Design/methodology/approach – The methodology predominantly used included survey
questionnaires within 68 manufacturing organisations of various sizes and at differing stages of
Lean; this was coupled with seven case studies and subsequently validated by an extensive Lean audit
undertaken in 20 organisations.
Findings – This research initially deciphers the prevalence of culture to Lean failures and then
proceeds to recommend courses of action to facilitate higher implementation rates. The significance of
culture was evident. The results reveal that a triumphant implementation requires a systematic and
controlled strategy to look at the prevailing culture. Whilst Lean failures are attributable to different
causes; the fundamental issues of corporate culture and change is evident.
Practical implications – Any organisation embarking upon Lean needs to unequivocally address
the prevailing cultural issues. For Lean to thrive, evidently the processes, appropriate application of
tools and its application across the value chain would prove futile without a conducive culture.
Originality/value – Possible remedial and preventative courses of action are advocated which should
facilitate successful implementations. The implementation of Lean cannot be taken nonchalantly as there
is a requirement for heavy investment in terms of both time and money. Nonetheless, when an
organization pursues a conducive culture, the probability of success is improved, which secures the
superior levels of performance.
Keywords Organizational culture, Manufacturing industries, Lean production, United Kingdom,
Change management, Lean, Audits, Strategy
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The prevailing literature intimates that underlying virtually every Lean failure is
the fundamental issue of corporate culture and change management (Bicheno and
Holweg, 2009; Atkinson, 2010; Saurin et al., 2011). Culture can be viewed as the
personality of an organisation (Wong, 2007); it comprises the assumptions, values, norms
International Journal of Lean Six and the tangible artefacts of a company’s employees and their behaviours (Ransom,
Sigma 2008). The literature advocates that nine of the top ten barriers to change are people
Vol. 4 No. 2, 2013
pp. 118-140 related which includes poor communications and employee opposition (Lee, 2007;
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited Vinodh and Balaji, 2011; Shook, 2010). Cocolicchio (2008), Hines et al. (2008) and Dalal
2040-4166
DOI 10.1108/20401461311319329 (2010) concur that any strategy, regardless of its strengths, will not be accepted if it is
outside the bounds of an organisation’s culture. This article and investigation identifies Impact of
the existing prevalence of culture in explaining the low numbers (less than 10 per cent) of corporate culture
successful British manufacturing organisations that have fully adopted the
concepts of Lean (Hines et al., 2008; Bicheno and Holweg, 2009). It then proceeds to
advocate preventative actions, that organisations could pursue in order to improve
the UK implementation records. The investigation was triggered whilst the author
was employed as a Lean champion within Royal Doulton Plc and witnessed how 119
the organisation failed to fully embrace the concepts of Lean thinking.

2. Literature review
For over two decades researchers have utilised various definitions of culture, including
a shared belief system within the organisation (Sathe, 1983); widely shared core values
(Peters and Waterman, 1982); collective understandings (Barley, 1983); and a pattern
of basic assumptions of an organisation (Schein, 1985). For the purposes of this
investigation the following definition of corporate culture by Daft (2001, p. 322) fully
encapsulates the concept; that an organisation’s culture “is the set of values, guiding
beliefs, understandings and ways of thinking shared by members of an organisation
and taught to new members as correct”. Singh et al. (2010), Saurin et al. (2011),
Wong (2007) and Corbett (2011), reiterate the need for an organisation’s strategy,
despite its effectiveness, to exist within the bounds of its culture. Managing around the
culture is a real possibility given that there are often several ways to achieve the
desired goals (Angelis et al., 2011). However, this may not result in sustained success
(Womack and Jones, 2005). A popular view (Shah et al., 2008; Spear and Bowen, 1999)
suggests that it is futile to bring about organisational change by attacking attitudes
and values. In order to induce organisational change there is a need to initially change
behaviour (Cocolicchio, 2008; Montgomery, 2010).
The literature (Henderson and Larco, 2003; Wan and Chen, 2008; Fullerton
and Wempe, 2009; Liker, 2008; Black, 2007; Bicheno and Holweg, 2009; Hines et al., 2008;
Sim and Rodgers, 2009; Shook, 2010; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2010) proposes that a Lean
culture can be defined as assimilating the following elements:
.
ensuring decisions are made at the lowest level (Dalal, 2010; Corbett, 2011);
.
a shared vision amongst all employees to be evident (Wan and Chen, 2008;
Shah et al., 2008);
. evidence of a participative leadership style with greater collaboration
(Atkinson, 2010);
.
the culture promoting the existence of a continuous pursuit for perfection
(Hines et al., 2008);
.
teamwork through total involvement and committed personnel (Eisenhardt and
Martin, 2010);
.
appropriate communications about the overall goals and performance
(Shook, 2010);
.
the work provides personal and professional satisfaction for the employees
(Ransom, 2008);
.
collaboration between the highly skilled workers and management
(Singh et al., 2010);
IJLSS .
the total workforce sharing the gains (Haskin, 2010; Vinodh and Balaji, 2011); and
4,2 . existence of few or no boundaries between functions (Shook, 2010; Saurin et al.,
2011).

The irrefutable evidence states that ignoring culture carries two major risks; namely,
missing the opportunity to harness it as a positive influence on competitiveness and
120 accordingly this permits it to act as a negative influence by inhibiting change (Dalal,
2010; Saurin et al., 2011). The behavioural change recommended will bring about desired
changes in attitudes and values (Cocolicchio, 2008). Consequently, organisational
change will only be brought about by first changing people’s attitudes and values which
is both time consuming and difficult (Haskin, 2010). An effective implementation of
Lean needs to alter the way work is done through the organisation’s systems, operations
and procedures which are inherently linked to the organisation’s culture (Dalal, 2010;
Saurin et al., 2011; Shook, 2010). As a synopsis, the literature proceeds to suggest that
within Lean the following best practices would aid towards accomplishing a desired
culture; often this is directly related to a strong and clear leadership strategy
culminating from the senior managers of the organisation (Tjahjono et al., 2010;
Salah et al., 2010):
.
create a sense of urgency and communicate this message to the whole
organisation (Bicheno and Holweg, 2009; Corbett, 2011);
.
develop and communicate a vision and Lean master plan that all personnel can
relate to (Hines et al., 2008; Montgomery, 2010; Gremyr and Fouguet, 2012);
. create a Lean steering committee/programme director to oversee the Lean
initiative (Wong, 2007; Black, 2007; Hoerl and Gardner, 2010; Tjahjono et al.,
2010);
.
analyse the organisation’s inclination for change (Angelis et al., 2011; Laureani
and Antony, 2012);
.
educate and train managers, staff and workers to equip them for Lean
(Wong, 2007);
.
develop and implement Lean performance indices to measure its progress
(Liker and Hoseus, 2008);
.
promote the involvement of all parties to secure authorship and ownership
(Lee, 2007);
. provide adequate resources to accomplish the stated vision (Wan and Chen,
2008);
.
align the culture, performance reward systems, pay systems, performance
measurement systems and workforce organisation in line with the Lean vision
(Sim and Rodgers, 2009);
.
empower action and assist to eradicate barriers (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2010;
Salah et al., 2010);
.
develop a pilot and make it a success before extending the concepts to the entire
organisation (Liker and Hoseus, 2010); and
.
celebrate and publicize the success (Angelis et al., 2011; Snee, 2010).
3. Research methodology Impact of
The methodology utilised endeavoured to ensure that the findings were substantiated. corporate culture
In order to secure validity and reliability, three separate data capture instruments were
used; namely:
(1) Survey questionnaires with the aid of a structured interview instrument
undertaken by visiting 68 organisations on the Lean journey; the interviewee on
each occasion was either the Lean manger/facilitator or a senior manager who 121
had originally instigated the Lean initiative.
(2) Seven organisations were used as extensive case studies; these were chosen
from those who had already consented to completing the survey questionnaire.
(3) 20 organisations again from those that had completed the survey questionnaires
were chosen within which a detailed lean audit was undertaken; the objective was
to ensure that the findings could be validated and triangulated.

3.1 Survey questionnaires

The data was captured through meticulous survey questionnaires undertaken in
68 manufacturing organisations. The survey questionnaire was split into categories
identified as issues when Royal Doulton Plc attempted to implement Lean; several or
more questions were included in the following categories to determine the:
.
underlying reasons for the Lean adoption;
.
the barriers encountered;
. how lean was tracked internally;
.
the aspirations from Lean;
.
application of the Lean tools;
. the cultural factors influencing Lean; and
.
concluded with a performance scorecard to measure the impact of Lean.

Equally the stratification was chosen to represent the discrete characteristics. The
companies were grouped in terms of:
.
geographical location;
.
size (in view of turnover, people employed and aggregate gross assets);
.
differing level of Lean adoption;
.
age of the organisation;
.
time since Lean had been instigated;
.
degree of process intricacy;
.
extent of product complexity;
.
levels of success; and
.
from a selection of varying manufacturing sectors.

The Puttick Grid (developed by John Puttick whilst at “P.A. Consulting”) was utilised to
ensure that major types of manufacturing activity were represented in the overall
analysis. The Puttick grid characterises organisations according to the amount
IJLSS of uncertainty faced in the organisation’s market and uses indices such as sales and
4,2 product mix, and the level of complexity of the organisation’s products which examines
factors such as product and process complexity. A summary of the type of organisations
represented in the survey questionnaire are indicated in Table I. The intention was to
ensure that each segment was well represented.
The survey questionnaire was administered by a visit to each organisation and it was
122 always the Lean facilitator or promoter that was questioned. Since the survey is
predominately cross sectional in nature, it was imperative that it generated a high level of
confidence. In order to combat the potential shortcomings of surveys, efforts were made to:
.
ensure that interview bias was not present;
.
certify that the data was not affected by interactions of interviewer/respondent;
.
stress to respondents that their information was to remain anonymous;
.
consider the over reliance on standardization; it could have resulted in
developing questions general enough to be minimally appropriate for all
respondents, possibly missing what was most appropriate to many respondents;
.
deter inflexibility in that they require the initial study design (the tool and
administration of the tool) to remain unchanged throughout the data collection;
.
bear in mind that it may be difficult for participants to recall information or to
tell the truth about a controversial question; and
.
this was subsequently complemented by extensive case studies undertaken in
seven of the organisations which assisted to validate the findings.

3.2 Case studies

The seven case studies permitted the appraisal from a more holistic perspective. Seven
organisations that completed a survey agreed to take part as case studies. An added
appeal was that the evidence could be analysed from either a positivistic or a
phenomenological perspective. Consequently, results can be synthesised in a manner
that permits a proposal of a theoretical conjecture or even be used as evidence to
support or contradict an established theory. Nonetheless, by inquiring about multiple
sources of evidence; in the case of both managers and operatives, the validity and
reliability of the research was greatly improved. By using multiple case studies it was
considered that the evidence would be more compelling and the results additionally
robust. Eight informants were used in each case study; the split was as follows:
. two managers interviewed in a semi-structured manner using interview schedules;
.
two shop-floor operatives interviewed in a semi-structured manner again
utilising interview schedules;

Organisations represented by the survey questionnaire

Sector Number of organisations represented

Table I. High complexity/high uncertainty 15

Summary of Low complexity/high uncertainty 16
organisations represented High complexity/low uncertainty 18
in the surveys Low complexity/low uncertainty 19
 .
two different managers were requested to complete a questionnaire; and Impact of
.
two different shop-floor operatives were also asked to complete a questionnaire. corporate culture
Table II depicts the case study organisations and is split by size.

3.3 Lean audit

Finally, extensive Lean audits were undertaken in 20 organisations that had originally
agreed to complete the survey and consented to a comprehensive audit. However, 123
having been granted access within these organisations, it facilitated the detailed audit
to be undertaken. There were 104 individual indices used within the audit and split
over 12 categories. Whilst crucially all 12 categories with the accompanying set of
indices for each cluster were used in the assessment, two focused on the culture of the
organisation. Having implemented Lean in Royal Doulton Plc the importance of
culture, change and sustainability became apparent and naturally formed areas to
scrutinize in a Lean appraisal. During the compilation process it transpired that indices
relating to culture had a natural focus relating to either the organisation as a whole or
concentrating on the employees as individuals. Consequently, the decision was made to
utilise two distinct categories. The importance of the Lean tools and the corresponding
technical components was drilled into the training the author received and assisted to
formulate the flow, processes and design of quality indices. The importance of safety
and the general visual management are perceived as complimentary factors and
formed specific suites of indices. Whilst, it would have been possible to combine
continuous improvement with change, it was deemed vital to keep them separate since
change and culture were considered to play a prominent role in all Lean failures.
Likewise, any organisation deciding to implement Lean should consider its impact on
the business performance which accounted for these respective set of indices. Finally,
whilst the notion of Lean philosophy embraces all the aspects mentioned, there were
certain specific criteria not logically assimilating into another category and created a
separate group.

4. Findings of the research

4.1 Case study analysis on culture
Seven manufacturing organisations comprising of various sizes and stages of Lean were
used as case studies. Table III depicts a set of questions devised to explore the prevailing
culture of the respective organisations; similar statements were awarded to both the
shop-floor and the management representatives and they were asked to respond
utilising a scoring scale of 1-5; a five if they totally and unequivocally disagreed with the
statement (the second row of responses against each question was derived from
the shop-floor). The first column depicts the statements on the questionnaires that the

Organisations represented by the case studies

Size of the organisation Number of organisations represented

Three small organisations Precision engineering components manufacturers

Two medium sized organisations Kiln producer and a components manufacturer Table II.
Three large organisations Large sized manufacturers of engines, ceramic and electrical Summary of case study
components organisations by size
IJLSS
Questionnaire Interview schedule
4,2 Strongly Somewhat Strongly Somewhat
disagree/ agree/ disagree/or agree/
Statement disagree (%) agree (%) disagree (%) agree (%)

Decisions are made at the lowest level possible 21.4 78.6 28.6 71.4
124 The shop-floor is listened to more widely than 0 100 21.4 78.6
was the case before Lean 42.9 57.1 42.9 57.1
Management levels are listened to more widely
than was the case before Lean 0 100 14.3 85.7
The company’s direction and destination for 14.3 85.7 0 85.7
five years is clearer 35.7 57.1 35.7 64.2
The company has one particular person 0 64.3 0 71.4
directing operations and the proposals are 14.3 71.4 7.1 78.6
clearly communicated
People are clear regarding their expectations 35.7 57.1 14.3 71.5
from Lean 50 50 21.4 78.5
There is adequate training to assist the 21.4 71.4 28.6 64.3
progress of Lean 64.3 35.7 21.4 50
All managers’ tiers seem to be pulling in the 21.4 71.5 14.3 85.7
same direction to make Lean work 50 50 57.1 42.8
The company is now a better place to work in 7.1 92.9 7.1 85.7
since the introduction of Lean 35.7 64.3 14.3 85.7
I fully understand why Lean is needed in the 14.3 71.4 7.1 57.2
organisation 28.6 57.1 21.4 78.6
The departments seem to work better and 7.1 92.8 14.3 78.5
have a healthier relationship than was the 14.3 85.7 28.6 71.4
case prior to Lean
The outcomes of Lean have been 14.3 78.6 7.1 78.6
communicated to the entire organisation 50 50 21.4 50
Lean metrics are clear to observe and 35.7 64.3 21.4 71.2
understand by all employees 57.1 35.7 42.9 35.7
Greater efforts are made to involve suppliers 14.3 85.7 14.3 85.7
than was the case before Lean 21.4 71.4 28.5 42.9
Table III. Greater efforts are made to involve customers 14.3 85.8 21.4 71.5
Managers and than was the case before Lean 28.6 71.4 42.9 42.9
shop-floors’ cultural The Lean journey is linked to the mission
perception statement 14.2 85.7 14.3 78.5

candidates were requested to respond against. The italicised areas in the left column
reflect the questions not asked to the shop-floor as the information required could only be
provided by the management. The italicised rows reflect a summary of the responses
received from the shop-floor.
In summarising the results a stimulating insight was discovered from the overall
case study analysis:
(1) The results exposed the need to work more closely with operatives in the
respective organisations as they scored lower on every occasion but one.
(2) The lack of adequate training to equip personnel for Lean became apparent.
A quarter of the managers and nearly 65 per cent of the shop-floor felt it posed a
major issue.
 (3) The performance management of the Lean initiative too required clarity in the Impact of
organisations; whilst this could have been expected from the shop-floor; a third corporate culture
of the managers also considered it to be an issue.
(4) This was reinforced by the lack of perceived communications regards the
outcomes of Lean.
(5) Nonetheless, whilst not totally harmonious, some minor optimism should be
retained; research shows that Lean needs to be extended to the whole value
125
chain (Liker, 2004).
(6) On the question of whether “the various departments seem to work better and
have a healthier relationship than was the case prior to Lean”; over 85 per cent
of managers and about 80 per cent of shop-floor did not consider it to be an
issue. Likewise, on whether “greater efforts are made to involve suppliers than
was the case before Lean:” largely both sets of personnel agreed; this identifies
that efforts were being made to extend the application of Lean.
(7) However, on whether “greater efforts are made to involve customers than was
the case before Lean”, it was obvious that more work was required since
about 85 per cent of managers and one in three operatives felt this was not
happening.
(8) Likewise the differing perceptions between the shop-floor and managers
manifested; this was apparent from some responses:
.
on whether “shop-floor is listened to more widely than was the case before
Lean”;
.
management 100 per cent (questionnaires) and 78.6 per cent (schedules)
agreed; shop-floor 42.9 per cent (questionnaires) and 42.9 per cent (schedules)
disagreed; and
.
on the question “managers’ seem to be pulling in the same direction to make
Lean work”:
– management 21.4 per cent (questionnaires) and 14.3 per cent (schedules)
disagreed; and
– shop-floor 50 per cent (questionnaires) and 57.1 per cent (schedules)
disagreed.

The results reinforced the need to tackle the differing perceptions regards Lean
amongst both the operatives and management representatives. In any Lean initiative,
if this is permitted to manifest it could jeopardise the success of Lean or certainly delay
the adoption of its principles on a wider scale. The results indicated that either one or a
combination of more than a single factor such as:
(1) the perception of Lean between the shop-floor and managers;
(2) the importance of training;
(3) the need to involve customers;
(4) the performance management of the Lean initiative coupled with the; and
(5) the method by which the Lean initiative is communicated within the respective
organisations necessitates varying degrees of attention.
IJLSS 4.2 Survey questionnaires
4,2 Furthermore, 68 organisations consented to completing a detailed survey questionnaire;
part of the questionnaire sought responses against a series of ten questions from which it
was intended that a deduction about the organisations’ respective prevailing cultures
could be made and specifically gauge whether it was conducive to Lean. Against each
statement the organisation’s representative was encouraged to award a score of between
126 “1” to “10”; a “10” signifying total agreement with the statement in reference to the
organisation; a “1” indicating that there was total disagreement with little relevance to
the organisation. By way of summary, an indication is given of the high scores recorded
(9, 10) the mid-scores (5, 6) and low scores (1, 2) recorded in Table IV. The scorings are
made against each of the statements listed in the first column.
Overall the survey results reinforced the case study analysis; out of the ten
questions asked:
.
only two questions received a score exceeding 30 per cent; in fact eight out of the
ten scored less than 20 per cent; considering that it was either the Lean champion
or a senior manager who introduced Lean that was questioned, the results were
most revealing;
.
the average score for “5” and “6” over the ten questions was 28.9 per cent
(over quarter of the respondents);

% % %
returns 1 returns 5 returns 9
Statement made on the survey questionnaire or 2 or 6 or 10

Decisions within the organisation are made at the lowest level

possible. An important gauge could well be whether the
organisational chart looks leaner within the last two years 6 36 10
There persists a clear and definite clarity of vision within the
organisation concerning Lean so that the organisation recognises
what the structure will resemble once the transformation is complete 4 31 13
A strategy of change exists and the organisation clearly
communicates how the goals will be accomplished 3 31 19
Responsibilities regards the Lean transformation have been assigned 6 30 17
It is evident who is championing the Lean transformation internally 4 17 36
A Lean training programme is clearly visible which can be assessed
by an appropriate performance index, i.e. training hours/total
employees 8 32 19
Clear evidence of Lean leadership at all levels and this can be
witnessed by the existence of lean facilitators at various levels of
the hierarchy 13 40 6
The organisation promotes a culture maintaining the challenges of
existing processes by proactive systems such as “standard
operating procedures” 1 26 34
The organisation offers customer assistance to suppliers and
maintains “supplier development teams” 22 19 14
Table IV. The organisation makes a conscientious effort to maximise stability,
Survey responses i.e. schedule changes, program restructures and procurement
on culture quantities 4 29 7
 .
the average score for “9” and “10” over the ten questions was 17.5 per cent Impact of
(less than one in five of the respondents felt that the cultural implications were corporate culture
conducive for Lean to flourish); and
.
nearly half of the responses, secured a combined low to medium score
approaching 50 per cent.

Once again, one would have expected some embellishing of the responses bearing in mind 127
the person who had consented to completing the survey questionnaire. Consequently,
it was felt that the case study results were corroborated. By way of a synopsis, evidently
the cultural factors were not embedded in the organisations and this would have had a
detrimental effect on the overall organisational efficiency as was explored by both the
audit and the further analysis on the best performing 15 organisations surveyed as
outlined below.

4.3 Culture in the best performing organisations

Captivatingly, having discovered that every organisation demonstrated some issues
with culture, a further investigation was undertaken to deduce whether the better
performing organisations depicted fewer cultural concerns. Table V depicts a scorecard
which formed part of the survey questionnaire used in the research to gauge the impact
of Lean on the respective organisations. It was crucial to broaden the determination
beyond the financial analysis alone. A performance model (Maltz et al., 2003) was
adapted to gauge the impact of Lean on organisations. Consequently, the performance
measures in assessing whether an organisation was successful as a result of adopting
Lean espoused the DMP framework (dynamic multi-dimensional performance model)
(Maltz et al., 2003) embracing five dimensions together with the other guidelines offered
(Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1993, 2001, 2005; Haskin, 2010; Wade, 1997; Shenhar and
Dvir, 1996; Dimancescu et al., 1997; Vinodh and Balaji, 2011). The Maltz et al. (2003)
model was adopted since its multi-dimensional context looks at the possible future
direction of an organisation; its flexibility permits appropriate sets of measures to be
tailored towards to a firm’s size, technology, strategy, and characteristics of the
relevant industry and environment. The model was adapted in various ways:
.
the initial model was heavily focused towards generic business processes;
.
in the “process category” for instance the inventory categories were split further;
.
the finance section displayed 14 categories; the decision was made to
contextualise this; and
.
further changes under “process” were made as it focused upon knowledge
management.

In the 68 companies, respondents were requested to quote a percentage improvement

or deterioration against each index as a direct consequence of their organisation’s
decision to adopt Lean.
In total 36 indices were used to make an informed judgement on the actual impact of
Lean on the organisation. The “performance factor” (sum of the five categories averages)
was considered to provide an accurate overall indication of each organisation’s
performance. The subsequent analysis proceeds to make use of findings from this
scorecard.
IJLSS
Categories Individual indices or KPIs of Lean
4,2
Financial Profit after interest and tax
Rate of return on capital employed
Current ratio
Earnings per share
128 Customer/market measures Market share by product group
Customer satisfaction index
Customer retention rate
Service quality
Responsiveness (customer defined)
On-time delivery (customer defined)
Process NPD lead time
Cycle time
Time to market for new products
Quality of New product development and
project management processes
Quality costs
Quality ratings
Defects of critical products/components
Material costs
Manufacturing costs
Labour productivity
Space productivity
Capital efficiency
Raw material inventory
WIP inventory
Finished goods inventory
Stock turnover
People Employee perception surveys
Health and safety per employee
Accidents
Absenteeism
Labour turnover
Retention of top employees
Quality of professional/technical development
Quality of leadership development
Future Depth and quality of strategic planning
Anticipating future changes
Table V. New market development
Performance template New technology development
utilised Percent sales from new products

4.4 Analysis of the top performing organisations

Through an extensive application of the scorecard a natural split was revealed with
15 organisations of the 68 depicting superior results. Consequently, it was important to
identify the possible factors for this exceeded performance and the influence their
respective corporate cultures may have contributed.
Lean barriers. One section of the survey questionnaire sought to determine the main
barriers organisations faced in their quest to implement Lean. Whilst the overall
analysis confirmed the issues posed, the best 15 organisations reflected a very strong
and negative association with the following potential Lean barriers (all significant at Impact of
0.01 level, two tailed; correlation values are given in parentheses): corporate culture
.
Insufficient understanding of the potential benefits (2 0.8).
.
Insufficient external funding (2 0.7).
.
Lack of internal funding (2 0.6).
.
Insufficient senior management skills (2 0.8). 129
.
Insufficient supervisory skills (2 0.7).
.
Insufficient workforce skills (2 0.6).
.
The cost of the investment (2 0.6).

This proved that in the highest performing organisations, that the Lean barriers are
either not permitted to cultivate and/or do not prevent the organisation from advancing
on its Lean journey. It could be safely concluded that the probability of embracing the
Lean concepts is naturally higher within these organisations.
Prominent indices. Additional detailed investigations on the best performing
organisations revealed a strong and positive relationship with the following
factors when measured against their respective organisation’s overall performance
factor (sum of the five category averages; correlation values are given in parentheses):
.
Aspirations to improve the supply chain (from survey questionnaire) (0.7).
.
People average indice (0.6).
.
Service quality (“customer” measure) (0.6).
.
On-time delivery (“customer” measure) (0.6).
.
Depth of strategic planning (“future” measure) (0.7).
.
Customer average indice (0.7).

This revealed the importance of the “people” category which embraces the following
individual indices: “Employee perception surveys, health and safety per employee,
retention of top employees, the quality of professional and technical development, and
quality of leadership development”. Equally the “customer” indices; namely:
“market share by product group, customer satisfaction index, customer retention
rate, service quality, responsiveness and on-time delivery”.
Sustainability. Furthermore, an effort was made to try and measure the sustainability
aspect of Lean. Research revealed that this is difficult to gauge (Bateman, 2001).
However, it was felt that some aspects could be utilised to determine adherence to this
concept; namely the departments and employees of an organisation impacted by Lean
which could assist to gauge the longevity of Lean. The best performing organisations
had 72.5 per cent of the departments and 74.5 per cent of employees operating under
Lean as opposed to 54.7 per cent of the departments and 55.4 per cent of the employees in
the remaining organisations. This was reinforced by a correlation of 0.7 in reference to
the aspiration of “improving the supply chain management” asked in the survey
questionnaires undertaken within these organisations.
Tools in application. A vital question on the survey questionnaire inquired “from
the list of Lean tools indicate which one(s) apply to your organisation.” Whilst, all
organisations confirmed varying degrees of application, a thorough investigation of the
IJLSS best performing organisations revealed the following results regards the top three tools and
4,2 concepts in operation; some were not strictly “tools” but concepts of Lean and as the same
yardstick was utilised to measure all organisations, it was possible to make a comparison:
(1) Continuous improvement – 91 per cent.
(2) 5s and general visual management – 90 per cent.
130 (3) Attacking value and the seven wastes – 88 per cent.

Conversely, the same question was posed to the remaining organisations surveyed and
the same three tools were mentioned. However, it was the level of application that
varied:
(1) Continuous improvement – 80 per cent.
(2) 5s and general visual management – 79 per cent.
(3) Attacking value and the seven wastes – 71 per cent.

Consequently, in exploring this situation further, it was decided to compare an average

length of application of the top six tools (total productive maintenance, cellular
manufacturing, kanban systems, attacking value and the seven wastes, 5’s and general
visual management and continuous improvement/kaizen) listed both in the best
performing 15 and the remaining organisations. Interesting results were discovered
regards the application of the six top tools in place:
.
the best performing organisations had an average of 82 per cent application;
whereas
.
the remaining organisations had an average of 69 per cent application.

Other relevant cultural differences. Accordingly, for the ten key cultural questions
asked in the survey questionnaire, organisations were asked to respond using a scale of
1-10 with “10” suggesting total agreement with the statement. When scores over the
ten questions were analysed, the best performing organisations averaged 42 per cent of
the respondents scoring 8, 9 and 10 as opposed to 29 per cent in the remaining
organisations. This implies a considerably higher number of cultural factors to be in
existence in the better performing organisations. In 60 per cent of the cases the better
performing organisations confirmed a higher score against each of the respective
statements. This meant that the cultural conditions in these organisations were
more conducive towards Lean. The questions had been chosen in order to decipher
the prevailing culture of each organisation. Consequently, it was found that more of the
cultural conditions regarded as essential for a successful Lean implementation existed
within the better performing organisations.
Performance of the indices. Evidently, the scorecard devised and applied to all the
organisations exposed that Lean had proven successful. The gap between the best
15 organisations and the remaining was quite apparent. This was reinforced by the
category averages; the remaining organisations’ category averages in ranking order
were as follows:
(1) Process – 13.4 per cent.
(2) Customer – 11.1 per cent.
(3) Future – 9.7 per cent.
 (4) Finance – 7.2 per cent. Impact of
(5) People – 6.2 per cent. corporate culture
The ranking of the category average for the best performing 15 organisations was as
follows:
(1) Customer – 30.7 per cent.
131
(2) Future – 26.6 per cent.
(3) Process – 25.9 per cent.
(4) People – 19 per cent.
(5) Finance – 13.4 per cent.

Similarly, an exploration into the best performing seven individual indices reiterates this
point aptly; the average for the remaining organisations was 15.1 per cent as opposed to
38.4 per cent for the best performing organisations. It was necessary to probe into the
individual indices in more detail. The top seven separate indices reiterate this point
pertinently; the seven highest performing indices for the remaining organisations were
as follows and are listed alongside one of the five categories to which each belongs too:
(1) Cycle time (16 per cent) – process category.
(2) Space productivity (15.9 per cent) – process category.
(3) Raw material inventory (15.8 per cent) – process category.
(4) WIP inventory (15.7 per cent) – process category.
(5) Stock turnover (14.3 per cent) – process category.
(6) Defects of critical components (14.1 per cent) – process category.
(7) Labour productivity (13.9 per cent) – process category.

However, similar research on the best performing organisations revealed the following
position:
(1) Customer satisfaction (53.7 per cent) – customer category.
(2) Responsiveness (45 per cent) – customer category.
(3) On-time delivery (40.2 per cent) – customer category.
(4) Stock turnover (32.7 per cent) – process category.
(5) Raw material inventory (32.7 per cent) – process category.
(6) Defects of critical products (31.1 per cent) – process category.
(7) Depth of strategic planning (30.9 per cent) – future category.

Whilst, the top seven indices for the remaining group of organisations all belonged to the
“process” category; the top seven indices of the best performing organisations belonged
to three different categories; namely “customer”, “process” and “future”. Moreover, the
top three indices in reality belonged to the “customer” category which reinforced the
importance placed upon the actual customer by the better performing organisations.
Accordingly, the relevance of the “future” category was apparent; namely “depth and
quality of strategic planning.” As an important incidental point, the eighth individual
IJLSS highest performance measurement, “per cent sales from new products (, 5 years)” also
4,2 belonged to the “future” category.
Principal indices. In an investigation undertaken to resolve which indices were
instrumental to the overall performance factor of each organisation revealed similarly
engaging results. This factor is verified by the correlations of the individual indices of
the scorecard against the overall performance factor for every organisation. The high
132 correlations discovered have been italicised in Table VI.

Correlation

Profit after interest and tax 0.6

Rate of return on capital employed 0.7
Current ratio 0.6
Earnings per share 0.2
Market share by product group 0.3
Customer satisfaction index 0.6
Customer retention rate 0.6
Service quality 0.2
Responsiveness (customer defined) 0.5
On-time delivery (customer defined) 0.3
NPD lead time 0.2
Cycle time 0.2
Time to market for new products 0.3
Quality of new product development and project
management processes 0.3
Quality costs 0.2
Quality ratings 0.3
Defects of critical products/components 0.6
Material costs 0.3
Manufacturing costs 0.3
Labour productivity 0.2
Space productivity 0.2
Capital efficiency 0.2
Raw material inventory 0.3
WIP inventory 0.2
Finished goods inventory 0.2
Stock turnover 0.2
Employee perception surveys 0.6
Health and safety per employee
Accidents 0.3
Absenteeism 0.2
Labour turnover 0.2
Retention of top employees 0.6
Quality of professional/technical development 0.6
Quality of leadership development 0.1
Depth and quality of strategic planning 0.6
Anticipating future changes 0.5
New market development 0.5
Table VI. New technology development 0.5
Correlations of indices Percent sales from new products 0.6
Table VI reveals important deductions; the financial indices were not considered more Impact of
important than the remaining indices. Furthermore, the significance of all the five corporate culture
categories is represented. This substantiates that for an organisation to achieve a good
performance, it needs to excel in each category. This was validated by the association
discovered between the average for each of the five categories, as per the scorecard, and
the main performance figure for the entire 68 organisations. In ranking order the
correlation between the average of each category and the overall performance figure for 133
the organisations was as follows:
(1) People – 0.5.
(2) Process – 0.6.
(3) Finance – 0.7.
(4) Customer – 0.7.
(5) Future – 0.7.

Again, this clarified that for an organisation to perform well, it needs to excel in each
category and not the finance components alone. Equally, the correlation between the
averages for each section, as represented in the scorecard, shows the following
relationship: finance and future (0.6); the process indices and people (0.71); the customer
indices had a high correlation with process (0.64), people (0.62) and future (0.66);
whereas the future indices besides the finance (0.60) and customer (0.66) indices also
had a strong relationship with the people indices (0.72). Consequently, the conclusion
could be made that the most important indices in ranking order affecting the overall
performance are:
(1) future;
(2) people; and the
(3) customer indices.

This is enormously revealing since it shows the impact of the non-finance indices.

5. Lean audit results

In a major verification exercise, an extensive Lean audit was devised and subsequently
undertaken in 20 organisations outlined in Table VII which are grouped by the
size of the organisation. This was undertaken after access was permitted to the
respective organisations; the author undertook the audits by spending time in each
organisation and sought answers to the various indices by questioning respective
personnel.
Primarily, the results were based on the Wilk’s l and related to the strategies:
.
overall safety, cleanliness and orderliness (l ¼ 0.870);
.
production and operational flow (l ¼ 0.899); and
.
processes and operations (l ¼ 0.862).

Prove to be not different for the best performing group of companies (which means
they are common characteristics only for the five best), and may be a distinguishing
factor in which these five organisations differed from the other companies. Once again
there was a natural split with five of the 20 organisations revealing vastly superior
IJLSS
Organisations audited by size
4,2 Small Medium Large

Trentex Engineering Ltd Drayton Beaumont Unilever UK (foods)

Fletcher Moorland Excel (Electronics) assemblies Ina Bearing Company
Timkin Aerospace (UK) Ilford Imaging Ltd
134 Blanc Aero Industries Corus Colours Group
Scapa (UK) Ltd
Ford Motor Company
Ricardo
Vauxhall Motors
Royal Doulton (UK)
3M (UK) PLC
Leoni Wiring
BMW Engines
Table VII. Jaguar Cars Ltd
Audited companies Perkins Engines

audit scores. Accordingly, further statistical analysis was undertaken to decipher the
important correlations from the audit undertaken in these five organisations; the
following were attained for the relevant strategies:
.
Lean sustainability (r ¼ 0.673);
.
culture employee oriented (r ¼ 0.753);
.
organisational culture – organisational practises (r ¼ 0.731);
.
Lean treated as a business (r ¼ 0.752);
.
philosophy (r ¼ 0.731); and
. Lean change strategy (r ¼ 0.652).

In essence, the results revealed that the five best performing organisations
demonstrated high correlations with components of what determines whether an
organisation is treating Lean as a philosophy; namely:
(1) sustainability;
(2) culture;
(3) needing to treat Lean as a business;
(4) Lean change strategy; and the
(5) philosophy indices themselves.
This clearly illustrates the importance of both culture and change as the audit revealed
that the best performing five organisations excelled at these facets.

6. Limitations of the research

Any potential issues surrounding validity, reliability and generalizability were never
relinquished. A superior extent of validity and reliability was secured than would have
been the case with a single methodological approach as surveys were supplemented by
seven case studies and a comprehensive Lean audit undertaken in 20 organisations as
a major validating exercise. Equally a cautionary observation is required in reference
to the performance measures utilised. The survey respondents were informed that their Impact of
responses should take into account the naturally projected growth rates and that the corporate culture
research was concentrating solely on the impact of Lean in their organisation.

6.1 Future research

A noticeable natural extension of the research would be to replicate the investigation
undertaken but in a non-manufacturing environment. The principal emphasis 135
throughout this enquiry centred on the appropriate tools, processes, cultures and
performance management of Lean within the UK manufacturing companies. The
application of Lean within the health service, for instance, has witnessed a major
intensification since 2004 and the literature still depicts a sketchy implementation
record. It would be particularly useful to determine:
.
any similarity of the barriers which are encountered;
.
the level of significance of both change and cultural issues;
.
whether their Lean journey mirrors the stages depicted within this investigation;
.
the key issues in attempting to implement appropriate performance
measurement systems;
.
whether the time span towards high levels of sustainability are comparable to
the manufacturing sector; and
.
the relevance of the complexity of processes within an organisation in
endeavouring to secure a Lean system.

Correspondingly to the manufacturing sector, a huge investment is undertaken by

organisations embracing Lean and it is considered that the investigation identified that
Lean would benefit both those organisations on the Lean journey and those
considering adopting its philosophy.

7. Conclusions
The important message to organisations hoping to secure a successful Lean initiative is
that whilst culture can form a major barrier in preventing Lean, those organisations
which persevere do proceed to reap considerable business benefits from a successful
implementation; this was aptly depicted by the best performing 15 organisations.
Evidently, culture posed an issue for the group of 68 organisations that consented to
completing the survey questionnaire and the seven case study organisations. The seven
case study organisations comprised seven of the 20 organisations audited owing to
accessibility. Within the 68 organisations surveyed, ten questions were selected to gauge
the prevailing culture. Against each statement the organisation’s representative was
encouraged to award a score of between “1” to “10”; a “10” signifying total agreement
with the statement in reference to the organisation; a “1” indicating that there was total
disagreement with little relevance in reference to the organisation. Overall an average
score of “5” or “6” was recorded for nearly 30 per cent of the sample and a high “9” or “10”
for only 20 per cent which summarises the issues surrounding culture within a Lean
implementation.
Lean is a journey that needs to start strong and never ends. 42 per cent of the best
performing 15 organisations scored a high “9” or “10” on questions intended to decipher
their respective cultures; this implies that a considerably higher number of cultural
IJLSS factors were in existence within the better performing organisations. Intriguingly,
4,2 however, it has to be stressed that whilst no organisation was considered to be treating
Lean as a philosophy as depicted by the audit results and the analysis on all surveyed
organisations; nevertheless, organisations which demonstrated the appropriate
processes; namely:
.
barriers not permitted to develop;
136 .
a wider application of Lean across the departments and employees;
.
sustainability;
.
Lean extended to the value chain;
.
a wider application of the Lean tools;
.
a more sustained application of the Lean tools regards length of use;
.
a more conducive culture and change strategy; and
.
a concerted effort to perform well in a broader sense and not concentrate on the
financial benefits alone, did in fact perform much better and this strongly
indicates that when treated as a philosophy, Lean is successful.

It is imperative that Lean is engrained in the organisation so that it can find its own
answers. For any organisation to achieve Lean, it needs to go beyond streamlining today’s
processes and fundamentally redesigning tomorrow’s products, production processes and
supply chains. Ultimately, Lean needs to be witnessed as a business philosophy, the more
you believe in its doctrine, the easier it is to transform the business and to reap the benefits;
this was aptly reflected by the best performing group of 15 organisations. Unfortunately
the archetypal issues still emerged implying concerted efforts are required on the following
aspects to ensure that an appropriate corporate culture for Lean is secured; namely clearer
communications, more training, performance management and a clear clarity of vision.
It should be noted that, even in the best performing organisations, the correlation for
culture was still just – 0.1; this implies that some cultural related issues were
encountered. Organisations need to recognise that there is little they can do to jump to
the end state of Toyota’s learning and merely implement the final result. Ultimately,
Lean needs to be witnessed as a business philosophy, the more you believe in its
doctrine, the easier it is to transform the business and to reap the benefits; this was
aptly reflected by the best performing group of 15 organisations. Toyota has been
moving through this journey for 50 years and some of their lessons were learnt over
100 years ago.

8. Implications of the research

Considering that the majority of Lean implementations which fail can be attributable
to culture and change, the preceding investigation and analysis would facilitate the
implementation process vastly. The results from the case studies, the survey
questionnaires and validated by the extensive Lean audit highlighted the importance
of culture and change should an organisation hope to achieve a successful Lean
implementation. The research exemplified that the Lean journey requires both human
and financial commitment. There are pertinent lessons for organisations from the
research regards preventative actions that they need to adopt to improve implementation
rates; namely:
 .
Whilst change management has endured extensive research, ironically this Impact of
investigation discovered that communications were still handled incompetently. corporate culture
Nearly 50 per cent of the operatives within the seven case studies felt they were
not actively listened to.
.
Lean should not be viewed in the narrow sense of a set of tools, techniques and
practices, but rather needs to be observed as a holistic approach that transcends
the boundaries of the shop-floor. The analysis depicted that in the best 137
performing 15 organisations the “totality” approach was adopted; namely that it
was not merely operationally driven, but the impact of the customer and looking
at the future played vital roles too.
.
Every organisation’s Lean journey starts under different circumstances, so there
does not exist a unique recipe. Managers have to recognise that there is no simple
formula or directives to follow which guarantees success. The investigation
revealed that Lean needs to be viewed as a developing discipline and dynamic
since it is constantly improving. Once again a high association between the
“sustainability” suite of indices was discovered with the best performing
organisations. This implies the need to widen the remit of Lean to most areas of
an organisation whilst concentrating on new market development.
.
Lean should be treated as a long term commitment with the ultimate goal
requiring it to be viewed as a philosophy. The tools and techniques that we
normally associate with “Lean” are a framework that enables the application of
the thinking more natural for the organisation; this was evident from the high
association discovered with the philosophy indices within the best performing
organisations.

8.1 Managerial implications

In recognising that the majority of Lean initiatives fail to achieve their anticipated
objectives and that the empirical research suggests that this is largely attributable to
organisational cultures and change management, there are lessons that managers and
policy makers of organisations should also recognise; this research indicated that:
.
The pivotal role of training should not be undervalued; within the seven case
studies over 30 per cent of managers and operatives felt that the training offered
was insufficient; it should be viewed as an important preventative cost which
both aids the overall Lean implementation and proceeds to reduce the time to
implement Lean.
.
Often the shop-floor operatives were not awarded sufficient prominence during
the implementation stages of Lean. From the 13 questions within the case studies
posed to the managers and the operatives, the latter scored less favourably in the
majority of cases.
.
The research showed that implementing Lean can be extremely intricate. Often
omitted from Lean implementations are the organisational development aspects
that act as a mechanism to hold things together. This includes a change
management process aligned to the culture, a performance reward structure; pay
systems, a performance measurement system and workforce organisation.
Nearly 30 per cent of managers and 50 per cent operatives felt the supporting
performance management of Lean was lacking.
IJLSS .
Bearing in mind that Lean is process driven; within the case studies nearly
4,2 40 per cent of the operatives felt that the outcomes of Lean were not communicated
to them. Equally, nearly 50 per cent considered that they were unaware of the
initial rationale for Lean from the organisation’s perspective.
.
The recognition that Lean requires considerable effort; many of the organisations
surveyed overburdened their managers with the additional duties to implement
138 Lean. It was apparent that Lean, certainly in the early stages, requires
considerable commitment. Within the 68 organisations surveyed over 30 per cent
felt that the responsibilities of Lean had not been assigned.

References
Angelis, J., Conti, R., Cooper, C. and Gill, C. (2011), “Building a high-commitment Lean culture”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 22, pp. 569-586.
Atkinson, P. (2010), “Lean is a cultural issue”, Management Services, Vol. 54, pp. 35-44.
Barley, S. (1983), “Semiotics and the study of occupational and organisational culture”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 393-414.
Bateman, N. (2001), Sustainability, Lean Enterprise Research Centre Publication, Wales, pp. 2-24,
April.
Bicheno, J. and Holweg, M. (2009), The Lean Toolbox, Picsie, Buckingham.
Black, J. (2007), “Design rules for implementing the TPS”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 45, pp. 32-39.
Cocolicchio, B. (2008), “Creating your Lean future state”, Quality Progress, Vol. 41, pp. 88-102.
Corbett, L. (2011), “Lean Six Sigma: contribution to business excellence”, International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2, pp. 118-131.
Daft, R. (2001), Organisation Theory and Design, Thompson, Mason, OH.
Dalal, A. (2010), “Keep it simple”, Quality Progress, Vol. 43, pp. 24-32.
Dimancescu, D., Hines, P. and Rich, N. (1997), The Lean Enterprise, Amazon, New York, NY.
Eisenhardt, K. and Martin, J. (2010), “Dynamic capabilities”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 21, pp. 1105-1122.
Fullerton, R. and Wempe, W. (2009), “Lean manufacturing”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 29, pp. 214-240.
Gremyr, I. and Fouguet, J. (2012), “Design for Six Sigma and Lean product development”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3, pp. 45-58.
Haskin, D. (2010), “Allocating internal audit costs in a Lean environment”, Internal Auditing,
Vol. 25, pp. 25-32.
Henderson, B. and Larco, J. (2003), Lean Transformation, Oaklea, New York, NY.
Hines, P., Found, P., Griffiths, G. and Harrison, R. (2008), Staying Lean – Thriving Not Just
Surviving, LERC, London.
Hoerl, R. and Gardner, M. (2010), “Lean Six Sigma, creativity and innovation”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1, pp. 30-38.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70, pp. 71-80.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D.P. (1993), “Putting the balanced scorecard to work”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 71, pp. 134-142.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D.P. (2001), “Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance Impact of
management to strategic management: part 1”, Strategic Management, Vol. 15, pp. 87-105.
corporate culture
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D.P. (2005), “The office of strategic management”, Strategic Finance,
Vol. 87, pp. 56-60.
Laureani, A. and Antony, J. (2012), “Critical success factors for the implementation of Lean
Sigma”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3, pp. 274-283.
Lee, Q. (2007), “Implementing Lean manufacturing”, Institute of Management Services Journal, 139
Vol. 51, pp. 14-19.
Liker, J.K. and Hoseus, M. (2008), Toyota Culture: The Heart and Soul of the Toyota Way,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Liker, J.K. and Hoseus, M. (2010), “Human resource development in Toyota culture”,
International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 10,
pp. 34-50.
Maltz, A., Shenhar, A. and Reilly, R. (2003), “Beyond the balanced scorecard: refining the search
for organizational success measures”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 36, pp. 187-204.
Montgomery, D. (2010), “A modern framework for achieving enterprise excellence”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1, pp. 56-65.
Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Lessons from Americas Best-run
Companies, H&R, New York, NY.
Ransom, C. (2008), Wall Street View of Lean Transformation, Lean Enterprise Institute, available
at: www.Lean.org/events (accessed 14 March 2008).
Salah, S., Rahim, A. and Carretero, J.A. (2010), “The integration of Six Sigma and Lean
management”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3, pp. 249-274.
Sathe, V. (1983), “Implications of corporate culture”, Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 12, pp. 5-24.
Saurin, T., Marodin, G. and Ribeiro, J. (2011), “A framework for assessing the use of Lean
production practices in manufacturing cells”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 49, pp. 32-51.
Schein, E. (1985), Organisational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Shah, R., Chandrasekaren, A. and Linderman, K. (2008), “In pursuit of implementation patterns:
the context of Lean and Six Sigma”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46,
pp. 66-79.
Shenhar, A. and Dvir, D. (1996), Handbook of Technology Management, McGraw Hill,
New York, NY.
Shook, J. (2010), “How to change a culture: lessons from Nummi”, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 51, pp. 63-72.
Sim, K. and Rodgers, J. (2009), “Implementing Lean production systems: barriers to change”,
Management Research News, Vol. 32, pp. 37-49.
Singh, B., Garg, S. and Sharma, S. (2010), “Development of index for measuring Leanness”,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14, pp. 46-59.
Snee, R. (2010), “Lean Six Sigma – getting better all the time”, International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, Vol. 1, pp. 9-29.
Spear, S. and Bowen, K. (1999), “Decoding the DNA of the TPS”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 77, pp. 96-107.
Tjahjono, B., Ball, P. and Vitanov, V. (2010), “Six Sigma: a literature review”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1, pp. 89-109.
IJLSS Vinodh, S. and Balaji, S. (2011), “Fuzzy logic based leanness assessment and its decision support
system”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49, pp. 40-67.
4,2 Wade, D. (1997), “Measuring performance with a balanced scorecard”, Managers Handbook,
Vol. 2, pp. 6-17.
Wan, H. and Chen, F. (2008), “A Leanness measure of manufacturing systems for quantifying
impacts of Lean initiatives”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46,
140 pp. 62-67.
Womack, J. and Jones, D. (2005), Lean Solutions, Simon & Schuster, London.
Wong, M. (2007), “The role of culture in implementing lean production system”, in Olhager, J. and
Persson, F. (Eds), Advances in Production Management Systems, Vol. 246, pp. 413-422.

Further reading
Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2003), Business Research, Palgrave, London.
Doherty, N. and Perry, I. (2001), “The cultural impact of workflow management systems”,
The Services Industries Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 147-167.

About the author

Sanjay Bhasin has been a Quality Manager at NOMS College since April 2005. Previous to this he
was a Senior Consultant and Advanced Skills Trainer at Staffordshire University Regional
Federation and a Senior Project Manager at Royal Doulton Plc. Sanjay Bhasin can be contacted
at: s.bhasin@btinternet.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints