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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm

Applying a Lean
Applying a lean approach to approach to
identify waste in motor identify waste
carrier operations
Henrik Sternberg 47
Department of Industrial Management and Logistics,
Received 20 January 2012
Lund University, Lund, Sweden and Revised 14 June 2012
Department of Technology Management and Economics, Accepted 5 September 2012
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
Gunnar Stefansson
Department of Technology Management and Economics,
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg,
Sweden and Faculty of Industrial Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Iceland,
Reykjavik, Iceland
Emma Westernberg
Business Analysis, Sigma IT & Management, Gothenburg, Sweden
Rikard Boije af Gennäs
Business Transformation Services, Volvo Group, Gothenburg, Sweden
Erik Allenström
Advanced Technology and Research, Volvo Group, Gothenburg, Sweden, and
Malin Linger Nauska
Aftermarket and Soft Products, Volvo Group, Gothenburg, Sweden

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a waste framework for motor carrier operations by
adapting the classical 7 waste framework, and furthermore, to validate it by collecting empirical data
from several motor carrier operators.
Design/methodology/approach – The chosen approach includes three steps, starting with
analyzing qualitative data from a literature review and an interview study. The interviewees were
experts from carrier operations, the lean field, carrier technology providers and carrier service buyers.
The findings were validated with qualitative and quantitative studies at five motor carrier operators.
Findings – The finding of this paper is a waste framework adapted to motor carrier operations that
has been based on the classical 7 waste framework. This provides a structured framework of
inefficiencies found in motor carrier operations.
Originality/value – Previous literature is scarce on both holistic approaches to describing waste in
carrier operations and in-depth studies of day-to-day transport operations. It is also a novel approach
to use a waste framework for transport operations.
Keywords Transport operations, Motor carrier, Lean, 7 wastes, Transport efficiency,
Transport management, Lean production
Paper type Research paper
International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management
Vol. 62 No. 1, 2013
The authors would like to thank the Swedish Traffic Administration for financing the initial pp. 47-65
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
parts of this study. The authors would also like to thank Daniel Zackrisson, Volvo Technology 1741-0401
Group, and Mikael Lidhage, Volvo Trucks, for their wholehearted support of this research. DOI 10.1108/17410401311285291
IJPPM 1. Introduction
62,1 Traditionally, the focus of research within the Lean field has been on production
activities related to quality improvements and quest for increased efficiency.
Different service operations have got some attention in recent years at the same time
as transportation has been left out. This fact may be somewhat surprising as
transportation is often not regarded as a value-added activity and often actually
48 categorized as waste that should be, if possible, eliminated (Womack and Jones, 2003;
Liker, 2004). Despite the fact that the service industry has got some attention in recent
years, there are significant differences between manufactured products and services.
Unlike a manufactured product which is a tangible object that can be created, sold and
used later, services are intangible, i.e. cannot be stored and are forever lost if not
immediately used. Furthermore, services are created and consumed simultaneously.
Hence, it is considered a paradox to initiate a discourse on “Lean transportation,”
especially since Lean originates from the manufacturing perspective of the Toyota
Production System and principles of inventory management do not apply to services.
Despite that, a Lean approach in business operations has reduced waste and improved
efficiency in numerous service industries (Åhlström, 2004), such as customer relations
(Womack and Jones, 2005), information technology (IT) (Hicks, 2007), including public
services (Pedersen and Huniche, 2011), human resources (Laureani and Antony, 2011),
sales (Kosuge et al., 2009), health care (Castle and Harvey, 2009) and logistics
(Karlin and Liker, 2005; AlRifai, 2008). Many companies including, e.g. Fujitsu and
Toyota, have adapted to Lean-inspired thinking and successfully derived and
implemented new tools and methodologies for the service industry (Marr and Parry,
2004) in order to maximize value for the customer and minimize the operational waste.
Apte and Goh (2004) argue that information intense services are very well suited for
Lean adaptations and motor carrier operations can be highly information intensive
(Nagarajan et al., 2005) with several inefficiencies related to information deficiencies
(Sternberg, 2008). Airline carriers have successfully applied Lean to their operations
(Lehman et al., 2010) and practitioners have argued that it is time to apply a Lean
approach to motor carrier operations (Karlin and Liker, 2005; Taylor and Martichenko,
2006; Bey, 2010).
Inefficient is defined as “not producing desired results; wasteful,” and ineffective is
defined as “lacking the ability or skill to perform effectively; inadequate” (Miller et al.,
2009). According to Blücher and Öjmertz (2008), waste is often used instead of the
term – or as a result of – inefficiency. Road transportation has traditionally been stated
as inefficient, both in European countries (McKinnon and Ge, 2006; Swedish
Association of Road Haulage Companies, 2008) and in North America (Belman et al.,
2005; US Department of Transportation, 2009). In addition to severe competition,
transport inefficiency is one of the main factors behind the low margins the carriers
are historically facing in their businesses (Roberts, 1956; Belman et al., 2005). The
development during the last decade is motor carrier operators going out of
business and this is predicted to continue (Belman et al., 2005; Swedish
Association of Road Haulage Companies, 2008). Results from analyses on motor
carriers indicate huge financial losses due to inefficiencies (US Department of
Transportation, 2009).
External factors that directly affect a carrier firm and that the firm has very little
influence over are, i.e. market conditions, taxes and laws, fuel prices and general wage
levels. Other factors, such as the internal procedures and administration, resource
maintenance, utilization of IT and the way the firm carries out their operations are
easier for the carrier to influence. Due to the large amount of goods a carrier can Applying a Lean
transport and the small margins common to the sector, a small change in the approach to
operational costs can lead to major differences in profits (Brehmer, 1999; Kärkkäinen
and Ala-Risku, 2003). Hence, the potential of adapting and using a waste framework to identify waste
motor carrier operations appears to be high. That potential, together with the scarce
logistics and Lean-related literature on motor carrier operations (Rodrigues et al., 2008)
and the value created by the place utility (Hesse and Rodrigue, 2004) provided by 49
transport services of motor carrier operators calls for a closer look on the existing
operational wastes. Previous work by other authors on inefficiencies in transport
operations has mainly focussed on resource utilization and route optimization, areas
traditionally addressed by mathematical modeling, operations research and
simulation. These aspects have been covered by, e.g. mathematical optimization
models (Crainic et al., 2007; Kalantari, 2009) and visibility enabling technology
applications (Landers et al., 2000; Kärkkäinen et al., 2004; Sternberg et al., 2012).
How the actual operations can be improved to gain efficiency has rarely been studied,
with few exceptions (Fugate et al., 2009). Hence, this paper sets out to tackle
the challenge:
How can the classical 7 wastes from a Lean approach be adapted to and tested in motor
carrier operations?
In this work the motor carrier operator is the focal company and value creation is
the process of creating time and place utility (driving, loading and unloading).
The classical 7 waste framework has been used in this work as a point of departure for
developing a waste framework for motor carrier operations. This motor carrier waste
framework is based on the same principles as the classical 7 waste framework, i.e.
defining waste types related to operational areas that fit motor carrier operations.
The classical 7 waste framework has become an important tool within the Lean
field and despite it being an evolving philosophy, thinking and made out of a
constantly expanding set of tools (Hines et al., 2004), proper definitions and
understanding of these tools are needed (Åhlström, 2004) to adapt these tools to motor
carrier operations.
Transport operations, long waiting times for truck drivers (Sternberg, 2008; Prockl
et al., 2010), driver motivation issues (Corsi, 2005; Prockl et al., 2010), union-related
issues (Kerkvliet and McMullen, 1997), carrier mode selection (Meixell and Norbis,
2008), inefficiencies in loading and unloading (Sternberg et al., 2012), slow administration
(Sternberg, 2008) and inefficiencies related to slow modal shift (Woodburn, 2006) are some
of the issues discussed. Other frequently noted inefficiencies are related to security-related
procedures in logistics operations (World Customs Organization, 2009). The Motor Carrier
Efficiency Study literature review was a study financed by the US Department of
Transportation with the aim of identifying inefficiencies in motor carrier operations.
The study identified inefficiencies belonging to five different categories: equipment/asset
utilization, fuel economy and fuel waste, loss and theft, safety losses (i.e. crashes), and
administrative waste (data and information processing) (US Department of
Transportation, 2009). The study pointed out that there are potential economic gains,
both for the carrier and the society in general, in overcoming inefficiencies, i.e. reducing
waste. One common approach to identify inefficiencies in operations is using key
performance indicators (KPI). Practitioners in several countries have suggested various
KPI frameworks to support measurement of carrier operations (Swedish Association
of Road Haulage Companies, 2008; UK Department for Transport, 2009), but studies
IJPPM show these are seldom grasped or acknowledged by the actual transport workers
62,1 (Gustafsson, 2007).
One of the major success factors behind Lean implementations (as well as other
supply-chain development projects) has been the alignment of supply-chain partners
with the focal firm (Ellram and Cooper, 1993; Womack and Jones, 2003), but it has been
noted that companies frequently have difficulties in “aligning” their internal processes
50 with customers and suppliers (Kampstra et al., 2006). The carrier operators (Zylstra,
2006) or the waste of the carrier operators (AlRifai, 2008) are typically not considered in
Lean research projects, with only few exceptions involving the carriers in the value
flow, e.g. AlRifai (2008). A Lean distribution review by Reichhart and Holweg (2007)
does not even contain one occurrence of any of the words haulier, carrier or transport.
That is somehow characteristic of the literature on Lean distribution and supply chain,
focussing on customer-supplier relationships, in some cases including the logistics
providers (Stefansson, 2006; Zylstra, 2006) and in rare cases the transport operators
(Mason et al., 2007). Other closely related fields, e.g. business process re-engineering,
display the same lack of interest in motor carrier operations. This is likely to have
further contributed to the state of inefficiency typically found in road transportation
operations and calls for exploration of the carriers’ operations from a waste
perspective.
Waste is a central term in classical Lean literature (Schonberger, 1982; Krafcik, 1988;
Ohno, 1988; Imai, 2001). Through the customer’s eyes a process can be separated into
value adding steps and non-value adding steps, also called waste. Toyota has identified
seven major types of waste in manufacturing and business processes (Ohno, 1988;
Shingo, 1989). These include overproduction, waiting, unnecessary transport, incorrect
processing, excess inventory, unnecessary movement and defects. These different
types of waste are not equal in status or effect (Shingo, 1989). In addition to these seven
types of waste, some researchers have included an additional form of waste such as
unused employee creativity (Liker, 2004). There is an extensive number of definitions
of the seven wastes; two of them were chosen, one from production and one from
service, and listed in Table I.
The Lean principle of minimizing waste formed the idea of the title of this paper, yet
Lean has here been used solely for describing waste and the authors behind this work
acknowledges that it represents a very small piece of the large set of thinking, tools, etc.
of what constitutes Lean (Hines et al., 2004).

2. Methodology
This paper departs from the empirical need of new theory and methods to reduce
waste in transport operations and derives new theories from both empirical data from
carrier operations and existing theory on Lean adaptations. Hence, an abductive
approach has been chosen (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). The research behind this paper
consists of three parts: a literature study, an interview study and a validation
study. Table II shows the different steps in the methodical approach, the purpose of
each step, the data source and the outcome.

2.1 The literature study

The literature study focussed on various issues related to efficiency of business
operations but also inefficiency, as waste is associated with inefficient operations.
The purpose of the work is to investigate how the classical 7 wastes from a Lean
Waste Description – production Description – service
Applying a Lean
approach to
Overproduction Producing items for which there are no
orders, which generates such waste as
Producing reports no one reads or needs,
making extra copies, e-mailing/faxing
identify waste
overstaffing and storage and the same document/information multiple
transportation costs because of excess times, entering repetitive information on
inventory multiple documents and ineffective
meetings
51
Waiting Workers merely serving to watch an Excessive signatures or approvals,
automated machine or having to stand dependency on others to complete tasks,
around waiting for the next process step, delays in receiving information and
tool, supply, part, etc. or just having no cross-departmental resource
work because of stock outs, lot commitments
processing delays, equipment downtime
and capacity bottlenecks
Incorrect Taking unneeded steps to process the Duplicative reports or information,
processing parts. Inefficient processing due to poor repetitive data entry, incorrect
tool and product design, causing information being shared, constantly
unnecessary motion and producing revising documents, ineffective meetings
defects. Waste is generated when and no agendas, duplicative
providing higher-quality products than documentation and lack of accurate
necessary project planning
Unnecessary Any wasted motion employees have to Any movement of people, paper,
movement perform during the course of their work, electronic exchanges (e-mails, etc.) is
such as looking for, reaching for, or waste. This waste can be created by poor
stacking parts, tools, etc. Also, walking layout or design, ineffective equipment or
is waste supplies located afar
Conveyance Carrying work in process (WIP) long Searching for computer files, searching
distances, creating inefficient transport, for documents in file cabinets, repeatedly
or moving materials, parts or finished reviewing manuals for information and
goods into or out of storage or between hand-carrying paper to another process
processes
Excess Excess raw material, WIP, or finished Files awaiting signatures or approvals,
inventory goods causing longer lead times, work awaiting task completion by others,
(time) obsolescence, damaged goods, obsolete files, obsolete office equipment,
transportation and storage costs, and insufficient training of back-ups and
delay. Also, extra inventory hides purchasing of excessive office supplies
problems such as production imbalances, Table I.
late deliveries, defects, equipment Seven types of waste
downtime and long setup times in production according
Defects Production of defective parts or Data entry errors, pricing errors, to the Lean framework,
correction. Repair or rework, scrap, forwarding incomplete documentation, the production
replacement production, and inspection lost files or records, incorrect information description by Liker
means wasteful handling, time, and effort on documents, inefficient file system on (2004) and the service
desktop PC or in cabinet and not description by Tapping
appropriate staffing to service customer and Dunn (2006)

approach can be adapted to motor carrier operations, hence the classical Lean
framework from the Toyota Production System design has been studied in the
literature. To support the adaption, other applications of the classical Lean framework
has been studied such as in various service industries, both related to transport
services, i.e. the airline industry, but also in non-transport-related industries related to
human resources, sales operations and health care operations.
IJPPM Steps Literature study Interview study Validation study
62,1
Purpose To establish the framework To develop further the To validate the final
of waste categories for carrier suggested framework and framework and test in a real
operations finalize the framework time operations
Data Literature review on Interviews with 15 Interviews with managers
source literature relevant to carrier experts in five groups in and administrators and
52 operations and Lean various areas related to observations of five carrier
approach in various the field of research operations including time
Table II. industries measures
The different steps Outcome Suggested framework of A finalized framework of A validated framework of
in the methodical wastes in carrier operations seven wastes in carrier seven wastes in carrier
approach operations operations

2.2 The interview study

The aim of the interview study was to finalize the suggested waste framework and
adapt to carrier operations with help from expert group. Five different groups of
experts related either directly to carriers’ operations or being experts on Lean and
waste related to service operations were identified to contribute to this step of the
research. Each group contained from one to four experts each – in total, 15 different
experts were consulted.
Due to the novelty of the research area and the exploratory nature of the research,
interviews were carried out where interviewees were encouraged to speak freely about
the subject of waste in carrier operations. According to Silverman (2006), this type of
qualitative method is appropriate since such approach studies both meanings as well
as causes. When selecting the interviewees in each category, the focus was on getting
in as many relevant perspectives as possible.
The interviewee selection was limited to the Scandinavian countries. All interviews,
except for the interviews with the carrier service buyers, were carried out in
person. Meeting notes were sent back to the interviewees for verification in order to
increase reliability of the collected empirical data (Yin, 2003). The carrier service
buyers were interviewed by phone, with notes taken and sent back for verification
(Table III).
Altogether the 15 experts represented 12 companies and one university. The
literature review and the interview study resulted in a finalized adapted waste
framework for carrier operations that was then validated in a validation study.

2.3 Validation study

The aim of the validation study was twofold. First, to assess the relevance of the
adapted framework to carrier operations and by that validate if the seven suggested
waste categories fit ordinary carrier operations. Second, to quantify the suggested
waste categories by collecting data from carrier operations.
To secure a rigor validation, five medium-sized carriers (20-80 trucks) were chosen
based on the similarities of their customers, type of operation and size (these five
carriers were not included in the sample 12 companies that participated in the expert
study outlined in the previous section). One carrier is operating mainly intermodal
transportation and regional distribution of general cargo in west Sweden, two carriers
are operating mainly in regional distribution of general cargo in west Sweden and two
Name and code in
Applying a Lean
the text Company type Description approach to
Carrier operational Mid-size haulier Has 20 years experience from the haulier business as a
identify waste
manager 1 (COM1) driver, traffic controller and site manager from another
haulier operator. Currently, he is manager of a small
terminal and 50 employees, 30 of them drivers
Carrier operational Mid-size haulier Is the CEO for the haulier business he started in 1977. His 53
manager 2 (COM2) company has 30 employees and 26 trucks
Carrier operational Mid-size haulier Has been working in haulier operations since 1935 and has
manager 3 (COM3) owned a family business since 1950. The company has 14
trucks. The administrator of the business was also
interviewed and his comments are included in the
same label
Lean expert 1 (LE1) Lean consultant Works for a large consulting company focussed on Lean
for production, logistics and service
Lean expert 2 (LE2) Lean consultant Works for a large consulting and research company. The
consultant has previously worked for two years with
improvement programs in the transport network of a
major vehicle manufacturer
Lean expert 3 (LE3) Lean researcher Is an assistant professor and has been working with Lean
research for various industries (including transport) for
20 years
Lean expert 4 (LE4) Lean researcher Is a consulting manager for a primarily production-
oriented consultancy. He has been working with Lean for
various industries (including logistics and transport)
Business analyst 1 Major truck Is a sales manager for a large truck retailer
(BA1) retailer
Business analyst 2 Industrial Is working with a transport research company and has led
(BA2) transport several research projects on transports with a focus on
research combining security and efficiency
Business analyst 3 Industrial Is working with a transport research company and has
(BA3) transport interviewed over 50 different hauliers about their business
research requirements
Truck manufacturer Truck Is manager for a vehicle information system. He has
manager 1 (TM1) manufacturer previously worked for seven years as a management
consultant
Truck manufacturer Truck Is the key account manager at a company working with
manager 2 (TM2) manufacturer business development of services. He has previously
worked for 17 years in various positions at a major
telecommunications company
Truck manufacturer Truck Is manager at a transport research company and is
manager 3 (TM3) manufacturer working with service development. He has also been a
truck driver for two years
Carrier service buyer 1 Food wholesaler Has been a logistics manager for seven years, working
(CSB1) 20 years in the same company. Ten people in his
department work with transport related issues Table III.
Carrier service buyer 2 Food producer Is a transport manager and has worked 30 years in the An outline of the
(CSB2) same company. He is responsible of the delivery of experts included
perishables to small-size customers in the study

carriers operate country-wide distribution of general cargo in Switzerland (country

wide is considered similar to regional operations, due to the relatively small size of
Switzerland). Together these companies transport all major types of goods transported
in less-than-truck-load networks.
IJPPM The data collection approach included two different steps. Initially, open-ended
62,1 interviews were carried out with managers and administrative staff related to
customer service, transport planning, reporting and invoicing in all of the involved
companies. This step was taken to reveal waste categories that can be related to
administration and information sharing or lack of information. The second step
involved observation of truck operations including loading and unloading. The data
54 were collected by physically traveling with the trucks during a daily transport
operation and document the activities carried out. In addition to activity
documentation, the activities were time measured as they were executed. In order to
minimize the potential Hawthorne effect (Scott, 2003; Castle and Harvey, 2009), the
drivers were assured anonymity and that no data nor any records would be forwarded
to their managers.
The in-depth case study data were analyzed using the adapted waste framework.
To ensure rigor by the matching, a group of researchers worked independently on the
same data set and then discussed and compared their respective matching.

3. Empirical analysis
This chapter summarizes the data collected from the empirical study. Interviewees
were encouraged to speak freely about waste in transport operations. As often is the
case, interviewees were mixing waste and the actual issues causing the waste.
The issues reported by the different experts varied a lot, but key issues were reported
in several interviews, e.g. collaboration issues regarding route optimization and
excessive administration due to various reasons. Other issues were reported by only
one or a few experts, but no issues were neglected in the reporting due to the strong
expertise and limited number of experts. The Lean experts interviewed in the study
were more directly using Lean terms and recommended the interviewers follow
the original definitions of the classical 7 waste framework as closely as possible in the
adaptation.

3.1 Overproduction
According to Imai (2001), the principle of waste of overproduction is carrying out
work or producing items for which there are no orders or no one compensating
the effort.
In the interviewee study, administrative overproduction was reported by several
interviewees. Business analyst 1 (BA1) states that administrative processes are often
handled in an old-fashioned way. A lot of the communication is handled by phone or
fax and the work involves a lot of paperwork where the drivers must visit the office
regularly to collect and leave papers. BA3 mentions a carrier he worked with and
explains the faulty information flow between traffic control and the driver. There is no
supporting IT system to facilitate the exchange of information between the traffic
control and the drivers. Instead of using an IT system the driver has to visit the
office several times a day to collect and report transport assignments. Truck
manufacturer manager 3 (TM3) discusses the inefficient way administrative processes
work in a carrier’s administrative processes. TM2 discusses the problems with old
systems that are used in administrative processes. He uses as an example the early
versions of the digital tachograph that are still in use at many carriers. It can take
up to 20 minutes to upload the data from the tachograph to the business system. This
task is performed once a day by each driver, resulting in a lot of wasted time according
to TM2.
3.2 Waiting time Applying a Lean
Waiting time is sometimes referred to as the waste of queuing, with the operator approach to
waiting for the next process step (Liker, 2004).
Carrier operational manager 1 (COM1) says that a lot of waiting time is associated identify waste
with the loading and unloading process. He exemplifies that with transport
assignments to the Port of Gothenburg, where drivers usually have to wait for
unloading and loading of the goods. The opening hours of the sender and receiver are 55
another problem for utilizing the fleet efficiently according to BA1. BA2 discusses the
loading and unloading process from a security perspective. BA2 mentions that waiting
times could increase even further in the future with higher demand of security controls
when entering a terminal facility.

3.3 Incorrect processing

Incorrect processing is spending more time or resources on a process than necessary.
Incorrect or non-optimal processing of transport tasks was frequently mentioned
by the interviewees as both non-optimal routing and unnecessarily high-fuel
consumption. Non-optimal routing can either be on purpose (e.g. driver attending
another point of interest along the way) or by mistake, e.g. driving the wrong road or
searching for an erroneous address.
COM1 refers to idle driving as a driver behavior that causes unnecessary waste.
COM3 means that high fuel consumption causes high costs for their company.
According to BA1 the difference between the best and the worst driver can be up to
20-30 percent in fuel consumption for the same transport assignment. Both carrier
service buyer 1 (CSB1) and CSB2 described route planning as the largest source of
waste in carrier operations. They outlined their efforts to collaborate on route planning
with the carriers and other companies buying carrier services in the same geographical
area, in order to increase resource utilization (fill rate).

3.4 Unnecessary movement

BA2 mentions the aspects of the loading and unloading process. The driver seldom
knows exactly where to unload and if his arrival should be reported in the reception
before or after loading. This lack of information many times leads to erroneous or
unnecessary driving and walking. The process of loading and unloading the truck
includes a form of waste according to BA1. The whole procedure of loading and
unloading the trucks is often designed from the terminal’s point of view rather than
quickly loading and unloading the truck, causing long loading and unloading times.
Several of the interviewees mentioned that the drivers often have to get out of the
vehicle in order to perform administrative tasks. Lean expert 3 (LE3) highlights
the waste associated with wrong sequencing of the goods on the load units, resulting in
the driver having to make goods movements inside the truck or trailer. Adapting
unnecessary movement to motor carrier operations gives a mere duplication of the
waste of conveyance. Though there are clear distinctions between conveyance and
unnecessary movement in Lean related to manufacturing, with conveyance related to
physical movement of the product and unnecessary movement to physical movement
of the operator (Imai, 2001), adaptations of Lean to service have often provided
definitions of these two wastes that are nearly identical (Tapping and Dunn, 2006;
Hicks, 2007). Since unnecessary movement of the truck is synonymous with ineffective
routing (addressed by incorrect processing) and the product is not conveyed without
IJPPM the operator, the waste of unnecessary movement is assumed to be applicable to motor
62,1 carrier operations and conveyance non-applicable.

3.5 Excess inventory

As to the nature of a service, carrier operations do not generate inventory per se and the
waste of excess inventory does not directly apply. Hicks (2007) and Åhlström (2004)
56 apply the principle of excess inventory to the machinery and materials used to carry
out a service, so it could be argued that inventory should be translated into assets, but
on the other hand Lean literature states that striving for high machine utilization can
often result in waste such as overproduction (Imai, 2001).

3.6 Defects
Whenever a defect or damage occurs, it causes additional, non-value adding work.
In carrier operations a number of damages (defects) were reported by the interviewees,
both damages related to equipment and to the transported goods.
A common type of waste mentioned by the carriers’ managers is defects on the fleet
and other equipment. COM2 mentions a two-week education program at the insurance
company “If” in Norway that he participated in. He used his experience from the
education and designed an education program for his drivers. It resulted in
significantly lowered yearly costs of defects on the vehicles. COM1 says that the most
obvious form of waste is the high cost of defects on the trucks due to collisions on the
road or other types of collisions with loading docks, etc. COM1 uses the example of
the year 2007 when the cost of defects on the fleet was in parity with the net profit.
For COM3 it is important to have high availability of the trucks. A form of waste is
when the trucks are standing still during the day because of necessary reparations.
It would be valuable for him if the repairs could be performed during a night shift and
thereby increase the availability of the trucks.
Damages on shipments were mentioned by COM1, and CSB2 says that a common
waste is related to carriers breaking exceeding temperature limits on perishable
shipments due to errors in the loading and unloading process.

3.7 Additional waste in carrier operations

Some of the identified waste did not straightforwardly fit into the classical 7 waste
framework. Several of the interviewees mentioned waste associated with the resource
utilization of the carrier operators, both related to unfilled vehicles in operation
and resources not operated. LE2 argues that it is important to use the truck in an
optimal way. He recalls an experience where the truck and trailer did not fit together
(height, aerodynamic aspects, etc.). COM2 has five trucks that are currently not used at
all. BA1 argues that the problem with capacity utilization relates to insufficient
planning. TM1 argues that both the utilization of the drivers and the fleet are
important for a carrier.
For COM1, one form of waste is time used, which cannot be charged to the customer.
Depending on the price model for a specific contract it is possible that all time used for
a specific transport assignment cannot be charged to the customer. COM1 exemplifies
one of their distribution routes where the price is fixed plus a variable fee for the
number of stops for the unloading of goods they do. In case of traffic problems and
such they cannot charge the customer for the extra time used. COM3 mentions the
problem in his business with carriers that accept assignments they make losses on
rather than letting the trucks stand still. This is, in his opinion, a form of waste. Two Applying a Lean
central issues related to the carrier operators seem to be the waste of low resource approach to
utilization and waste of uncovered assignments.
identify waste
3.8 Suggested framework
Derived from the literature and the interview study we suggest the following
adapted framework for waste in carrier operations as shown in Table IV. The original 57
framework has several overlapping areas (Shingo, 1989) and so this adapted
framework has inherited the same characteristic. Similar to other applications of the
classical waste framework, some slight adaptation had to be carried out, while still
trying to keep as close to the original framework as possible.

Waste Description Source

1. Overproduction Producing reports no one reads or Definition by Tapping and

needs, making extra copies, e-mailing/
faxing the same document/
information multiple times, entering
repetitive information on multiple
documents and ineffective meetings
2. Waiting Employees having to stand around
waiting for the next process step, such
as loading and unloading, or just
having no work because of lack of
orders, processing delays, equipment
downtime and capacity bottlenecks
3. Incorrect Consuming more resources for moving
processing the goods than necessary due to
inefficient routing or driving
4. Unnecessary Any wasted motion employees have to
movement perform during the course of their
work, such as looking for information,
reaching for, or stacking goods,
equipment, papers, etc. Also, walking
and extra movement created by
sequencing errors is waste. This was
found to be synonymous with
conveyance
5. Defects Waste caused by repairs, redelivery,
scrapping, etc., due to damages on the
transported goods or the equipment
6. Resource Waste due to excessive equipment and
utilization (new) bad resource planning
7. Uncovered Carrying out unprofitable transport
assignments (new) work due lack of information or
planning
Excess inventory Not applicable
Conveyance Not applicable (duplicate of 4).
Dunn (2006), confirmed in the
empirical study
Definition from production
(Liker, 2004), loading and
unloading added as a common
cause for waste of waiting
noted from the empirical study
Definition suggested based on
the empirical study
Definition by Tapping and
Dunn (2006), movement due to
sequencing errors added from
the empirical study
Damages to the equipment
added to the production
definition, in alignment with
the empirical study
Definition suggested based on
the empirical study
Definition suggested based on
the empirical study Table IV.
Suggested adaption of a
Not reported in the empirical waste framework for
study carrier operations: the
Not reported in the empirical seven wastes of motor
study carrier operations
IJPPM 4. Framework validation
62,1 In order to validate the framework, a quantitative and qualitative multiple case study
of three motor carrier operators in Sweden and two in Switzerland, in total five, were
carried out. The studies looked both in detail at the administrative and planning
procedures in the office, as well as at the execution of the actual transport operations.
The transport execution indicated that 28.93 percent of the transport time is either
58 partly or completely wasted as illustrated in Table V.
The measurements are discussed in subsequent sections. Driving between loading/
unloading locations, loading and unloading were not considered waste, whereas extra
driving, copying documents, controlling work of other people, walking around, phone
calls (while standing still), extensive ( þ 50 percent) and/or non-registered (driver
regulation) breaks and waiting were classified as waste. Waste of unprofitable
assignments was calculated separately. The activity numbers in the tables denote the
sequence of the measurements in the actual time series.

Overproduction
Overproduction was found in both transport execution and office procedures of all five
observed carriers. In Switzerland in particular, overproduction was prevalent. In the
office of the first Swiss carrier operator, all of the transport orders were entered
manually, despite already existing in their system. In the office of the second Swiss
carrier, one member of the staff spent 50 percent of his time processing returned
consignment notes and yet another employee spent almost the same amount of time
controlling the processing from that one member. Another staff member was employed
full-time to scan print-outs from board computers, report driving time to authorities
and keep track of pallet inventory. As one employee stated, “It is all about control and
finding out who is guilty.” The salary per year of the administrative staff (ten people)
ranged from 36,000 to 60,000, with between 10,000 and 40,000 per employee being
waste of overproduction.

Waiting
In traditional Lean assessments, waiting is the easiest waste to identify (Imai, 2001).
Waiting in carrier operations is no exception to that and was frequently observed.
Table VI gives a sample of waiting time.
Waiting typically occurred at unloading and loading, especially very frequently at
the terminals of the operators themselves, typically due to queues to, e.g. forklifts to
unload heterogeneous goods.

Type of waste % of total transport time

Total operational waste (%) 28.93

Overproduction 4.32
Waiting 4.57
Table V. Incorrect processing 1.21
The seven wastes of Unnecessary movement 7.21
motor carrier operators: Defects 0.17
quantitative indications Resource utilization 11.45
from ten drivers in % of transport assignments
five companies Unprofitable assignments 39.19
Incorrect processing Applying a Lean
The incorrect processing was typically measured when a driver would drive back the approach to
same way he came (e.g. while searching for a location) – without having carried out any
loading or unloading. The routes chosen by the drivers were, due to the limitations in identify waste
possible data collection, assumed to be optimal, even though that is not feasible, since
the routes commonly included private errands. Other studies looking specifically at
route planning have revealed a higher degree of inefficiencies related to route planning 59
(Baumgartner and Leonardi, 2004). Table VII shows a sample of incorrect routing from
Switzerland, resulting in waste of incorrect processing.

Unnecessary movement
Unnecessary movement was prevalent in all five carriers’ operations. Sequencing
errors resulting in frequent movement of goods inside trucks as well as frequent
walking for information or administrative purposes were measured as unnecessary
movement. Chosen by management as the best driver in the company, out of 80
employed distribution drivers, Table VIII exemplifies four non-value adding activities,
resulting from an error in the transport planning process.
Many times waste of waiting was related to waste of unnecessary movement. When
a driver had to wait to load certain goods, he would load the rest of the goods and the
goods he would wait for would be loaded in a non-optimal spot of the truck, resulting in
subsequent movements at every unloading location.

Defects
None of the studied companies had exact figures on the costs of damages to goods and
equipment. One of the Swiss companies had been able to reduce their insurance for the
drivers with 7 percent (approximately 6,000 yearly cost savings). Waste of transport
time was not observed in large quantities, yet one of the drivers mentioned that waiting
times up to 30 minutes in order to report damaged goods are not unusual. For one of the
studied carriers, a lethal accident had generated a lot of bad publicity.

Resource utilization
As outlined by Imai (2001), different types of waste are interrelated and many times
overlap. Resource utilization is in many cases an overlapping or overarching waste of
waiting time, incorrect processing and unnecessary movement, but in order not to

No. Activity Time entry Description Table VI.

Excerpt from a
74 Drive 00:15:00 Drive driver observation
75 Walk 00:01:00 Get a queue number (queue for unloading time slot) in a Swedish
76 Wait 01:16:00 Waiting in order to get a time slot for unloading carrier operator

Time
No. Activity entry Description
Table VII.
33 Drive 00:16:54 Arrived at a location in the vicinity of the destination, but the chosen road Sample of
was blocked for heavy transports (bridge weight limitation) incorrect processing,
34 Drive 00:10:09 Extra driving to find another way to arrive at the same location Swiss driver
IJPPM Time
62,1 No. Activity entry Description

26 Walk 00:15:51 Ask about destination (construction site) – the people questioned did not
know the location of it
27 Info 00:04:42 Holding and calling two calls, trying to get a hold of the construction site
manager
60 28 Drive 00:16:31 Driving straight and then turning back the same way the equipage came
29 Walk 00:11:08 Standing with construction site work leader. Not possible to get a hold of
Table VIII. the manager, since he was in a course. Impossible to drive trailer down the
Activities related to a hill on the narrow street, impossible to unload 5 m long wood constructs
failed delivery of goods without crane. Customer says they ordered a transport with a crane;
to a construction site equipage did not have it

count any wasted time twice, the other types were chosen prior. The CEOs of the
carrier operators themselves viewed themselves as having a high degree of resource
utilization, but observations, e.g. Table IX, of the drivers did not confirm that.
Frequent errors in the planning process resulted in resource utilization waste in the
transport operations of all the observed carriers, especially the Swiss transport
planners that were to a larger extent relying on information from phone calls and paper
than their Swedish counterparts. Typical resource utilization waste would appear by
not planning critical resources, e.g. forklifts or cranes, to match requirements of
transport orders.

Uncovered assignments
The carrier managers confirmed the results from the interview study that they
typically will accept all transport orders from all customers, without making any
profitability assessment. Due to the very limited data available on the cost of each
transport order (four carriers did not even measure fuel consumption other than on
an aggregate level) or revenue per contract, it was not feasible to create an exact
measurement of uncovered assignments. Based on the small margins (0-2 percent) that
four of the carriers were facing, it is realistic to assume that a large amount of
assignments, given the observed level of inefficiency, were non-profitable. Departing
from the available observation data, the estimation of the percentage of uncovered
assignments is based on the assumption that all assignments are theoretically
profitable, but estimated to be non-profitable whenever excessive waste and/or needed

Time
No. Activity entry Description

76 Move 00:07:24 Moving goods inside truck, prepare loading

Asking/searching for information on unloading location. Proved to be
77 Walk 00:02:18 wrong. Closing cover of truck
78 Drive 00:01:34 Driving to other side of building
Asking/searching for information on unloading location. Truck correctly
Table IX. 79 Walk 00:02:01 positioned
A sample of observed 80 Wait 00:01:59 Waiting for receiver’s forklift to arrive
poor resource 81 Move 00:01:16 Drive backwards to more suited loading location
utilization 82 Load 00:12:40 Heterogeneous goods, needing special lift to load
time to carry out the transport order was at hand. Hence, the ratio of non-profitable Applying a Lean
assignments is estimated as (non-profitable assignments)/(total number of approach to
assignments).
One of the Swiss carriers systematically tried to cooperate with other operators and identify waste
give them goods volumes in order to avoid non-profitable trips, assumed to be one of
the reasons why their profit margin on identical transport services was 10 percent
(instead of 1 percent in comparison to the studied competitor). 61
Validation summary
Given the limited number of cases, the results indicate that unnecessary movement and
resource utilization are very visible and highly frequent types of waste in carrier
operations. Both are to a large extent effects of missing information and inadequate
planning. Waste of administrative overprocessing was frequently observed in all five
cases, whereas waste of waiting varied a lot depending on the type of consignee in
the study. Typically, a carrier operator must accept some waste of unprofitable
assignments in order to keep customers, yet the case studies revealed that a large
percentage of the assignments are not profitable. Further, the cases revealed the need
for improved information availability on the actual revenue and costs of individual
transport orders or trips.

5. Concluding discussion
The literature study carried out for this paper reveals extensive evidences of
inefficiency in motor carrier operations. Furthermore, it indicates a lack of frameworks
to describe and analyze inefficiency or waste in a structured way for the motor carrier
industry. Given that waste in production processes has been described successfully
with the well known 7 waste framework and similar frameworks can be found for the
service industry, this work attempts to apply and adapt the classical 7 waste
framework to motor carrier operations.
A case study carried out through in-depth interviews with experts from several
carrier operators, technology providers, carrier service buyers and the Lean field
resulted in an adapted waste framework for motor carrier operations. It turns out that
five out of the seven classical waste types can be applied in the motor carrier waste
framework, but two do not fit, namely waste of excess inventory and conveyance.
Instead, two new waste types are needed to complete the description of waste in motor
carrier operations: resource utilization and uncovered assignments. Adding these two
new types, an adapted framework of seven wastes for motor carrier operations
surfaces.
The new framework of 7 wastes in motor carrier operations was tested by studying
operations at five different motor carrier operators in Sweden and Switzerland. The
results from these studies validated the applicability of the new 7 waste framework for
motor carrier operations and thereby confirmed the results of the interview study.
Initial attempts to quantify the waste based on the observations were carried out in
order to strengthen the validation, indicating both significant waste in operations and
a high potential for reducing waste.
The analytical contribution of this work is a new framework of 7 wastes for motor
carrier operations. The framework shows typical operational inefficiencies and is
useful for describing and analyzing waste in motor carrier operations.
The managerial contribution is a framework that identifies seven types of waste
in carrier operations. The framework gives managers insight into where the main
IJPPM potential for improvements is found and a point of departure for making
62,1 transportation processes more efficient and thereby diminishing long-term
inefficiencies. How the processes are improved is, however, up to each carrier as
operations differ between operators as well as information technology sophistication
that often tends to enable increased operational efficiency.
In this work, the 7 waste framework for transport operations has been validated
62 with empirical data from five different motor carriers. Nevertheless, more data needs to
be collected to validate the framework and to develop a performance indicator for the
seven different types of waste in motor carrier operations. Furthermore, root cause
analysis of waste in transportation as well as exploring organizational culture in the
context of Lean in transportation remains unexplored.

References
Åhlström, P. (2004), “Lean service operations: translating lean production principles to service
operations”, International Journal of Services Technology and Management, Vol. 5 Nos 5/6,
pp. 545-64.
AlRifai, N.B. (2008), “Optimizing a lean logistics system and the identification of its breakdown
points”, PhD thesis, Faculty of the graduate school, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA.
Apte, U.M. and Goh, C.-H. (2004), “Applying lean manufacturing principles to information
intensive services”, International Journal of Services Technology and Management, Vol. 5
Nos 5/6, pp. 488-506.
Baumgartner, M. and Leonardi, J. (2004), “Optimierte Disposition und Telematik steigern
Effizienz im deutschen SGV”, Internationales Verkehrswesen, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 197-201.
Belman, D., Lafontaine, F. and Monaco, K.A. (2005), “Truck drivers in the age of information:
transformation without gain”, in Belman, D. and White, C.C. (Eds), Trucking in the Age of
Information, Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington, VT, pp. 183-212.
Bey, N. (2010), Lean Transportation: Reduce Transportation Wastes using OTM, Infosys, available
at: www.infosysblogs.com/oracle/2010/01/learn_transportation_reduce_tra_1.html
Blücher, D. and Öjmertz, B. (2008), Challenge Your Processes! An Introduction to Lean Production,
Swerea IVF, Mölndal.
Brehmer, P.-O. (1999), “Towards a model of lean freight transport operations”, PhD thesis,
Logistics and Transport Systems, Linköping University, Linköping.
Castle, A. and Harvey, R. (2009), “Lean information management: the use of observational data in
health care”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58
No. 3, pp. 280-99.
Corsi, T.M. (2005), “The truckload carrier industry segment”, in Belman, D. and White, C.C. (Eds),
Trucking in the Age of Information, Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington, VT.
Crainic, T.G., Damay, J. and Gendreau, M. (2007), “An integrated freight transportation modelling
framework”, in Fortz, B. and Gouveia, L. (Eds), International Network Optimization
Conference, University of Libson, Spa, pp. 1-6.
Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E. (2002), “Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case
research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 553-60.
Ellram, L.M. and Cooper, M.C. (1993), “The relationship between supply chain management and
keiretsu”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Fugate, B.S., Davis-Sramek, B. and Goldsby, T.J. (2009), “Operational collaboration between
shippers and carriers in the transportation industry”, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 425-47.
Gustafsson, S. (2007), “Miljö kopplat till löne- och belöningssystem inom transport- och Applying a Lean
åkeribranschen”, Master’s thesis, Department of Road and Traffic, Chalmers University of
Technology, Gothenburg. approach to
Hesse, M. and Rodrigue, J.-P. (2004), “The transport geography of logistics and freight identify waste
distribution”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 171-84.
Hicks, B.J. (2007), “Lean information management: understanding and eliminating waste”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 233-49. 63
Hines, P., Holweg, 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.
Imai, M. (2001), Gemba Kaizen: A Commonsense, Low-Cost Approach to Management, McGraw-
Hill, Singapore.
Kalantari, J. (2009), “Foliated transportation networks – exploring feasibility and potential”,
Licentiate thesis, Logistics & Transportation, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg.
Kampstra, P., Ashayeri, J. and Gattorna, J. (2006), “Realities of supply chain collaboration”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 312-30.
Kärkkäinen, M. and Ala-Risku, T. (2003), “Facilitating the integration of SME’s to supply
networks with lean IT solutions”, eChallenges 2003 Conference, October 22-24, Bologna.
Kärkkäinen, M., Ala-Risku, T. and Främling, K. (2004), “Efficient tracking for short-term multi-
company networks”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 545-64.
Karlin, J.N. and Liker, J.K. (2005), “Just-in-time and trucking logistics: the Lean learning
enterprise”, in Belman, D. and White, C.C. (Eds), Trucking in the Age of Information,
Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington, VT, pp. 213-46.
Kerkvliet, J. and McMullen, S.B. (1997), “The impact of unionization on motor carrier costs”,
Economic Inquiry, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 271-84.
Kosuge, R., Holm, M., Modig, N. and Åhlström, P. (2009), “Adoption of the lean concept at a
Toyota car dealer: identifying the key factors”, in Johansson, M. and Jonsson, P. (Eds),
Euroma, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, pp. 1-10.
Krafcik, J.F. (1988), “Triumph of the lean production system”, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 41-52.
Landers, T.L., Cole, M.H., Walker, B. and Kirk, R.W. (2000), “The virtual warehousing concept”,
Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 115-25.
Laureani, A. and Antony, J. (2011), “Reducing employees’ turnover in transactional services: a
Lean Six Sigma case study”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 59 No. 7, pp. 688-700.
Lehman, R., Spafford, C. and Hoyland, T. (2010), “Conducted a major Lean Six Sigma project for
international cargo carrier to increase asset utilization”, Oliver Wyman, New York, NY,
available at: www.oliverwyman.com/3603.htm (accessed February 27, 2010).
Liker, J. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles form the World’s Greatest
Manufacturer, CWL Publishing Enterprises, New York, NY.
McKinnon, A.C. and Ge, Y. (2006), “The potential for reducing empty running by trucks:
a retrospective analysis”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 391-410.
Marr, P. and Parry, S. (2004), “Performance management in call centers: lessons, pitfalls
and achievements in Fujitsu services”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 55-62.
IJPPM Mason, R., Lalwani, C. and Boughton, R. (2007), “Combining vertical and horizontal collaboration
for transport optimisation”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12
62,1 No. 3, pp. 187-99.
Meixell, M.J. and Norbis, M. (2008), “A review of the transportation mode choice and
carrier selection literature”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 183-211.
64 Miller, G.A., Felbaum, C., Tengi, R., Wakefield, P. and Langone, H. (2009), WordNet, Princeton
University, Princeton, NJ.
Nagarajan, A., Canessa, E., Nowak, M., Mitchell, W. and White, C.C. (2005), “Technology in
trucking”, in Belman, D. and White, C.C. (Eds), Trucking in the Age of Information,
Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington, VT, pp. 147-82.
Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Pedersen, E.R.G. and Huniche, M. (2011), “Negotiating lean – the fluidity and solidity of new
management technologies in the Danish public sector”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 550-66.
Prockl, G., Schottenhammer, M. and Kotzab, H. (2010), “Job satisfaction in road
transportation – a survey”, in Aarlbjörn, J.S. (Ed.), Nofoma, University of Southern
Denmark, Kolding.
Reichhart, A. and Holweg, M. (2007), “Lean distribution: concepts, contributions, conflicts”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 16, pp. 3699-722.
Roberts, M.J. (1956), “Some aspects of motor carrier costs: firm size, efficiency, and financial
health”, Land Economics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 228-38.
Rodrigues, V.S., Stantchev, D., Potter, A.T., Naim, M. and Whiteing, A. (2008), “Establishing a
transport operation focused uncertainty model for the supply chain”, International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 388-411.
Schonberger, R.J. (1982), Japanese Manufacturing Techniques: Nine Hidden Lessons in Simplicity,
Macmillan, New York, NY.
Scott, R.W. (2003), Organizations – Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, Upper Saddle River,
Prentice Hall, NJ.
Shingo, S. (1989), A Study of the Toyota Production System, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Silverman, D. (2006), Interpreting Qualitative Data, Sage Publications Ltd, London.
Stefansson, G. (2006), “Collaborative logistics management and the role of third-party service
providers”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 36
No. 2, pp. 76-92.
Sternberg, H. (2008), “Transportation visibility and information sharing – a case study of actors’
requirements”, World Review on Intermodal Transportation, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 54-71.
Sternberg, H., Nyquist, C. and Nilsson, F. (2012), “Enhancing security through efficiency focus –
insights from a multiple stakeholder pilot implementation”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 63-72.
Swedish Association of Road Haulage Companies (2008), “Fakta om åkerinäringen”, available at:
www.akeri.se/sveriges-akeriforetag/media/informations-material (accessed March 10,
2009).
Tapping, D. and Dunn, A. (2006), Lean Office Demystified – Using the Power of the Toyota
Production System in Your Administrative Areas Chelsea, MCS Media Inc, Chelsea, MI.
Taylor, L. and Martichenko, R. (2006), Lean Transportation – Fact or Fiction?, FedEx White
Paper, Memphis, TN.
UK Department for Transport (2009), “Fleet performance management tool incorporating CO2 Applying a Lean
emissions calculator”, in Freight Transport Association (Ed.), Freight Best Practice, Kent.
approach to
US Department of Transportation (2009), The 2007 Annual Motor Carrier Efficiency Study
Report to Congress, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Springfield, VA. identify waste
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2003), Lean Thinking – Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation, Free Press, Simon Schuster Inc, New York, NY.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2005), “Lean consumption”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83 No. 3, 65
pp. 58-68.
Woodburn, A.G. (2006), “The non-bulk market for rail freight in Great Britain”, Journal of
Transport Geography, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 299-308.
World Customs Organization (2009), “Customs in the 21st century – enhancing growth and
development through trade facilitation and border security”, report, World Customers
Organization, Brussels, May 12.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research – Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Zylstra, K.D. (2006), Lean Distribution: Applying Lean Manufacturing to Distribution, Logistics,
and Supply Chain, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ.

Corresponding author
Gunnar Stefansson can be contacted at: Gunnar.Stefansson@chalmers.se

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

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