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

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm

IJLSS
4,3 Lean readiness level within
Kuwaiti manufacturing industries
Mohamad AL-Najem and Hom Dhakal
280 School of Engineering, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
Ashraf Labib
Business School, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK, and
Nick Bennett
School of Engineering, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a measurement framework to evaluate the lean
readiness level (LRL) and lean systems (LS) within Kuwaiti small and medium-sized manufacturing
industries (K-SMMIs). A measurement framework which encompasses the quality practices related to
LS (processes; planning and control; human resources; top management and leadership; customer
relations; and supplier relations) is used to assess the quality practices in K-SMMIs and determine
whether they have the foundation to implement LS.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted a comprehensive literature review,
semi-structured interviews with 27 senior managers, and a quantitative survey administered to
50 K-SMMIs. The responses were entered into SPSS software to conduct a reliability test and independent
sample t-test.
Findings – The results indicate that current quality practices within K-SMMIs are not very supportive
towards LS. Many factors are revealed to affect K-SMMIs with respect to LS, including language barriers,
and deficiencies in aspects including quality workers in terms of education and skills; technology;
government attention; know-how regarding LS; market competitiveness; and urgency for adopting LS.
Research limitations/implications – Very limited information is available on LS and QI in
Kuwait. The LRL framework should be tested in small and medium-sized manufacturing industries
(SMMIs) that successfully use LS, in order to provide a benchmark. The study’s findings can be used
as an internal checklist prior to and during lean implementation.
Originality/value – This LS and LRL measurement framework relating to K-SMMIs represents a
unique effort in the area of lean management.
Keywords Kuwait, Small to medium-sized enterprises, Manufacturing industries,
Critical success factors, Lean systems, Kuwaiti small and medium-sized manufacturing industries,
Lean assessment framework, Lean readiness level
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In the last decade, lean systems (LS) have made a noteworthy impact in both the
academic and industrial community Hines et al. (2004). Organizations around the globe
are opting to implement LS to eliminate waste and increase productivity in their
businesses; however, in some parts of the world, such as Kuwait, the term “lean” is still
International Journal of Lean Six relatively unheard of. Indeed, according to Tannock and Ahmed (2008), very limited
Sigma
Vol. 4 No. 3, 2013
pp. 280-320 The author would like to acknowledge and thank the Editor Professor Jiju Antony for his
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-4166
encouragement and the reviewers for their valuable feedback; their comments were truly
DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-05-2013-0027 supportive and helpful towards making this paper suitable for publication.
resources cover quality management (QM) in the Arab world, and, more precisely, Lean readiness
Kuwait. Furthermore, research on implementing LS in Kuwaiti small and level
medium-sized manufacturing industries (K-SMMIs) is non-existent.
The Kuwaiti economy is largely dependent on the export of natural resources such
as gas and oil. These two products make a huge contribution to the national income,
which has led the Kuwaiti Government to concentrate heavily on these sectors and pay
far less attention to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in both service and 281
manufacturing sectors. However, SMEs are considered vital for the prosperity of the
economy (Ghobadian and Gallear, 1997); many other governments around the world
have shown an interest in promoting SMEs by supporting their growth and making
them part of the country’s national development (Wang et al., 2007). Yet in Kuwait, this
sector has received little attention from the government to date, and the role of SMEs in
the economy is considered to be very modest (Rampurwala and Marafi, 2011).
Quality initiatives (QI) such as LS, Six Sigma, and total quality management (TQM)
could be key for restructuring and enhancing the role of K-SMMIs and increasing their
contribution to the Kuwaiti economy. According to Zairi (1996), Arab organizations
can enjoy huge benefits from implementing QI, as it will help them to address their
weaknesses, and eventually make them competitive at an international level.
Interest in the subject of LS has increased significantly in recent years; if successfully
implemented, LS has been shown to contribute to organizations’ success and
competitiveness. However, various reports reveal that LS frequently fail as a result of
improper planning and a lack of knowledge on their benefits, as well as their critical success
factors (CSFs). Ignoring key aspects of LS will make them less effective or even lead to
failure. In addition, in order to introduce LS into an organization, there is a need to assess
the current practices/realities within the organization to see whether these are supportive
of LS, or in need of adaptation in order to cope with lean thinking. In other words,
organizations need to assess their readiness and preparedness before implementing LS
(Radnor et al., 2006). There is a lack of in-depth research on the lean readiness level (LRL)
and CSFs, especially with respect to the SMEs context (Anand and Kodali, 2008).
This leads to the formulation of the main research questions within this paper:
RQ1. Do K-SMMIs have a good foundation from which to start LS?
RQ2. What factors are preventing K-SMMIs from adopting LS?
RQ3. Why has LS not been practised within K-SMMIs to date?
In order to address these three research questions, comprehensive theoretical and
empirical knowledge about K-SMMIs’ current quality practices is required. Hence, this
paper develops a measurement framework that encompasses the quality practices
related to LS – processes; planning and control; human resources; top management
and leadership; customer relations; and supplier relations – to assess the current LRL
in K-SMMIs, and eventually learn whether K-SMMIs have a good infrastructure from
which to implement LS.

Literature review
LS originated on the shop floor at Toyota, the Japanese automotive company (Hines et al.,
2004; Ohno, 1988). Toyota’s success has in turn led many companies around the world to
pay attention to LS and attempt to imitate it (Liker and Hoseus, 2010; Stone, 2012).
IJLSS However, not all of these attempts have been successful (Balle, 2005; Emiliani, 1998).
There are a number of different reasons for these failures, such as ignorance of lean
4,3 concepts, CSFs and lean requirements; this ignorance has often arisen as a result of the
different perspectives taken by researchers when considering lean, which has caused
confusion regarding LS (Hines et al., 2004; Wong et al., 2009; Stone, 2012).
Understanding the definition of lean is important as a first step. According to
282 Womack and Jones (2003, p. 15), lean thinking:
[. . .] provides a way to do more and more with less and less human effort, less equipment, less
time, and less space [. . .], provid[es] customers with exactly what they want, [and also offers]
a way to make work more satisfying by providing immediate feedback on efforts to convert
muda [waste] into value.
Many researchers and lean practitioners have covered lean topics from different
perspectives; despite the large number of articles on LS that have emerged in recent
decades, lean practices within the SME context is a very under-researched area
(Boughton and Arokiam, 2000). According to Bakås et al. (2011), in the past 20 years
there have been only 16 journal articles that have addressed LS within SMEs.
Moreover, there are only a few studies that contain empirical evidence regarding the
factors that affect the implementation of lean practices within SMEs (Shah and Ward,
2003; Achanga et al., 2006; Golicic and Medland, 2007).
LS consists of a number of tools and techniques, and many studies have identified
the CSFs for successful lean implementation, which must be understood in order to
ensure the success of LS. Even more importantly, organizations need to know exactly
what they require and expect from LS, and then choose the tools and techniques that
best fit their situation (Balle, 2005); this requires strategic thinking, awareness of lean
tools and their benefits, commitment, and relationship-building with external factors
such as suppliers and customers (Bhasin and Burcher, 2006).
Some of the extant articles cover different areas of LS, such as lean practices, lean
benefits and lean CSFs, most often in relation to large companies and SMEs that are
primarily based out of expansive premises. These studies have considered various
country contexts, including India (Antony, 2006; Dhandapani et al., 2004; Upadhye et al.,
2010b), the USA (Zhou, 2012; Golicic and Medland, 2007; White et al., 1999), Australia
(Sohal and Egglestone, 1994), Canada (Stuart and Boyle, 2007), Europe (Bakås et al., 2011;
Bonavia and Marin, 2006; Achanga et al., 2006; Johansen et al., 2004; Bhasin, 2012), the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Karim et al., 2011), and Asian countries (Wickramasinghe and
Wickramasinghe, 2012; Perera et al., 2010; Nordin et al., 2010; Wong et al., 2009; Rose et al.,
2011; Ferdousi, 2009; Yang and Yu Yu, 2010; Rahman, 2010; Wong, 2007). Each of these
studies has dealt with the concept of lean from different angles; some identify the CSFs
for lean in different countries, while others study the barriers to, and the impact of
culture on, lean implementation.
Knowing the benefits of lean practices can create a more in-depth understanding of
LS. These benefits include improvements to customer responsiveness and quality, and
reductions in cycle time (Spann et al., 1999). LS can also lead to an increase in customer
satisfaction, financial savings and levels of knowledge management; and a reduction in
inventories and process wastes (Melton, 2005). In addition, LS can complement human
efforts, create manufacturing space and improve quality (Zayko et al., 1997), while
increasing efficiency, reducing customer response time, improving profitability and
enhancing the organization’s image (Bergmiller and McCright, 2009).
CSFs and barriers associated with LS Lean readiness
Boynton and Zmud (1984, p. 17) state that CSFs are: level
[. . .] those few things that must go well to ensure success for a manager or an organization
[. . .] therefore, they represent those managerial or enterprise areas that must be given special
attention to bring about high performance.
Based on the literature, there are numerous barriers and CSFs for LS implementation 283
that organizations need to be aware of.
Many organizations have implemented LS, and there are several success stories
relating to different regions of the world, as well as examples of failures. The
transformation from traditional systems to LS is filled with tremendous challenges and
obstacles (Nordin et al., 2010). According to Holweg (2007), the biggest challenge facing
organizations is understanding the core of LS as a philosophy, and appreciating how
the organization can deal with national and organizational culture differences. Indeed,
organizational culture is the main driver for creating strategies to achieve the goals of
the organization (Wong, 2007).
Several authors have emphasized that LS and QI require an understanding of the
systems themselves, as well as their benefits, requirements (technical and cultural) and
CSFs (Achanga et al., 2006). Lean requires planning, vision, skilled workers and an
awareness of the cost involved (Holland and Light, 1999; Bakås et al., 2011). In addition,
and most importantly, the organization needs to have management involvement and
commitment in order to succeed in its lean journey (Coronado and Antony, 2002). These
factors are essential, and can make or break organizations; for instance, according to
Al-Mashari et al. (2003), although QI can be very beneficial to organizations that opt to
use them, their implementation requires huge amounts of money.
Many issues have been recognized as barriers for LS implementation. For instance,
Atkinson (2010) and Vinodh and Balaji (2011) declare that the most prominent factor in
LS is culture, which can have a positive or negative impact during the lean journey;
Liker (2004) sees subculture as a potential source of problems, while Womack and
Jones (2005) highlight resistance to accepting new ideas.
Research carried out by Deloitte and Touche (2002) suggests that the main barriers
for LS are company culture, investment and cost, staff attitudes, change issues, and a
misunderstanding of the process and its benefits. Moreover, the Lean Enterprise Institute
(2005, cited in Bhasin, 2012) suggests that barriers include a lack of implementation
knowledge, backsliding into old ways of working, management resistance, a failure to
recognize the financial value of lean practices, a lack of crisis to create a sense of urgency,
and employee resistance.
LS represent a useful philosophy that can be employed in any organization, regardless of
its activity, size or sector. However, a great deal of effort needs to be made when
implementing LS in order to avoid failure. Despite the enormous benefits that can be gained
from LS, the literature cites a huge number of examples of failure from problems arising
during the implementation process (Papadopoulou and Ozbayrak, 2005; Balle, 2005).
According to Bhasin and Burcher (2006), the success rate in LS is only 10 per cent.
Failure may arise for different reasons, such as a bad external relationship with suppliers
and customers (Panizzolo, 1998; Nordin et al., 2010). Other researchers suggest that
failure can arise from the cultural differences highlighted during the transition (Herron
and Braiden, 2007). The most important thing to be aware of is that LS is a long journey
IJLSS that may never end (Saurin et al., 2011), and that it requires a huge, long-term
4,3 commitment (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000), since it can take up to five years before the
company begins to reap the benefits (Ohno, 1988; Womack and Jones, 2005).
It is vital for the organization to understand the CSFs in order to mitigate the risk of
failure (Kundu and Manohar, 2012). Table I provides a sample of the findings from the
literature review; these reveal common CSFs and barriers for LS and other QI (TQM and
284 Six Sigma) that organizations should be aware of. TQM and Six Sigma are included in
Table I as they share the same target as lean, which is increasing customer satisfaction
and aiming for continuous improvement (CI) (Chiarini, 2011b). Further, the three
approaches involve similar practices, such as teamwork, brainstorming, statistical
process control (SPC), and management tools, as well as basic tools such as cause and
effect diagrams; Pareto charts; flow charts, etc. (Ricondo and Viles, 2005).
From the literature reviewed above, as well as the findings in Table I, it is evident that
the most important factors of LS are top management commitment and leadership;
supplier relations; customer relations; people (in terms of skills, training, empowerment,
and involvement); communication (including teamwork and communication between
people and between departments); motivation (empowerment, reward and recognition);
financial capabilities; and strategic vision.
As shown in Table I, top management and leadership is the factor that has been most
frequently emphasized by researchers, which is unsurprising as LS cannot be
implemented unless there is support, initiative and commitment from those who are
leading the way in the firm, who believe in the system and are trying to create the right
culture for LS, and are skilled, trained and motivated towards driving the change (Wilson,
2009). Moreover, researchers have stressed the importance of the role of suppliers (as the
main feeders) and customers (as any company aims to maintain happy customers) within
LS (Panizzolo, 1998).
In addition, the organization needs to have financial capability to begin the change,
as it might need to involve external expertise and provide appropriate training for
employees, as well as changing the layout of the firm if the current structure does not
support the new system. These factors represent essential requirements for creating
the quality culture that is required for LS (Bhasin and Burcher, 2006); if they are not
properly addressed, lean implementation is likely to be less effective, or even fail.
In the context of the present research, we will now turn to the specific factors that
K-SMMIs must take into consideration prior to LS implementation.

Can ISO9000 be the first step towards LS?

ISO9000 can serve as a foundation for the CI journey, as it helps to improve internal
processes and monitor maintenance levels (Ho, 1994). According to Vincent and Reza
(2004), there is a commonality between ISO9000 and QM techniques, and ISO9000 can
drive organizations towards implementing QM practices (Lee, 1999; Sun, 2000). Magd
(2006) states that ISO9000 forms the basis of successful QI, as it improves the efficiency
of quality systems used within firms, as well as the organizations’ quality awareness
and documentation procedures. Furthermore, Kunnanatt (2007) suggests that firms
have been shown to have a better quality culture after implementing ISO9000, while
Gotzamani and Tsiotras (2001) pointed out that ISO9000 can be an effective first step
towards TQM, as it enables significant improvements regarding most of the TQM
elements; indeed, their study shows that ISO9000 improved the quality culture and
 Lean readiness
Authors Focus area CSFs
level
Meredith et al. Implementing JIT, culture Top management Strong relations with
(1991) and human resources commitment suppliers and customers
Training
Panizzolo Lessons learned from lean Management commitment Relationships with
(1998) implementations and the and communications customers and suppliers 285
relevance of relationship Organisational culture
management
Achanga et al. CSFs in UK SMEs Skills and expertise Financial capabilities
(2006) Management Organisational culture
Golicic and Lean implementation in Suppliers Customers
Medland American SMEs
(2007)
Kumar et al. CSFs and barriers for Top-management Strong leadership
(2009) quality management involvement and Training and education
improvement commitment for employees
Cultural change Communication with
employees and employee
involvement
Mefford (2009) Lean to improve Employee involvement Management commitment
productivity and the Organisational culture Communication
challenges facing CEOs change
Zu et al. (2010) Critical links between Top management Supplier and customer
organisational culture and commitment relations
TQM/Six Sigma practices Workforce management
Bakås et al. Success factors for lean Strong management Creating motivation to
(2011) implementation in involvement complete initiatives
European SMEs Employee participation Internal competency
Offering adequate time for Establishing evaluation
preparing the organization systems for performance
Angelis et al. Building lean culture Employee commitment Clear strategy
(2011) Top management
Bhasin (2012) Barriers for lean Cost of investment External and internal
implementation Management time funding
Supervisory, senior Cultural issues
management and Shareholders and owners
workforce skills Lack of implementation
knowledge
Employee attitudes/
resistance to change
Laureani and CSFs for Lean Six Sigma Management commitment HR rewards
Antony (2012) Cultural change Extending Lean Six
Linking Lean Six Sigma to Sigma to the supply chain
business strategy Leadership styles
Zhang et al. CSFs for Lean Six Sigma Top management Financial capabilities
(2012) commitment
Reward and recognition Organisational culture
Chin and Pun CSFs for TQM in Chinese Committed management An empowered and
(2002) enterprises and leadership trained workforce Table I.
A shared vision and clear Management of cultural Factors affecting LS
sense of direction dynamics implementation
IJLSS quality commitment in Greek firms. Similarly, Mallur et al. (2011) and Ilkay and Aslan
4,3 (2012) found that ISO9000-certified firms have better usage of TQM practices and
perform better than non-ISO firms, and that ISO9000 firms are expected to have better
quality practices than non-ISO firms.
Chiarini (2011a) found that LS is related to ISO9000 in terms of affecting quality
manuals, work instructions and procedures. Moreover, the main process of ISO9000
286 follows the lean “plan-do-check-act” (PDCA) methodology (ISO, 2008a). Chiarini
(2011a) adds that many manufacturing companies have implemented LS after reaching
ISO9000 certification. McTeer and Dale (1996) found that ISO9000 allowed SMEs to
better define employee roles, and that employees were better trained and more
committed to their jobs following ISO9000 certification.
According to Kumar and Antony (2008, p. 1158), “ISO may be the foundation or
building block before embracing lean”. They also found that ISO9000 firms perceived
the importance of CSFs in the same way as lean organizations (i.e. ISO9000 firms
acknowledged the importance of top management, training and education, linking QI with
employees, communication, customer and supplier relations, and vision and planning).
However, organizations can only benefit from ISO9000 if it is used for stimulating internal
improvements (i.e. for increasing productivity, efficiency, management control, definition
of responsibilities and tasks, and employee motivation) (Gotzamani and Tsiotras, 2001;
Mcadam, 1999). Moreover, ISO9000 should be considered a long-term investment that
requires continuous efforts and employee involvement (Mcadam, 1999).
From the ISO9000 literature above, we expect that ISO9000-certified firms in
Kuwait will have better quality practices in place, and therefore a higher level of lean
readiness. Thus, hypothesis one (H1) is as follows:
H1. There is a significant difference in the quality practices used by ISO9000
firms compared to non-ISO9000 firms in Kuwait.

LS in SMEs
Lean concepts and techniques have been discussed extensively in the past, with
particular attention paid to large organizations (White et al., 1999; Conner, 2001;
Achanga et al., 2006); however, there is a lack of empirical studies on lean CSFs with a
focus on SMEs (Achanga et al., 2006; Bruun and Mefford, 2004; Anand and Kodali, 2008;
Upadhye et al., 2010a; Golicic and Medland, 2007). Due to aspects including financial
constraints and limitations in terms of resources such as skilled people, especially when
it comes to suppliers and customers (Golicic and Medland, 2007), SMEs could face huge
difficulties in implementing LS, though they can undoubtedly benefit from at least some
of the lean tools available (Bonavia and Marin, 2006; Lee, 1997).
Indeed, many authors have alleged that LS is more suitable for large industries than
SMEs (Shah and Ward, 2003; Achanga et al., 2006); they argue that LS is too
challenging for SMEs due to their lack of resources and capabilities. However, other
researchers have stated that size does not affect a firm’s ability to implement LS/QI,
and that SMEs can implement such systems just as effectively as large organizations
(Ghobadian and Gallear, 1997; Karlsson and Åhlström, 1997; Ahire et al., 1996).
Furthermore, according to Oviatt and McDougall (1994), SMEs have a better chance
of adapting to change compared with large companies, as they are less hierarchical and
less bureaucratic than large firms, and can thus internalize and crystallize the
information across entire departments more efficiently than large corporations can.
 With regards to SMEs themselves, Mallur et al. (2011) found that there is no notable Lean readiness
difference between small firms and medium-sized firm in terms of their implementation level
and perceptions of TQM. However, Kumar and Antony (2008) found that, due to their
lack of resources, smaller firms pay less attention to quality departments and the
formation of problem-solving teams (factors that are essential for LS) than medium-sized
firms do. Similarly, Temtime and Solomon (2002) found that there is a significant
difference in TQM behaviour between medium-sized and small firms, as medium-sized 287
firms are able to obtain more top management and leadership commitment; have a better
quality culture and philosophy; and are more able to focus on process quality and
improvement.
In this sense, applying the above premises to the Kuwaiti context, hypothesis two
(H2) is as follows:
H2. Small firms and medium-sized firms in Kuwait differ significantly in terms of
their quality practices.

The Kuwaiti context

Kuwait is a newly emerging industrial market, and one of the smallest but richest
countries, with the highest per capita GDP in the world (Burney et al., 2010). Because of
its wealth, Kuwait is highly dependent on international trade and expatriate labour for
economic growth. According to a report published by the Industrial Bank of Kuwait
(2001), the country’s industrial sectors contribute 2.8 per cent to its GDP (excluding the
petrochemical and petroleum sectors). There are only 254 ISO9000-accredited
companies across the service and manufacturing sectors in Kuwait (ISO, 2008b), which
shows the slow pace at which companies are moving towards QI. According to the PAI
(2008), the total number of manufacturing industries in Kuwait is 918. The main non-oil
manufacturing industries are food, paper (processing and printing), chemical products,
building materials and fabricated metallic products (Mady, 2009).

QI in Kuwait
K-SMMIs have the potential to play an important role in Kuwait’s economy; therefore,
improvements in K-SMMIs could have an enormous impact in this regard, which
would eventually contribute towards minimizing Kuwait’s dependence on oil.
According to Eltony (2007), Kuwait is expecting to rely on oil as its main product for
another two decades. The Kuwaiti Government has tried and failed to encourage the
non-oil sectors, as most Kuwaiti policy has been built on reactions to situations, rather
than on proper study. Therefore, the adaptation of QI initiatives such as LS might be a
solution for improving productivity and quality within the manufacturing industries in
Kuwait, as well as the other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries that have begun
to emerge.
Given the modest role of K-SMMIs in the national economy, implementing QI in
these industries is vital (Zairi, 1996). According to Isaa (2007), many manufacturing
companies in Kuwait (mostly large enterprises) have implemented one or more QI, such
as TQM, Six Sigma, or business process reengineering (BPR).
Mady (2009) emphasized that, for Kuwait, adaptation of manufacturing systems
and the various related tools is inevitable. However, applying LS might not be an easy
task, especially for small and medium sized manufacturing industries (SMMIs) which
can face more barriers than large organizations, as outlined above.
IJLSS Several researchers have studied QI in Kuwait; although they have not focused on
4,3 SMMIs specifically, their studies do provide insight. According to Garza-Reyes et al.
(2011), Kuwaiti industries, as well as those in other GCC countries, are still in the early
stages of understanding ISO/TQM. Zairi (1996) reported that implementation of QI in
the Arabic region has occurred more slowly than in Western and Asian countries.
Al-khalifa and Aspinwall (2000) concur that the maturity level towards QI is very low
288 in Arabic countries, and state that this can be particularly attributed to cultural factors
and language barriers, especially when translating those systems to Arabic (Tannock
and Ahmed, 2008).
The barriers for TQM when implemented in the Kuwaiti oil sector have been identified
by Garza-Reyes et al. (2011) as relating to a lack of understanding of such systems, as
well as deficiencies in quality strategies, strong management commitment, and
acceptance and willingness to change. Another study conducted by Youssef and Zairi
(1995) on five GCC countries, including Kuwait, revealed that the main problems pertain to
senior managers, such as low level of education; a lack of commitment, available
leadership, and clear missions and goals; resistance to change; a lack of recognition and
reward programmes; and insufficient know-how in terms of identifying problems.
According to Garza-Reyes et al. (2011), manufacturing industries in Kuwait do not
emphasize customer and supplier relations, benchmarking, CI, empowerment and top
management responsibility. These aspects are seen as key for successfully implementing
LS systems (Liker, 2004; Shah, 2007; Nordin et al., 2012). Garza-Reyes et al. (2011) further
showed that Kuwaiti industries do not consider the use of technology, tracking cost of
quality, quality teams and employee enthusiasm and commitment as critical factors
for TQM.
Mady (2009) suggested that some adaptations are needed by Kuwaiti industries in
order for them to be successful in TQM implementation. These include: more focus
on customer and human resources, continued process improvement, and the adoption
of accurate quality measures. The study further indicated that K-SMMIs have
implemented some QM practices such as customer focus (understanding customers’
needs, taking customer feedback seriously and customer service), HR (practising
teamwork and shared vision with employees), and process quality (focus on CI, the use
of SPC, and process improvement), but large Kuwaiti industries use quality practices to
a much greater extent than SMMIs do. Mady’s (2009) findings are consistent with those
of other researchers, such as Yong and Wilkinson (2001) and Zhao et al. (2004).
Developing countries like Kuwait offer great opportunities for foreign investment
(Abbas, 1996). Kuwait has the potential to become a new source of goods and services
exported to Europe and other parts of the world due to the availability of low-cost
labour in the country, as well as its prime geographical location (Youssef and Zairi,
1995). In addition, Kuwaiti industries that wish to expand to be more competitive only
need to implement innovation and quality approaches, and have know-how in terms of
managing their resources. According to Youssef and Zairi (1995), it is encouraging that
there has been increased attention in Middle Eastern countries towards the adoption of
ISO9000 and TQM; this represents a radical change taking place in oil-producing
countries (Al-khalifa and Aspinwall, 2000).
Al-Nofal et al. (2004) suggested a number of CSFs for TQM in Kuwait, such as: top
management commitment, CI, decision making at lower levels, employee commitment,
quality teams, and closer relationships with suppliers and customers.
 According to Tannock and Ahmed (2008), Arab organizations feel less pressure to Lean readiness
implement QI, and this can be attributed to the lack of awareness of QI by senior staff, level
a lack of customer awareness towards quality, and limited competition. Burney et al.
(2010) assert that the level of internal competition is very low in Kuwaiti
manufacturing sectors. This is because there is a very low concentration of Kuwaiti
SMEs (K-SMEs) in both service and manufacturing sectors, and thus K-SMEs are
considered to be in an infant stage (Rampurwala and Marafi, 2011). This is revealed by 289
several indicators, such as limited job creation for Kuwaiti people, and the low impact
of K-SMEs on the economy: K-SMEs accounted for only 7 per cent of the country’s job
creation (Al-Saif, 2002); compared to other regions, this contribution is very low. For
example, in the UAE, SMEs created 86 per cent of jobs in the country, while this figure
was 51 per cent in the US, 52 per cent in the UK, 75 per cent in Egypt, 77 per cent in
Turkey, 80 per cent in Pakistan and 48 per cent in Morocco (Rampurwala and Marafi,
2011). One reason for the low contribution of SMEs in Kuwait may be due to the fact
that most Kuwaitis prefer to work in the public sector, where there are better wages,
a lower workload and, more importantly, job security. Another reason for the slow
growth of K-SME sectors is that local policies are disjointed, as various SME
institutions implement their own policies and programmes, which sometimes
contradict those of other institutions, and impede the contribution of SMEs towards
the Kuwaiti economy (Rampurwala and Marafi, 2011).
Many barriers are faced by K-SMEs, such as a lack of capital, training, information in
the market and expertise, as well as deficiencies in terms of support from the government
and banks in terms of finances, winning government contracts, legislation, and
exporting (Al-Saif, 2002). Another problem that emerged recently with respect to Kuwaiti
manufacturing sectors is that many firms are migrating to neighbouring countries, such
as Saudi Arabia, due to the above-mentioned barriers and the lack of attention and
support towards the manufacturing sectors themselves (Shammas, 2012).
Additional barriers that may affect K-SMMIs’ adoption of LS include an unsupportive
business environment, low foreign direct investment (FDI), and low labour quality. The
Kuwaiti business environment is very weak when compared to the newly industrialized
economies of South East Asia; in order to start a business in Kuwait it is necessary to go
through lengthy bureaucratic procedures which can take days or months, and this
applies to all sectors (World Bank, 2013). This leads to low FDI, as foreigners do not see
the non-oil sectors as attractive opportunities to invest in Eltony (2007). According to
Tannock and Ahmed (2008), FDI can create and add a number of advantages to
businesses, and can increase the level of knowledge, as well as technology and modern
management techniques, and, most importantly, enhance competitiveness in the market.
Thus, the low FDI in Kuwait may also have delayed LS in K-SMMIs.
In addition, the quality of labour in Kuwaiti manufacturing sectors is highly
dependent on expatriates, who comprise 92 per cent of manufacturing employees
(Eltony, 2007). The reason for this is that expatriates have no problem with working
longer hours, unlike local workers, and will accept lower wages and physically
demanding jobs, as well as tolerating poorer working conditions (McMurray, 1999).
The vast majority of expatriates in Kuwait perform either unskilled or fairly
low-skilled tasks; their level of education is also very low, with 74 per cent having
failed to complete secondary education and only 8 per cent having higher education
(Baldwin-Edwards, 2011). This, in turn, affects firms’ productivity; according to
IJLSS Burney et al. (2010), there has been a decline in labour productivity within Kuwaiti
4,3 industries, due to the fact that the quality of labour in terms of education and skills has
decreased, with the main focus moving to cheap labour from abroad (Mady, 2009).

Lean assessment frameworks

Many measurement frameworks have appeared in the literature to date (Furlan et al.,
290 2011; Shah and Ward, 2003; Shah, 2007; Mady, 2009; Anand and Kodali, 2009;
Nordin et al., 2010; Goodson, 2002; Panizzolo, 1998). Furthermore, many articles relating
to lean assessment measurement tools and frameworks have been developed by leading
organizations such as Industrial Solutions Inc., Lean Enterprise Inc., and Stratergos, Inc.
Other assessments include Lean Self-Assessment Throughput Solutions, the Shingo
Assessment, and the Sai Global Assessment.
According to Jaitly et al. (2008), most of these measurement frameworks follow the
same logical pattern in terms of structuring the parameters and asking questions;
however, the frameworks are not free from criticism. Their weaknesses include a lack of
structure in terms of questions and parameters; a failure to relate to the lean wastes in
question; repetition of parameters/questions, which may lead to misunderstandings;
inappropriate weights given to parameters, which do not always reflect their importance;
too much emphasis on lean tools, and not enough on the roles of the people involved;
questions that are too complex; and tools that are too bulky.
The lean concept is new to K-SMMIs, as mentioned above, and no studies have been
carried out to date that show the suitability of LS in the Kuwaiti context. Thus, in order
to fill this gap, this exploratory study aims to assess the LRL within K-SMMIs.

LRL measurement framework

The assessment tools used in this study are inspired by frameworks set forth by Mady
(2009), Shah (2007), Nordin et al. (2010) and Anand and Kodali (2009). These
frameworks follow similar principles to assess the quality practices in firms; however,
we cannot use the frameworks as they stand as none of them include top management,
which is an essential factor, and all of them have been designed for firms who have
already implemented LS/QI, which is not the case in our study.
This study does not aim to assess the leanness of firms, but rather to evaluate their
quality practices and see whether K-SMMIs have the capabilities to implement LS;
therefore, following the exact principles of the above-mentioned frameworks may lead
to negative results and confuse the respondents. There are also inconsistencies in terms
of LS definitions in the extant literature, which leads to misunderstandings regarding
the real benefits of LS, and, in turn, knowing whether a firm has what it takes to
implement LS (Pettersen, 2009). Thus, we have decided to use simple questions which
we feel relate to a basis from which to implement the lean tools, such as 5s, visual
management (VM), etc.
The LRL framework consists of six categories containing 47 elements (see the
Appendix for the questionnaire items) that were developed based on discussions with a
panel of experts including academics from Kuwait University and Portsmouth
University, as well as an extensive literature review focusing on the technical and
cultural requirements of LS, CSFs for LS, and elements associated with the eight
wastes (defects, overproduction, waiting, overprocessing, transportation, inventory,
motion, and unused employee creativity) which LS works to eradicate. This framework
tries to overcome the weaknesses outlined by Jaitly et al. (2008) by associating the Lean readiness
questions with lean wastes, placing less stress on LS, and concentrating more on the level
practices that complement the implementation of LS, rather than the tools themselves.
Furthermore, this framework targets the whole chain of LS, from suppliers, through
internal processes/practices, and finally to customers. This should enable us to
understand how K-SMMIs operate in terms of supplier and customer relations, process
flows, the use of scientific tools to deal with problems, CI, top management commitment 291
and leadership, and finally respecting people via involvement, empowerment, reward
systems and training. The technical and cultural requirements for LS that have been
found in the literature are outlined below (categories 1-6), with special emphasis paid to
the aspects suggested by Bhasin and Burcher (2006).
Category 1 (processes). Process management is one of the most important factors in
terms of identifying non-value-adding activities and increasing quality. Ineffective
processes lead to more waste and lower productivity per employee (Zhang et al., 2000;
Goodson, 2002; Gotzamani and Tsiotras, 2001; Lewis et al., 2006).
We included 12 questions in this category to evaluate the firms’ practices with respect
to whether they support lean practices in terms of process flow, housekeeping, production
rate, cycle time, total productive maintenance (TPM), flow of material, designated area and
labelled items. Table II shows the key areas covered in this category.
Category 2 (planning and control). Many authors (Chin and Pun, 2002; Gotzamani
and Tsiotras, 2001; Lewis et al., 2006; Goodson, 2002) have highlighted the importance
of this factor. According to Chong and Rundus (2004), the use of quality control
systems and scientific methods to solve problems, as well as VM, help to ensure CI as it
is key for enhancing the firm’s performance and eventually leads to higher levels of
customer satisfaction.
This category consists of five questions, with the aim of shedding light on quality
practices in terms of VM, a scientific method for solving problems, focus groups,
benchmarks, etc. Table III shows the areas covered in this category.
Category 3 (customer relations). As highlighted by many authors (Zu et al., 2010;
Golicic and Medland, 2007; Panizzolo, 1998; Meredith et al., 1991; Goodson, 2002),
maintaining happy customers is the aim of any company, since all departments are
ultimately working to satisfy their customers’ needs. To this end, the company must
understand its customers’ requirements (Zhang et al., 2000; Found and Harrison, 2012).
Moreover, the organization needs to respond quickly to customer complaints.
There are eight questions under this category, which aims to identify the level of
awareness about customers in terms of understanding them, identifying the level of
customer involvement and participation, and dealing with customer complaints.
Table IV shows how we measured the organizations’ customer relations.
Category 4 (supplier relations). Again, this factor has been mentioned in many
articles (Zu et al., 2010; Golicic and Medland, 2007; Panizzolo, 1998; Meredith et al.,
1991). Quality suppliers enable companies to produce quality products (Zhang et al.,
2000); this is important in LS, as the long-term relationships with suppliers will enable
the company to perform just-in-time (JIT), which are essential for LS (Dayton, 2001;
Found and Harrison, 2012).
In this category there are eight questions, which aim to identify the quality of the
companies’ suppliers, the number of suppliers they work with, the suppliers’
involvement, and the companies’ long-term relations with its suppliers. According to
IJLSS
Processes Definition Source
4,3
Housekeeping (5s) The workplace must be tidy and well organized Furlan et al. (2011), Liker
Items and equipment should be labelled to (2004), Miltenburg (2001),
ensure that they are located in the right zone Monden (1998),
The organization needs to have an auditing Saurin et al. (2011), Shah
292 routine to ensure that every item is returned to (2007), Spear and Bowen
where it belongs so that it can be found easily if (1999), Nordin et al. (2010),
needed to avoid the “motion wastes” Forza (1996)
Cellular manufacturing The processes should be designed to help the Furlan et al. (2011), Liker
flow, so equipment/items must be placed where (2004), Monden (1998),
they are needed and processes using similar Saurin et al. (2011), Shah
activities should be conducted close to each (2007), Nordin et al. (2010),
other to help eliminate unnecessary movement Forza (1996)
Skilled workers running Each process should be operated by qualified Liker (2004), Monden
and leading the process people (1998), Saurin et al. (2011),
Shah (2007)
Total productive Routine maintenance should be performed by Black (2007), Miltenburg
skilled people (2001), Saurin et al. (2011),
Shah (2007), Spear and
Bowen (1999)
Maintenance (TPM) Equipment records should be shown on the
shop floor, to avoid confusion and to keep
employees up to date, which will mitigate the
risk of equipment breakdown
Documentation The organization should have a well-documented Almström and Kinnander
system that includes machine settings and any (2011), Saurin et al. (2011)
information needed to change these
In order to improve, the organization should
revise the cycle time for each process on a
Table II. regular basis
Process – critical Production based on Production should be based on external and Shah (2007)
practices pull internal customer demand

Taj (2005), having fewer suppliers and long-term relationships with them, and making
suppliers part of the firm’s team, is healthy and essential for LS. Table V shows the
items used in this research to identify how the K-SMMIs deal with suppliers.
Category 5 (HR). Training, empowerment, involvement and recognition are
important factors in terms of LS success (Kumar et al., 2009; Zu et al., 2010; Mefford,
2009; Zhang et al., 2012; Goodson, 2002), and are required in order to produce
high-quality products. Employees are the core of the company, and therefore need
to be encouraged and involved in company strategy and direction, especially when
implementing LS. Without skilled workers, LS will not last (Tsang and Antony,
2001).
This category contains 11 questions, and aims to evaluate the level of employee
involvement, training, empowerment and teamwork, as well as incentive and reward
systems, communications between employees and communications between departments.
This category represents the core of LS, as many authors and researchers have stressed the
role of HR. Table VI shows the items and key areas tested in this research.

Planning and
control Definition
Problem solving Using problem-solving techniques is key to
helping the organization with respect to CI.
Problem solving needs skilled people and
involvement and should be conducted as a
group, which in turn will help to reduce waste
within the organization
Benchmarking In order to improve, the organization needs to
be aware of its competitors. Benchmarking
performance against other top-class industries
will allow the organization to understand any
threats from competitors, which could drive
improvement
Standardized In order to avoid misunderstanding regarding
activity work processes and procedures, which could
result in waste, the organization should
implement standards such as specific routes for
loading raw materials and removing end
products, and standard picking time
Visual Managing the workplace visually is highly
management recommended by LS as it can help to keep the
(VM) process smooth and reduce defect rates, and
that can take many forms such as showing the
defect rate, key performance indicators, next
job activity, etc.
Lean readiness
Source level
Furlan et al. (2011), Shah (2007),
Nordin et al. (2010), Yoshimori
(2005)
293
Salaheldin (2009), Gurumurthy
and Kodali (2009), Knuf (2000),
Hines et al. (1999), Spencer and
Loomba (2001), Smalley (2004)
Liker (2004), Saurin et al. (2011),
Knuf (2000), Smalley (2004)
Shah (2007), Radnor et al. (2006),
Moser and Dos Santos (2003)
Table III.
Planning and control –
critical practices

Category 6 (top management and leadership). The level of top management

commitment and leadership is crucial for LS. This commitment is manifest in many
forms, such as providing clear vision, allocating resources and funding, and providing
strategic leadership (Tsang and Antony, 2001). To ensure the success of LS
implementation, it is essential for top management to create a quality culture by
empowering other employees (Zhang et al., 2000). This factor has been emphasized in
various articles (Chin and Pun, 2002; Angelis et al., 2011; Bakås et al., 2011; Zu et al.,
2010; Mefford, 2009; Kumar et al., 2009; Achanga et al., 2006; Panizzolo, 1998;
Meredith et al., 1991; Snee, 2010).
This category contains five questions that aim to identify the level of top
management commitment in terms of appearance in the working area, locating the
right people in the right place, providing job security, investing in consultancy and
expert advice, and investing in training. Without top management and leadership
commitment, LS implementation will not succeed. Table VII summarizes the items
highlighted in this category.
Most of the practices outlined above rely on human efforts and participation; thus, it
is essential to keep workers motivated, and this motivation can be achieved through
empowerment, rewards and incentives, and involvement. Though not all of the
practices above are prerequisites of lean, we believe that they represent essential
aspects of LS. This means that we must consider them in order to understand
K-SMMIs’ LRL.
IJLSS
Customer relations Definition Source
4,3
Understanding the The organization must understand its Golicic and Medland
customer customers’ needs and requirements and (2007), Shah (2007),
ensure production is in line with customers’ Salaheldin (2009),
orders and demands, as LS is about creating Panizzolo (1998)
294 the value that customers are willing to pay
for, with any excess considered waste
Customer The organization needs to build a relationship Golicic and Medland
involvement with its customers in order to understand (2007), Shah (2007),
them. This can be done by involving them in Nordin et al. (2010),
product design, which will ensure that they Panizzolo (1998)
will be willing to pay for the product
In order for the company to produce based on Scherrer-Rathje et al.
customer demand (Pull and JIT) strong (2009), Ichimura et al.
relations and mutual trust must be built with (2007), Panizzolo (1998)
customers
Customers’ complaints need to be taken
seriously to avoid future mistakes and to
retain the customer base
Customer feedback To retain customers, the organization should Golicic and Medland
Table IV. involve them and use their feedback and (2007), Shah (2007),
Customer relations – suggestions Salaheldin (2009),
critical practices Panizzolo (1998)

Research methodology
In order to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses, following the
literature review quantitative (survey questionnaire) and qualitative (semi-structured
interview) approaches were conducted.
A questionnaire was developed to collect data for this exploratory study. K-SMMI
firms were selected from the Kuwait Public Authority of Industries (KPAI) database as
the population. There is currently no legal definition for K-SMEs, but they can be
defined based on capital (small ¼ 150,000 Kuwaiti Dinar (520,000 USD);
medium ¼ 150,000-500,000 Kuwaiti Dinar (520,000-1.7 million USD) (Hertog, 2010).
In addition, Mady (2009) defined K-SMEs based on number of employees (small –
fewer than 30 employees; medium – 31-70 employees; large – greater than
71 employees). In this research, we have used both Hertog’s and Mady’s definitions.
The respondents involved in the survey were plant managers, production managers,
quality managers and CEOs who are involved in decision making and have a good
knowledge of their firm’s strategy and QI, and were willing to participate in the interview.
The survey questionnaire consisted of three sections:
(1) company background information;
(2) information on the respondents; and
(3) quality practices used.

Section (3) was divided into six constructs (47 statements): processes; planning and
control; human resources; top management and leadership; customer relations; and
supplier relations. The contents of section (3) were selected in order to assess the
 Lean readiness
Supplier
relations Definition Source level
Quality The quality of suppliers is very important for LS. Shah (2007), Nordin et al. (2010),
suppliers Quality means providing goods on time, without Salaheldin (2009), Burman (1995),
a need for further inspection. To this end, the Sharma et al. (2011)
organization should have a clear strategy to deal 295
with suppliers
Supplier This aspect is very important as many authors Bhasin (2011), Shah (2007), Levy
location suggest dealing only with suppliers in close (1997)
proximity to enable them to perform JIT
manufacturing effectively
Number of Many authors have emphasized dealing with Shah (2007), Barla (2003), Cooper
suppliers small numbers or a single supplier for each item, and Slagmulder (1999), Lubben
as this will help in building long-term (1988)
relationships with suppliers, and in turn will
make suppliers more committed to supplying
quality products and providing JIT delivery
Supplier Maintaining long-term relationships with Golicic and Medland (2007),
relationship suppliers is essential in LS, as it will reflect Scherrer-Rathje et al. (2009), Shah
positively in supplier performance and in terms (2007), Vanichchinchai (2012),
of finances. Many authors have stressed the Nordin et al. (2012), Burman (1995),
importance of relationship with suppliers as it is Sharma et al. (2011)
a critical factor for lean implementation, and is
essential for JIT manufacturing
Supplier It is highly recommended to involve suppliers in Shah (2007), Nordin et al. (2010),
involvement areas such as product design and development, Sharma et al. (2011)
inventory management, etc. This could help
organizations to improve the quality of their
products
Supplier Shah (2007) emphasized providing suppliers with Shah (2007)
feedback regular feedback on delivery and the quality of Table V.
products, as this will help to improve the Supplier relations –
relationship and avoid mistakes in the future critical practices

companies’ practices so that the preparedness and readiness level towards the
adaptation of LS could be identified.
In order to provide valid and reliable results, this research study used a pilot test for
both the questionnaire and the interviews, which ensured that the questions were as
reliable and robust as possible. Before conducting the survey, the questionnaire and the
interview questions were sent to academic members of Kuwait University, plus
15 firms who are similar to the target population. Their feedback led to some of the
questions being removed or modified. After the modifications were made, the survey
was distributed to 200 K-SMMIs who were randomly selected from the KPAI database.
Valid responses were received from 50 firms, which equated to a response rate of
25 per cent. A total of 25 of these firms were ISO9000 accredited.
Nordin et al. (2010) coducted a study on Malaysian manufacturing industries; their
work was based on five lean practices (processes and equipment; manufacturing
processes and control; human resources; supplier relations; and customer relations).
With respect to whether the firms in their study considered quality practices to be
IJLSS
HR Definition
4,3
Involvement Involvement and participation have
and been emphasized in the literature, since
participation LS requires everyone in the
organization to be involved by
296 providing suggestions to improve the
system; to do this, employees need to be
aware of their roles in the organization,
as well as having the right skills
Skills and Workers need to be skilled to participate
multi-skilled in improving the system and to
workers contribute to problem solving; further,
LS requires multi-skilled people that are
able to perform different tasks
Training In order to perform different tasks and
contribute to problem solving, workers
need to be trained in problem solving
and cross-trained in different sections of
the company
Motivation Motivation is essential to encourage
people to participate and provide new
ideas; workers need to be highly
motivated and rewarded for their
efforts, and this can done via
empowerment and by having a clear
rewards system and incentives
Communication Effective communication between
employees and departments is essential.
Without it, lean cannot be successful,
since communication enables workers
to understand their job requirements
and avoid conflict with other
departments (for example, there has to
be communication between the sales
and production department, since the
sales department needs to understand
the capacity of the production
department). This could save the
organization time and money
Teamwork Teamwork is needed in a LS as it will
help employees to share knowledge and
ideas. According to Ichimura et al.
(2007), teamwork helps to improve work
by providing suggestions to develop
processes, and is essential for CI. It also
Table VI. creates challenges between workers,
HR – critical practices which can serve to motivate them
Source
Ichimura et al. (2007), Shah (2007),
Nordin et al. (2010), Nordin et al. (2012),
Salaheldin (2009), Knuf (2000), New (2007),
Forza (1996)
Achanga et al. (2006), Black (2007), Liker
(2004), Miltenburg (2001), Monden (1998),
Saurin et al. (2011), Vanichchinchai (2012),
Nordin et al. (2010), Nordin et al. (2012),
Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park (2006),
Yamamoto and Bellgran (2010),
Radnor et al. (2006), Forza (1996)
Bhasin (2011), Ichimura et al. (2007),
Kundu and Manohar (2012), Shah (2007),
Ghobadian and Gallear (1997), Nordin et al.
(2010), Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park
(2006), Puvanasvaran et al. (2009), Sim and
Rogers (2008), Knuf (2000)
Black (2007), Liker (2004), Monden (1998),
Saurin et al. (2011), Shah (2007),
Ghobadian and Gallear (1997), Nordin et al.
(2010), Nordin et al. (2012), Dahlgaard and
Dahlgaard-Park (2006), Balle (2005),
Papadopoulou and Ozbayrak (2005),
Puvanasvaran et al. (2009), Sim and
Rogers (2008), Salaheldin (2009), Knuf
(2000), Takeuchi et al. (2008), Radnor et al.
(2006), Forza (1996)
Furlan et al. (2011), Scherrer-Rathje et al.
(2009), Ghobadian and Gallear (1997),
Nordin et al. (2012), Papadopoulou and
Ozbayrak (2005), Sim and Rogers (2008),
Worley and Doolen (2006)
Furlan et al. (2011), Scherrer-Rathje et al.
(2009), Nordin et al. (2010), Nordin et al.
(2012), Salaheldin (2009), Worley and
Doolen (2006), Knuf (2000), Radnor et al.
(2006)
 Lean readiness
Top
management level
and leadership Definition Source

Visible It is essential in LS for top management Scherrer-Rathje et al. (2009), Ghobadian

management to be visible in the workplace to motivate and Gallear (1997), Nordin et al. (2012),
people Worley and Doolen (2006), MacDuffie 297
Top management must be motivated (1995), Takeuchi et al. (2008), Forza (1996)
and committed towards improvement, as
this will stimulate their workers
Investment and LS requires investments in training, Achanga et al. (2006), Bhasin (2011),
commitment to consultancy and hiring experts to Boughton and Arokiam (2000), Golicic
improvement improve the work, and this entails and Medland (2007), Ichimura et al. (2006,
commitment from managers and leaders 2007), Inman and Mehra (1990), Kundu
who believe in improving the system and Manohar (2012), Scherrer-Rathje et al.
(2009), Nordin et al. (2012),
Puvanasvaran et al. (2009), Sim and
Rogers (2008), Real et al. (2007), Worley
and Doolen (2006), Knuf (2000)
Knowing In order to get the best from people, the Achanga et al. (2006), Kundu and
people’s organization needs to understand their Manohar (2012), Forza (1996)
capabilities capabilities and assign them to jobs that
best match their skills
Job security One of the main values of Toyota is their Ichimura et al. (2006), Radeka (2009),
“lifetime employment policy”. This Toyota (2005)
practice helps to build trust between the
company and its employees, and
encourages people to be more committed
and loyal to the company. As a result,
employees will attempt to improve every Table VII.
day. Toyota believes that providing job Top management and
security will unleash the employee leadership – critical
creativity and improve their ability to work practices

important, the authors found that the total mean (M) score for firms who were
practising LS was 4.29, while the total mean for non-lean firms was 2.81. Our study
followed a similar approach, but we included top management and leadership as a
construct. Therefore, we assumed that the total mean score for firms who are
successfully practising LS would be equal to or greater than 4 for each of the constructs
(where such a score indicates that they do consider the constructs to be important).
This will enable us to understand whether the K-SMMIs consider the quality practices
as important factors for their business.
To validate our assumption, we sent the survey to 13 successful lean manufacturing
companies (all of which are large in size) in different regions (three from Kuwait, seven
from Saudi Arabia, two from the UAE and one from the UK) to use as a proxy. It would
have been more accurate to test the survey on successful lean K-SMMIs, or SMMIs from
the nearby region, but this was not possible due to a lack K-SMMIs who are practising
LS, and limitations on time. However, the quality practices used in his study are derived
from different studies around the world, and we believe that most of the elements in the
questionnaire are important to LS regardless of the firms’ size and region.
IJLSS The criterion used to select the 13 firms was that they were successfully using LS. In other
4,3 words, they had to be satisfied with the results they had achieved after LS implementation;
we verified this by contacting the firms’ managers via phone and e-mail. The total mean
score for the 13 firms was M $ 4 for each construct, which shows that lean firms
regard these practises as important for LS, supporting its use as a benchmark; this meant
that firms who scored M $ 4 in the main study could be considered ready to implement LS.
298 It should be noted that the 13 firms were used purely to validate our assumption that a lean
company would score M $ 4, and were not used for comparison purposes.
The surveys used five-item Likert scales to identify the extent to which the company
had adopted quality practices, and to set up valid and reliable numeric results for
statistical analysis. Five scales were chosen to give the participants the freedom to
choose the appropriate rating for their current situation. For the first two constructs
(processes, and planning and control), the scale was as follows: never (1), very rarely (2),
sometimes (3), frequently (4) and always (5); for the remaining constructs the scale was:
strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree (4) and strongly agree (5). The
responses were entered into SPSS software to conduct different statistical analyses,
including Cronbach’s a and an independent sample t-test.

Results and findings

Cronbach’s a value for the variables
This test was conducted to estimate the internal consistency of the 47 items. The
Cronbach’s a value for the total scale was 0.929, indicating a high degree of internal
consistency among the items on the scale.

t-test
We assumed that the samples were drawn from a normally distributed population.
In order to run the t-test, it was necessary to decide whether equal variance could be
assumed (i.e. by testing a null hypothesis, H0). To this end, Levene’s test was carried
out for the six constructs to see whether the p-value was greater or less than 0.05. The
test was conducted for the ISO9000 certified and non-ISO9000 firms, and for the small
and medium-size firms.
For the ISO90000 certified and non-ISO9000 firms, Table VIII shows that the
variance can be assumed equal for all factors except for suppliers, where the p-value is
less than 0.05, indicating that the variances are significantly different for ISO9000 and
non-ISO9000 firms. In this case, the H0 (“there is no significant difference in the quality
practices used by ISO9000 firms compared to non-ISO9000 firms in Kuwait”) cannot be
rejected for processes, planning and control, customers, HR, and top management and
leadership, and is rejected only for suppliers.
For small firms vs medium-sized firms, Table VIII shows that the variance can be
assumed equal for all factors, as the p-value was greater than 0.05, indicating that there is
no significant difference with respect to firm sizes. Thus, the H0 (“there is no significance
difference in the quality practices of small and medium-sized firms”) cannot be rejected.

ISO9000-certified firms vs non-ISO9000-certified firms (independent sample t-test)

An independent sample t-test was carried out to identify whether ISO firms have better
readiness with respect to LS than non-ISO firms (H1). The results of the independent
sample t-test are shown in Table IX.
 Lean readiness
Levene’s test for equality of variances
ISO and Small and level
non-ISO medium
F Sig. F Sig.

Process Equal variances assumed 0.2 0.67 0.45 0.50

Equal variances not assumed 299
Plan and control Equal variances assumed 0.1 0.79 0.79 0.37
Equal variances not assumed
Customer relations Equal variances assumed 1.1 0.30 0.34 0.56
Equal variances not assumed
Suppliers relations Equal variances assumed 4.9 0.03 * 0.0 0.98
Equal variances not assumed
HR Equal variances assumed 0.1 0.73 0.21 0.64
Equal variances not assumed
Top management and leadership Equal variances assumed 0.1 0.78 0.10 0.74
Equal variances not assumed
Table VIII.
Note: Significant at: *p , 0.05 Levene’s test

Entire
ISO Non-ISO sample Independent sample
(n ¼ 25) (n ¼ 25) (n ¼ 50) t-test results
Current practices M SD M SD M SD t Sig. (two-tailed)

Processes 3.3 0.9 2.9 0.9 3.1 0.9 1.4 0.2

Planning and control 3.2 0.9 2.8 0.9 3.0 0.9 1.5 0.1
Customers’ relation 2.4 0.6 2.6 0.8 2.5 0.7 2 1.1 0.3
Suppliers’ relation 2.2 0.4 2.4 0.6 2.3 0.5 2 1.1 0.3 Table IX.
HR 3.2 0.9 2.8 0.9 2.9 0.9 1.4 0.2 Independent sample t-test
Top management and leadership 3.6 0.9 2.9 0.9 3.2 0.9 2.8 0.01 * (ISO9000-accredited and
non-ISO9000-accredited
Note: Significant at: *p , 0.05 and * *p , 0.001 firms)

Based on the variance results, the mean (M) score was examined. The independent
sample t-test shows that the quality practices within the K-SMMIs have a total mean of
2.8, which indicates that the current quality practices (M , 4) are not very supportive
towards LS.
We also found that the mean scores within the two groups are almost identical. Top
management and leadership (M ¼ 3.6) was found to be the most-used practice within
ISO9000 firms, and the second most-used practice in non-ISO9000 firms (M ¼ 2.9).
The supplier relations factor was found to be the lowest in the two groups (M ¼ 2.2 in
ISO-accredited firms and M ¼ 2.4 in non-ISO-accredited firms). However, the t-test
results, as shown in Table IX, confirm that there is only one area that shows a significant
difference between the two groups, which is top management and leadership ( p , 0.05).
From the 47 items tested, the ISO9000 firms were found to have better practices in
terms of providing training and involving consultants/experts to help improve firm
performance only; this make sense, as the ISO9000 requirements entail that companies
maintain certain standards and have a clear strategy regarding training.
IJLSS Hence, H1 can only be accepted for one construct (top management and leadership),
4,3 and is rejected for the remaining constructs (processes, planning and control, customer
relations, supplier relations and HR). According to these results, ISO9000 certification
does not reflect heavily on the practices used within the K-SMMIs.
The motives behind adopting ISO9000 were identified from the semi-structured
interviews; in accordance with Yusof and Aspinwall (2000), it was found that many
300 SMEs implemented ISO9000 in order to avoid losing customer contracts, without
understanding its primary purpose. According to Gotzamani and Tsiotras (2001),
organizations would only benefit from ISO9000 if they implemented it to improve their
internal operations and quality.
This result is consistent with the literature (Carr et al., 1997; Quazi et al., 2002;
Martinez-Lorente and Martinez-Costa, 2004), which suggests that there is no relation
between ISO9000 and TQM; companies who are ISO accredited do not necessarily have
a better chance of success with respect to TQM. This result is supported by
Garza-Reyes et al. (2011), who pointed out that Kuwaiti manufacturing industries are
aware of QI, but do not really understand its purpose, which is why it has not improved
their internal operations and processes.

The effect of size (independent sample t-test)

The second independent sample t-test was carried out to test H2, in order to learn
whether the difference in size (small or medium) has an effect on LS readiness. Table X
shows the results of the independent sample t-test for K-SMMIs (large firms were
excluded from this research as the study focused on the context of small and
medium-sized industries only).
Based on the variance results, the mean score was examined. Table X shows the
mean and standard deviation values for each construct in terms of two different firm
sizes, along with the t-test results. When considering the mean value, it can be seen that
there is barely any difference between small and medium-sized firms for any of the
constructs; both small and medium-sized firms show M , 4, which again shows that
the current quality practices in both small and medium-sized firms are not supportive
towards LS. These results are consistent with those of Nordin et al. (2010), which were
M , 4 for non-lean firms; however, the findings contradict Mady’s (2009), which
suggested that Kuwaiti medium-sized firms use quality practices more extensively
compared to small firms. Moreover, the results show that there were no significant

Small Medium Independent sample t-test

(n ¼ 23) (n ¼ 27) results
Current practices M SD M SD t Sig. (two-tailed)

Processes 3.1 0.9 3.0 0.9 0.4 0.6

Planning and control 3.1 0.9 2.9 0.7 0.3 0.7
Customers’ relations 2.5 0.7 2.5 0.7 0.1 0.9
Suppliers’ relations 2.3 0.6 2.3 0.5 20.1 0.9
Table X. HR 3.1 0.9 2.9 1.0 0.4 0.6
Independent sample Top management and leadership 3.2 0.9 3.2 0.9 20.2 0.7
t-test for K-SMMIs
(small vs medium) Note: Significant at: *p , 0.05 and * *p , 0.001
differences between the different-sized firms in terms of their use of quality practices; Lean readiness
thus, H2 is rejected for all constructs. level
Concluding remarks
Table XI shows the mean score for the K-SMMIs (M ¼ 2.8) and the 13 lean companies
(M ¼ 4.5), and the findings of Nordin et al. (2010) (M ¼ 4.3). It is clearly noticeable
that the K-SMMIs do not consider the quality practices to be important. This means 301
that in terms of their quality practices, K-SMMIs are not well prepared to implement
LS. In order to understand the reasons for this, semi-structured interviews were
conducted.

Interview findings
Semi-structured interviews (lasting between 30 and 45 minutes each) were conducted
with 27 firm managers in Kuwait (out of the original sample of 50 K-SMMIs), to enable
us to understand why LS has not been implemented in K-SMMIs, and what factors are
delaying LS implementation in Kuwait from the managers’ point of view. Moreover,
the interviews were used to validate the survey findings, which show that only
28 per cent of the respondents were aware of LS.
After analysing the survey results we found that the K-SMMIs have not adopted many
of the quality practices related to LS; further investigation was needed in order to explain
this. Thus, interview questions were prepared based on the questionnaire responses, and
were reviewed (i.e. pilot tested) by experts in the field from Kuwait who were involved in
the subject area and were aware of Kuwaiti manufacturing sectors (consultants), as well
as those who had published studies regarding Kuwaiti manufacturing sectors and QM
systems (academics from Kuwait University). The questions were modified according to
the suggestions received. The questions and responses can be summarized as follows.
Question 1. What was the driver for adopting or choosing ISO9000 for future
implementation, and how does/will it affect your internal processes?
The vast majority of the respondents agreed that the main purpose for adopting
ISO9000 was to expand sales and gain government contracts. According to the
respondents, their main target customers are government institutions and other authorities
such as oil sectors, ministries and cooperative societies. One of the interviewees
stated: “ISO9000 didn’t help us to improve internally; it was a key to gain government
contracts only”.

K-SMMIs Lean companies Nordin et al. (2010)

(n ¼ 50) (n ¼ 13) (lean companies) (n ¼ 16)
Current practices M M M

Processes 3.1 4.6 4.3

Planning and control 3.0 4.5 4.4
Customers’ relation 2.5 4.4 4.4
Suppliers’ relation 2.3 4.4 4.1
HR 2.9 4.4 4.4
Top management and leadership 3.2 4.4 –
Total mean 2.8 4.5 4.3 Table XI.
K-SMMIs vs lean
Note: Top management and leadership has not been tested by Nordin et al. (2010) companies
IJLSS When asked about the effect of ISO9000 on their quality practices, the vast majority of
respondents said it had not positively affected their quality practices, but that it adds more
4,3 work for employees, and the only benefit of ISO9000 has been gaining more contracts.
Question 2. Do you feel any urgency to adopt a new quality management system?
Most of the answers to this question were negative. For example: “there is no real
urgency as we produce simple products”; “the Kuwaiti market is very small and the
302 competition is very low, at the moment we are doing great”; “In Kuwait you can gain
government contracts without having great quality systems; all you need is links with
personnel in government”.
From the interviewees’ answers, we can see that they feel there is no real urgency or
pressure to adopt QI such as LS. This can be attributed to the low FDI in Kuwait, which
equates to a lack of pressure for local firms to improve, and the lack of transparent
systems in Kuwaiti Government in terms of dealing with contracts and projects.
Question 3. Do you intend to implement a new QI in your firm?
Most of the interviewees agreed that there is no real urgency to implement new QI.
Moreover, they added that they deal with simple products, and feel that introducing QI
could confuse and negatively affect their systems. In addition, QI requires highly
skilled people, which they do not have at present; as one general manager said: “New
systems such as lean are useful for large companies that have complex processes [but]
it requires very skilled workers and technology which we don’t have and can’t afford”.
Question 4. What is your recruitment strategy?
All the respondents stated that they do not have a clear recruitment strategy; due to
budgetary constraints, they compromise the quality of their workers for lower cost.
There is a lack of skilled workers in the Kuwaiti market as a whole, and industries tend
to go overseas to hire. This represents a problem in that most of the shop floor workers
do not speak Arabic or English, which leads to miscommunications between workers
and affects teamwork. This problem was found to be present in most of the K-SMMIs.
Question 5. What are your rewards criteria, and are these known by workers? How
often are improvement suggestions received from shop-floor workers?
The vast majority of respondents stated that they assess firm performance as a whole,
and that if they reach their sales targets they reward all workers – they do not implement
individual rewards system for workers who come up with new ideas or suggestions,
which we believe is a key to improving processes. Most of the KSMMIs do not follow a
clear procedure such as conducting focus groups, or provide a clear system through
which to solicit suggestions; most suggestions are informal. One manager stated:
Our workers do not have the desire to participate and provide us with suggestions, and the
reason behind this is that they are working for us for short periods of time [so] their main
concern is to make money and leave the country. Moreover, they don’t have the required skills
and education; most of our workers don’t feel as though they are part of the company.
Question 6. How do you drive continuous improvement programmes?
Most of the firm managers seem to be ignorant about CI; some are aware of CI but
state that it is too difficult to drive as it requires skilled workers who can participate in
improving the current processes and identifying non-value-adding activities.
Question 7. What is your training policy?
The respondents perceive that training occurs via participation in workshops held
by government institutions, and there are no training systems within the firms, as
these require financial resources. One manager said:
 The government provided us with training in the past but not on a regular basis; most Lean readiness
training programmes are for the senior level and are not related to our business.
level
Question 8. Are your workers empowered to take action when needed? Please provide
an example of this.
Most of the respondents revealed that their employees are empowered, but said that
any decisions have to be approved by the top management, which contradicts the
empowerment concept. 303
Question 9. Please describe what teamwork and departmental relations look like at
your firm.
Most of the respondents said that it is very difficult to work as a team when the
majority of workers do not speak a common language, though work between
departments is relatively less problematic as it is conducted between mangers. However,
one manager said:
We are striving for teamwork and work between departments, but sometimes it is too
difficult due to two factors; the first is the language barrier and the second is the fact that we
don’t have the technology to use between departments.
Question 10. What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for your firm?
The vast majority of K-SMMIs do not follow specific criteria to measure their
performance. We believe that this factor is very important when implementing LS,
since without having a scientific method or KPIs by which to evaluate production rate,
they will not be able to improve their processes or identify non-value-added activities.
One of the managers stated that:
This kind of tool requires skilled people, training and commitment and on top of that we have
to be realistic; we are not dealing with complex processes so I don’t think we need KPIs to
improve them.
Question 11. In your opinion, how effective is current government support?
The interviewees stated that the government authorities are not serious about, and
are not aware of, the industrial market, and suggested that most of their rules are made
to tick boxes rather than be implemented. As one interviewee said:
[. . .] the government sets many rules and regulations to organize and improve industries but
they are never serious and never conduct follow up visits to see if their initiatives have been
implemented or ignored by us.
Another interviewee said: “the government has provided us with training programmes
but these are never related to our business”. Thus, it appears that the government does
offer help to Kuwaiti industries, but without studying their needs from a realistic point
of view.

Discussion and conclusions

This paper presented the findings from questionnaires/surveys and semi-structured
interviews in order to evaluate K-SMMIs’ readiness and preparedness with respect
to LS.
The survey results indicate that quality practices (namely processes; planning and
control; human resources; top management and leadership; customer relations; and
supplier relations) within K-SMMIs are not very supportive towards LS, as can be seen
IJLSS from the low mean score (M , 4) for each of the constructs. This shows that K-SMMIs
4,3 lack the infrastructure and readiness for LS, and rarely use the quality practices.
Furthermore, we found that ISO9000-accredited firms have similar practices to
non-ISO9000 firms, but neither were found to be supportive of LS, and the only
significant differences were related to top management and leadership practices. This
can be attributed to the motives behind adopting ISO9000; it was revealed in the
304 semi-structured interviews that K-SMMIs mainly adopt ISO9000 to gain more
contracts and boost their sales – in other words, they are externally driven and do not
adopt ISO9000 to improve their internal processes. This is in line with Gotzamani and
Tsiotras (2001), who claimed that ISO9000 only affects organizational performance
positively and makes it ready for other QI, such as LS and TQM, if it is adopted to
improve internal processes.
However, the results contrast those of other researchers, who have suggested that
ISO9000 has improved quality practices within firms. For instance, Magd (2006) found
that ISO9000 improved the quality systems in Saudi firms in terms of documentation
procedures, quality awareness, quality of products and customer service, working
instructions and procedures, communication among employees, quality of incoming
materials, reduced defective rates and wastes, leading to continual improvement and
expansion to international markets.
Ilkay and Aslan (2012) demonstrated a significant difference between Turkish ISO
and non-ISO firms in terms of using and understanding quality practices. They found
that ISO firms have better quality practices in terms of top management, quality
system processes, supplier relations and process control improvement. Gotzamani and
Tsiotras (2001) found that there is a huge difference between Greek ISO and non-ISO
firms, with ISO firms performing better in terms of leadership, strategic quality
planning, quality data, human resource management, process management, supplier
and customer relations, and product design. Sohail and Hoong (2003) conducted a
study in Malaysian SMEs (ISO and non-ISO firms), and found that ISO firms have
higher customer management and quality satisfaction, as well as improved strategic
planning, leadership, information availability and analysis, employee empowerment
and development, and organizational control and performance.
Firm size does not seem to have an impact on the quality practices used; both types
of firms were found to have a similar level of quality practices, and there were no
significant differences in terms of size, which is in accordance with Mallur et al. (2011).
However, this result contradicts Mady’s (2009) findings, which suggested that there are
significant differences between small and medium-sized Kuwaiti industries, and that
medium-sized firms use quality practices more effectively. Further, Mady (2009)
demonstrated significant differences in customer focus between the two firm sizes,
especially in terms of dealing with customer complaints and process quality. He found
that medium-sized firms make better use of benchmarking, process improvement,
data-driven decisions and SPC.
Many factors affecting the implementation of quality practices in K-SMMIs have
been revealed in this study. The semi-structured interviews revealed factors including
language barriers, as well as a lack of quality workers in terms of education and
skills, technology, government attention towards K-SMMIs, knowledge of QI,
competitiveness and urgency to adopt QI.
 Skilled workers and language barriers, as well as a lack of technology, were the Lean readiness
dominant factors highlighted in the interviews, since these factors affect the firms’ level
ability to create a quality culture due to the constraints they place on teamwork and
effective communication. Moreover, it was found that the firms do not follow a clear
strategy in terms of involving employees in improving processes, nor in promoting CI.
It was found that there is no real pressure or urgency to adopt LS within the
K-SMMIs due to the small size of the market and a lack of competitiveness; this is 305
consistent with Tannock and Ahmed’s (2008) findings. According to the Lean
Enterprise Institute (2005) and Mersha (1997), companies around the world adopt
LS/QI if there is urgency and competitiveness in the market. Moreover, the business
environment in Kuwait is not supportive for K-SMMIs to implement LS; according to
Cooney (2002), LS has had limited success globally as it is highly dependent on
business conditions which are not always available.
Moreover, a shortage in training and recognition was highlighted in this study, and
it was found that K-SMMIs are not adopting scientific methods to solve problems and
improve processes. According to Mersha (1997), QI requires skilled people with an
ability to work as a group and solve problems.
Additionally, understanding and awareness of the benefits and principles of LS
have been found to be very low, and knowledge of LS is missing in K-SMMIs. This
finding is consistent with previous literature (Aly, 1996; Youssef and Zairi, 1995;
Al-khalifa and Aspinwall, 2000; Garza-Reyes et al., 2011), which suggests that Kuwait
and nearby regions are far from maturity in terms of QI.
Most companies around the world opt to utilize LS because there is a sense of
urgency and pressure from the market; this urgency can take the form of new entrants
to the market, high levels of competitiveness, attention from the government to
improve the industrial sector, and so on. None of these are a reality in Kuwait, since the
market is very small, FDI is very low, and no attention is paid by the government
towards the industrial sector. This is consistent with Mersha (1997), who asserted that
if QI is to be successfully employed and sustained, the government must recognize its
benefits. In this sense, we can conclude that the level of K-SMMIs’ readiness towards
LS is very low, and it may be that LS will not work well within them at this point.
The Kuwaiti Government is trying to reduce its reliance on oil and gas, and
supporting K-SMMIs could be key to achieving this vision. Thus, in order to ensure the
success of LS and to enhance the role of K-SMMIs, the government needs to pay
attention to this sector by encouraging firms to adopt LS, and developing awareness
campaigns that highlight the importance of LS and explain the requirements for the
implementation process. This can be done by providing K-SMMIs with appropriate
training and workshops. The findings of this study show the weaknesses of K-SMMIs
and the requirements for LS, which can be used by the government to formulate some
action points in this direction.
This research is part of a PhD study to investigate the factors affecting LRL in
K-SMMIs; considering the low response rate, subsequent research will involve a
consolidation of these findings by conducting interviews with academics at Kuwait
University, and industry professionals, as well as visiting three K-SMMIs (case studies)
to support the findings and to investigate more about the obstacles that might prevent
the implementation of LS. Forthcoming research will also investigate factors such as
industry type, ownership, and type of management, which could affect LRL.
IJLSS The findings of this study are limited in terms of generalizability to K-SMMIs, as
4,3 the study mainly considered SMMIs in Kuwait, and excluded large firms. Another
limitation of this study is the small sample size; we faced difficulty in convincing a
larger number of companies to participate, and there is also a lack of information and
published studies regarding Kuwaiti manufacturing industries.
Due to its exploratory nature, this study has opened new avenues for further
306 empirical research; as a first step, the framework needs to be applied to successful lean
SMMIs in order to use it as a valid benchmark. Other suggested avenues for future
research include finding out why ISO9000 has not affected K-SMMIs’ internal processes,
and this can be done by investigating the motives behind ISO9000 adoption, and
measuring the effects of ISO9000 (in terms of quality of product, customer satisfaction,
documentation, process improvement, etc.) before and after implementation.

References
Abbas, A. (1996), “Organizational development in the Arab world”, The Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 4-21.
Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2006), “Critical success factors for lean
implementation within SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 460-471.
Ahire, S.L., Waller, M.A. and Golhar, D.Y. (1996), “Quality management in TQM versus
non-TQM firms: an empirical investigation”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 13 No. 8, pp. 8-27.
Al-khalifa, K.N. and Aspinwall, E.M. (2000), “The development of total quality management in
Qatar”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 194-204.
Al-Mashari, K., Al-Mudimigh, A. and Zairi, M. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning: taxonomy
of critical factors”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146, pp. 352-364.
Almström, P. and Kinnander, A. (2011), “The productivity potential assessment method:
assessing andbenchmarking the improvement potential in manufacturing systems at
shop-floor level”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 60 No. 7, pp. 758-770.
Al-Nofal, A., Zairi, M. and Ahmed, A.M. (2004), Critical Factors of TQM: An International
Comparative Benchmarking Analysis, University of Bradford School of Management,
Bradford.
Al-Saif, W. (2002), Creation: The Experience of Kuwait Small Projects Development Company,
KSPDC, Kuwait.
Aly, M. (1996), “Culture uniqueness and implementation in the Middle East: fantasy or reality?”,
The Fourth Arab Management Conference, University of Bradford, Bradford, pp. 164-186.
Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2008), “Performance measurement system for lean manufacturing: a
perspective from SMEs”, International Journal of Globalization and Small Business, Vol. 2
No. 4, pp. 371-410.
Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2009), “Development of a framework for lean manufacturing systems”,
International Journal Services and Operations Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 687-716.
Angelis, J., Conti, R., Cooper, C. and Gill, C. (2011), “Building a high-commitment lean culture”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 569-586.
Antony, J. (2006), “Implementing the lean sigma framework in an Indian SME: a case study”,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 407-423.
Atkinson, P. (2010), “Lean is a cultural issue”, Management Services, Vol. 54, pp. 35-44. Lean readiness
Bakås, O., Govaert, T. and Van Landeghem, H. (2011), “Challenges and success factors level
for implementation of lean manufacturing in European SMEs”, in Dreyer, H.,
Strandhagen, J.O. and Bjartnes, R. (Eds), MITIP 2011, Tapir Academic Press,
Trondheim, pp. 397-407.
Baldwin-Edwards, M. (2011), Labour Immigration and Labour Markets in the GCC Countries:
National Patterns and Trends, London School of Economics, London. 307
Balle, M. (2005), “Lean attitute – lean applications often fail to deliver the expected benefits but
could the missing link for successful implementations be attitude?”, Manufacturing
Engineer, Vol. 84, pp. 14-19.
Barla, S.B. (2003), “A case study of supplier selection for lean supply by using a mathematical
model”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 451-459.
Bergmiller, G.G. and McCright, P.R. (2009), “Parallel models for lean and green operations”,
paper presented at Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Miami, FL.
Bhasin, S. (2011), “Performance of organizations treating lean as an ideology”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 986-1011.
Bhasin, S. (2012), “Prominent obstacles to lean”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 403-425.
Bhasin, S. and Burcher, P. (2006), “Lean viewed as a philosophy”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
Black, J.T. (2007), “Design rules for implementing the Toyota production system”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 16, pp. 3639-3664.
Bonavia, T. and Marin, J.A. (2006), “An empirical study of lean production in the ceramic tile
industry in Spain”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 505-531.
Boughton, N.J. and Arokiam, I.C. (2000), “The application of cellular manufacturing: a regional
small to medium enterprise perspective”, Proceedings of the Institution of the Mechanical
Engineers, Vol. 214, pp. 751-754.
Boynton, A.C. and Zmud, R.W. (1984), “An assessment of critical success factors”,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 17-29.
Bruun, P. and Mefford, R.N. (2004), “Lean production and the internet”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 247-260.
Burman, R. (1995), Manufacturing Management: Principle and Systems, McGraw-Hill, London.
Burney, N., Mohammed, O. and Al-Mussallam, N. (2010), “Productivity in manufacturing
industries in Kuwait”, Economia Internazionale/International Economics, Vol. 59 No. 1,
pp. 1-16.
Carr, S., Mak, Y.T. and Needham, J.E. (1997), “Differences in strategy, quality management
practices and performance reporting systems between ISO accredited and non-ISO
accredited companies”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 383-403.
Chiarini, A. (2011a), “Integrating lean thinking into ISO 9001: a first guideline”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 96-117.
Chiarini, A. (2011b), “Japanese total quality control, TQM, Deming’s system of profound
knowledge, BPR, lean and Six Sigma: comparison and discussion”, International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 332-355.
IJLSS Chin, K.S. and Pun, K.F. (2002), “A proposed framework for implementing TQM in Chinese
organizations”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
4,3 pp. 272-294.
Chong, V.K. and Rundus, M.J. (2004), “Total quality management, market competition and
organizational performance”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 36, pp. 55-172.
Conner, G. (2001), Lean Manufacturing for the Small Shop, Society of Manufacturing Engineers,
308 Dearborn, MI.
Cooney, R. (2002), “Is ‘lean’ a universal production system? Batch production in the automotive
industry”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 10,
pp. 1130-1147.
Cooper, R. and Slagmulder, R. (1999), Supply Chain Development for the Lean Enterprise:
Interorganizational Cost Management, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Coronado, R.B. and Antony, J. (2002), “Critical success factors for the successful implementation
of Six Sigma projects in organizations”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-99.
Dahlgaard, J.J. and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2006), “Lean production, Six Sigma quality, TQM and
company culture”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 263-281.
Dayton, N.A. (2001), “Total quality management critical success factors, acomparison: the UK
versus the USA”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 293-298.
Deloitte and Touche (2002), The Road to World Class Manufacturing, Deloitte and Touche,
Birmingham.
Dhandapani, V., Potter, A. and Mohamed, N. (2004), “Applying lean thinking: a case study of an
Indian steel plant”, International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 239-250.
Eisenhardt, K. and Martin, J. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities what are they”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 1105-1121.
Eltony, M.N. (2007), “The economic development experience of Kuwait: some useful lessons”,
Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 77-102.
Emiliani, M.L. (1998), “Lean behaviors”, Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 615-663.
Ferdousi, F. (2009), “An investigation of manufacturing performance improvement through lean
production: a study on Bangladeshi garment firms”, International Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 4 No. 9, pp. 106-116.
Forza, C. (1996), “Work organization in lean production and traditional plants: what are the
differences?”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 42-62.
Found, P. and Harrison, R. (2012), “Understanding the lean voice of the customer”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 251-267.
Furlan, A., Vinelli, A. and Dal Pont, G. (2011), “Complementarity and lean manufacturing
bundles: an empirical analysis”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 835-850.
Garza-Reyes, J., Al-Jasser, A., Oraifige, L., Soriano-Meier, H. and Forrester, P. (2011), “A general
evaluation of total quality management (TQM) in the Kuwait oil industry”,
21st International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing
(FAIM 2011), Taichung, Taiwan, pp. 26-29.
Ghobadian, A. and Gallear, D. (1997), “TQM and organization size”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 121-163.
Golicic, S.L. and Medland, S.S. (2007), “Size might matter: a case study of lean implementation in Lean readiness
an SME”, Society for Marketing Advances Proceedings, pp. 261-264.
level
Goodson, E. (2002), “Read a plant fast”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 105-113.
Gotzamani, K.D. and Tsiotras, G.D. (2001), “An empirical study of the ISO 9000 standards’
contribution towards total quality management”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 1326-1342.
Gurumurthy, A. and Kodali, R. (2009), “Application of benchmarking for assessing the lean 309
manufacturing implementation”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 274-308.
Herron, C. and Braiden, P.M. (2007), “Defining the foundation of lean manufacturing in the
context of its origins ( Japan)”, IET International Conference on Agile Manufacturing
(ICAM 2007), Institution of Engineering and Technology, Durham, pp. 148-157.
Hertog, S. (2010), “Benchmarking SME policies in the GCC: a survey of challenges and
opportunities”, paper presented at EU-GCC Chamber Forum, Brusells.
Hines, P., Holwe, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean
thinking”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 994-1011.
Hines, R., Rich, N. and Esain, A. (1999), “Value stream mapping: a distribution industry
application”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 60-77.
Ho, S.K. (1994), “Is the ISO 9000 series for total quality management?”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 9, pp. 74-89.
Holland, C.P. and Light, B. (1999), “A critical success factors model for ERP implementation”,
Software IEEE, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 30-36.
Holweg, M. (2007), “The genealogy of lean production”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 420-437.
Ichimura, M., Arunachalam, S. and Jahankhani, H. (2007), “New training framework for lean
manufacturing: an empirical study”, Proceedings of Advances in Computing and
Technology (AC&T), The School of Computing and Technology 2nd Annual Conference,
University of East London, ICGES Press, London, pp. 174-183.
Ichimura, M., Jahankhani, H. and Arunachalam, S. (2006), “Training for successful lean
manufacturing implementation”, Proceedings of Advances in Computing and Technology
(AC&T), The School of Computing and Technology 1st Annual Conference, University of
East London, ICGES Press, London, pp. 167-172.
Ilkay, M.S. and Aslan, E. (2012), “The effect of the ISO 9001 quality management system on the
performance of SMEs”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 29
No. 7, pp. 753-778.
Industrial Bank of Kuwait (2001), Industrial Bank of Kuwait, Industrial Bank of Kuwait, Kuwait.
Inman, R.A. and Mehra, S. (1990), “The transferability of just-in-time concepts to American small
businesses”, Interfaces, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 30-37.
Isaa, T. (2007), Quality Assessment and Waste Reduction in Kuwaiti Manufacturing Industries,
Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Quantitative Methods and Modelling Department,
KISR, Kuwait.
ISO (2008a), ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management Systems Requirements, International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO (2008b), The ISO Survey of Certifications 2008, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva.
IJLSS Jaitly, P., Mittal, V., Rao, P. and Kulkarni, M. (2008), Development of a Lean Assessment System
for the Shop, IIT, New Delhi.
4,3
Johansen, E., Porter, G. and Greenwood, D. (2004), “Implementing lean: UK culture and systems
change”, paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction, Helsingor, Denmark, 3-6 August.
Karim, M.A., ljuhani, M., Duplock, R. and Yarlagadda, P. (2011), “Implementation of lean
310 manufacturing in Saudi manufacturing organizations: an empirical study”, Advanced
Materials Research, Vol. 339, pp. 250-253.
Karlsson, C.H. and Åhlström, P. (1997), “A lean and global smaller firm?”, International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 940-952.
Knuf, J. (2000), “Benchmarking the lean enterprise: organizational learning at work”, Journal of
Management in Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 58-71.
Kumar, M. and Antony, J. (2008), “Comparing the quality management practices in UK SMEs”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 108 No. 9, pp. 1153-1166.
Kumar, M., Antony, J. and Douglas, A. (2009), “Does size matter for Six Sigma implementation?
Findings from the survey in UK SMEs”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 623-635.
Kundu, G. and Manohar, B.M. (2012), “Critical success factors for implementing lean practices in
it support services”, International Journal for Quality research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 301-312.
Kunnanatt, J.T. (2007), “Impact of ISO 9000 on organizational climate”, International Journal of
Manpower, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 175-192.
Laureani, A. and Antony, J. (2012), “Critical success factors for the effective implementation of
lean sigma: results from an empirical study and agenda for future research”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 274-283.
Lean Enterprise Institute (2005), The Lean Survey, Lean Enterprise Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Lee, C.Y. (1997), “JIT adoption by small manufacturers in Korea”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 98-107.
Lee, T.S. (1999), “The convergent and predictive validity of quality and productivity practices in
Hong Kong industry”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 73-84.
Levy, D.L. (1997), “Lean production in an international supply chain”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 94-102.
Lewis, W.G., Pun, K.F. and Lalla, T. (2006), “Exploring soft versus hard factors for TQM
implementation in small and medium-sized enterprises”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 539-554.
Liker, J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest
Manufacturer, 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 No. 1,
pp. 34-50.
Lubben, R.T. (1988), Just in Time Manufacturing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Mcadam, R. (1999), “Life after ISO 9000: an analysis of the impact of ISO 9000 and total quality
management on small businesses in Northern Ireland”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 229-241.
McMurray, D. (1999), Recent Trends in Middle Eastern Migration, Trafficking, and Transiting:
New Perspectives on Labor Migration, Middle East Report 221.
McTeer, M.M. and Dale, B.G. (1996), “The attitude of small companies to the ISO 9000 series”, Lean readiness
Proceedings of the Institute Mechanical Engineering Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, Vol. 210, pp. 397-403. level
MacDuffie, J.P. (1995), “Workers’ roles in lean production: the implications for worker
representation”, in Babson, S. (Ed.), In Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the
Global Auto Industry, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, pp. 54-69.
Mady, T.M. (2009), “Quality management practices: an empirical investigation of associated 311
constructs in two Kuwaiti industries”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 214-233.
Magd, H. (2006), “An investigation of ISO 9000 adoption in Saudi Arabia”, Managerial Auditing
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 132-147.
Mallur, S.B., Hiregouder, N.L. and Sequeira, A.H. (2011), “The relationship between TQM
practices and business excellence in small and medium sized manufacturing enterprises of
North Karnataka region”, SDM IMD Journal of Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 18-31.
Martinez-Lorente, A. and Martinez-Costa, M. (2004), “ISO 9000 and TQM: substitutes or
complementaries? An empirical study in industrial companies”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 260-276.
Mefford, R.N. (2009), “Increasing productivity in global firms: the CEO challenge”, Journal of
International Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 262-272.
Melton, T. (2005), “The benefits of lean manufacturing: what lean thinking has to offer the
process industries”, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 662-673.
Meredith, P.H., Ristroph, J.H. and Lee, J. (1991), “Implementing JIT: the dimensions of culture,
management, and human resources”, Technology Management: The New International
Language, pp. 448-451.
Mersha, T. (1997), “TQM implementation in LDCs: driving and restraining forces”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 164-183.
Miltenburg, J. (2001), “U-shaped production lines: a review of theory and practice”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 201-214.
Monden, Y. (1998), Toyota Production System An Integrated Approach to Just-in-Time, 3rd ed.,
Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA.
Moser, L. and Dos Santos, A. (2003), “Exploring the role of visual controls on mobile cell
manufacturing: a case study on drywall technology”, Proceeding International Group for
Lean Construction 11th Annual Conference (IGLC-11), IGLC, Blacksburg, pp. 11-23.
New, S.J. (2007), “Celebrating the enigma: the continuing puzzle of the Toyota production
system”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 16, pp. 3545-3554.
Nordin, N., Deros, B.M. and Abd Wahab, D. (2010), “A survey on lean manufacturing
implementation in Malaysian automotive industry”, International Journal of Innovation,
Management and Technology, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 374-380.
Nordin, N., Deros, B.M. and Abd Wahab, D. (2012), “A framework for managing change in lean
manufacturing implementation”, International Journal of Services and Operations
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 101-117.
Ohno, T. (1988), The Toyota Production System, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P. (1994), “Toward a theory of international new ventures”, Journal
of International Business Studies, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 45-64.
PAI (2008), Industrial Guide: State of Kuwait, Public Authority for Industry, Kuwait.
IJLSS Panizzolo, R. (1998), “Applying the lessons learned from 27 lean manufacturers: the relevance of
relationships management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 55 No. 3,
4,3 pp. 223-240.
Papadopoulou, T.C. and Ozbayrak, M. (2005), “Leanness: experiences from the journey to date”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 784-807.
Perera, H.S., Perera, P.S. and Ravecndra, L.M. (2010), “Factors affecting effective lean
312 implementation: a case study of a tyre manufacturing company in Sri Lanka”, 16th
Annual Symposium on Research and Industry, Faculty of Engineering, University of
Moratuwa, Moratuwa, pp. 279-282.
Pettersen, J. (2009), “Defining lean production: some conceptual and practical issues”, The TQM
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 127-142.
Puvanasvaran, P., Megat, H., Hong, T.S. and Razali, M.M. (2009), “The roles of communication
process for an effective lean manufacturing implementation”, Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 128-152.
Quazi, H., Hong, C. and Meng, C. (2002), “Impact of ISO 9000 certification on quality management
practices: a comparative study”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 53-67.
Radeka, K. (2009), “Extreme Toyota: radical contradictions that drive success at the world’s best
manufacturer by Emi Osono, Norihiko Shimizu, and Hirotaka Takeuchi”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 356-358.
Radnor, Z., Walley, P., Stephens, A. and Bucci, G. (2006), Evaluation of the Lean Approach to
Business Management and its Use in the Public Sector, Scottish Executive, Scotland.
Rahman, S. (2010), “Impact of lean strategy on operational performance: a study of Thai
manufacturing companies”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 21
No. 7, pp. 839-852.
Rampurwala, A. and Marafi, N. (2011), Kuwait’s SMEs: Looking for a Champion, Kuwait
Financial Centre S.A.K. Markaz, Kuwait.
Real, R., Pralus, M., Pillet, M. and Guizzi, L. (2007), “A study of supporting programs for small
and medium enterprises: a first stage going to lean”, Proceeding of Industrial Engineering
and Engineering Management, IEEE International Conference, IEEE, Singapore,
pp. 515-519.
Ricondo, I. and Viles, E. (2005), “Six Sigma and its link to TQM, BPR, lean and the learning
organisation”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, No. 3,
pp. 323-354.
Rose, A., Deros, B., Rahman, M. and Nordin, N. (2011), “Lean manufacturing best practices in
SMEs”, Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Operations Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 22-24.
Salaheldin, S.I. (2009), “Critical success factors for TQM implementation and their impact on
performance of SMEs”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 215-237.
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.
Scherrer-Rathje, M., Boyle, T.A. and Deflorin, P. (2009), “Lean, take two! Reflections from the
second attempt at lean implementation”, Business Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 79-88.
Shah, N. (2007), “Migration to Kuwait: trends, patterns and policies”, paper prepared for the
Migration and Refugee Movements in the Middle East and North Africa, American
University, Cairo.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles and Lean readiness
performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, pp. 129-149.
level
Shammas, A. (2012), Industries Migration from Kuwait: Reasons and Solution, Kuwait Chamber
of Commerce and Industry, Kuwait.
Sharma, S.K., Gupta, R.D., Kumar, A. and Singh, B. (2011), “Supplier issues for lean
implementation”, International Journal of Engineering Science, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 3900-3905.
Sim, K.L. and Rogers, J.W. (2008), “Implementing lean production systems: barriers to change”, 313
Management Research News, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 37-49.
Smalley, A. (2004), Creating Level Pull: A Lean Production-System Improvement Guide for
Production-Control, Operations, and Engineering Professionals (Lean Tool Kit), Lean
Enterprises Institute Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Snee, R.D. (2010), “Lean Six Sigma – getting better all the time”, International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
Sohail, M.S. and Hoong, T.B. (2003), “TQM practices and organizational performances of SMEs
in Malaysia: some empirical observations”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 37-53.
Sohal, A.S. and Egglestone, A. (1994), “Lean production: experience among Australian
organizations”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14
No. 11, pp. 35-51.
Spann, M.S., Dams, M., Rahman, M., Czarnecki, H. and Schroer, B. (1999), “Transferring lean
manufacturing to small manufacturers: the role of NIST-MEP”, The United States
Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, San Diego, pp. 691-705.
Spear, S. and Bowen, H.K. (1999), “Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 7, pp. 97-106.
Spencer, M.S. and Loomba, A.P. (2001), “Total quality management programmes at smaller
manufacturers: benchmarking techniques and results”, Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 689-695.
Stone, K.B. (2012), “Four decades of lean: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 112-132.
Stuart, I. and Boyle, T. (2007), “Advancing the adoption of ‘lean’ in Canadian SMEs”,
Ivey Business Journal, January/February, pp. 1-6.
Sun, H. (2000), “Total quality management, ISO 9000 certification and performance
improvement”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 168-179.
Taj, S. (2005), “Applying lean assessment tools in Chinese hi-tech industries”, Management
Decision, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 628-643.
Takeuchi, H., Osono, E. and Shimiz, N. (2008), “The contradictions that drive Toyota’s success”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 96-104.
Tannock, J. and Ahmed, K.S. (2008), “Quality management in the Arabic-speaking countries”,
Journal of Transnational Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 174-194.
Temtime, Z.T. and Solomon, G.H. (2002), “Total quality management and the planning behavior
of SMEs in developing economies”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 181-191.
Toyota (2005), Environmental and Social Report: Relations with Employees, Toyota Motor
Corporation, Tokyo.
Tsang, J. and Antony, J. (2001), “Total quality management in UK service organizations: some
key findings from a survey”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 132-141.
IJLSS Upadhye, N., Deshmukh, S.G. and Garg, S. (2010a), “Lean manufacturing system for medium size
manufacturing enterprises an Indian case”, International Journal of Management Science
4,3 and Engineering Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 362-375.
Upadhye, N., Deshmukh, S.G. and Suresh, G. (2010b), “Lean manufacturing for sustainable
development”, Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 125-137.
314 Vanichchinchai, A. (2012), “The relationship between employee involvement, partnership
management and supply performance: findings from a developing country”, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 157-172.
Vincent, R. and Reza, K. (2004), “Integrating total quality management and knowledge
management”, Journal of Management Systems, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
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.
Wang, C., Walker, E. and Redmond, J. (2007), “Explaining the lack of strategic planning in SMEs:
the importance of owner motivation”, International Journal of Organisational Behaviour,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
White, R.E., Pearson, J.N. and Wilson, J.R. (1999), “JIT manufacturing: a survey of
implementation in small and large US manufacturers”, Management Science, Vol. 45
No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Wickramasinghe, D. and Wickramasinghe, V.M. (2012), “Effects of perceived organizational
support on participation in decision making, affective commitment and job satisfaction in
lean production in Sri Lanka”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 157-177.
Wilson, L. (2009), How to Implement Lean Manufacturing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Womack, J. and Jones, D. (2003), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation, 2nd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Womack, J. and Jones, D. (2005), Lean Solutions: How Companies and Customers Can Create
Value and Wealth Together, Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline, MA.
Wong, M. (2007), “The role of culture in implementing lean production system”, in Olhager, J. and
Persson, F. (Eds), IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, Boston, MA,
Vol. 246, pp. 413-422.
Wong, Y.C., Wong, K.Y. and Ali, A. (2009), “A study on lean manufacturing implementation in
the Malaysian electrical and electronics industry”, European Journal of Scientific Research,
Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 521-535.
(The) World Bank (2013), Doing Business 2013: Smarter Regulations for Small and Medium-Size
Enterprises, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Worley, J.M. and Doolen, T.L. (2006), “The role of communication and management support in a
lean manufacturing implementation”, Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 228-245.
Yamamoto, Y. and Bellgran, M. (2010), “Fundamental mindset that drives improvements
towards lean production”, Assembly Automation, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 124-130.
Yang, A.P. and Yu Yu, B. (2010), “The barriers to SMEs’ implementation of lean production and
countermeasures based on SMS in Wenzhou”, International Journal of Innovation,
Management and Technology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 220-225.
Yong, J. and Wilkinson, A. (2001), “In search of quality: the quality management experience in
Singapore”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18 No. 8,
pp. 813-835.
Yoshimori, M. (2005), “Does corporate governance matter? Why the corporate performance of Lean readiness
Toyota and canon is superior to GM and xerox”, Corporate Governance: An International
Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 447-457. level
Youssef, M.A. and Zairi, M. (1995), “Benchmarking critical factors for TQM: part II – empirical
results from different regions in the world”, Benchmarking for Quality Management
& Technology, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 3-19.
Yusof, S.M. and Aspinwall, E. (2000), “TQM implementation issues: review and case study”, 315
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 634-655.
Zairi, M. (1996), “Economic development and global competitiveness: why should Arab
managers take note of total quality management?”, Proceedings of the Fourth Arab
Management Conference, University of Bradford, Bradford, pp. 408-423.
Zayko, M.J., Broughman, D.J. and Hancock, W.M. (1997), “Lean manufacturing yields world-class
improvements for small manufacturer”, IIE Solutions, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 36-40.
Zhang, Q., bbas, J., Zhu, X. and Shah, M. (2012), “Critical success factors for successful Lean
Six Sigma implementation in Pakistan”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research in Business, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 117-124.
Zhang, Z., Waszink, A. and Wijngaard, J. (2000), “An instrument for measuring TQM
implementation for Chinese manufacturing companies”, International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 730-755.
Zhao, X., Yeung, A. and Lee, T. (2004), “Quality management and organizational context in
selected service industries of China”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 575-587.
Zhou, B. (2012), “Lean principles, practices, and impacts: a study on small and medium-sized
enterprises”, Annals of Operations Research, July, pp. 1-18.
Zu, X., Robbins, T.L. and Fredendall, L.D. (2010), “Mapping the critical links between
organizational culture and TQM/Six Sigma practices”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp. 86-106.

Further reading
Antony, J., Kumar, M. and Labib, A. (2008), “Gearing Six Sigma into UK manufacturing SMEs:
results from a pilot study”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 59 No. 4,
pp. 482-493.
Karlsson, C.H. and Åhlström, P. (1996), “Assessing changes towards lean production”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 24-41.
Lema, N.M. and Price, A.D. (1995), “Benchmarking: performance improvement toward
competitive advantage”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 28-37.
Maroofi, F. and Dehghan, S. (2012), “Performing lean manufacturing system in small and
medium enterprises”, International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance
and Management Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 156-163.

About the authors

Mohamad AL-Najem is a PhD research student in the School of Engineering, University of
Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. He has a BEng (Hons) degree in Communication System
Engineering and MSc in Technology Management from University of Portsmouth.
His PhD dissertation is entitled “Critical issues for lean implementation within
Kuwaiti SMEs”. Mohamad AL-Najem is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
mohamad.al-najem@port.ac.uk
IJLSS Dr Hom Dhakal is a Senior Lecturer in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, School of
Engineering, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. He has a BEng (Hons) degree in
4,3 Mechanical Engineering and MSc in Technology Management. He earned his PhD in Mechanical
Engineering, with a dissertation entitled “The manufacture and properties of natural
fibre/nanoclay reinforced unsaturated polyester composites”. His academic and research
interests include techniques for fabrication and evaluation of various properties of composite and
nanocomposites, metallic and non-metallic materials. Previously he worked with the University
316 of Plymouth as a Lecturer in Mechanical and Marine Engineering. He has many years of teaching
and research experience and has published extensively in scientific journals and conference
proceedings.
Ashraf Labib is a Professor of Operations and Decision Analysis at Portsmouth Business
School. He has also been the Associate Dean (Research) of the Business School and Director of the
DBA Programme. His main research interest lies in the field of strategic operations management
and decision analysis. This includes manufacturing, reliability engineering and maintenance
systems, multiple criteria decision-analysis and applications of artificial intelligence such as
fuzzy logic.
Nick Bennett is Professor of Engineering Manufacture and Innovation, School of Engineering,
University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. He has ONC and HNC in Mechanical Engineering, BSc
(Hons) Mechanical Engineering (Bath), and Master of Business Administration (OBS). Experience:
BTR Permali Ltd, Apprenticeship; Design, Development & Production Engineer, UK, France,
Africa; Roan Consolidated Mines Ltd, Senior Projects Engineer, Africa/USA; Binnie & Partners
Consulting Engineers, Resident Engineer, UK/UAE and University of Portsmouth, Senior
& Principal Lecturer, Associate Head, Course Leader, Director RCMI, Prof. of Engineering
Manufacture & Innovation. Professional: Chief Examiner EC Part II Analysis & Design of
Manufacturing Systems; Chartered Engineer, Engineering Council of UK; Fellow, Institution
of Mechanical Engineers; Member, Institution of Water & Environmental Management; Socrates
Coordinator, fh. Schmalkalden Germany; Link Tutor, Partnership Degree, Ford Southampton
Plant; External Examiner, South Bank & Westminster Universities and Registered Consultant,
Small Business Service (SBS) UK.

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Practices Item no. Process Main source

5s PR01 The workshop is divided into different workplaces and Furlan et al. (2011), Liker (2004), Monden (1998), Saurin et al. Appendix
each zone has a specific task (2011), Shah (2007), Nordin et al. (2010)
Cellular PR02 The processes used within similar operations are placed Furlan et al. (2011), Liker (2004), Monden (1998), Saurin et al.
manufacturing close to each other in order to eliminate unnecessary steps (2011), Shah (2007), Nordin et al. (2010), Forza (1996)
Skilled people PR03 Each working zone is controlled and operated by qualified Liker (2004), Monden (1998), Saurin et al. (2011), Shah
and well-trained workers (2007)
5s PR04 Each item/piece of equipment is labelled to ensure it is Furlan et al. (2011), Liker (2004), Monden (1998), Saurin et al.
located in the right zone/location in the workplace (2011), Shah (2007)
Pull PR05 Production at each station is pulled by demand from the Liker (2004), Saurin et al. (2011), Shah (2007)
next station
5s and standardization PR06 A certain person is assigned as a part of his daily activities Liker (2004), Miltenburg (2001), Monden (1998), Saurin et al.
to ensure that the workplace is clean and all tools/pieces of (2011), Spear and Bowen (1999)
equipment are put back in their appropriate places
TPM PR07 Equipment maintenance records are posted on the shop Shah (2007), Nordin et al. (2010), Moser and Dos Santos
floor to be actively shared with employees (2003)
Cellular PR08 The process flow of material and components is smooth Furlan et al. (2011), Liker (2004), Monden (1998), Saurin et al.
manufacturing and continuous, as the equipment is grouped (2011), Shah (2007), Nordin et al. (2010), Forza (1996)
Pull PR09 Products are not produced unless orders for them are Liker (2004), Saurin et al. (2011), Shah (2007)
received from customers
TPM PR10 Machine operators and staff are engaged in the scheduled Black (2007), Miltenburg (2001), Saurin et al. (2011), Spear
maintenance of equipment so that machines are and Bowen (1999), Forza (1996)
maintained on a regular basis by skilled people
Documentation PR11 There is a well-documented configuration setting for each Saurin et al. (2011), Forza (1996)
machine/piece of equipment to avoid uncertainty about
how to reconfigure the equipment during changeover
Standardization PR12 The total cycle time is revised for each product on a regular Almström and Kinnander (2011), Saurin et al. (2011), Forza
basis in order to reach the optimum level (1996)
Planning and control
Problem solving PC01 In order to improve production, a focus group of workers is Shah (2007), Furlan et al. (2011), Nordin et al. (2010),
conducted (on a regular basis) to help the company identify Yoshimori (2005), Forza (1996)
wastes and solve problems by generating new ideas and
solutions, which are then submitted to the managers
(continued)
Lean readiness

Questionnaire items
level

Table AI.
317
 4,3

318
IJLSS

Table AI.
Practices Item no. Process Main source

Benchmarking PC02 There is an awareness of the wider industry performance, Salaheldin (2009), Gurumurthy and Kodali (2009), Knuf
and a clear strategy is followed to benchmark performance (2000), Hines et al. (1999), Spencer and Loomba (2001),
with the top-class firm (at a domestic and national level) Smalley (2004)
Standardization PC03 There are standard routes for loading raw materials and Liker (2004), Saurin et al. (2011), Knuf (2000), Smalley
removing end products, including a standard picking time (2004), Forza (1996)
Problem solving PC04 Problem-solving techniques such as Fishbone diagrams Shah (2007)
are used to identify the causes of quality problems
VM/KPI PC05 Up-to-date charts showing defect rates, key performance Shah (2007), Radnor et al. (2006), Moser and Dos Santos
indicators, progress and next job activity are displayed on (2003)
the shop floor
Customers
Customer awareness CUO1 There is an awareness of what product features customers Shah (2007), Salaheldin (2009), Radnor et al. (2006)
value and are willing to pay for
Customer feedback CUO2 Feedback is sought regularly, and surveys/meetings are Shah (2007), Salaheldin (2009)
often held with customers to improve product design and
quality, and service
Customer involvement CUO3 Customers participate in the initial design process Shah (2007), Nordin et al. (2010), Radnor et al. (2006)
Customer relationship CUO4 Valued customers are brought into visit the plant in order Golicic and Medland (2007), Radnor et al. (2006)
to give them some ideas about quality control that the
company can follow
Customer involvement CUO5 Customers help the company by providing information Shah (2007), Radnor et al. (2006)
about their future demands
Customer involvement CUO6 There is a system in place for collecting customer Shah (2007)
complaints so that problems can be avoided in the future
Suppliers
Quality suppliers SU01 A clear strategy is in place by which to evaluate supplier Shah (2007), Nordin et al. (2010), Salaheldin (2009), Burman
performance in terms of quality, delivery and prices (1995), Sharma et al. (2011)
Close suppliers SU02 Local suppliers are used to avoid shipment delays Bhasin (2011), Shah (2007), Levy (1997)
Supplier involvement SU03 Suppliers are aware of product designs and participate Shah (2007), Nordin et al. (2010), Sharma et al. (2011)
heavily during design and development
Quality suppliers SU04 Raw materials and purchased parts are not subject to Vanichchinchai (2012), Salaheldin (2009), Burman (1995),
incoming inspection as they come from qualified suppliers Sharma et al. (2011)
(continued)
Practices Item no. Process Main source

No. of suppliers SU05 Active steps are taken to reduce the number of suppliers in Shah (2007), Barla (2003), Cooper and Slagmulder (1999),
each category Lubben (1988)
Quality suppliers SU06 Raw materials are received on time from the date of order Golicic and Medland (2007), Vanichchinchai (2012),
Burman (1995), Sharma et al. (2011), Levy (1997)
Supplier relation SU07 Suppliers are cooperative and committed to maintaining a Golicic and Medland (2007), Scherrer-Rathje et al. (2009),
long-term relationship Shah (2007), Vanichchinchai (2012), Nordin et al. (2012),
Burman (1995), Sharma et al. (2011)
Feedback to suppliers SU08 Suppliers are provided with feedback regarding quality Shah (2007)
and delivery performance
HR
Involvement HR01 Workspace layout is reconfigured regularly based on Black (2007), Shah (2007), Nordin et al. (2010), Salaheldin
feedback from employees (2009), Forza (1996)
Multi-tasking HR02 Workers are able to perform different tasks Miltenburg (2001), Monden (1998), Saurin et al. (2011),
Nordin et al. (2010), Nordin et al. (2012), Dahlgaard and
Dahlgaard-Park (2006), Radnor et al. (2006), Forza (1996)
Participation HR03 Shop-floor employees drive suggestion programme Shah (2007), Nordin et al. (2010), Nordin et al. (2012),
Salaheldin (2009), Forza (1996)
Motivation HR04 Numerous awards, incentive programmes and annual Black (2007), Shah (2007), Ghobadian and Gallear (1997),
bonuses are available for employees who help to improve Nordin et al. (2010), Nordin et al. (2012), Dahlgaard and
processes and eliminate unnecessary steps. The evaluation Dahlgaard-Park (2006), Balle (2005), Puvanasvaran et al.
is based on group performance (2009)
Skilled people HR05 Workers are qualified enough to contribute to solving Achanga et al. (2006), Black (2007), Liker (2004), Monden
problems, and are able to work as a team (1998), Vanichchinchai (2012), Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-
Park (2006), Yamamoto and Bellgran (2010)
Communication HR06 Departmental and employee relations are good, and Furlan et al. (2011), Scherrer-Rathje et al. (2009), Ghobadian
conflict barely occurs and Gallear (1997), Nordin et al. (2012), Papadopoulou and
Ozbayrak (2005), Sim and Rogers (2008), Worley and
Doolen (2006)
Involvement HR07 Each employee has a clear understanding of his job Ichimura et al. (2007), Ghobadian and Gallear (1997),
description Nordin et al. (2012), Knuf (2000), New (2007)
(continued)
Lean readiness
level

Table AI.
319
 4,3

320
IJLSS

Table AI.
Practices Item no. Process Main source

Training HR08 Employees have undergone quality training in terms of Bhasin (2011), Ichimura et al. (2007), Kundu and Manohar
developing their problem-solving capabilities and (2012), Shah (2007), Ghobadian and Gallear (1997),
identifying non-value-adding activities Nordin et al. (2010), Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park (2006),
Puvanasvaran et al. (2009), Sim and Rogers (2008), Knuf
(2000)
Empowerment HR09 Workers are empowered to stop the production line if Black (2007), Saurin et al. (2011), Liker (2004), Monden
abnormalities occur (1998), Nordin et al. (2012), Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park
(2006), Balle (2005), Papadopoulou and Ozbayrak (2005),
Puvanasvaran et al. (2009), Sim and Rogers (2008),
Salaheldin (2009), Knuf (2000), Takeuchi et al. (2008),
Radnor et al. (2006), Forza (1996)
Participation HR10 Suggestions and ideas from shop-floor employees are Shah (2007), Nordin et al. (2010), Nordin et al. (2012),
actively used and implemented Salaheldin (2009)
Teamwork HR11 Employees act according to the interests of the group, Furlan et al. (2011), Scherrer-Rathje et al. (2009), Nordin et al.
rather than their individual interests (2010), Nordin et al. (2012), Salaheldin (2009), Worley and
Doolen (2006), Knuf (2000), Radnor et al. (2006)
Top management and leadership
Visible management MGT01 Top management encourages and coaches workers by Scherrer-Rathje et al. (2009), Ghobadian and Gallear (1997),
visiting the workplace on a regular basis Nordin et al. (2012), Worley and Doolen (2006), MacDuffie
(1995), Takeuchi et al. (2008), Forza (1996)
Knowing people’s MGT02 We locate our worker where they can use their skills, Achanga et al. (2006), Kundu and Manohar (2012), Forza
capabilities qualifications and experience (1996)
Job security MGT03 People have job security and workers are regularly Ichimura et al. (2006), Radeka (2009), Toyota (2005)
promoted to managerial positions
Commitment to MGT04 Company invests in training programmes and encourages Bhasin (2011), Ichimura et al. (2006, 2007), Scherrer-
improvement cross-job training Rathje et al. (2009), Nordin et al. (2012), Puvanasvaran et al.
(2009), Sim and Rogers (2008), Worley and Doolen (2006),
Knuf (2000)
Commitment to MGT05 Company uses external experts/consultants on a regular Achanga et al. (2006), Golicic and Medland (2007),
improvement basis to evaluate the overall company performance and to Boughton and Arokiam (2000), Inman and Mehra (1990),
improve production and quality level Kundu and Manohar (2012), Nordin et al. (2012), Real et al.
(2007)