Available

Available online
online at
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com

Available ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
online atonline
Available www.sciencedirect.com
at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia
Procedia CIRP
CIRP 00
00 (2017)
(2017) 000–000
ScienceDirect
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)
Procedia 000–000
CIRP 70 (2018) 422–427
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

28th
28th CIRP
CIRP Design
Design Conference, May 2018,
Conference, May 2018, Nantes,
Nantes, France
France

Lean OR ERP
Lean OR ERP –– A
A Decision
Decision
28th Support
Support
CIRP Design System
System
Conference, to
to Satisfy
May 2018, Satisfy Business
Business Objectives
Nantes, France Objectives
a a a,*
A new methodologySaraswati Saraswati
to analyze Jituriathe
Jituri ,, Brian
Brian Flecka,, Rafiq
functional
Fleck RafiqandAhmad
Ahmad physical
a,*
architecture of
existing
Laboratory of
products
of Intelligent for
Manufacturing,
an
Design and assembly
and Automation
oriented
(LIMDA), Department
Department of
product
of Mechanical
family
Mechanical engineering,
identification
engineering, University
University of
of Alberta,
Alberta, Edmonton
Edmonton AB
AB T6G
T6G
a
Laboratory
a
Intelligent Manufacturing, Design Automation (LIMDA),
1H9,
1H9, Canada
Canada
** Corresponding
Corresponding author.
author. Tel.:
Tel.: "+1-(780) 492-7180" ,, E-mail
"+1-(780) 492-7180" E-mail address:
address: Rafiq.Ahmad@ualberta.ca
Rafiq.Ahmad@ualberta.ca ,, engrrafiq@gmail.com
Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat engrrafiq@gmail.com

École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France
Abstract
Abstract
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 87 37 54 30; E-mail address: paul.stief@ensam.eu
Lean
Lean manufacturing
manufacturing and and Enterprise
Enterprise Resource
Resource Planning
Planning (ERP)
(ERP) systems
systems are are two
two most
most important
important strategies
strategies utilized
utilized by
by manufacturers
manufacturers attempting
attempting to to
compete
compete for sales and profits in the global market. Most of the organizations around the world use ERP or Lean, but rarely both. Literature reveals
for sales and profits in the global market. Most of the organizations around the world use ERP or Lean, but rarely both. Literature reveals
that
that modern
modern operations
operations management,
management, by by default,
default, requires
requires all
all industries
industries to to use
use an
an ERP
ERP system.
system. Increasing
Increasing competition
competition compels
compels industries
industries toto reduce
reduce
Abstract
their costs and improve operational efficiency, which may be possible by practicing lean manufacturing principles. Small and medium enterprises
their costs and improve operational efficiency, which may be possible by practicing lean manufacturing principles. Small and medium enterprises
are not
not familiar where ERP
ERP system is required and
and where the
the lean approach is suitable
suitable when
when isthey have
have aa specific business objective. Therefore,
Inaretoday’s
familiar
businesswhere system
environment, theistrend
required
towards where
more product leanvariety
approach andiscustomization they
unbroken. specific business
Due to this objective.the
development, Therefore,
need of
the article
the article presents the relative
presents the relative contribution
contribution of ERP
of ERP andand Lean system
Leanwith
system to facilitate
to facilitate in the realization of business objectives in manufacturing.
agile and reconfigurable production systems emerged to cope various productsinand theproduct
realization of business
families. To designobjectives in manufacturing.
and optimize production
Contribution/importance
Contribution/importance levels
levels are ranked as
as ‘importance weight’, which willwill guide the small and
and medium enterprises inin strategically distributing
systems as well as to choose theare rankedproduct
optimal ‘importance
matches, weight’,
productwhich
analysis guide
methods the are
small
needed. medium
Indeed,enterprises
most of the strategically
known methods distributing
aim to
their resources
their resources on either ERP, Lean or both. The presented concept is based on systematic mapping of publications contributed in the
the field of
analyze a productonoreither ERP, Lean
one product familyor on
both.
theThe presented
physical level.concept
Differentis product
based on systematic
families, mapping
however, mayofdiffer
publications
largely incontributed
terms of the innumberfieldand
of
ERP
nature system and lean
of components.
ERP system manufacturing
This fact impedes
and lean manufacturing system.
an efficient comparison and choice of appropriate product family combinations for the production
system.
©
© 2017
2018AThe
system.
2017 new
The Authors. Published
methodology
Authors. by Elsevier
is proposed
Published by to analyze
Elsevier B.V.
Ltd. This
B.V. existing products
is an open access in article
view ofunder
theirthe
functional and physical
CC BY-NC-ND architecture. The aim is to cluster
license
Peer-review
products under
in newresponsibility
assembly of the
oriented scientific
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
these product committee
families for of
the the 28th CIRP
optimization Design
of
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Design Conference 2018.existingConference
assembly 2018.
lines and the creation of future reconfigurable
Peer-review
assembly underBased
systems. responsibility
on Datum of Flow
the scientific committee
Chain, the physicalofstructure
the 28thofCIRP Design Conference
the products is analyzed.2018.
Functional subassemblies are identified, and
Keywords:
aKeywords: Enterprise
functionalEnterprise Resource
analysisResource planning
is performed. (ERP),
planningMoreover, Lean
(ERP), Lean Manufacturing,
a Manufacturing,
hybrid functional Small and
Smalland medium
andphysical enterprise (SME),
architecture
medium enterprise Key
graph
(SME), performance
performanceisindicator
Key(HyFPAG) (KPI)
the output
indicator ;;
(KPI)which depicts the
similarity between product families by providing design support to both, production system planners and product designers. An illustrative
example of a nail-clipper is used to explain the proposed methodology. An industrial case study on two product families of steering columns of
thyssenkrupp Presta France is then carried out to give a first industrial evaluation of the proposed approach.
© 1. Introduction
2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. 1.1. Enterprise Resource
1.1. Enterprise Resource Planning
Planning (ERP)
(ERP)
1. Introduction
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Design Conference 2018.
The advancement
advancement in in production
production and and manufacturing
manufacturing The
The faster
faster business
business pace
pace has has created
created necessity
necessity to to have
have the the
The
Keywords:
operationsAssembly; Design method;
management has Family identification
brought many choices for aa access to key data from the
access to key data from the organizations knowledge organizations knowledge
operations management has brought many choices for
manufacturing organization.
organization. Whether
Whether it it is
is automation,
automation, depository
depository (if (if exist).
exist). Constant
Constant information
information flow flow between
between
manufacturing
information management,
management, customer
customer relations,
relations, or or eBusiness,
eBusiness, business functions is essential for
business functions is essential for decision-making and decision-making and
information
continuous improvement
improvement is is necessary
necessary andand expected.
expected. Enterprise
Enterprise performing
performing tasks
tasks on time. Organizations, therefore need
continuous
1. Introduction of the product
efficient rangeonsystem,
information and time. Organizations,
characteristics
which is
therefore and/or
manufactured
capable of providing
need
the
resource planning
resource planning (ERP)
(ERP) and and Lean
Lean manufacturing
manufacturing are are two
two efficient information system, which is capable of providing the
assembled
right in this system.
information at the In this
right time context,
[5] thebrings
which main challenge
tremendous in
popular important
popular important tools
tools in
in the
the production
production and and manufacturing
manufacturing right information at the right time [5] which brings tremendous
Due to the fast development in the domain of modelling
rewards and analysis is now not only to cope with single
fields [1],
fields [1], [2].
communication
[2]. The
The ERPs caters
and ERPs caters to
an ongoing
an
an integrated
totrend integrated view
view of
of digitization
the
of and
the rewards to
products,
the
the organization
toa limited
organization
product
in
in the
rangetheorcompetitive
competitive world. ERP
ERP is
world.families,
existing product is
business process
process [3]
[3] while lean thinking should make the the
the right
right tool
tool for
for this
this purpose.
purpose.
business while lean thinking should
digitalization, manufacturing enterprises are facing important make the but Aalso to be ableintegrated
to analyzeERP and system
to compare products to define
manufacturing processes
processes effective
effective and
and efficient
efficient [4].
[4]. powerfully
Aproduct
powerfully integrated ERP system enables
enables interactions
interactions of
of
manufacturing
challenges in today’s market environments: a continuing new families. It can be observed that classical existing
marketing,
marketing, sales,
sales, quality
quality control,
control, product
product processes,
processes, supply
supply
tendency towards reduction of product development times and product familiesand
lines, stores
stores are regrouped
many other in function
other elements. of clients or features.
It integrates
integrates all
shortened product lifecycles. In addition, there is an increasing lines,
However, and oriented
assembly many productelements.
families It
are hardly tosingleall
find.
Nomenclature departments
departments and functions
and functions across a company
across a company in a
in a in single
Nomenclature
demand of customization, being at the same time in a global On the product
ERP Enterprise
Enterprise resource planning
planning computer
computer system family
system to serve
to serve level,
all products
all those
differ mainly
those different
different department's
department's
two
ERP
competition resource
with competitors all over the world. This trend, main characteristics:
particular needs
needs [6]. (i)
[6]. Some the
Some of number
of the of
the importantcomponents
important benefits
benefits of and
of the(ii)
the ERP
ERPthe
LM
LM is
which Lean
Lean manufacturing
manufacturing
inducing the development from macro to micro particular
type of components (e.g. mechanical, electrical, electronical).
SME system are
system are access
access to to thethe reliable
reliable information,
information, avoid avoid datadata
SME Small
markets, Small and
andinmedium
results medium enterprise
enterprise
diminished lot sizes due to augmenting Classicalredundancy,
processing methodologies considering
inventory mainly
reduction, single products
on-time delivery,
KPI
KPI Key
product Key Performance
Performance
varieties Indicator
Indicator
(high-volume to low-volume production) [1]. processing
or solitary,of redundancy,
already inventory
existing reduction,
product on-time
families delivery,
analyze the
reduction
reduction of personnel,
personnel, increased
increased productivity,
productivity, improved
improved
To cope with this augmenting variety as well as to be able to product structure on a physical level (components level) which
identify possible optimization potentials in the existing causes difficulties regarding an efficient definition and
2212-8271
2212-8271 ©
production 2017
2017 The
©system, Authors.
The it Published
Publishedtoby
is important
Authors. Elsevier
byhave B.V.
a precise
Elsevier B.V. knowledge comparison of different product families. Addressing this
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of
of the
the scientific
scientific committee
committee of
of the
the 28th
28th CIRP
CIRP Design
Design Conference
Conference 2018.
2018.
2212-8271 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
2212-8271 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the of theCIRP
28th 28thDesign
CIRP Conference
Design Conference
2018. 2018.
10.1016/j.procir.2018.02.048
 Saraswati Jituri et al. / Procedia CIRP 70 (2018) 422–427
2 Saraswati Jituri, Brian Fleck, Rafiq Ahmad/ Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
business process and improved responsiveness [5], [6].
ERP system implementation brings benefits however;
implementation of the ERP is quite expensive. There are
evidence of ERP implementation failure and the system is
underutilized. Literature research shows that many ERP
implementation projects do not reach the expected results
which leads to failures. In some cases, the failure of ERP
projects had led to bankruptcy [7], [8]. ERP implementation is
a careful exercise because once the implementation takes place
undoing is more expensive [8]. Adding to these drawbacks,
cost addition, complexity, time and resource requirements
during the ERP implementation, has alerted smaller
enterprises[5]. Due to these disadvantages, SMEs are taking
back step in adapting the ERP system [9].
Many organizations that adopted ERP system are
disappointed in reaching the anticipated business goals. Failure
of the ERP implementation may stem from the under-
utilization of ERP system, especially in the post-
implementation phase [10]. The usefulness is been strongly
linked to usage of ERP system [11]. The reason for
underutilization is that ERP only cannot achieve all the
business objectives. The questions now arising are: whether an
organization is making complete utilization of ERP system? Is
it a right decision to spend resource only on ERP system when
we know it is a costly process? Can organization invest
partially in ERP system for improving their business process
and partially in other improvement tools? The answers lie in:
organizations need, lean system in the place where ERP has a
little contribution or the combination of ERP and lean
manufacturing should be promoted [9], [12], [13].
1.2. Lean Manufacturing (LM)
Lean manufacturing is derived from Toyota Production
system; it focuses on waste elimination and value addition in
the process. The lean manufacturing system is defined as “A
system that utilizes fewer inputs and creates the same outputs
while contributing more value to the customers” [14].
Manufacturing firms are looking more and more towards the
lean manufacturing process to make their process efficient,
productive and cost-effective [14], [15]. Lean assists in
achieving operational excellence. As lean philosophy is
extensive, implementation of lean manufacturing is a time-
consuming process and it needs resources which is weak point
of SMEs [16]. Due to these constrains SMEs has to think before
investing their resources in implementing lean manufacturing
methods. Literature reveals that business objectives can be
achieved in a faster pace when the lean tools are backed by IT
system like ERP [1], [17]. Therefore there is need for hybrid
approach, which SMEs can make use to decide optimal
resource to be invested in ERP and Lean manufacturing.
1.3. Lean or ERP?
Any organization brings systems in practice to accomplish
specific business objectives. These objectives can be an
improvement in quality, productivity, business process or any
other business requirements. Literature shows that ERP can
improve productivity, improve business process, reduce
423
inventory, boost on-time delivery and improve inter-
departmental communications [6]. Alike ERP, lean
manufacturing improves quality, improves productivity,
reduces inventory, reduces waste, and optimizes space
utilization [12]. Not all the improvements can be achieved by
only ERP, and so is the lean manufacturing. ERP can contribute
to the process improvement in some areas of manufacturing.
Similarly, in some areas only lean manufacturing can afford the
improvement while ERP cannot. There are business objectives
like ‘customer relation management’ and ‘integration between
functions’ where the ERP has great importance but not the lean.
Similarly, in some areas as ‘quality improvement’ and ‘reduce
waste’ lean system has a lot to contribute but not the ERP. This
has led us to thinking which system (Lean/ERP) is better to
implement?
When we look into research, Halgeri et al., [9] throw light
on progress made in integrating Lean production
methodologies with ERP system. They suggest the SMEs to
revisit production controls methodologies and re- evaluate
where they stand in relation to ERP use and Lean
manufacturing implementation. Houti et al., [12] have
compared ERP system and Lean manufacturing and considered
them as two production methods in improving the production
efficiency. Xian Li el al., [13] & Riezebos et al., [1] promoted
ERP and Lean manufacturing as mutually inclusive,
supplementary and balanced. Moreover the case studies in
presented in [2], [17]–[21] encourage the combination of ERP
and Lean. For the overall success, the industry needs both lean
system and ERP. However, the notion that “Lean and ERP are
opposing to each other” [2], [17] is keeping SMEs away from
using both the systems in combination. Manufacturing
organizations practicing the lean system, likely do not believe
in the ERP system and organizations inclined to the ERP do not
practice the lean. With the scope restricted to manufacturing
small and medium enterprises, in this paper, we are presenting
a concept, based on hybrid ERP and Lean approach aiming to
analyze the contribution of ERP and Lean in achieving business
objective. This article addresses following research question.
“How ERP and lean manufacturing system can contribute
in achieving the business objective of SME?”
Next section covers the methodology to answer the research
questions followed by the results, discussion, and conclusion.
2. Methodology
The understanding of ERP system and lean manufacturing
system shows that both the systems are helpful to achieve the
business objective, even better is the hybrid approach [9], [16].
The risk associated with these systems are high, as SMEs
cannot afford the failure. Therefore, they should make use of
these systems carefully. Investing their resources only on ERP
system or only on lean manufacturing system is not suggested
as they get only partial benefit. SMEs should understand what
must be the level of ERP and Lean combination is good to
achieve a specific business objective. The presented research
study address this complication. Focusing on the kind of
business objective SMEs would like to improve; the work
proposed in the article suggests the contribution of ERP and
424 Saraswati Jituri et al. / Procedia CIRP 70 (2018) 422–427
Saraswati Jituri, Dr. Rafiq Ahmad/ Procedia CIRP 00 (2017) 000–000 3

Lean in terms of importance weightings in improving that 2.1. Hypothesis

particular objective.
Business objectives are the goals as the measurable targets, Initially business-objectives/KPIs listed in table 1 are
industry aim to attain. The objectives of manufacturing segregated under the importance levels, very low, low,
industries can also be delineated into key performance medium, high, and very high in relation to ERP and Lean. This
indicators (KPIs) using balance scorecard (BSc) [22] approach. clustering of KPIs is considered as a hypothesis as it is based
Referring to manufacturing industries, more than thirty on general knowledge on ERP system and lean system, and the
important business objectives and key performance indicators experience in the manufacturing field. The hypothesis is
(KPI) are selected using the literature [5], [6], [17], [23]–[25]. represented by the figure 1. The hypothesis should be verified
The business-objectives/KPIs selected are listed in following for the practicality. Verification presented in this article is by
table 1. These are the most common and important business- systematic literature research from scientific database in
objectives/KPIs, which SMEs wish to enhance. Efforts have relation to ERP and Lean.
taken to cover the business objectives of all functions of
manufacturing firm. The method used to obtain answer to the 2.2. Literature analysis
research question in the section 1.3 is by evaluating the
importance weights of the business-objectives/KPIs in relation A scientific database contributed in the field of ERP and
to ERP and lean manufacturing. Detailed analysis of the Lean manufacturing was extracted from various publications
importance weights gives an idea; either ERP is important, lean like “Web of Science” and “Science direct’. The assumption is
manufacturing is important or the combination plays a major more the number of publication explaining the business
role for the business objective. The method selected to evaluate objective in the field of ERP/Lean system, higher the
the importance weights is through systematic literature analysis contribution of that system. Similarly, more the count of
of the research publication linked to the ERP, Lean and the business objectives in form of keywords presented in
objective/KPI. publication related to ERP/Lean system, higher the
contribution of that system improving the objective. A Hammer
Table 1. List of business objectives and KPIs software is used to carry out the systematic search from the
List of selected KPIs scientific database [26], [27]. The software renders the
Inventory reduction Productivity improvement overview on the state of a field of science using systematic
Supply chain Management Total productive maintenance mapping studies [21], [27]. It takes the input of selected
Resource Management Integration between systems publication list and gives the systematic bibliographic analysis
Increased flexibility Improve delivery performance on keywords, citations, and publication. In presented method to
Standardization of work process Automating cross function evaluate the importance weights, we are focusing on the
Order Management Improved visual management number of publications and number of keyword occurrence, for
Customer Relationship Management Improved business processes a given objective/KPI. The analysis of resulted data helps to
Increased visibility of corporate data Customer service improvement derive importance weightings of given objective/KPI with
Information/Data Management 5S respect to ERP and lean manufacturing.
Reduce Waste Rework cost reduction The publications for each KPI were searched in the ‘web of
Improve Lead time Performance improvement science’ using the following combination.
Improve supplier relations Overall cost reduction  Lean AND the business-objective/KPI
Improved decision making Building business innovation  Lean Manufacturing AND the business-objective/KPI
Increase of revenue and profit Customer satisfaction  ERP AND the business-objective/KPI
Supporting Business alliance Sales growth  Enterprise resource planning AND the business-
Cycle time reduction Total quality management objective/KPI
Quality improvement Increase market share  Lean OR Lean Manufacturing AND the business-
objective/KPI

Very High o Standardization of date

o Increased visibility of
management
corporate data o Supply chain Management
o Order Management o Increased flexibility o Inventory reduction
o Reduction in IT Cost o Resource Management
o Customer Relationship
Management
High o Automating cross functional
o Customer service improvement
processes o Integration between systems o Productivity improvement
o Reduction in IT procurement o Supporting organizational
o Improved visual management o Improve delivery performance o Total productive maintenance
changes
o Improved business processes
ERP

Medium
o Improved decision making and o Ability to adapt to new process
o Reduce Waste
o Supporting Business alliance planning o Standardized work
o Improve Lead time
o Increase of revenue and profit o Improve supplier relations

Low
o Performance improvement o Rework cost reduction o Cycle time reduction
o Building business innovation
o Overall cost reduction o Information/Data Management o Quality improvement

Very Low
o Customer satisfaction with product
o Process innovation and o Total quality management
o Increase market share o Sales growth o 5S
capability o Fewer machine and process
o Reduce space required
breakdown
Very Low Low Medium High Very High
Lean
Figure 1. Clustering of objectives/KPI
 Saraswati Jituri et al. / Procedia CIRP 70 (2018) 422–427 425
4 Saraswati Jituri, Brian Fleck, Rafiq Ahmad/ Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000

 ERP OR Enterprise resource planning AND the 𝑶𝑶𝑳𝑳 = Frequency of keyword occurrence related to Lean AND
business-objective/KPI objective/KPI
The resulted set of publications was fed to the software. It
generated the systematic mapping of the number of n = Total numbers of KPI
publications and keyword occurrence. The detailed process to
calculate the importance weight is discussed in next section. Weighted average of the objective/KPI for ERP system

2.3. Derivation of ‘importance weight’ 𝒘𝒘𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 = ∑𝒏𝒏

𝑷𝑷𝑬𝑬
, 𝒘𝒘𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 = ∑𝒏𝒏
𝑶𝑶𝑬𝑬
(3)
𝒊𝒊=𝟏𝟏 𝑷𝑷𝑬𝑬 𝒊𝒊=𝟏𝟏 𝑶𝑶𝑬𝑬

At this stage for each business objective/KPI, the data,

number of publications and number of keyword occurrence is Weighted average of the objective/KPI for Lean system
available with respect to ERP and Lean separately. Weighted 𝑷𝑷𝑳𝑳 𝑶𝑶𝑳𝑳
average method is deployed to convert these numbers into 𝒘𝒘𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 = ∑𝒏𝒏 , 𝒘𝒘𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 = ∑𝒏𝒏 (5)
𝒊𝒊=𝟏𝟏 𝑷𝑷𝑳𝑳 𝒊𝒊=𝟏𝟏 𝑶𝑶𝑳𝑳
weightings. Weights determine the relative importance of each
quantity on the average and also helps in multi-criteria decision ERP weight of a specific objective/KPI
making [28]. A weight is computed by the frequency of
occurrence in a dataset [28], [29]. In collected dataset, 𝑾𝑾𝑬𝑬 = 𝒘𝒘𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 + 𝒘𝒘𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 (6)
frequency is nothing but the number of publication and number
of keyword occurrence. A weighted average of any value is Lean manufacturing weight for a specific objective/KPI
given by standard equation (1).
𝑾𝑾𝑳𝑳 = 𝒘𝒘𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 + 𝒘𝒘𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 (7)
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉∗𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = ∑ 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
(1)
The level of ERP contribution for a specific objective/KPI
[Value = 1] improvement.
Value for each objective/KPI being ‘1’, weights are determined
𝑾𝑾𝑬𝑬
by using equation (1) for each KPI. These calculations are done % 𝑾𝑾𝑬𝑬 = ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 (8)
𝑾𝑾𝑬𝑬 +𝑾𝑾𝑳𝑳
separately for ERP and Lean. Representations are
The level of Lean contribution for a specific objective/KPI
𝑷𝑷𝑬𝑬 = Frequency of publications related to ERP AND improvement
objective/KPI
𝑷𝑷𝑳𝑳 = Frequency of publications related to Lean AND 𝑾𝑾𝑳𝑳
% 𝑾𝑾𝑳𝑳 = ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 (9)
objective/KPI 𝑾𝑾𝑬𝑬 +𝑾𝑾𝑳𝑳
𝑶𝑶𝑬𝑬 = Frequency of keyword occurrence related to ERP AND
objective/KPI

Table 2. KPI importance weightage calculation, result in relation to lean, and ERP
Weightage distribution
ERP & objective/KPI Lean & objective/KPI ERP No of ERP-KPI Lean KPI
ERP Lean No of Lean among 100%
papers Occurance ERP Occurance Lean
KPI or Obejective No of No of No of No of weight papers weight ERP Lean
weight weight weight % weight weight %
Papers Occurance Papers Occurance Sum W_E weight w_PL Sum W_L weightage Weightage
w_PE w_OE w_OL
P_E O_E P_L O_L W_E W_L
Inventory reduction 304 28 438 27 0.1083 0.0838 0.1922 64.0572 0.1951 0.0954 0.2905 96.8355 40% 60%
Supply chain Management 240 65 272 45 0.0855 0.1946 0.2801 93.3806 0.1212 0.1590 0.2802 93.3896 50% 50%
Resource Management 159 39 43 12 0.0567 0.1168 0.1734 57.8103 0.0192 0.0424 0.0616 20.5188 74% 26%
Increased flexibility 155 6 105 4 0.0552 0.0180 0.0732 24.4009 0.0468 0.0141 0.0609 20.3016 55% 45%
Standardization of work process or data 41 4 11 1 0.0146 0.0120 0.0266 8.8625 0.0049 0.0035 0.0084 2.8111 76% 24%
Order Management 6 2 0 0 0.0021 0.0060 0.0081 2.7088 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100% 0%
Customer Relationship Management 72 26 17 5 0.0257 0.0778 0.1035 34.5012 0.0076 0.0177 0.0252 8.4134 80% 20%
Increased visibility of corporate data 8 1 7 1 0.0029 0.0030 0.0058 1.9483 0.0031 0.0035 0.0067 2.2172 47% 53%
Productivity improvement 262 8 93 57 0.0934 0.0240 0.1173 39.1078 0.0414 0.2014 0.2428 80.9463 33% 67%
Total productive maintenance 2 0 49 16 0.0007 0.0000 0.0007 0.2376 0.0218 0.0565 0.0784 26.1211 1% 99%
Integration between systems 49 24 29 5 0.0175 0.0719 0.0893 29.7730 0.0129 0.0177 0.0306 10.1951 74% 26%
Improve delivery performance 3 2 8 0 0.0011 0.0060 0.0071 2.3524 0.0036 0.0000 0.0036 1.1878 66% 34%
Automating cross functional processes 21 3 32 1 0.0075 0.0090 0.0165 5.4887 0.0143 0.0035 0.0178 5.9292 48% 52%
Improved visual management 10 1 10 6 0.0036 0.0030 0.0066 2.1859 0.0045 0.0212 0.0257 8.5519 20% 80%
Improved business processes 208 22 23 2 0.0741 0.0659 0.1400 46.6650 0.0102 0.0071 0.0173 5.7707 89% 11%
Customer service improvement 25 1 8 3 0.0089 0.0030 0.0119 3.9678 0.0036 0.0106 0.0142 4.7214 46% 54%
Reduce Waste 2 3 132 31 0.0007 0.0090 0.0097 3.2316 0.0588 0.1095 0.1683 56.1127 5% 95%
Improve Lead time 15 0 141 11 0.0053 0.0000 0.0053 1.7819 0.0628 0.0389 0.1017 33.8918 5% 95%
Improve supplier relations 4 1 10 2 0.0014 0.0030 0.0044 1.4732 0.0045 0.0071 0.0115 3.8405 28% 72%
Improved decision making and planning 194 18 48 0 0.0691 0.0539 0.1230 41.0099 0.0214 0.0000 0.0214 7.1269 85% 15%
Increase of revenue and profit 51 0 36 0 0.0182 0.0000 0.0182 6.0584 0.0160 0.0000 0.0160 5.3452 53% 47%
Supporting Business alliance 77 6 16 2 0.0274 0.0180 0.0454 15.1351 0.0071 0.0071 0.0142 4.7314 76% 24%
Cycle time reduction 3 1 48 16 0.0011 0.0030 0.0041 1.3544 0.0214 0.0565 0.0779 25.9726 5% 95%
Quality improvement 5 0 21 3 0.0018 0.0000 0.0018 0.5940 0.0094 0.0106 0.0200 6.6516 8% 92%
Rework cost reduction 0 0 9 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0040 0.0000 0.0040 1.3363 0% 100%
Performance improvement 500 15 386 7 0.1782 0.0449 0.2231 74.3666 0.1719 0.0247 0.1967 65.5575 53% 47%
Overall cost reduction 26 3 79 0 0.0093 0.0090 0.0182 6.0826 0.0352 0.0000 0.0352 11.7298 34% 66%
Building business innovation 191 28 48 4 0.0681 0.0838 0.1519 50.6336 0.0214 0.0141 0.0355 11.8384 81% 19%
Customer satisfaction with product 20 4 14 0 0.0071 0.0120 0.0191 6.3679 0.0062 0.0000 0.0062 2.0787 75% 25%
Sales growth 9 0 5 0 0.0032 0.0000 0.0032 1.0691 0.0022 0.0000 0.0022 0.7424 59% 41%
Total quality management 6 2 18 8 0.0021 0.0060 0.0081 2.7088 0.0080 0.0283 0.0363 12.0955 18% 82%
Increase market share 7 0 6 0 0.0025 0.0000 0.0025 0.8316 0.0027 0.0000 0.0027 0.8909 48% 52%
Information/Data Management 96 21 9 1 0.0342 0.0629 0.0971 32.3622 0.0040 0.0035 0.0075 2.5142 93% 7%
5S 0 0 36 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0160 0.0318 0.0478 15.9459 0% 100%
Operations Management 35 0 38 4 0.0125 0.0000 0.0125 4.1578 0.0169 0.0141 0.0311 10.3536 29% 71%
426 Saraswati Jituri et al. / Procedia CIRP 70 (2018) 422–427
Saraswati Jituri, Dr. Rafiq Ahmad/ Procedia CIRP 00 (2017) 000–000 5

Improved business processes , 35%,

280%
a. Very Important Supply chain Management,
560%, 560%
600% Performance improvement ,
Building business innovation, 71%, 304% 393%, 446% Inventory reduction , 581%,
ERP Importance

384%
400% Resource Management, 123%, 347%

200% Improved decision making and planning , 43%, 246% Productivity improvement ,
Reduce Waste , 337%, 19% 486%, 235%
Customer Relationship Management, 50%, 207%
0%
0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700%
Lean Importance

Information/Data b. Important
Management , 15%, 194% Increased flexibility , 122%,
250%
146%
ERP Importance

200% Integration between

150% systems, 61%, 179% Cycle time reduction , 156%, 8%
100% Improve Lead time , 203%,
Total productive
50% 11%
maintenance , 157%, 1%
0%
0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%
Lean Importance

Supporting Business alliance , 28%, 91% c. Less Important

100%
Customer satisfaction with product , 12%, 38%
90% Standardization of work
Overall cost reduction , 70%, 36%
process or data , 17%,
80% Order Management, 0%, 16%
ERP Importance

70% Operations Management , 62%, 25%

Improve delivery performance, 7%, 14%
60% Increase of revenue and profit , 32%, 36%
50%
Improved visual management ,
40% Customer service improvement , 51%, 13%
5S, 96%, 0%
30% 28%, 24%
20%
Improve supplier relations , 23%,
10% 9%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Increase market share , 5%, 5%
Quality improvement , 40%, 4%
Sales growth, 4%, 6% Rework cost reduction , 8%, 0% Lean Importance

Figure 2. (a) KPIs with high importance of either ERP or lean manufacturing; (b) KPIs with avearage importance of either ERP or lean manufacturing;
(c) KPIs with less importance of either ERP or lean manufacturing

wherein both ERP and lean manufacturing system plays the

3. Results and Discussion
From the table 2, it is clear that each objective/KPI has a
weight for ERP and lean system, which tells us the contribution
level. The objective ‘quality improvement’ has relative
importance weight of 92% for the lean system and 8% for ERP
system. This shows that if the business objective is ‘quality
improvement’, then the firm should spend their 92% of
resources on the lean system and remaining 8% on ERP system
approximately. If the firm’s objective is to improve their ‘data
management system’, from the table 2, one can see that ERP
system has a higher level of contribution that is 93% and the
lean has 7% of relative contribution. Moreover, there are cases
important and equal role. An example of this kind of KPI is
‘automate cross-functional processes’. It has 52% of relative
lean importance and 48% of relative ERP importance.
Focusing on absolute weights, business-objectives/KPIs
having higher ERP absolute weight can be improved using the
ERP system. Similarly, business-objectives/KPIs having
higher absolute lean weight can be improved by practicing lean
manufacturing system. If the absolute weight is low, then the
chances of improving that objectives/KPI is less hence,
probably it is a bad idea to have that respective system for that
objectives/KPI. Considering this interpretation, the business-
objectives/KPIs are divided into ‘less important’, ‘important’
 Saraswati Jituri et al. / Procedia CIRP 70 (2018) 422–427
6 Saraswati Jituri, Brian Fleck, Rafiq Ahmad/ Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
and ‘Very important’ based on absolute weights as shown in
figure 2.
4. Conclusion
The article gives the overall idea about the business-
objectives/KPIs, which can be improved using the ERP and
Lean manufacturing practices. Using this information,
enterprises can strategically distribute their resources on ERP
and lean system. The article also gives the information on the
business objectives and KPIs that ERP can improve and that
lean can improve. The study is based only on the available
literature on ERP and Lean system. The methodology also
supports the hybrid ERP-Lean approach. To support the
proposed work next part of the research will be conducting the
survey to get the information on Lean and ERP to derive the
importance weights there by find the contribution levels.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Laboratory of Intelligent
Manufacturing Design and Automation (LIMDA) team and
Department of Mechanical engineering the University of
Alberta for making this study possible.
Reference
[1] J. Riezebos, W. Klingenberg, and C. Hicks, “Lean Production and
information technology: Connection or contradiction?,” Comput.
Ind., vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 237–247, 2009.
[2] D. Powell, J. Riezebos, and J. O. Strandhagen, “Lean production
and ERP systems in small- and medium-sized enterprises : ERP
support for pull production,” J. Prod. Res., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 395–
409, 2013.
[3] E. E. Watson, “Using ERP Systems in Education,” Commun. Assoc.
Inf. Syst., vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 1–48, 1999.
[4] N. A. A. Rahman, S. M. Sharif, and M. M. Esa, “Lean
Manufacturing Case Study with Kanban System Implementation,”
Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 7, no. Icebr, pp. 174–180, 2013.
[5] M. Rashid, L. Hossain, and J. D. Patrick, “The evolution of ERP
Systems: A historical perspective,” Evol. ERP Syst. A Hist.
Perspect., pp. 1–16, 2002.
[6] Y.-C. Shen, P.-S. Chen, and C.-H. Wang, “A study of enterprise
resource planning (ERP) system performance measurement using
the quantitative balanced scorecard approach,” Comput. Ind., vol.
75, pp. 127–139, 2016.
[7] A. Y. T. Sun, A. Yazdani, and J. D. Overend, “Achievement
assessment for enterprise resource planning (ERP) system
implementations based on critical success factors (CSFs),” Int. J.
Prod. Econ., vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 189–203, 2005.
[8] C. P. Holland and B. Light, “Critical Success Factors for ERP
Implementation,” SSRN Electron. J., no. June 1999, pp. 30–36,
2013.
[9] P. Halgeri, R. McHaney, and Z. J. Pei, “ERP Systems Supporting
Lean Manufacturing in SMEs,” Enterp. Inf. Syst. Bus. Integr. SMEs
By Maria Manuela CruzCunha, pp. 56–75, 2010.
[10] H. W. Chou, Y. H. Lin, H. S. Lu, H. H. Chang, and S. Bin Chou,
“Knowledge sharing and ERP system usage in post-implementation
stage,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 33, pp. 16–22, 2014.
427
[11] Davis, “Perceived Usefulness , Perceived Ease of Use , and User
Acceptance of,” vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, 2017.
[12] M. Houti, A. Evolution, and L. Manufacturing, “Lean ERP : a
hybrid approach Push / Pull.”
[13] Y. X. Li, M. H. Liu, and Z. L. Li, “The dual implementation of lean
and ERP in manufacturing,” 2012 Int. Conf. Manuf. Eng. Autom.
ICMEA 2012, vol. 591–593, pp. 400–404, 2012.
[14] M. Dora, M. Kumar, D. Van Goubergen, A. Molnar, and X.
Gellynck, “Operational performance and critical success factors of
lean manufacturing in European food processing SMEs,” Trends
Food Sci. Technol., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 156–164, 2013.
[15] H. Cortes, J. Daaboul, J. Le Duigou, and B. Eynard, “Strategic Lean
Management: Integration of operational Performance Indicators for
strategic Lean management,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 49, no. 12,
pp. 65–70, 2016.
[16] A. Moeuf, S. Tamayo, S. Lamouri, R. Pellerin, and A. Lelievre,
“Strengths and weaknesses of small and medium sized enterprises
regarding the implementation of lean manufacturing,” IFAC-
PapersOnLine, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 71–76, 2016.
[17] D. Powell, I. Bas, and E. Alfnes, “Integrating Lean and MRP: A
Taxonomy of the Literature,” Adv. Prod. Manag. Syst. Sustain.
Prod. Serv. Supply Chain. SE - 60, vol. 415, pp. 485–492, 2013.
[18] C. Iris and U. Cebeci, “Analyzing relationship between ERP
utilization and lean manufacturing maturity of Turkish SMEs,” J.
Enterp. Inf. Manag., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 261–277, 2014.
[19] J. Thilmany, “Lean manufacturing and ERP : How to leverage ERP
to get lean Lean,” SearchmanufacturingERP.com, 2009.
[20] D. Powell, E. Alfnes, J. O. Strandhagen, and H. Dreyer, “The
concurrent application of lean production and ERP: Towards an
ERP-based lean implementation process,” Comput. Ind., vol. 64,
no. 3, pp. 324–335, 2013.
[21] O. Alaskari., A. M.M, N. Dhafr, and R. Pinedo-Cuenca., “Critical
Successful Factors (CSFs) for Successful Implementation of Lean
Tools and ERP Systems,” Lect. Notes Eng. Comput. Sci., vol. 2199,
no. 1, pp. 1627–1632, 2012.
[22] R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, “The balanced scorecard: Measures
That drive performance,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 83, no. 7–
8. 2005.
[23] H. Afonso and M. D. R. Cabrita, “Developing a lean supply chain
performance framework in a SME: A perspective based on the
balanced scorecard,” Procedia Eng., vol. 131, pp. 270–279, 2015.
[24] I. J. Chen, “Planning for ERP systems : analysis and future trend,”
2001.
[25] Syspro, “The When, Why and How of ERP support for LEAN,”
Syspro White Pap., 2007.
[26] A. Knutas, A. Hajikhani, J. Salminen, J. Ikonen, and J. Porras,
“Cloud-based Bibliometric Analysis Service for Systematic
Mapping Studies,” Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Comput. Syst. Technol., pp.
184–191, 2015.
[27] K. Petersen, S. Vakkalanka, and L. Kuzniarz, “Guidelines for
conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An
update,” Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 64, pp. 1–18, 2015.
[28] Z. Wang, K.-S. Leung, and J. Wang, “A genetic algorithm for
determining nonadditive set functions in information fusion,” Fuzzy
Sets Syst., vol. 102, pp. 463–469, 1999.
[29] J. W. Reed, J. Yu, T. E. Potok, B. A. Klump, M. T. Elmore, and A.
R. Hurson, “TF-ICF: A new term weighting scheme for clustering
dynamic data streams,” Proc. - 5th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. Appl.
ICMLA 2006, pp. 258–263, 2006.